Opposing power projects is becoming a habit

There is a signature campaign going around mainly in web communities, students and professional groups vehemently opposing the re-opening of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) and nuclear energy in general. I say vehemently because the organizers listed seven deadly sins of the plant and nuclear energy which ought to be opposed at all costs.

In Bacolod, environmental activists, with the prodding and aid from the clergy, have been mounting a scathing indictment of the geothermal project of Energy Development Corporation (PSE:EDC) in nearby Murcia. Specifically, they are opposing the entry of the geothermal developer into a tiny strip of land called the buffer zone between the existing field and power plant, on one hand and the Kanlaon National Park on the other.

In northern Mindanao, local groups are opposing the setting up a bioethanol plant because it is alleged that the planned processing plant would pollute the city’s watershed.

Why is it that certain groups have been opposing any power development with alarming regularity? It wasn’t too long ago that a prime mover of this coalition has sent a S.W.A.T.  unit to deface a coal plant in Luzon. More than a decade back, Kidapawan in North Cotabato had been the eye of a storm of protests against a geothermal plant. Now, that 106 MW geothermal facility has been supplying Mindanao with steady power, with not a whimper from any Philippine eagle that may have strayed within the geothermal reservation.

What is disturbing and disappointing with some of this highly organized opposition is sprinkling their arguments with supposedly scientific basis to make the presentation more palatable to those who are non-technically minded. I just hope that they get all their science right.

For the case of the BNPP, opposition to its opening and against nuclear energy are lumped together, as if these are two intertwined issues. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The construction of the BNPP has been tainted with scandal. Worse, the country ended up paying millions of dollars in loans and interest without getting a single watt of power.

But considering the nuclear option is a different matter altogether. Ever since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the nuclear world has changed a lot. Stringent standards have been put in place. Technology has advanced such that safety is becoming a non-issue.

True, the problem of final nuclear waste disposal still hangs—but who says the end user necessary takes the cudgel of burying the waste to oblivion? The usual arrangement is that the supplier could take responsibility of temporary storage.

Temporary storage of nuclear waste has been the bane of contention between the pros and cons, but the industry—if you call it that way—has an enviable record of safety.

Now, you ask, which is cleaner and greener, wind or nuclear energy? Nobody is pulling your leg, but if you go by science—this is probably a heresy—nuclear is cleaner than wind, according to an environmentalist who did the numbers. The carbon footprint of a nuclear plant is far smaller than a wind farm of comparable electrical output. Think of the manufacturing process of thousands of wind turbines and towers to equal the 600 MW size of a BNPP type.

Now, if you power New York City with wind energy, you would need a wind farm the size of New Jersey. Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating the re-opening of BNPP—that is a political issue—but I am not closing my eyes altogether on the nuclear alternative, especially now that we would be facing a power crunch in the next few years.

For the case of geothermal, nearly all local projects have been met with some opposition. For the Mt. Apo (Mindanao) geothermal project, you needed some trees to cut and strips of land to bulldoze for the roads and pads, just like any other development projects, be it housing for the poor or a bridge to connect a far-flung barangay (village) to civilization.

For the Northern Negros project, some lepidopterans were surely disturbed, but t they have not abandoned their habitat. When the Bacman project was at full throttle, the native bats at Manito, Albay and Sorsogon, were probably irked at the drilling rigs. But since then, they have reclaimed their natural sanctuary.

On geothermal, it is difficult for the opposition to accept that the operator needs to preserve the watersheds, for these are the lifeblood of geothermal power. The hot water you are using to drive the turbines comes from the circulation of surface water which is abetted by a healthy watershed.

Even the greenest of them all, could have objections raised against them. Solar for example, needs hectares of land to be of any consequence to our energy mix.

What about the upcoming thermal ocean power which is slowly creeping into practical use?

Well, the residents of Donsol, Sorsogon would have the butandings to thank for to justify their opposition to a thermal ocean power turbine that could be place between Allen, Samar and the tip of Sorsogon. The residents of Bataan may have to invoke the rights of some melon-headed sharks to oppose the re-opening of BNPP.

 No, we are not condoning the use of polluting energy sources. While coal-fired plants are considered among the dirtiest—why do you think that the mighty U.S.A. is helpless in eradicating these smoke- and mercury-belching behemoths? Simple. It’s all about economics. Half of the American electric power comes from coal, and without it, the mightiest economy would grind to a halt.

What is important is we know how much power  we need, and if we need to generate that need, we should be at least confident that our choice is the most applicable given all the surrounding circumstances at any given time.

That choice should be grounded on sound science and engineering.

Compact fluorescent lamps: Green or clean?

When the Department of Energy (DOE) recently launched its Palit Ilaw program which essentially enjoins government offices and projects to replace incandescent lamps and other energy-hungry lighting fixtures with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), there was hardly any ripple of approval even from energy efficiency campaigners or consumer advocates.

This is not really surprising because advocating a support for such a move from our politicians would hardly land them in front of the klieglights of publicity. For consumer advocates it would hardly endear them to the masses who would be asked to replace their dirt-cheap incandescent lamps with expensive compact fluorescent lamps. The masses who are desperately trying to make both ends meet on a month-to-month, or even day-to-day basis wouldn’t have the time or the wherewithal to figure out the long-term economic benefits of the move.

 The environmental crusaders on the other hand are somewhat split. The global warming enthusiasts embrace it like a teddy bear, for they have already calculated the amount of carbon dioxide that would be displaced from emissions by fuel-based generators. The ultra-pure green advocates while not openly declaring opposition, snickered when in the course of promoting Al Gore’s opus An Inconvenient Truth, supporters were asked to buy compact fluorescent lamps to replace their incandescent lamps.

 They have a point.

 CFLs do contain the toxic element mercury, albeit in milligram amounts. The lamp works by exciting mercury atoms to generate UV light. The light in turn strikes at the phosphor coating which gives off the white light we enjoy. Without mercury, there is no light.

 Other green campaigners stretch the anti-stance by arguing that disposal of the used CFLs poses environmental hazards and even pointing out that the transport of these mercury-containing lamps emit greenhouse gases (GHG).

 The latter is probably stretching the argument too much. We have been using millions of standard linear or circular fluorescent lamps, and CFLs are no different. There will always be some accidents due to breakage and mercury will be spilled and may actually pose some hazards. But simple precautions like not handling the broken glasses containing phosphor and immediate ventilation of the contaminated area should eliminate most of the danger.

 There are other household items that contain more mercury such as the common glass thermometer, sphygmomanometer and pressure gauges that have escaped scrutiny from our dear green watchers

 Nothing is aseptically clean or immaculately green, whether it is baby products or energy sources. It is just a matter of degree how much dirt or inconvenience we accept or tolerate.

 Even the most accepted clean energy sources have their detractors.

 A nuclear renaissance has not taken hold mainly because of the dim memories of Three-Mile Island near-disaster and the catastrophic Chernobyl accident. But the former was avoidable while the latter used  Soviet-era safety standards and obsolete technology. Some environmental activists even prefer nuclear over fossil fuels power sources.

 Even the concern of nuclear waste disposal is probably overblown when the current “temporary” storage could pass the most stringent safety standards ever. So are the new-generation designs of reactors.

 About the only serious objection of nuclear power is nuclear proliferation in this age of Al Qaeda.

 Geothermal is also a favorite target practice of environmental activists. Sure the wells emit some hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide most of which are dissipated through or absorbed by the foliage and soil. Literally along the same breath, the same critics daily inhale from far more dangerous gas emissions from ill-tuned up car engines, motor cabs and diesel-gushing jeepneys.

 Well-meaning opposition to geothermal points to some disturbance to vegetation when roads are made and pads are prepared, forgetting the fact that coal mining strips down whole forests and mountains—not in China, or Indonesia but in the most advance country on earth, the United States.

 They also point to disturbance to forest dwellers. In the meantime, the rare bats within the Bacman geothermal reservation have not left the area and continue to doze off during the day while the power plants churn electrical power. The snakes and monkeys in Kidapawan have not yet attacked the engineers manning the geothermal plant as an act of environmental revenge.

 Even the cleanest of them all—wind power—have critics. Some complain about the extra decibels these turbines are generating completely forgetting that the levels are far lower than a normal traffic. And if some groups object to these structures because some rare migratory bird species from Siberia are disoriented by the low frequency humming—what shall we put up?

 SO would, or wouldn’t you shift to CFLs?

The alternative to the modern conveniences is a nomadic life or cave-dwelling. Just be sure to know enough taxonomy to avoid eating rare and protected root crops and using natural herbs listed as endangered by WWF.