Author Topic: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?  (Read 8288 times)

Datu Dagohoy

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 526
  • it's me...
    • View Profile
Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« on: February 24, 2009, 08:21:57 PM »
 ???
 ::)

I thought most of us knew the current situation of electricity power shortage in the country, so it’s  the right time to push a resolution in congress to reopen the talks and then to proceed the structures which may be solve country’s electricity long time problem instantly if this structure will be mended.

I think it is better for Philippine legislators and judiciaries to talk about it, for the progress of our country not to consume their time in a matter that seemingly useless such as series investigation for corruptions and we knows that there will be no convicted sometimes after closure of their investigations. “We need nuclear power plant to give cheaper electricity in the country also to attract investors to invest in our country due to cheaper electricity power”.

I hope this topic it will initiate ideas from people concern for the development of  progress in our country.

Country having cheaper electricity power more investment will come.     

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

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

-<GEC348>-

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 1986
  • Spread the sunshine!
    • View Profile
Re: Why is it ( E = M C² ) still prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2009, 08:31:52 PM »


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

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




Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
This smacks of a grand conspiracy to hide the non-existent, to identify the nameless, to paint a picture of the unseen. -- Benelynne

MikeLigalig.com

  • FOUNDER
  • Webmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 33279
  • Please use the share icons below
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Tickets on a Budget
Re: Why is it ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2009, 08:41:37 PM »
Datu Dagohoy,

You are not checking your Inbox.

Third and last warning.

Stop posting double topics.
Follow the rules in posting a subject.
Use black and normal text in your posts.

Any violations from these 3, you will be Muted for the whole week.



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
John 3:16-18 ESV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (Jesus Christ), that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

👉 GET easy and FAST online loan at www.tala.com Philippines

Book tickets anywhere for planes, trains, boats, bus at www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

Macky Ferniz

  • EXECUTIVE
  • EXPERT
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
  • "The Sophomore's Dream"
    • View Profile
Re: Why is it ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2009, 10:23:03 PM »
- 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

A Layman

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
  • Sure that's me! After 2011.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is it ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2009, 10:28:10 PM »
Most of the Filipinos are not in favor for the reopening of this project. People in the government who are supposedly tasked to control the project have doubtful credibility. They don't know how to handle safely their tasks, more particularly the leaks and exposes battering the government today.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
Say and be Heard! Your Opinion Matters!

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

glacier_71

  • DIPLOMAT
  • GURU
  • *****
  • Posts: 9926
  • i expand and live in the sun like corn and melon
    • View Profile
Re: Why is it ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2009, 01:53:06 AM »
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
Artificial Intelligence is nothing in comparison to Natural Stupidity.

ms da binsi

  • EXECUTIVE
  • Webmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 24916
  • 2. Atheist and not afraid to burn in hell.
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/daBinsi
Re: Why is it ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2009, 03:28:49 AM »
- 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.


very smart comment Macks! i do agree with you!

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

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

Macky Ferniz

  • EXECUTIVE
  • EXPERT
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
  • "The Sophomore's Dream"
    • View Profile
Re: Why is it ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2009, 06:18:25 PM »
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

llzachll

  • STUDENT
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
    • bapcwheeltek
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2009, 11:06:05 AM »
its 2009 pepz! burning fossil fuels is old school! plus it causes air pollution. modern na ta ron. what if mahurot na ang uling? bunot na lang ang atong sunogon para himoong kurente.

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

A Layman

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
  • Sure that's me! After 2011.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2009, 11:05:33 PM »
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
Say and be Heard! Your Opinion Matters!

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

Datu Dagohoy

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 526
  • it's me...
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2009, 06:02:49 PM »
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.

ang problema sa wind mill bai di man constant ang hangin sa atoa, daghan pang bagyo nga modaut sa among structura, ibig sabihin dako kaayo maintenance cost.

mas o.k pa siguro ang Hydro kay sa wind mill pag diri sa Phil.

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

A Layman

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
  • Sure that's me! After 2011.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2009, 12:38:12 AM »
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
Say and be Heard! Your Opinion Matters!

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

bol-anon nga cebuano

  • DIPLOMAT
  • LUMINARY
  • *****
  • Posts: 6770
  • in true friendship, forgetfulness has no place...
    • View Profile
    • Best Webhost Service
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2009, 03:44:08 AM »
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.
kung mao na sir macky, dapat suportahan sa mga pinoy ang pagrevive sa bataan nuclear power plant. pero nganong daghan man ang supak ani? kulang sila sa workforce ug funds aron pag educate sa mga tawo aron mahibaw sila sa effect and benefits aning BNPP?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
"The difference between a smart person and a wise person is that a smart person knows what to say and a wise person knows whether or not to say it."

👉👉 www.dreamhost.com - Best Webhosting Company. Start your website with just a few clicks. FREE transfer of Wordpress site.

A Layman

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
  • Sure that's me! After 2011.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2009, 09:15:41 AM »
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
Say and be Heard! Your Opinion Matters!

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

Datu Dagohoy

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 526
  • it's me...
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2009, 05:00:25 PM »
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!

Tan-awa kono bai ug pulsohi kong asay maayo.

 What do you think for this Nuclear Debate?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For :        We need nuclear for future energy demands 

Against:  Save energy by better insulations of home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For :        Nuclear power can save fossil (coal, gas, oil)   

Against: Uranium is limited, must develop renewable sources of energy (wave and solar power)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For :      Nuclear power less damage to environment than coal power station.

Against: Nuclear power station waste which stays highly radio active for thousand of years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For:       Nuclear waste is small and safely stored in thick glass and burying it.   

Against: It pollutes the world for our grandchildren.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For:          0.1 % background of radiation comes from nuclear power industry.   

Against:    No level of radioactivity is safe, statistic show children nearby get leukemia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For:         Nuclear station carefully designed to be safe.   

Against:  Chernovel blew up, due to human error, a lot of European people will die of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For:

Risk of nuclear industry are less than other areas,
Figures:
Disease  - 1 in 250  died for (heart disease)
-   1 in 400 died for cancer disease
Accident  - 1 in 8,000 died for road acc.
-   1 in 25,000  died at home
Radiatio  - 1 in 50,000 died natural background
               - 1 in 4 million  died nuclear industry.
---- 
   
Againts:  Other risks are irrelevant. There is always a risk of a nuclear accident, with enormous consequences. Future generation would not forgive us.

====================================================================

Here is the Fuels comparison:

1 kg of Uranium  for Nuclear Power Plant  =  2 million kg of Coal for Fossil Power Plant

   


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

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2009, 05:03:38 PM »
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

buwadsanga

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 2502
  • Rock Til You Drop
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2009, 05:34:26 PM »
no nUkes mi apil ko nila ni john lennon, heber bartolome ug uban pa!

NO NO NO NO SA NUKLEYAR!!!!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
All things must pass - George Harrison
To be rock and not to roll - Led Zepelin
Rock n roll will never die - Neil Young

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2009, 05:36:59 PM »
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

buwadsanga

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 2502
  • Rock Til You Drop
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2009, 12:46:45 AM »
not only that but those fallout! look on ukrain's chernobyl desaster even scandinavian countries cows milk were contaminated!

sagot koy no no no sa nukleyar!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
All things must pass - George Harrison
To be rock and not to roll - Led Zepelin
Rock n roll will never die - Neil Young

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

Way Nada

  • STUDENT
  • *
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2009, 01:21:23 PM »
kung mao na sir macky, dapat suportahan sa mga pinoy ang pagrevive sa bataan nuclear power plant. pero nganong daghan man ang supak ani? kulang sila sa workforce ug funds aron pag educate sa mga tawo aron mahibaw sila sa effect and benefits aning BNPP?

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

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2009, 03:50:20 PM »
Meaning to say Way Nada, the leftist economically benefit from Wind and Solar energy resources?
Is this what you are trying to say?  And why could this be a political agenda?

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

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2009, 03:55:50 PM »
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

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2009, 04:06:27 PM »
Additionally, only when The IAEA find out if our country is not violating any safety or environmental standards related to nuclear power generation, then and only then BNPP is viable.



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

A Layman

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
  • Sure that's me! After 2011.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2009, 04:17:43 PM »
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
Say and be Heard! Your Opinion Matters!

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

Way Nada

  • STUDENT
  • *
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2009, 05:11:50 PM »
Meaning to say Way Nada, the leftist economically benefit from Wind and Solar energy resources?
Is this what you are trying to say?  And why could this be a political agenda?

If we operate BNPP the Philippines will benefit economically. They are very cheap to maintain. The left opposed the operation because they have their own political agenda. They don't want nuclear as source to generate power because they believe that nuclear energy is harmful to the environment which is not true if given the proper maintenance.

Nuclear power plants are safe with the exception of Chernobyl which was not maintain well by the former Soviet Union because their economy was going down at that time. In the US navy nuclear energy are used to fuel their submarines, aircraft carrier, cruisers and destroyers but their is not a single accident at sea. In the west countries nuclear power is fully in operation like England 75% of their power source is nuclear, Japan which is noted for earthquakes but nuclear is their main source of energy, France used nuclear power for energy and Russia today is selling their expertise to Iran.

 We have a bad perception of nuclear energy because our minds are conditioned by the liberal media about how bad nuclear energy is to the environment. The media is not telling the truth what is good and beneficial in having nuclear as source of energy.

WN

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

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2009, 05:21:23 PM »
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

Way Nada

  • STUDENT
  • *
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2009, 07:25:07 AM »
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.

Ayessa,

I think you gave a wrong meaning to my opinion that; "the Philippines will benefit economically if we operate BNPP". You put my opinion in a different way.

You said; "Meaning to say Way Nada, the leftist economically benefit from Wind and Solar energy resources? Is this what you are trying to say?  And why could this be a political agenda?"

You see... If I'll agree with your opinion both of us will be lost in translation. Di na ta magkasinabut, di ba? What I said is; "the Philippines will benefit economically if we operate BNPP" and not the left.

Regarding my idea why the left has their own political agenda regarding the use of nuclear energy will go down a long way to explain it but let us go to the issue today which the left is advocating. It's the environment! Therefore it is about the politics of the rain forest, atmosphere, the whales, carbon emission, ozone layer and climate change.

Because nuclear is radioactive material the left wants us to believe that if use in a power plant the people living near a nuclear reactor is in danger of a fallout. The perception of the people because of the leftist propaganda tend to believe that a nuclear reactor is like a ticking bomb. The Philippines is being conned by this leftist issue that nuclear is not good for us in the Philppines.

Anti nuclear started in Europe but the left political agenda did not work there so they brought their idea to the third world which the left in the Philippines readily embraced it. And this is what is happening now. England, France, Italy and other countries all over the world prospered with clean environment by using nuclear energy and the Philippines because we gave more weight on the opinion of Etta Rosales and Joma Sison stagnate economically.

Japan is a victim of a nuclear bomb but there are 55 nuclear plants operating in Japan today. If Japan listened to the politics of the left they will have a hard time looking for source of energy to power their economy.

To prove that the idea of the left is right let us wait for the plan of the Obama administration to prosper. The US government is financing the use of solar and wind energy which is included in the Obama stimulus plan. In the plan Obama is investing billion of dollars to develop wind and solar for generating electric power.   

WN   
 
 

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

buwadsanga

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 2502
  • Rock Til You Drop
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2009, 08:33:13 AM »
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
All things must pass - George Harrison
To be rock and not to roll - Led Zepelin
Rock n roll will never die - Neil Young

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

bol-anon nga cebuano

  • DIPLOMAT
  • LUMINARY
  • *****
  • Posts: 6770
  • in true friendship, forgetfulness has no place...
    • View Profile
    • Best Webhost Service
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2009, 12:34:42 AM »
ang lalis man gud aning revival sa BNPP is safety. tanang opposition aning maong bill puro naghisgot kabahin sa safety ug effect sa environment. ang goal sa author is cheap energy producing plant using a cheaper fuel. mao ning iya gusto i-revive ang maong idle plant nga wala jud nagamit despite the fact that it consumed a lot of people's money. tiaw mo nang $2 billion plus nga kanditad atong panahon ni marcos kung gi time deposit na. pila na kaha ang na gain interest ana nya ang gigamitan wala jud nagamit sulod sa 22 ka tuig.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
"The difference between a smart person and a wise person is that a smart person knows what to say and a wise person knows whether or not to say it."

👉👉 www.dreamhost.com - Best Webhosting Company. Start your website with just a few clicks. FREE transfer of Wordpress site.

Way Nada

  • STUDENT
  • *
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2009, 05:05:54 AM »
ang lalis man gud aning revival sa BNPP is safety. tanang opposition aning maong bill puro naghisgot kabahin sa safety ug effect sa environment. ang goal sa author is cheap energy producing plant using a cheaper fuel. mao ning iya gusto i-revive ang maong idle plant nga wala jud nagamit despite the fact that it consumed a lot of people's money. tiaw mo nang $2 billion plus nga kanditad atong panahon ni marcos kung gi time deposit na. pila na kaha ang na gain interest ana nya ang gigamitan wala jud nagamit sulod sa 22 ka tuig.

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

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2009, 05:07:21 AM »
Way Nada, I think you have modified your previous post.  it just makes me wonder why would solar and wind energy benefit the leftist?

and if you say they are promoting it, in which way would it also benefit them?  or simply way nada, why are they promoting solar and wind energy?

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

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2009, 05:10:15 AM »
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

hofelina

  • DONOR
  • GURU
  • *****
  • Posts: 10008
  • Always look at the bright side of life!
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2009, 05:31:25 AM »
I salute this very intelligent posting. Very detailed and comprehensive, must take this seriously.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
Easy way to start your own website at www.bluehost.com. Click the link now.

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2009, 06:05:48 AM »
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

ayessa

  • INTERN
  • **
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2009, 06:11:02 AM »
german experience ni manay!!!! read the arguments of min. gabriel. germany is phasing out nuclear power plants.

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

Way Nada

  • STUDENT
  • *
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2009, 08:24:17 AM »
Way Nada, I think you have modified your previous post.  it just makes me wonder why would solar and wind energy benefit the leftist?

and if you say they are promoting it, in which way would it also benefit them?  or simply way nada, why are they promoting solar and wind energy?

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

A Layman

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
  • Sure that's me! After 2011.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2009, 08:53:04 AM »
Way Nada, I think you have modified your previous post.  it just makes me wonder why would solar and wind energy benefit the leftist?

and if you say they are promoting it, in which way would it also benefit them?  or simply way nada, why are they promoting solar and wind energy?

Ayessa, Way Nada did nothing to modify his post where he stands. Just refer the last paragraph of Reply # 19. Medyo alanganin sab because he cited "the leftists wanted and are promoting wind and solar energy instead of nuclear energy." I may be branded a leftist if the above statement is true because of my inclinations to wind and solar energy. While I understand this statement is preposterous and logically untrue, for me it still presents an exciting and surprising neo-philosophical pretext: Branding ones idological belief by way of your scientific inclinations.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
Say and be Heard! Your Opinion Matters!

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

buwadsanga

  • EXPERT
  • ***
  • Posts: 2502
  • Rock Til You Drop
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2009, 09:15:14 AM »
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
All things must pass - George Harrison
To be rock and not to roll - Led Zepelin
Rock n roll will never die - Neil Young

Lazada.com.ph Search ProductsBooking.com Hotel Search | SitemapRSS Feeds

glacier_71

  • DIPLOMAT
  • GURU
  • *****
  • Posts: 9926
  • i expand and live in the sun like corn and melon
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2009, 09:25:37 AM »
reviving our nuclear program is by far the most ambitious idea that a country like ours can have. all i could say is: Good Luck!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18222.0
Artificial Intelligence is nothing in comparison to Natural Stupidity.

Way Nada

  • STUDENT
  • *
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: Why is ( E = M C² ) Still Prohibited in the Philippines?
« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2009, 11:57:06 AM »
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

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

Tags: