MikeLigalig.com

Why E=MC2 is prohibited  is to avoid having too many Filipinos with weird wiry hairdos

Seriously, it's to keep the coal and fossil fuel industry happy.




Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

- Nuclear Power is the cleanest & emission-free source of Energy.

- Radioactive waste can be recycled

- You will receive more radiation from exposing yourself to sunlight than living near a nuke plant. Even Cell phones and microwave ovens have high radiation.

- Inhaling emission from fossil fuel causes a thousand folds of respiratory ailments & cancer than radiation from power plants.

- Smoke coming out of the nuke-plant vent is only water vapour.

- A melt-down or nuclear plant dissaster is a slow process; thus allowing people to evacuate. Among the thousands of nuclear powerplants in the world, only a couple of them have experienced melt-down. Hence, its risk is very negligible.

I support Nuke!

According to Scientists, there are 4 generations of intellegence that possibly exists in this universe asside from having social behavior.
1st generation - to be able to start fire
2nd generation - to be able to split an atom
3rd generation - to be able to travel from one galaxy to another
4th generation - to be able to move planet and stars

If we don't develop nuclear power, we will remain a 1st generation.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

if our government agencies now can't even prevent smoke belching cars from belching
i don't think they're up for the job preventing a nuclear disaster or maintaining a safe nuclear program, at least..

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Miss you Belle. Wala madayon ang marathon dire kay grabe ang sandstorm. Gi cancel basin kuno maka cause pa ug hubak. Anyways, I benefit from the self-training.

About this topic, Nuke plants suffered from wrong assumptions and misinformation. Because of its looks, people thought that smoke coming out of its vent is toxic, which is only water vapor to the contrary. There was even a No Nukes concert, I think during the time of Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan.

Of course there are hazards to any technology. This is the cheapest, cleanest and less hazzardous to the environment compared to fossil fuels where it is a threat to global warming, marine life in case of oil spill, air pollution, soil pollution, etc.

If we use this alternative, our electric bills would dramatically go down to less than half. With this, we can use electric vehicles. The maintenance of a nuke plant is very low and will require a few workforce.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Using solar and wind energy is starting to awaken the consciousness of current researchers. These alternative sources of generating electricity are now in use but still limited because of considerable generating costs. Putting up facilities for these sources are still high costwise considering limitted interested users at present. However, continuing searches are made to lower down the cost of building the facilities. Hopefully, when these are fully operational, the reserves are limitless even during night time.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Tama ka bai Datu sa imong mga apprehensions, pero the structural facilities have to be designed for such forces. They have to be designed to resist the maximum wind speed they could allow for their continuing operations. During times when wind velocity is above the maximum level, the operation could be cut off within that period without affecting the source of energy.  The energy source could always be stored for continual use even during storms.  The danger is all the same as with the hydropower. But they are mitigated by using design principles as well. During storms, the maximum water level of the impounding dam has to be measured in accordance with the computed height of the surface waves that could be generated by the designed gush velocity of such storm when it occurs.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

This negative public welcome for Nuclear plants resulted from what had happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima during WW2. The public is well aware of the danger on atom bombs which killed so many and endured casualties to so many who were able to survive the mega blast. This is because of the prolonged half-life span of the reacted chemicals emanated from it. It took so many years before the place became habitable to living things.

But tha was history and what happened was grossly intentional. I am not against the power generation by nuclear splits or fusions. It has to be built not in haste, but in a manner by which all preventive precautions have to be taken into account to avoid leaks. Or if there is one, how to do with it like what happened in Chervnovil. Then, the method of handling the bi-products and the disposal of non-biodegrable waste.

Let there be light!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Try to research why the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was closed.  You will find better answers.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Until there will be safer ways to keep  nuclear power plants, it will pose a danger to the people living within its proximity.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Bol-anon,

Tinood nang imong giingon nga kinahanglan mo-uyon ang mga Pinoy nga ibalik ang BNPP. Ang nahitabo sa panahon ni Marcos nga gihimong isyu pulitika ang BNPP sa mga "makakaliwa" sa Pinas. Ang "nuclear plant" makatabang kaayo sa ekonomiya sa Pilipinas kay barato lang ang pamintinar ini.

The leftist not only in the Philippines but all over the world don't want nuclear energy to be developed because they have their own political agenda which is to promote the wind and solar as sources to generate power.

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Monday, 02 February 2009 MANILA, Philippines—For making the public choose between paying more for power generation that they do not need to begin with, and tolerating misplaced priorities where debt service supersedes social welfare, the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) today urged Congress to stop the planned rehabilitation, re-commission and commercial operation of the controversial Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.

“This ‘Monster of Morong’ is a symbol of the Philippines’ struggle against a debt-driven development strategy – often peppered with rent seeking and cronyism – that different administrations, including the current disposition, have espoused,” said the group’s vice president, former Akbayan (Citizens Action Party) Rep. Etta Rosales.

“To revive the BNPP would be to create greater social deficits and push the Filipino people deeper into the vicious debt and underdevelopment trap,” said Rosales. “To make the BNPP operational would be to gamble away the people’s lives on a lost deal.”

Over-projection

In a position paper submitted to the members of House Committees on Energy and Appropriations, the advocacy group questioned the projection of an impending power shortage, stressing the government’s track record in forecasting electricity as “self serving at worst and dismally inaccurate at best.”

“First and foremost, where are the studies that support this claim of an impending power shortage?” asked Rosales.

To prove that the government’s projections are founded on “faulty rationales,” FDC cited the 1993 Power Development Plan by the Ramos administration projecting a 10 percent annual growth rate in demand for electricity over the next 10 years.

“This steep growth in demand failed to materialize, based on DoE (Department of Energy) data. Aside from that, data show that installed capacity and dependable capacity of generation plants had been greater than demand for the period of 1990-2001, except in 1993 when the country was hit with El Nino that had crippled the hydroelectric plants in Mindanao,” Rosales explained.

Another instance of wrong government forecasts is the Visayas experience, where a citizens’ initiative towards a Multi-Stakeholder Power Development Plan (MSPDP) for Panay was launched, according to FDC.

“While the DoE initially stayed away from this initiative, it has recently recognized this bottom-up planning approach and is now supporting a broadened exercise for Western Visayas. A comparison of DoE projections of demand growth for Western Visayas, and that of the MSPDP shows the latter to be closer to actual demand,” the group said.

Pangasinan Rep. Mark Cojuangco, principal author of the "Bataan Nuclear Power Plant Commissioning Act of 2008,” trumpeted that the BNPP is expected to supply at least 20 percent of the anticipated power shortage before 2012 of 3,000MW.

FDC said that over-projecting demand has led to an overcapacity situation in the Philippine electricity sector for more than a decade now, and this has been proven to be as expensive – if not more – than a power shortage.

“As of April 2008, DoE data show that total installed generating capacity on a national level is 15,937.1 MW. Of this, 83 percent or 13,205 MW is said to be dependable capacity. Peak demand is only 8,999 MW, which gives an excess generating capacity of 4,212 MW. This 4,212 MW is the dead weight loss to the Filipino consumers, mostly households, who must pay for the excess capacity even if the plants are idle, thanks to the ‘take or pay’ clause in the contracts the Ramos government signed with the independent power producers (IPPs),” the group said.

Base load

Citing a study by Prof. Rowaldo Del Mundo of the National Engineering Center in the University of the Philippines, FDC said that in Luzon alone, 85 percent of base load, or the minimum demand for power given any time of day, within the Meralco franchise area comes only from 3 major power plants, even as there are a total number of 55 power generation facilities in Luzon.

“Reviving the BNPP at this time when the base load can only be seen to be shrinking, given the current global economic crisis, is grossly imprudent,” the group said.

Industrial plan

“Even if the government would defend this projected increase in demand, we ask: Where is the industrialization plan that must necessarily be the basis of this anticipated growth in demand? And, should there be additional demand as projected by the government, what convinces us that this additional demand cannot be met by the combined dependable capacities of all generation plants, much less if all these plants were actually pushed closer to its installed capacity?” FDC asked.

FDC emphasized that the biggest driver for electricity demand increases is an industrializing base of the economy.

“The Philippine domestic economy is not on industrialization mode but is actually service sector driven. Moreover, in times of economic crises when companies are closing plants, shortening operating hours, or laying off workers, a corollary contraction in electricity demand is expected. And as the crisis is expected to last until 2011, at the most generous projections, the alleged need for increased generating capacity is thus eliminated,” the group said.

The only possible justification specific to the operations of a nuclear power plant is to meet an increase in base load, or replace existing base load supply. An increase in base load is highly unlikely in times of economic crisis, the group said.

“However, it is a much worse option to replace existing base load supply as the current generators to meet such demands are the environmentally safe geothermal and hydroelectric power plants that are very much necessary in times of a climate crisis,” FDC said.

More wasteful, useless debt

FDC also questioned the proposal to raise equity up to $1 billion, through a surcharge of 10 centavos/kWh of the total electric power generated or international or domestic loan agreements, under Section 22 of the substitute House Bill.

“Is the government making the public choose, or is this a question of being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea? They make us pay more for the increased electricity surcharge, while debt service is prioritized over social services,” Rosales said.

FDC claimed that nowhere in this world has the re-construction of nuclear power facilities been right on schedule and on budget.

“After being mothballed for over 20 years, the BNPP will more likely need more than the projected $1 billion to meet the technical and safety demands of a fully operational and nuclear meltdown – safe structure – and this, without factoring in the monumental costs of corruption and bribery that the BNPP itself represents, and the current administration has mastered,” FDC said.

Moreover, nuclear power plant operations will necessitate government financial support, particularly when we factor in buying and safely transporting the highly expensive and toxic uranium ore needed for the functioning of a nuclear power plant, the group said.

“As is the experience in Japan, without government subsidies, no self-respecting, profit-oriented enterprise will undertake the project mainly because of the exorbitant price for operations. Can the Philippines afford to subsidize a project with this level of danger and expense? To subsidize the generation costs and mandate the payment of a 10 centavos/kWh surcharge, or to bring the public deeper into debt and charge them exorbitant rates for the energy they will consume, the government will be pushing the people into a deeper level of economic and financial crisis,” FDC said.

http://tc.indymedia.org/2009/feb/philippines-don%E2%80%99t-revive-bataan-nuclear-power-plant

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Kana ang wa pay klaro. Pasagad lang ning atong gobyerno karon to revive it because they have their own hidden agenda kuno pero halatadong kickbacks lang ang motibo nila. Name any politician or government officials who have the foresight beneficial to the future generations? Puro guise lang ni sila at ang masama pa puro lang sila bunganga. Mahilig sila sa grandstanding to protect mainly their political career. Pero pag naay mahitabo nga problema sa ilang mga projects which they authored, tan-awon lang nato kon mangunay ba silag sulbad aning problemaha. Ang ilang buhaton magpalabas ug mga inquiries o imbistigasyon nga moro moro. Then after a while wala na ang issue. Kinsay makalolooy karon? Di ba ang mga katawhan and the future generations?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

How could you categorically prove that the leftist movement benefit from promotion of the wind and solar energy resources?  I think, that was my question.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

go for green energy ta mga sano. libog ko ngano ngs ma benifited ang mga laos na nga mga komonista.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Mao lagi na. Kita gihadlok sa isyu sa mga leftist nga dili safe ang BNPP kay kuno naa mahimutang sa earthquake fault sa Bataan. Wa nato mabasa sa diyaryo nga ang tibook nasud sa Japan nahimutang sa earthquake fault sa Pacific Basin pero ang ilang 55 ka nuclear plant way bisag usa nga disgrasya, di ba? Kinahanglan kita dili motoo ining isyu sa leftist kay mao ni maka purdoy sa Pinas kung sila atong toohan.

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

bracketing the promotion of solar and wind energy to the leftist is over generalization.  not all people on the streets rallying for renewable environment friendly energy are leftist.

because if that is the case, then they should be the manufacturers of wind turbines and solar pannels?

are they?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Power

SPIEGEL speaks to German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Utz Claassen, CEO of Germany's third-largest energy provider EnBW, about whether nuclear energy can provide a way out of the climate crisis.

Editor's Note: SPIEGEL ran the following interview in a special issue on new energies published earlier this year. In light of the current debate in Germany over the future of nuclear energy, the editors of SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL have chosen to publish an English translation of the interview. The discussion, however, took place before the recent incidents at the Krümmel and Brunsbüttel plants in northern Germany.

Difficult choices: Does nuclear power offer the best way out of the climate catastrophe or does the answer lie in renewable energies like wind power?
Zoom
AP

Difficult choices: Does nuclear power offer the best way out of the climate catastrophe or does the answer lie in renewable energies like wind power?
SPIEGEL: Mr. Gabriel, in light of the threat of a climate catastrophe, many argue that -- as long as fossil fuels like coal and natural gas continue to pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and renewable energies have been insufficiently developed -- we should continue to use nuclear energy. Would that not be a sensible path to follow?

Gabriel: Renewable energy sources are already an important part of Germany's energy supply today -- and their share is growing faster than forecast. In purely quantitative terms, they replace one nuclear power plant every year. Furthermore, we're not phasing out nuclear energy from one day to the next. It will continue to be used in Germany for the next 14 years; that decision has been made. The question over which opinions diverge is how to assess the risks associated with extending the lifespans of the nuclear power plants that are still online. Proponents of nuclear energy always act as if we were faced with a choice between the plague and cholera, a choice between the risks of nuclear energy and the dangers of the climate crisis. But as a politician, I don't want to choose between two diseases -- I want to find the path to good health.

FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication.
Claassen: The environment minister's choice of words is inappropriate. The comparison to a "choice between the plague and cholera" is exaggerated. This attention-grabbing comparison to a disease is unfair to those who have worked in nuclear power plants for decades and, in doing so, have made a considerable contribution to climate protection. Many people have invested their entire careers, their expertise, their life's work in that area. Of course we have to balance the residual risk of an accident in the area of nuclear energy and the climate-protecting effect of atomic power.

Gabriel: The issue is not about a residual risk. That expression makes the problem seem harmless. The issue is that of the gigantic danger of damage in the case of an accident. Forsmark (the Vattenfall-owned plant in Sweden) has just shown us what sorts of things can happen with long running times. The point is that the narrowly averted accident did not occur in Ukraine or Russia, but in a technologically advanced country like Sweden.

Claassen: Nuclear energy has been employed in a safe way for decades in Germany.

Gabriel: Of course everyone who works in this industry is firmly convinced that nuclear energy can be kept under control. But we have had many serious hazardous incidents in Germany too -- despite the fact that all technicians had previously said they could not occur.

SPIEGEL: As far as the people outside the nuclear power plants are concerned, their worries about safety are what dominates the issue in their minds. Are you, Mr. Claassen, seizing on the opportunity provided by the fear of a climate crisis in order to repress the fear of a meltdown?

Claassen: Of course people's worries need to be taken seriously. One has to seriously balance the residual risk of a nuclear accident -- whatever the correct quantification of that risk -- and the problem of climate change, which threatens the existence of all of humanity.

SPIEGEL: The safety risks also include the fact that it remains completely unclear where nuclear waste, which stays radioactive for as long as a million years, should be sent for final storage.

Gabriel: Since the 1970s, 130,000 barrels of nuclear waste have been buried in a so-called experimental final storage facility in the former salt pit of Asse (in the German state of Lower Saxony), not far from where I live. When I went in there for the first time as a 17-year-old, I asked: If two of three adjacent salt pits have suffered floods, what makes you believe that no water will seep into the third salt pit, the one you're now packing nuclear waste into? We were given many lectures on why that couldn't happen. Twelve cubic meters (424 cubic feet) of water have been flowing in there every day since 1988. No one knows how that can be stopped.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Claassen, what kind of advantage does nuclear energy provide?

Claassen: In our country, nuclear energy helps prevent the emissions of 150 million tons of CO2 every year. Carbon dioxide emissions would be that much higher if, instead of nuclear power plants, coal-fired power plants with the same capacity had been built.

Utz Claassen, the CEO of Energie Baden-Württemberg (EnBW), Germany's third-largest energy provider, believes the schedule for phasing out nuclear energy set up by Germany's government in 2000 is too ambitious.
Zoom
DPA

Utz Claassen, the CEO of Energie Baden-Württemberg (EnBW), Germany's third-largest energy provider, believes the schedule for phasing out nuclear energy set up by Germany's government in 2000 is too ambitious.
Gabriel: We are convinced that we can bring the dangers of climate change under control in a much better way using instruments other than the use of nuclear energy. With the share of renewable energy sources on the electricity market currently lower than 12 percent, we're already preventing (emissions of) about 100 million tons of CO2. Assuming a conservative estimate -- not an optimistic one -- it is realistic that we can achieve a situation, by 2020, in which renewable energy sources reach a share of at least 26 or 27 percent.

If we had invested even a fraction of the many billions that we have put into nuclear energy into research into renewable energy sources, then we would neither have a CO2 problem today, nor would we face the risk of radioactivity.

Claassen: It may be true that we would have made more progress in the area of renewable energy sources. But most renewable energy sources do not have the capacity to provide the base load.

SPIEGEL: "Base load" is the term for the output constantly required by the electricity grid.

Claassen: Without nuclear energy, we would have to cover the base load almost exclusively by means of fossil fuels, namely black coal and brown coal, meaning that we would have emitted more CO2 today, not less, even if it had been proven possible to develop renewable energy source technologies more quickly. A study by the German Energy Agency (DENA) -- not a study by the energy industry, that is, but one by the center of competence for energy efficiency in Germany -- came to the following conclusion: When 37,000 megawatts of wind power capacity have been installed, that will make 6 percent of those fossil fuel or nuclear plant capacities that can provide the base load obsolete. So 2,300 conventional megawatt blocks of coal or nuclear energy could then be abandoned.

SPIEGEL: That's not even 2 percent of today's electricity capacity.

Claassen: Roughly estimated, you would need about 10,000 wind turbines to reproduce one large nuclear plant. That should be clear to everyone who also bears in mind the landscape and other issues.

NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

Gabriel: Those kinds of horrific figures are used to try to scare people. The DENA study on the electricity grid recommends developing as many as 20,000 megawatts of capacity in the form of offshore facilities -- at a distance from the coast where they can't even be seen from an island. That requires expanding the grid by 850 kilometers (528 miles) of AC power lines. It's the energy providers, by the way, who are responsible for doing so. That would provide stability for the grid and increase the capacity to provide the base load.

Claassen: When it comes to renewable energy sources, we have the capacity to produce the base load in the case of biomass and large hydroelectric facilities, but not in the case of solar power, wind power and other sources. That's why we have to raise the question of how we will cover the base load in the foreseeable future, for as long as there are no other technological options available.

Gabriel: You're reducing the use of renewable energy sources to electricity production. But the base load argument isn't even valid there. With biogas, we can produce the base load, and by expanding offshore windpower off the coast of northern Germany we of course become considerably more independent from the problems of the wind power facilities we have on the land. You're also completely ignoring the uses of bio-energies when it comes to fuels. Nuclear energy does nothing at all for us in this area. This means that if we really want to do something for climate protection, we have to consider the complete spectrum of energy resources.



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Para maklaro; you quote me if I said solar and wind will benefit the leftist. Ang akong sulti nga; "the Philippine economy will be benefitted if we reopen BNPP."

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

ug pilipino mag duma sa nukleyar plant? Jesus ajaw nalang delicado ni karsada o open manholes sa manila dili nga ma manage to be safe. nukleyar palnt pa!

we better forget this thing!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

I would like to comment in the discussion in the cut and paste posting between German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Utz Claassen, CEO of Germany's third-largest energy provider EnBW, about whether nuclear energy can provide a way out of the climate crisis.

In my opinion I would consider Sigmar Gabriel as an environmental alarmist and in his capacity as the German Environment Minister I think it is but natural for him to be an alarmist. The discussion is too extreme a topic for me because I don't believe that there is a climate crisis. But I believe more in the opinion of Utz Claassen that;

"Nuclear energy has been employed in a safe way for decades in Germany."

Claassen said; "A study by the German Energy Agency (DENA) -- not a study by the energy industry, that is, but one by the center of competence for energy efficiency in Germany -- came to the following conclusion: When 37,000 megawatts of wind power capacity have been installed, that will make 6 percent of those fossil fuel or nuclear plant capacities that can provide the base load obsolete. So 2,300 conventional megawatt blocks of coal or nuclear energy could then be abandoned."

Aside from that Claassen added that; "Roughly estimated, you would need about 10,000 wind turbines to reproduce one large nuclear plant. That should be clear to everyone who also bears in mind the landscape and other issues."

Now... if the Philippines will adapt the environmentalist idea of wind turbines to power electricity where will these 10,000 wind turbines be constructed just to replace one nuclear power plant. The Philippines needs a big windy landscape with wind power to reproduce the power of one nuclear power plant. You will construct this in Samar facing the Pacific Ocean or Surigao. Imagine these 10,000 wind turbines during the typhoon season they will just be blown away. Therefore this is not feasable in the Philippines.

WN


Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

The ship must first raise its anchor and leave port before it can reach the other coast.

If we will not try, how will we ever know we will succeed?

I say, "Hoist sail!"



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

yes, we should try.
just like any great endeavors or adventures,
it must begin with a blessing or a wish.
and my wish would be: Good Luck

 


Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

The irony is, if Germany, a highly developed country is even proposing Nuclear Power Plants to be phased out, we in the Philippines want to start it here again.

There is a saying that goes, " to learn from ones mistakes is good, but to learn from others mistakes is better.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

That is the progressive spirit! I agree.

Too many of our countrymen have quite insular minds.



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

The failed nuclear plant in Bataan was a white elephant.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

there's no doubt those means of generating energy can benefit a country like ours. more feasibility studies and researches are needed in order to make the implementation of programs efficient. however the lack of political will of our government and the lack of trust of our people to our government are engaged too deep to unlock. we may be able to go any further, but not any better. thus, supporting one to the other is necessary. does our government have the will to assure our people of its good intentions? are the people willing to believe the government?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

good-willed experts can certainly have a wiser advice.


Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

i agree with GEC and to add something. how much marcos got in that project alone? during that time $2.3 billion is such a big amount. it could be 200% higher if it was built today.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

usbon ko, di man gani ma manage safely ang mga open manholes at lubak sa kalsada. nukleyar plant pa? this is a risky bizness.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Sa panahon ni Marcos daghang leftist niadtong panahona contra sa Nuclear Power sa Pilipinas tungod kay basin gamiton ni Marcos para pagtugis nila, ikaduha, gusto sa mga leftist ang solar ug wind power source ang idevelop tungod kay ma benipesyohan man sab sila niini kay bisan asa silang mga leftist sa bundok man sila may electricity power sab sila by solar energy, ibig sabihin patas lang.   

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Reopening of the BNPP raises many issues as expected before it sails smoothly towards its alleged benefits when fully operational. It seems prodding the argument based on political issues is just like creating a bush fire in a wild forest. Meaning to say it will just do more harm than good if any. Nahibawo man tang tanan nga ang klase ng politics sa atong nasod mao nay gitawag ug ija ija, aho aho, or 'to each his own. Ang gipalabon mao ang kahakugan! When greed really comes into view in the minds of our leaders, how could they picture out the benefits of the welfare they intend to serve the whole populace and the generations to come? Thus, reopening of BNPP should not be focused mainly on political ideaologies because the parameters affecting the project are more on environmental, social and economic impact.

Questions relevant to the above issues could be asked like the following:
1. How sure we are that the environment is well protected. Are we prepared to live like what happened in Chernovyl, where the whole city within the 50-km radius from the reactor is totally abandoned because of exposed radiation? All the reactors in that place are now shut down because this nuclear station is no longer viable for operation. If we look at the cost-benefit ratio of the project it is already beyond the ideal level.

2. How about the residents proximate to the location of BNPP, are they willing to be dislocated with their livelihood and businesses in case untoward incident happens, like radiation leaks?

3. From what source do we extract uranium to feed the reactors? Are these sources available locally or for import. How much?  (This figure is needed for power distruibution price analysis). Is there any tendency that our government be under the mercy of the uranium suppliers if in case they would then create a supply monopoly?

4. Is it really cheaper to buy power from this source? I read from an article in the Inquirer that despite of the 50+ nuclear reactors Japan has, buying power from this source is still higher compared to other sources. (TB membrs from Japan please confirm this report please.)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

uyon ka, datu? UJON!!! hehehe

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Bai buwad siguro Ofw ka sa makatuwid talented mo compare sa amo-a nga dia sa probensya wala maka abroad tungod kay kulang among talent, sana huwag sayangin ang panahon parang mai-share sab ang inong talent sa mga kababayan natong naghihirap, tulad pananglitan sa imong lungsod mag suggest ka kanang ika ayo sa imong lungsod nga linya sa imong profession. ayaw hutda ang imong talent diha sa laing nasod 

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Alay,

I'll try to answer your questions below.

Questions relevant to the above issues could be asked like the following:

1. How sure we are that the environment is well protected. Are we prepared to live like what happened in Chernovyl, where the whole city within the 50-km radius from the reactor is totally abandoned because of exposed radiation? All the reactors in that place are now shut down because this nuclear station is no longer viable for operation. If we look at the cost-benefit ratio of the project it is already beyond the ideal level.

Reply:

We are very sure that the environment will be protected because the technology comes from Westinghouse Inc. Chernobyl is different because the accident happened when the Soviet Union can no longer afford at that time to maintain the plant. Their economy was bankrupt. With the demised of the Soviet Union the Russian Federation as what they are called now is reviving their expertise in making nuclear plant. As we speak they are now selling and building the Iranian nuclear plant.

2. How about the residents proximate to the location of BNPP, are they willing to be dislocated with their livelihood and businesses in case untoward incident happens, like radiation leaks?

Reply:

The BNPP was constructed away from the residential areas and even if there are people nearby, what's there to be afraid of? The plant is not a ticking bomb. This is what happened to us when we listen too much to the staunch critics of nuclear plants. They talked as if the plant is a bomb. In the 1950's up to the 60's people in the Pacific Islands was exposed the open explosion of a nuclear device. In Australia the British tested their nuclear bombs openly in the desert and there is no report of a nuclear radiation affecting the people. This BNPP is not a bomb but a plant. The danger of a fallout is very remote.

3. From what source do we extract uranium to feed the reactors? Are these sources available locally or for import. How much?  (This figure is needed for power distruibution price analysis). Is there any tendency that our government be under the mercy of the uranium suppliers if in case they would then create a supply monopoly?

Reply:

The mining and export of uranium is regulated by IAEA. Uranium ores come cheap from Australia, Russia and some African countries. There is no danger that we are at the mercy of some suppliers because this is regulated by IAEA.

4. Is it really cheaper to buy power from this source? I read from an article in the Inquirer that despite of the 50+ nuclear reactors Japan has, buying power from this source is still higher compared to other sources. (TB membrs from Japan please confirm this report please.)

Reply:

Nuclear power is much cheaper to operate but expensive to build. BPNN is already finished and it cost the Filipino people $10 billion dollars to build and it just lay there inoperable because of politics. Last night Gordon Brown the Prime Minister of England specified in his speech that nuclear energy is the best alternative to oil and coal for a much much cleaner environment.

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Sa ako lang nasabtan BPNN, biktima ni sa maling akala sa mga tao nga may pangsariling interest lang Ug mga politicong kulang sa kaalaman bahin sa nuclear energy niadtong panahona back to Marcos regime.

* 1st  -  nagamit lang BPNN isip biggest issue niadtong panahona sa mga opposition leaders ug sa mga leftist para ipamukha sa mga tao nga ang gihimo sa governong Marcos ay walang kawenta kwenta at panganib pa ang dala nito. maaring itoy tinuod sa negative side sa maong project which is 0.01 % chances nga mahitabo, matod sa lebro nga nabasa ko bahin niini.

* 2nd - Mga Politicong kulang sa kahibalo bahin sa NE, kong bakit nasayang ang billion - billion peso nga maoy nagpalugmok nato sa kahirapan dahil sa kababayad sa utang sa WB. Kadtong mga way kahibaw O wa mag basa bahin sa nuclear energy sila pa komucontra niadtong panahona sa madaling salita nakikisakay lang sa agos sa politacal trend.

* 3rd  Ah basta gikapoy nako katatype sana Atong mga Politico mag hire ug usa empleyado nga ang trabaho "magbasa lang ug mga lebro ) taga research nya" kay sa mag hire siya'g subra subrang bodyguard.

****Sana basahin nyo na lang ang latest  American Edition sa Lebrong Physics ug uban pang related books usa maghusga. 


 



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

dia ra man tawn ko sa kabukiran sa Bohol bai.

wa na bai di na sya sikat karon ug nabalitaan ko toa na sa Japan.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

Way Nada,

Please acknowledge my appreciation in giving our TB members some enlightening points regarding the issue on the proposed reopening of the BNPP as initiated by the incumbent officers of our government. I for one am not against any proposed projects of the government if these would only draw economic benefits for the whole Filipino populace than making them poorer by the minute of the day.

The main point why this project has to be reopened is that the Filipino people had already shouldered much the gargantuan cost of building it from the very start with nothing to gain but losses should this project be discarded permanently. Until now we are still paying for the cost of it, and unfortunately, if it’s still not enough, the unborn generations of Filipinos are already indebted from it before they come to realize the world. Baka sabihin nila, “Kung alam lang namin, sana huwag na kaming ipananganak!”A sad thing to note indeed! And what a total shame for us of course! Nandyan na yan, at sana it has to be done with all the safety precautions intact and with all the worst scenarios affecting the project considered in the study and operations. And because of the huge amount spent, and still has to be expended until fully operational have to be taken into account in determining the cost of power, then we should expect and be ready for the worst scenario. Power increase! Anyway, when worst comes to worst pwede man ta maglamparilya na lang using coconut oil, di ba? Pwede ba sa inyo yon?

Is there really an urgent need to reopen BNPP? We certainly know that our country is almost totally dependent on imported fossil fuels from the oil-reach countries of the world. The meager produce from our very own oil wells, the seemingly hopeless continuing efforts for oil explorations, and the volatility of the oil prices in the world market are just few obstacles to mention with, that would cause many caring brains squeezed in search for alternative solutions.  Although, the oil price now is going down, it could still be considered as a stochastic variable to mention with, very unpredictable and a random behavior so to speak. It keeps on changing even before it reaches the stage of global warming, di ba? So the world including the Philippines really needs to untangle now its dependency from fossil fuels before all our lands become part of the horizon. So, alternative sources have to be exhaustively searched for good. One of the alternatives for sure is the reopening of the BNPP if it benefits many people other than so few of them. Even if high risk is involve in here, and its successful operation is still dark as a moonless midnight, it is still much better to take that risk than not giving it a chance anyway. Anyways and anyhows, pag mag flop ni in the future, at least toa na ta namuyo sa ilawom yuta, sa hukay, di ba? Blame it to the worms, ika nga.

I am for it! Why not?  But is it timely?  I think it should be done now. Why? Not because of my fear of deviating the proverbial saying that, “Do not leave a thing undone for tomorrow, if you can do it today!”, but because we urgently needed it before it’s too late. The government needed it for sure in preparation for our claims at the Spratleys. Hope I am not mistaken! Why not?

A Layman


Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0

ngiga nimo, layman...bow ko. well said, sir.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0