Being clear on going nuclear

I would not worry too much about reported plans by the energy department, with the imprimatur of the president, to 'study the possibility' of harnessing nuclear power in the country. There is no lack of things to worry about in this world, and there is no dearth of interesting subjects to study either. For all I care, Secretary Reyes can study nuclear physics and rocket science, but on unofficial time. I will start worrying when he gets distracted from the more important tasks of introducing real competition and lowering rates in the power sector and achieving the goals of the rural electrification program.
While I keep an open mind on nuclear power, especially as a potential solution to the risks of global warming, this is a non-starter for the Philippines, where the justifiable knee-jerk rejection of nuclear power is informed by the intertwined issues of corruption and safety.
It came to pass without much ado that the foreign debt of more than $ 2 billion incurred under clearly fraudulent conditions for the Bataan nuclear plant was finally fully paid in April this year. While many in legal circles felt we had a strong case against the Marcos henchman Disini and the supplier, Westinghouse, the Aquino administration had opted to settle out of court with the latter for a meager $25 million worth of old turbines. I don't know what happened to Disini. The Aquino administration also opted to honor the obligation but transferred it from the books of the National Power Corporation to the national account. (Just think how much higher NPC rates would have been if the white elephant had been part of utility's rate base. To its credit, NPC has at least managed to generate some income from the Morong complex by operating a hotel and cabanas---respectable houses meant for the power plant staff--- open to the public for conferences and private breaks. I've tried fishing by the wharf there and snagged some poisonous fish--- no not from any nuclear contamination because no fuel rods were ever stored there. There is also a good firing range for target shooting). Aquino officials shuddered at the thought of triggering cross-default provisions, used to shield banks from the consequences of their bad decisions---sound familiar?---- and lengthy litigation, had they chosen a more militant stance.
That same fear also probably was behind the attitude of the committee tasked to review the contracts with the independent power producers. From the very beginning, it chose a non-confrontational stance. But I've digressed enough.
Perhaps, Secretary Angelo Reyes was misquoted in this reportage on his view that nuclear power would help decrease power rates. A recent Economist article argues this hope rests on shaky ground. I'm all for nuclear power, but for Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. Let them, as long as that decision has popular consent. On safety and sustainability, he can be guided by this real expert. Also, what to do with spent fuel and the risks of nuclear proliferation remain unresolved.
Notwithstanding Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the fears evoked by current difficulties in that Japan nuclear plant undergoing repair after an earthquake, many risk assessment experts would probably tell you that Filipinos living around a nuclear plant would have a greater chance of dying from a motor accident (getting hit by a tricycle?), a fall resulting from a carelessly thrown banana peel, or from the bullets of political hitmen than from a nuclear plant failure. But subjective risk perceptions are always part of objective reality and that is where the main problem is. Moreover, it will probably take us at least fifty years to resolve the issue of safety in this country, where many controversies one hopes could be resolved by hard science never seem to be. (For lack of resources and intellectual boldness, neither the department of energy nor of science and technology could even come to a simple judgment on some alleged fuel-saving automotive gadgets that a former environment secretary had installed in his department's vehicles).
But what is there to study anyway? The energy secretary must of course appreciate that we are not at the forefront of nuclear research and would thus have to depend on technological advances from abroad. He wants a technical pool? For what and at whose expense? Most of the people sent by NPC to train for nuclear plant operations opted to remain in the United States, and my acquaintances who came back formed part of NPC's brain trust, mainly in desk jobs in planning and in environmental work, and are now in the private sector after the utility's downsizing.
As far as I know there is no legal prohibition against putting up a nuclear plant in the country, but the proponent would have to pass the difficult environmental and social hurdles. Identifying potential sites? Okay. We can always let local governments with suitable sites volunteer and take care of the problem of social consent. Cebu? Just kidding. Unless of course one option under study is for government to get back into the business of generation, which some would consider foolish.
Finally, on climate change, we should not worry about that too much either, not in the sense of spending our meager resources. Our climate change policy should be anchored on the fact that historically and currently, we are a very minor source of so-called greenhouse gases. To the extent that we are almost certain to suffer from hotter average temperatures, our national policy should be one of seeking justice and compensation from the culprits, the developed countries responsible for the accumulation of these gases. We should adopt policies encouraging less GHG emissions, sure, but not at the expense of the poor and more important priorities. For one, we can tax, to the extent possible, the energy consumption of the rich.
Okay, let's be open, and just leave it at that.