What's new

Envoy says nuclear power plant from US safer, smaller, cheaper

Philippine envoy to the US Jose Manuel Romualdez said Monday the power plants being proposed by the US to the Philippines as part of their cooperation on energy security are safer, smaller, cheaper.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Philippine Ambassador to the US Babe Romualdez
Interviewed on Super Radyo dzBB, Romualdez explained the recently-signed Memorandum of Understanding on Concerning Strategic Civil Nuclear Cooperation (NCMOU) where the US offered the Philippines its new development on nuclear energy.

“Tawag nila ‘yung modular type of ano ‘yung maliliit lang na nuclear plant to give power to areas. Maganda para sa’tin ‘yan dahil we have 7,600 islands at we’ll be able to power. Very important ‘yan talaga dahil energy is number one requirement now that we need at tsaka cheap power and clean energy,” he said.

[They call it the modular type which are small nuclear plants to give power to areas. That’s good for us because we have 7,600 islands and we’ll be able to power them up. That's really important because energy is the number one requirement now that we need, as well as cheap power and clean energy.]

Aside from being cheaper and smaller, Romualdez pointed out that the power plants are also safer, delineating its difference from the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).

“Marami nang bagong development sa area na ‘yan. ‘Yung nuclear power plant na tinatawag natin na modular, maliliit ‘yan. They can set them up, sabi nila, as little as six months. It’s safer. ‘Yung waste niyan, konti lang ang waste siguro. At the same time, ‘yung cooling system is also so much safer,” he said.

[There are many new developments in that area. The nuclear power plant that we call modular is only small. They said they can set them up as little as six months. It’s safer. There might be only a little waste. At the same time, its cooling system is also so much safer.]

The Philippines last ventured into a nuclear program in 1976 when then-President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. ordered the construction of the $2.3 billion-worth BNPP. However, it was shelved after three years due to safety concerns.

“It’s an old technology but we can also revive that. Maglalagay sila ng bagong mga safety valves diyan [they can put new safety valves there],” he said.

In a statement dated March 10, the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Bonnie Jenkins signed for the United States, while DOE Undersecretary Gerardo Erguiza Jr. signed for the Philippines.

“Deepening our cooperation in nuclear energy, science and technology has the potential to make a significant contribution to our shared clean energy goals, agricultural development, availability of clean water, medical treatments, and more. Our nuclear cooperation rests on a strong nonproliferation regime and the Philippines’ steadfast commitment to nonproliferation,” the statement read.

President Rodrigo Duterte also recently issued Executive Order (EO) 164 to You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., saying this is needed to achieve the country's growth targets.

The EO also mandates the Nuclear Energy Program Inter-Agency Committee (NEP-IAC) to collate all audits and recommendations, conduct further studies and assessments and if necessary, and make recommendations on the use and viability of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) and the establishment of other facilities for the utilization of nuclear energy.

The Department of Energy (DOE), meanwhile, is You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. — RSJ, GMA News

This article You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. was originally published in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

FROM: GMA NEWS
 
Nuclear is the the most sustainable, environmental, renewable and name all good terms. The only cons of it is the destruction itself. But how to simply fix it? Invest on its engineering capacity, and insert all applicable advance technologies. Kaya lang naman ayaw nila sa nuclear ay dahil hinaharang ng halos lahat ng bansang ayaw tayong umunlad, also young factor an takot sila sa nangyari sa Chernobyl. Pero, no need to worry kasi may mga makabagong paraan na para maiwasan yung ganyan, parang yung nangyari sa Japan noong nagka-tsunami.
 
Di din ako comportable sa Nuclear dahil sa risk, pero need na tlga naten nang alternative na quick and sustainable source of Energy lalo malapit na mauubos ang malampaya gas.

Renewable energy source sana pero need nang malaking investment and time to develop which is kulang na kulang na tayo.
 
Nuclear is the the most sustainable, environmental, renewable and name all good terms. The only cons of it is the destruction itself. But how to simply fix it? Invest on its engineering capacity, and insert all applicable advance technologies. Kaya lang naman ayaw nila sa nuclear ay dahil hinaharang ng halos lahat ng bansang ayaw tayong umunlad, also young factor an takot sila sa nangyari sa Chernobyl. Pero, no need to worry kasi may mga makabagong paraan na para maiwasan yung ganyan, parang yung nangyari sa Japan noong nagka-tsunami.
Tama, natatakot sila dahil nag meltdown yung Chernobyl at nagka-tsunami sa Fukushima. Pero yung mga incident na 'to nangyari dahil sa human error (may flaw yung design nung sa chernobyl at nidisable nung mga operators lahat ng safety features) at act of god (nasa fault line yung sa Fukushima at malapit sa dagat). Yung mga nuclear reactor na ginagamit ngayon sa buong mundo safe na safe, as long as maayos yung design at pagkagawa nung reactor, at qualified yung mga nag-ooperate.

Kapag nagawa man ito, sure ako mas uunlad tayo kasi magagamit natin yung extra na power sa iba't ibang mga industriya ✌✌
 
Tama, natatakot sila dahil nag meltdown yung Chernobyl at nagka-tsunami sa Fukushima. Pero yung mga incident na 'to nangyari dahil sa human error (may flaw yung design nung sa chernobyl at nidisable nung mga operators lahat ng safety features) at act of god (nasa fault line yung sa Fukushima at malapit sa dagat). Yung mga nuclear reactor na ginagamit ngayon sa buong mundo safe na safe, as long as maayos yung design at pagkagawa nung reactor, at qualified yung mga nag-ooperate.

Kapag nagawa man ito, sure ako mas uunlad tayo kasi magagamit natin yung extra na power sa iba't ibang mga industriya ✌✌
yan nga yung punto, Japan nga na super duper genius mga tao doon pero hindi nila na calculate yung possible scenarios na magkakaroon nang meltdown dahil sa Tsunami?

Kung human error din lang naman pag uusapan, 100percent pinoy hindi maa-sahan.
 
The only cons of it is the destruction itself.
Aside from that, yung yung nuclear waste disposal po. ..yun ang pinaka importante kahit sa ibang bansa nahirapan sila saan e store yung mga waste nila with hundreds or even thousand of half life (based sa nakita kong vid by "kyle hill" and "undecided by mat ferrel" on nuclear energy)

Nuclear energy has huge potential talaga.. but I'm not on BNPP (or it should be renovated at least) for me, we need a better design.. baka ito nga ang sagot yung tinutukoy sa article, or I was hoping an advancement in the nuclear fusion tech..
Kung human error din lang naman pag uusapan, 100percent pinoy hindi maa-sahan.
Super agree, malaking problema talaga yan..
 
yan nga yung punto, Japan nga na super duper genius mga tao doon pero hindi nila na calculate yung possible scenarios na magkakaroon nang meltdown dahil sa Tsunami?

Kung human error din lang naman pag uusapan, 100percent pinoy hindi maa-sahan.
Iirc yung nangyari sa Fukushima, nakita ng multiple na researcher na may risk talaga yung location kung san tinayo yung planta. May evidence ng mga malalakas na earthquake sa area na yun, pero hindi sineryoso ng management yung mga report na to kaya nangyari yung nangyari. So ultimately, human error pa rin yung dahilan.

Agree ako dyan tbh. Kung yung mga Pinoy ngayon yung ipapagawa at ipapa-operate mo ng nuclear plant ngayon, maraming risk. Pero kapag maayos yung pag educate at pagtrain mo sa mga susunod na generation ng engineers, malayo yung mararating natin. Plant trees whose shade you won't sit under, ika nga.
 
Tingin ko, mataas masyado yung risk nito lalo na't maliit na bansa lang ang Pilipinas. Yung long-term effects ng nuclear meltdown is cancer, so gg pag nagkaroon non.
Panoorin niyo ung mockumentary na Chernobyl para makita niyo ung negative effects ng nuclear meltdown.

Siguro, mas magfocus na lang sila sa renewable energy like wind or solar. Dami rin nating bodies of water, so pwede rin natin siguro yan ma-utilize as hydroelectric.

Sakin lang, mas pipiliin ko ung mas maraming brownout kesa magkaroon ng cancer o mamatay pag nagkameltdown.
 
Aside from that, yung yung nuclear waste disposal po. ..yun ang pinaka importante kahit sa ibang bansa nahirapan sila saan e store yung mga waste nila with hundreds or even thousand of half life (based sa nakita kong vid by "kyle hill" and "undecided by mat ferrel" on nuclear energy)

Nuclear energy has huge potential talaga.. but I'm not on BNPP (or it should be renovated at least) for me, we need a better design.. baka ito nga ang sagot yung tinutukoy sa article, or I was hoping an advancement in the nuclear fusion tech..

Super agree, malaking problema talaga yan..
yung nuclear waste naman sana ay pwedeng marecycle into another purpose eh, sadyang kailangan lang talaga na sa may malapit sa bodies of water siya para mabilis ma-cooldown, kaso mas magastos kasi na irecycle yung waste kaya okay lang na itapon nalang dun sa anyong tubig na yon at di nalang nila patirhan ng mga hayop . Pero kadalasa, sa mga ibang bansa na di malapit ang isang body of water, nililibig nila sa pinakailalim, pero kung tutuosin, pwede din sana siyang maging battery kahit kaunti nalang yung decay niya.

Tingin ko, mataas masyado yung risk nito lalo na't maliit na bansa lang ang Pilipinas. Yung long-term effects ng nuclear meltdown is cancer, so gg pag nagkaroon non.
Panoorin niyo ung mockumentary na Chernobyl para makita niyo ung negative effects ng nuclear meltdown.

Siguro, mas magfocus na lang sila sa renewable energy like wind or solar. Dami rin nating bodies of water, so pwede rin natin siguro yan ma-utilize as hydroelectric.

Sakin lang, mas pipiliin ko ung mas maraming brownout kesa magkaroon ng cancer o mamatay pag nagkameltdown.
Ang factor lang kasi ng mga renewable energy bhie ma sinasabi mo ay kaunti lang talaga ang napoproduce na energy at di talaga sapat, its either coal, gas , hydroelectric (kaso kaunti lang ang mga falls,dams, etc. na nakakapagproduce ng napakalakas na pressure), at nuclear. YUn lang, natatak na kasi sa atin yung stigma na panget ang nuclear dahil sa radiation impact, wherein kung tutuuosin, halos parehas na din tayo ng exposure kung malapit ka sa isang NPP kung ang nakapalibot din sa atinay ang ating mga phones, computers, at technologies, kailangan lang talaga na maging maalam at mautak sa paggamit. Maganda sana kung gumawa nalang tayo ng new NPP na malayo sa kabihasnan o kaya gumawa ng manmade island na nandun lahat ng NPP (kaso magastos at time consuming).
 
Last edited:
yung nuclear waste naman sana ay pwedeng marecycle into another purpose eh, sadyang kailangan lang talaga na sa may malapit sa bodies of water siya para mabilis ma-cooldown, kaso mas magastos kasi na irecycle yung waste kaya okay lang na itapon nalang dun sa anyong tubig na yon at di nalang nila patirhan ng mga hayop . Pero kadalasa, sa mga ibang bansa na di malapit ang isang body of water, nililibig nila sa pinakailalim, pero kung tutuosin, pwede din sana siyang maging battery kahit kaunti nalang yung decay niya.
tama ka boss..
better design, efficient recycling and/or storing...
yung better design parang malapit na yan makamit,
and yung recycling naman, all in the labs pa
maybe in time nuclear power will be safer to us and for the planet..
 
parehas na din tayo ng exposure kung malapit ka sa isang NPP kung ang nakapalibot din sa atinay ang ating mga phones, computers, at technologies,
iba ata ang radiation na sinasabi mo na ine-emit ng phones, computers, etc.
Non-ionizing radiation po ang tawag dyan sa mga yan. Hindi sila nakaka-cancer.

Sa nuclear power plant, ionizing radiation po ang ginagamit. Yun po yung nakaka-cancer.
Ang iba pang examples na gumagamit ng ionizing radiation ay ang x-ray at chemotherapy. Pati yung radiation din sa space, ionizing din po yon.

Check niyo sa Chernobyl, hanggang ngayon, sobrang taas pa rin ng radiation levels kahit na 1986 pa nangyari ang pagsabog. Pag mataas ang radiation level, yon po yung nakaka-cancer.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

In time, pwede rin naman tumaas yung efficiency ng mga renewable power plants. Tsaka sustainable din ito kasi "renewable" nga sila, meaning, hindi nauubos. Di tulad na naka-depende tayo sa mamiminang uranium ng ibang bansa, dahil hindi naman locally-sourced ang uranium.

Sidetrack lang: medyo out of topic na ito pero kung dito nga sa Pinas, pahirapan na madagdagan ng cellsites dahil kesyo magkaka-cancer daw etc. pero ung NPP, go na go sila??? Sana di ganon yung mindset kasi dapat sa NPP, goal ay 100% safety kasi isang palpak lang na mangyari dyan, maraming mamamatay na tao. Kung di naman mamamatay, magkakacancer. Proven na yan ng mga scientists.

Anyway, ang point ko pa rin is still NO to nuclear power plant, YES to more renewable power plants.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top