Holy Angel University

School of Business and Accountancy

Documentation:
Nuclear Issues
Submitted by:
Agustin, Maricar
Claridad, Racel T.
Malabanan, Michiko V.
Meneses, Keeana.
Samia, Amiel
Sibug, Charlyn
MK 431

Submitted to:
Mrs. Justicia C. Dalida
September 26, 2016

I.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Nuclear Power in the World Today

The first commercial nuclear power stations started operation in the 1950s.
There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries,
with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under
construction.
They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load
power, without carbon dioxide emissions.
55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180
nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.

Nuclear technology uses the energy released by splitting the atoms of certain elements.
It was first developed in the 1940s, and during the Second World War to 1945 research
initially focused on producing bombs which released great energy by splitting the atoms
of particular isotopes of either uranium or plutonium.

Today, only eight countries are known to have a nuclear weapons capability. By
contrast, 55 countries operate about 245 civil research reactors, over one-third of these
in developing countries.
Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity.
France gets around three-quarters of its power from nuclear energy, while Belgium,
Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and
Ukraine get one-third or more. South Korea and Bulgaria normally get more than 30% of
their power from nuclear energy, while in the USA, UK, Spain, Romania and Russia
almost one-fifth is from nuclear. Japan is used to relying on nuclear power for more than
one-quarter of its electricity and is expected to return to that level. Among countries
which do not host nuclear power plants, Italy and Denmark get almost 10% of their
power from nuclear.

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with over 60 reactors

under construction in 15 countries.
Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major
plans for new units in Russia.
Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
Plant life extension programs are maintaining capacity, in USA particularly.

Today there are some 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries plus
Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 385 GWe. In 2014 these provided 2411 billion
kWh, over 11% of the world's electricity.

The parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) have adopted the long term aim of stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous changes in
the climate. This has to be done in a way which is consistent with continued economic
and social development. The challenge for energy supply over the next 50 years,
therefore, is how to meet the rapidly growing demand for energy services from a
growing population while limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Nuclear power has the advantage of not producing carbon dioxide or other greenhouse
gases. As such, it has the potential to play a vital role in meeting this challenge.
The contribution of nuclear power to electricity supplies has grown rapidly since the
1970s. As of May 1997, 436 power reactors were in operation in 32 countries
Primary energy requirements are likely to at least double by 2050. What are the
potential contributions which non-fossil energy sources could make by this time?

Nuclear power is a technically well-developed energy source, which has expanded

rapidly since it was first introduced in about 1960. Several major engineering companies
from different parts of the world are presently able to construct nuclear power plants
with the highest standards of operation and safety. We can assume that by 2050
nuclear power could be providing about four times its present output, or 14% of the
assumed total energy supply by that time.

II.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PROCESS

Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus, or core, of an atom. Atoms are tiny units
that make up all matter in the universe. Energy is what holds the nucleus together.
There is a huge amount of power in an atoms dense nucleus. In fact, the power that
holds the nucleus together is officially called the "strong force.

Nuclear energy can be used to create electricity, but it must first be released from the
atom. In nuclear fission, atoms are split to release the energy.
A nuclear reactor, or power plant, is a series of machines that can control nuclear fission
to produce electricity. The fuel that nuclear reactors use to produce nuclear fission
is pellets of the element uranium. In a nuclear reactor, atoms of uranium are forced to
break apart. As they split, the atoms release tiny particles called fission products.
Fission products cause other uranium atoms to split, starting a chain reaction. The
energy released from this chain reaction creates heat.
The heat created by nuclear fission warms the reactors cooling agent. A cooling agent is
usually water, but some nuclear reactors use liquid metal or molten salt. The cooling
agent, heated by nuclear fission, produces team. The steam turns turbines, or wheels
turned by a flowing current. The turbines drive generators, or engines that create
electricity.
About 15 percent of the worlds electricity is generated by nuclear power plants. The
United States has more than 100 reactors, although it creates most of its electricity
from fossil fuels and hydroelectric energy. Nations such as Lithuania, France, and
Slovakia create almost all of their electricity from nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plants produce renewable, clean energy. They do not pollute the air or
produce greenhouse gases. They can be built in urban or rural areas, and do
not radically alter the environment around them.
The steam powering the turbines and generators is ultimately recycled. It is cooled
down in a separate structure called a cooling tower. The steam turns back into water
and can be used again to produce more electricity. Excess steam is simply recycled into
the atmosphere, where it does no harm as clean water vapor.
However, the byproduct of nuclear energy is radioactive material. Radioactive material
is a collection of unstable atomic nuclei. These nuclei lose their energy and can affect
many materials around them, including organisms and the environment. Radioactive
material can be extremely toxic, causing burns and increasing the risk for cancers,
blood diseases, and bone decay.
In a nuclear-fueled power plant much like a fossil-fueled power plant water is turned
into steam, which in turn drives turbine generators to produce electricity. The difference
is the source of heat. At nuclear power plants, the heat to make the steam is created
when uranium atoms split called fission. There is no combustion in a nuclear reactor.

III.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

A nuclear power plant is a type of power station that generates electricity using
heat from nuclear reactions. These reactions take place within a reactor. The plant also
has machines which remove heat from the reactor to operate a steam turbine and
generator to make electricity. Electricity made by nuclear power plants is called nuclear
power.
Nuclear power plants are usually near water to remove the heat the reactor makes.
Some nuclear power plants use cooling towers to do this. Nuclear power plants use
uranium as fuel. When the reactor is on, uranium atoms inside the reactor split into two
smaller atoms. When uranium atoms split, they give off a large amount of heat. This
splitting of atoms is called fission.
Nuclear energy produces electricity that can be used to power homes, schools,
businesses, and hospitals. The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity was located
near Arco, Idaho, in the U.S. The Experimental Breeder Reactor began powering itself
in 1951. The first nuclear power plant designed to provide energy to a community was
established in Obninsk, Russia, in 1954.
Building nuclear reactors requires a high level of technology, and only the countries that
have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can get the uranium or plutonium that
is required. For these reasons, most nuclear power plants are located in the developed
world.
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors
As in other industries, the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to
minimize the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences
when they occur.
There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear
power Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained
without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for
containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some
release of radioactivity.
These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 16,000 cumulative
reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries.
The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of
generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and
declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal
compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of
any radioactive releases can be avoided.

Harnessing the world's most concentrated energy source

In the 1950s attention turned to harnessing the power of the atom in a controlled way,
as demonstrated at Chicago in 1942 and subsequently for military research, and
applying the steady heat yield to generate electricity. This naturally gave rise to
concerns about accidents and their possible effects. However, with nuclear power,
safety depends on much the same factors as in any comparable industry: intelligent
planning, proper design with conservative margins and back-up systems, high-quality
components and a well-developed safety culture in operations. The operating lives of
reactors depend on maintaining their safety margin.

In avoiding such accidents the industry has been very successful. In over 16,000
cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries, there have been only
three major accidents to nuclear power plants - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and
Fukushima - the second being of little relevance to reactor design outside the old Soviet
bloc.
The three significant accidents in the 50-year history of civil nuclear power generation
are:

Three Mile Island (USA 1979) where the reactor was severely damaged but
radiation was contained and there were no adverse health or environmental
consequences
Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam
explosion and fire killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental
consequences. The death toll has since increased to about 56.
Fukushima (Japan 2011) where three old reactors (together with a fourth) were
written off and the effects of loss of cooling due to a huge tsunami were
inadequately contained.

These three significant accidents occurred during more than 16,000 reactor-years of
civil operation. Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima
accidents resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the
exposure to natural sources. The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation
exposure of workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health, unlike
Chernobyl. Other incidents (and one 'accident') have been completely confined to the
plant.

Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a
result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. Most of the
serious radiological injuries and deaths that occur each year (2-4 deaths and many
more exposures above regulatory limits) are the result of large uncontrolled radiation
sources, such as abandoned medical or industrial equipment. (There have also been a
number of accidents in experimental reactors and in one military plutonium-producing
pile at Windscale, UK, in 1957, but none of these resulted in loss of life outside the
actual plant, or long-term environmental contamination.)

Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects

Natural sources account for most of the radiation we all receive each year.
The nuclear fuel cycle does not give rise to significant radiation exposure for
members of the public, and even in two major nuclear accidents Three Mile
Island and Fukushima exposure to radiation has caused no harm to the public.
Radiation protection standards assume that any dose of radiation, no matter how
small, involves a possible risk to human health. This deliberately conservative
assumption is increasingly being questioned.
Fear of radiation causes much harm. Expressed particularly in government edicts
following the Fukushima accident (and also Chernobyl), it has caused much
suffering and many deaths.

Radiation is energy in the process of being transmitted. It may take such forms as light,
or tiny particles much too small to see. Visible light, the ultra-violet light we receive from
the sun, and transmission signals for TV and radio communications are all forms of
radiation that are common in our daily lives. These are all generally referred to as 'nonionizing' radiation, though at least some ultra-violet radiation is considered to be
ionizing.

Radiation particularly associated with nuclear medicine and the use of nuclear energy,
along with X-rays, is 'ionizing' radiation, which means that the radiation has sufficient
energy to interact with matter, especially the human body, and produce ions, i.e. it can
eject an electron from an atom.

X-rays from a high-voltage discharge were discovered in 1895, and radioactivity from
the decay of particular isotopes was discovered in 1896. Many scientists then undertook
study of these, and especially their medical applications. This led to the identification of
different kinds of radiation from the decay of atomic nuclei, and understanding of the
nature of the atom. Neutrons were identified in 1932, and in 1939 atomic fission was
discovered by irradiating uranium with neutrons. This led on to harnessing the energy
released by fission.

A 2016 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) publication notes: Today, we

know more about the sources and effects of exposure to [ionizing] radiation than to
almost any other hazardous agent, and the scientific community is constantly updating
and analyzing its knowledge... The sources of radiation causing the greatest exposure
of the general public are not necessarily those that attract the most attention. In fact, the
greatest exposure is caused by natural sources ever present in the environment, and
the major contributor to exposure from artificial sources is the use of radiation in
medicine worldwide.

Types of radiation
Nuclear radiation arises from hundreds of different kinds of unstable atoms. While many
exist in nature, the majority are created in nuclear reactions. Ionizing radiation which
can damage living tissue is emitted as the unstable atoms (radionuclides) change
('decay') spontaneously to become different kinds of atoms.

The principal kinds of ionizing radiation are:

Alpha particles
These are helium nuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons and are emitted
from naturally-occurring heavy elements such as uranium and radium, as well as from
some man-made transuranic elements. They are intensely ionizing but cannot penetrate
the skin, so are dangerous only if emitted inside the body.
Beta particles
These are fast-moving electrons emitted by many radioactive elements. They are more
penetrating than alpha particles, but easily shielded the most energetic of them can be

stopped by a few millimeters of wood or aluminum. They can penetrate a little way into
human flesh but are generally less dangerous to people than gamma radiation.
Exposure produces an effect like sunburn, but which is slower to heal

Gamma rays
These are high-energy electromagnetic waves much the same as X-rays. They are
emitted in many radioactive decays and may be very penetrating, so require more
substantial shielding. Gamma rays are the main hazard to people dealing with sealed
radioactive materials used, for example, in industrial gauges and radiotherapy
machines. Radiation dose badges are worn by workers in exposed situations to detect
them and hence monitor exposure. All of us receive about 0.5-1 mSv per year of
gamma radiation from rocks, and in some places, much more. Gamma activity in a
substance (e.g. rock) can be measured with a scintillometer or Geiger counter.

X-rays are also electromagnetic waves and ionizing, virtually identical to gamma rays,
but not nuclear in origin. They are produced in a vacuum tube where an electron beam
from a cathode is fired at target material comprising an anode, so are produced on
demand rather than by inexorable physical processes. (However the effect of this
radiation does not depend on its origin but on its energy.)

Cosmic radiation consists of very energetic particles, mostly high-energy protons,

which bombard the Earth from outer space. They comprise about one-tenth of natural
background exposure at sea level, and more at high altitudes.

Neutrons are uncharged particles mostly released by nuclear fission (the splitting of
atoms in a nuclear reactor), and hence are seldom encountered outside the core of a
nuclear reactor.* Thus they are not normally a problem outside nuclear plants. Fast
neutrons can be very destructive to human tissue. Neutrons are the only type of
radiation which can make other, non-radioactive materials, become radioactive.

Routine sources of radiation

Radiation can arise from human activities or from natural sources. Most radiation
exposure is from natural sources. These include: radioactivity in rocks and soil of the
Earth's crust; radon, a radioactive gas given out by many volcanic rocks and uranium
ore; and cosmic radiation. The human environment has always been radioactive and
accounts for up to 85% of the annual human radiation dose.

IV.

BATAAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a nuclear power plant, completed but never fueled,
on Bataan Peninsula, 100 kilometres (62 mi) west of Manila in the Philippines. It is
located on a 3.57 square kilometre government reservation at Napot Point
in Morong, Bataan. It was the Philippines' only attempt at building a nuclear power
plant.
Gifted with pristine white beaches and luscious green forests, the Bataan Nuclear
Power Plant (BNPP) sits at the tip of a 389 hectare protected land at Napot Point,
Morong, Bataan.It is the only erected commercial nuclear power station within the
ASEAN countries.
Nuclear energy hasnt been the easiest alternative to sell to the people. It is a topic
weighed on by years of fears, accidents, and bad examples that give it a bad name to
this day. NAPOCOR has been keeping the plant on its wings, with some advocates
hoping that there will be an administration brave and smart enough to create a nuclear
energy policy for the country. A huge chunk of the energy we consume come from
plants powered by coal, a resource that we still import from other countries. We are one
of the countries with the most expensive power rates in Asia, higher than Japan which
has used nuclear energy and survived despite the Fukushima meltdown in 2011.
Background
The Philippine nuclear program started in 1958 with the creation of the Philippine
Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) under Republic Act 2067.Under a regime of martial
law, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos in July 1973 announced the decision to
build a nuclear power plant. A presidential committee was set up to secure funding for
two 600 megawatt nuclear reactors for the energy needs of Luzon. This was in
response to the 1973 oil crisis, as the Middle East oil embargo had put a heavy strain
on the Philippine economy, and Marcos believed nuclear power to be the solution to
meeting the country's energy demands and decreasing dependence on imported oil.

Controversy

Two proposals were submitted by reputable energy companies General

Electric and Westinghouse Electric. General Electric submitted a proposal containing
detailed specifications of the nuclear plant and estimated it to cost US$700 million. On
the other hand, Westinghouse submitted a lower cost estimate of US$500 million, but
the proposal did not contain any detail or specification.
The presidential committee tasked to oversee the project preferred General Electric's
proposal, but this was overruled by Marcos in June 1974 who signed a letter of intent
awarding the project to Westinghouse, despite the absence of any specifications on
their proposal. By March 1975, Westinghouse's cost estimate ballooned to US$.5billion
without much explanation. The National Power Corporation would later construct only
one nuclear reactor plant for US$1.1 billion.
It would soon be discovered that Westinghouse sold the similar technology to other
countries for only a fraction of the project cost it billed the Philippines.

Construction
Construction on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant began in 1976. Following the
1979 Three Mile Island accident in the United States, construction on the BNPP was
stopped, and a subsequent safety inquiry into the plant revealed over 4,000
defects Among the issues raised was that it was built near a major geological fault
line and close to the then dormant Mount Pinatubo.
By 1984, when the BNPP was nearly complete, its cost had reached $US2.3 billion.
Equipped with a Westinghouse light water reactor, it was designed to produce 621
megawatts of electricity.
Marcos was overthrown by the People Power Revolution in 1986. Days after the April
1986 Chernobyl disaster, the succeeding administration of President Corazon Aquino
decided not to operate the plant. Among other considerations taken were the strong
opposition from Bataan residents and Philippine citizens as well as concern over the
integrity of the construction.
The government sued Westinghouse for alleged overpricing and bribery but was
ultimately rejected by a United States court. Debt repayment on the plant became the
country's biggest single obligation. While successive governments have looked at
several proposals to convert the plant into an oil, coal, or gas-fired power station, these
options have all been deemed less economically attractive in the long term than simply
constructing new power stations.

Opposition
The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was a focal point for anti-nuclear protests in the late
1970s and 1980s. The project was criticized for being a potential threat to public health,
especially since the plant was located in an earthquake zone, and because a volcano
formation was found near the location of the plant.

2000s
Despite never having been commissioned, the plant has remained intact, including the
nuclear reactor, and has continued to be maintained. The Philippine government
completed paying off its obligations on the plant in April 2007, more than 30 years after
construction began.
On January 29, 2008, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes announced that
an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) eight-man team led by Akira Omoto
inspected the Bataan Nuclear power station on rehabilitation prospects. In preparing
their report, the IAEA made two primary recommendations. First, the power plant's
status must be thoroughly evaluated by technical inspections and economic evaluations
conducted by a committed group of nuclear power experts with experience in
preservation management. Second, the IAEA mission advised the Philippines
government on the general requirements for starting its nuclear power program,
stressing that the proper infrastructure, safety standards, and knowledge be
implemented. The IAEA's role did not extend to assessing whether the power plant is
usable or how much the plant may cost to rehabilitate. On February 1, 2010,
NAPOCOR started evaluating the financial plan of Korea Electric Power
Corporation (KEPCO), assessing that it may cost US$1 billion to rehabilitate the nuclear
plant.
On February 22, 2011, the Philippine government will reimburse the National Power
Corporation (NAPOCOR) 4.2 billion (US$96 million) it spent for maintaining the Bataan
Nuclear Power Plant. It requires an average of 40 million a year just to maintain it. In
May 2011, it was announced that the plant would be turned into a tourist attraction.
In 2016, various senators along with a few media personnel inspected the Bataan
Nuclear Power Plant for a possible bid to open it to for public use. Inspecting senators
told media that the power plant was still in good condition. It was later found that more
than 2,000 defects were confirmed, while areas that were in 'good condition' were last
inspected by nuclear and infrastructure experts last 2007. It was also found that solar
and wind power was way cheaper than operating the nuclear power plant. Wave energy
was also suggested, instead of operating the nuclear power plant. Also, it was noted
that the plant's energy contribution will be minimal compared to renewable energy
plants if the nuclear plant will be operated.

CHERNOBYL

BATAAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Soviet

Western

Converted weapon plant design.

Built to commercial power plant.

No containment (warehouse type

building structure)

Containment (steel, air gap and concrete

wall)

Graphite (flammable, fire)

Super alloys (meltdown)

Military civil management performed

illegal experiment on a Civil power
plant.

Commercial power plant not subject to

equipment experiment trials.

Closed system

International peer review

Positive reaction coefficient

Negative reaction coefficient

1976 The contract was signed.

The construction started on February 1976.
July 1977 - IAEA conducted a safety mission (PSAR review).
May 1978 - IAEA conducted again a safety mission (for
geological review.)
April 1979 Construction permit issued by PAEC.
June 1979 President Marcos issued order to suspend
construction.

 June 1979 Former President Marcos formed a task force to

investigate and Puno Commission was formed to evaluate
safety concerns.
July 1979 to September 1980 public hearings on the BNPP
safety.
January 1981 full construction resumed.
May 1984 the plant was almost complete, they conducted
a hot functional test and the engineers were able to product
steam without fuel, and theyve produced 5 megawatts in 3
minutes. They were able to synchronize the grid and that
means the power plant is ready for operation.
June 1984 fuel was delivered.
July 1984 IAEA OSART I (for the review of construction
appraisal.)
February 1985 IAEA OSART II (for the review of operational
readiness.)
June 1985 public hearing began for plant licensing.
April 1986 Philippine government decided to mothball the
plant, because of the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island
incidents.
December 1997 Nuclear fuel was sold.
1986 to present preservation and maintenance of the
plant.
9 benefits of operating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is in the news again. It has been mothballed for 30
years, but now the Department of Energy is considering operating the controversial
plant as an alternative power source. As expected, reactions are varied although many,
if not most of the opposition can be traced to lack of knowledge or misconceptions on
the BNPP itself, and on nuclear energy.
I sought the help of the foremost advocate for the opening of BNPP, former Pangasinan
Representative Mark Cojuangco, to help people understand the benefits that could be
brought about by opening the plant. He came up with these:
1. Operating BNPP will save foreign exchange, recognized as our scarcest
resource.

Uraniums energy density is extremely high. A small amount contains a large amount of
energy. Compared to coal, about 120,000 times more per kilogram energy is produced.
BNPP only needs to be refueled once every 18 months and with ONLY 20 Tons of fuel.
Such fuel will fit a small truck. For 18 months, BNPP can generate about 8.1 billion
Kwhs. Thats enough to light up more than 41.3 billion 15-watt lightbulbs for eighteen
months, 24 hours a day. Thats a lot of lightbulbs from only 20 tons of fuel. In contrast, to
generate the same quantity of electricity, a coal plant would need 2.55 million tons of
coal over that same 18-month period.
20 tons vs 2.55 million tons is a no-brainer. And this is just one part of the magic of
nuclear power.
Value wise, 20 tons of nuke fuel is worth about $20 million and 2,550,000 tons of coal is
worth about $102 million. There is an $80-million savings every 18 months with nuclear
energy.
In addition, because of the great volume of coal required, freight becomes a major
issue. We need 51 Panamax size ships to transport the coal. Ship rentals are not
cheap. We need to add this huge freight cost to the cost of our coal.
So with nuclear, there will be huge savings in forex. Such savings can be used for
important things like needed infrastructure that will benefit our people and our country.
Now, we burn a lot of forex away as fuel without anything much and permanent to show
for it after. This is sad, and it does not have to be.
2) BNPP will result in cheap electricity. This will make us more attractive to
foreign investors. We will be less bypassed as an investment/manufacturing
destination. Our costly electricity cost us dearly in terms of economic opportunity. Is it
plausible that our economy would grow an additional one (1) percent if electricity costs
half its price? I think that is an easy proposition to accept. In our economy of P15 trillion,
1 percent represents P150 billions of FOREGONE economic opportunity because of
expensive and unreliable supply of electricity. Imagine what we lost the last 30 years
that the BNPP was not used. It is easy to see why we missed the boat economically.
Let us not make the same mistake now. Let us not leave the solution to just the private
sector. Let us make BNPP productive to keep electricity prices honest.
3) It is strategically more secure because the physical volume of fuel needed
every 18 months is so small.
Imagine a conflict in the West Philippine Sea. To keep our coal plant running, an
uninterrupted string of about three (3) ships per month need to deliver coal. Any
interruption or delay will result in brownouts.

In contrast, our nuclear plant needs fuel only ONCE every eighteen months. This is
more convenient and programmable. Also, our fuel only needs to be loaded in a small
airplane, to be delivered in a few hours. Fast and economical compared to 51 big ships.
4) Nuclear energy is good for the environment. It emits nothing. It means less
CO2 and pollution everywhere.
This is the other magic of nuclear. We are not burning anything in the chemical sense.
There is no fire, no smoke, and no ash as we know it. There is only heat produced by
the invisible fission reaction.
The core of BNPP contains about 60 tons of nuclear fuel. A third of this is replaced
every 18 months. 20 Tons new goes in and 20 tons old go out. What goes in looks
exactly like what goes out? It is not like a piece of wood that when burned becomes
charcoal or ash. There is no outward dirt or residue produced. Called SNF (spent
nuclear fuel). Which is not really spent, but only partly used.
This waste is mostly fertile material. It can be bred into new fuel in Gen4 reactors. A
great national wealth that we would be crazy to just throw away. How much is there?
Each 18-month batch of SNF will yield 50 new batches. Thats 900 months or 75 years
worth!

NEWS ARTICLES RELATED TO BATAAN NUCLEAR POWER

PLANT
BNPP: Not about nuclear; its about trust and accountability
The Department of Energy has said it is considering revisiting nuclear power in general,
and rehabilitating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) in particular. Yet important
questions persist, particularly since the BNPP remains one of the most glaring
examples of white elephant projects.

Large scale government projects that turn into heavy burdens for society are often
called white elephants. Legend has it that the term emanated from the King of Siam
who gave white elephants as gifts to obnoxious courtiers. The white elephants are
costly and less productive, imposing a burden on their new owners.

Similarly, white elephant megaprojects impose a severe burden to society in different

ways crowding out other investments, imposing severe damage on the reputation of
government institutions, and debilitating public trust.And the BNPP fits the bill.
The Philippines paid BNPP-incurred debt annually from 1987 to 2007, totaling roughly
US$2 billion. The entire debt was finally retired in 2007, over three decades since the
project was initiated in Morong, Bataan. This plant failed to generate even a single watt
of electricity for commercial use.
In this article I argue that the discussion on the BNPP should not be equated with the
discussion of nuclear power feasiblity. Yet we should still acknowledge that the weak
governance and obvious state capture associated with the BNPP leaves many
unanswered questions regarding the countrys ability to manage nuclear power.
Corruption and rent-seeking
Despite the promise of boosting the countrys energy supply, the BNPP from the very
beginning was hounded by anomalies. Reports suggest that the selection of the BNPP
contractor, Westinghouse Electric, did not follow the proper bidding process. Perhaps
part of the reason was that Westinghouse hired Herminio Disini, golfing partner and
crony of former president Ferdinand Marcos, as their sales agent. Thanks to Disini's
political connections, Westinghouse eventually clinched the contract for the BNPP in
1976.
Originally, Westinghouse proposed to build two nuclear reactors for a reported cost of
US$500 million (US$200 million less than competitor GE's proposal). However, by the
time the contract was signed, the cost escalated to US$1.1 billion for a single reactor so
the cost balooned to more than twice its original value. Calculations of the National
Computer Center revealed that the single BNPP reactor was overpriced by at least
US$75 million compared to similar Westinghouse plants being constructed at that time
in Yugoslavia, South Korea and Taiwan.
Damaging national psyche on debt and nuclear power
REOPENING? The administration of President Rodrigo Duterte is mulling
reopening the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. File photo by Rappler
As I noted in an earlier article, the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) filed corruption charges against Herminio Disini, whose wife is the first cousin
of first lady Imelda Marcos, and whose firm brokered the BNPP project. Westinghouse
later testified in a US court that they paid Disini over US$17 million to help acquire
insurance, telecommunications and civil works subcontracts for the BNPP without
competitive bidding. Later, Disinis cousin, Jesus Disini, also admitted to the same court
that President Marcos himself received part of this pay-off because he was co-owner of

the group of companies headed by Herminio Disini. (READ: Ferdinand Marcos'

economic disaster)
In 2012, the Sandiganbayan finally ruled on the matter and held Disini accountable for
approximately USD50 million and asked to reconvey such amount, which was further
affirmed by the Supreme Court. But by 2014 Disini passed away, leaving the
reconveyance of this amount in uncertain terms.
The corruption case behind BNPP was one of many filed in the country to no avail,
reflecting what some analysts consider to be low conviction rates against large scale
graft and corruption. Based on recent estimates using data from the PCGG, only about
40% of the Marcoses estimated US$10 billion ill-gotten wealth has been retrieved by
the Philippines.
Reviving the BNPP?
A geological study by Professor Alfredo Lagmay and colleagues published in 2012 by
the Geological Society of London found evidence that possible volcanic activity in the
vicinity of the BNPP could definitely affect its operations. They further concluded that:
According to the IAEA draft guidelines, there is no engineering design that can address
this type of hazard for a nuclear power plant.
Furthermore, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission notes that in case of an accident:
"the 'plume exposure pathway' has a radius of about 10 miles where there could be an
exposure to radioactive materials. The 'ingestion pathway' is about 50 miles in radius to
prevent potentially contaminated food, water and vegetation from being consumed."
Given this radius, many heavily populated cities (including those in Metro Manila)
remain within or very near the possible ingestion pathway. Makati City, for example is
within the 50 mile radius of the BNPP.
Should this be cause for concern, if the plant is rehabilitated and activated? If we
consider other locations, will the benefits from operating nuclear power far exceed the
risks involved?
Indeed, a seemingly strong case can be made to revisit nuclear energy as a reliable and
more cost-effective alternative energy source for the country. Professor Nani Roxas of
AIM, an energy policy expert, mentioned to me that nuclear plants are now available in
modular 20 MW units that can be connected to a grid and that can start generation
within as short as 6 months of delivery. These modular units fit our countrys
archipelagic nature (characterized by fractured demand) that is relatively more costly to
serve with a comprehensive submarine cable network.

As regards safety, millions of people in industrialized countries live near nuclear power
plants. In the US alone, almost one-third of Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear
power plant. So perhaps the issue is not about nuclear power per se.
The real question is whether government bureaucracy (if state owned and operated), a
private sector partner (if PPP), and state regulatory institutions (for either scenario) can
be trusted to operate and manage this energy source with the highest safety standards
and accountability. Therefore, how the BNPP case was handled and the continued lack
of accountability of the chief architects of this white elephant project is instructive.
Put more simply: if government institutions can't even put the thieves who set up the
BNPP in jail, then can we really expect our people to trust government institutions to
revive plans for nuclear power and this time execute it well? Rappler.com
DOE: Nat'l consensus needed to reopen Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
MANILA, Philippines The Department of Energy (DOE) said the government needs to
get the peoples approval before the controversial Bataan Nuclear Power Plant could be
opened. So with the directives of the Secretary [Alfonso Cusi], there is no clear
direction on reopening the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. It has to be subjected or
submitted to national consensus, DOE Undersecretary Donato Marcos told
congressmen during the agencys budget hearing on Monday, September 5.
Marcos said this was the agreement among the member-countries of the International
Atomic Energy Agency at the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation
Conference, which the Philippines hosted from August 30 to September 1 at the
Diamond Hotel in Manila City.
The undersecretary explained that Cusi, who is joining President Rodrigo Duterte in his
trip to Laos this week, wanted the conference to serve as forum for members to address
common issues involving nuclear power energy.
Second, thats why we invited so many stakeholders for this program is for social
awareness, to really [determine] if there is social acceptability when it comes to nuclear
[power]. And third is coming up with an output that may serve as indicator or somewhat
information [on] what the nation really feels about the nuclear power plant, said
Marcos. He did not specify, however, how the DOE plans to go about getting a national
consensus on the contested Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Last week, Presidential
Spokesperson Ernesto Abella said the Duterte administration isconsidering to open the
$2.3-billion nuclear plant into operation to meet the countrys growing power needs.
Former President Ferdinand Marcos administration saw the creation of the plant
following the oil shocks in the 1970s.

But after the late dictator was toppled during the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution,
his successor President Corazon Aquino transferred the nuclear plants assets to the
government without operating it.
Activists and environmentalists were concerned that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
was constructed too close to earthquake fault lines as well as an active volcano. The
power plant was also mothballed in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in
Ukraine, firming up the governments decision not to commence operations at the time.
But pro-nuclear energy advocates argue that reviving the mothballed plant is a cheaper
alternative for the Philippines. (READ: Why revive the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant?)
On Monday, DOE Assistant Secretary Patrick Aquino led the agency in defending its
proposed P2.656 billion budget for 2017.
The money will be used to attain the required energy supply level in the country,
achieve sufficient electrification, as well as promote and achieve sustainable production
and consumption of energy. The DOEs proposed budget for 2017 increased by 38.2%
compared to this years budget of P1.865 billion. Rappler.com
DMCI Power building new Palawan plant
MANILA, Philippines Off-grid energy company DMCI Power Corporation is building a
bunker-fired power plant to address the increasing electricity demand in Aborlan,
Palawan. The 2x4.95 megawatts (MW) plant is being built to stabilize electricity supply
in the franchise area of Palawan Electric Cooperative, Incorporated (PALECO).
"We are investing approximately P600 million in Aborlan to address the continuing
increase in electricity demand in the province due to the rise of local tourism and
commercial establishments," DMCI Power president Nestor Dadivas told the Philippine
Stock Exchange on Tuesday, August 16. DMCI said the power plant is expected to start
operations by the end of the year.
Aborlan is a first class municipality located 69 kilometers south of Puerto Princesa City.
Its population is estimated at over 32,000.
As of June 2016, only 5,400 of the 7,263 households in the municipality have electricity
connections. Established in 2006, DMCI Power has been providing electricity to areas
that are not connected to the main transmission grid. Aside from Palawan, the company
also provides power to Masbate, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, and Sultan Kudarat
through supply contracts with electric cooperatives. The National Power Corporation
awarded DMCI the right to supply power to Masbate for 15 years through a Power
Supply Agreement with Masbate Electric Cooperative.

Why revive the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant?

BATAAN, Philippines Public decision could seal the fate of the old and dormantBataan
Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), but first, the state would have to lay the options down
clearly.
In December 2015, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano said
his agency is ready to assist the Philippines should it decide to revive the BNPP. "If you
decide (to reopen it) we are ready to help, Amano said.
But the United Nations' nuclear watchdog clarified that making a decision would be up
to the Philippine government. Amano was in the country to attend the 3rd Nuclear
Congress, a multi-sectoral meeting assessing the progress made by the Philippines in
using nuclear energy, along with the challenges in harnessing it.
For every year the matter sits in indecision alley, the government is spending P50
million ($1.06 million) to maintain the mothballed plant. Such has been the case since,
in 2007, the Philippines completed the payment of the $2.3-billion debt that had been
used to fund the BNPP's construction between 1976 and 1984. When the Marcos
dictatorship crumbled, the administration of Corazon Aquino transferred the nuclear
plants assets to the government without ever operating it. It was mothballed in the wake
of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Russia.
However, talks about fueling the power facility were plenty 8 years ago. The Department
of Energy (DOE) led the gargantuan task of drafting the countrys nuclear energy policy.
Owner and operator National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) signed a memorandum
of understanding with the Korean Electric Power Company (KEPCO) to assess the
viability of harnessing alternative energy in the aging station. It would take $1 billion
spread over 4 years to restore the BNPP, the study concluded. 80% of the plant and
equipment needed overhauling. The rest had to be replaced.
In the following year, the House of Representatives Committee on Energy approved a
bill aimed at commissioning and rehabilitating it. Everything stalled following Japan's
Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011 the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.
The issue reawakened in an energy committee hearing in Congress the last quarter of
2015. (READ: Regulatory body pushed to study Bataan Nuclear Power Plant revival) In
October last year, the DOE also convened the inter-agency core group responsible for
creating the policy alongside NAPOCOR and the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute
(PNRI), whose mandate is to regulate nuclear power plants.

"As a technology, nuclear power has been shown to be safe, clean, and cheap as
evidenced by the continuing operation of several nuclear power plants all over the
world, Teofilo Leonin, PNRI nuclear division chief, told Rappler in an email.
But according to Leonin, NAPOCOR has to prove to the regulatory body the safety and
minimal impact to the natural environment of [the BNPP's] operation.
Fears of a Fukushima repeat
In a country prone to earthquakes and other catastrophes, fears of a Fukushima repeat
cannot be shrugged off. The tsunami produced by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan
damaged Fukushimas several reactors and disabled the reactors cooling systems,
which resulted in the release of radioactive materials.
The Japanese nuclear plant had a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.1g. The
IAEA requires a minimum of 0.1g peak horizontal ground acceleration regardless of
any lower apparent exposure to seismic hazard. The BNPP has a peak acceleration of
0.4g. NAPOCOR claims it can withstand the greatest tremor projected to hit Luzon.
It's well-protected from tsunami, NAPOCOR Asset Preservation Department Manager
Mauro Marcelo Jr told the media in a tour of the massive yet sleeping powerhouse. It
lies 18 meters above sea level in a 389-hectare lot in Napot Point, Morong, Bataan. The
BNPPs 3-loop design is similar to that of 3 running power stations in the world: Angra I
in Brazil, Krko in Slovenia, and Kori II in South Korea. Kori II has won awards for its
remarkable uptime and reliability.
The future owner or operator of the BNPP will have to go through the whole regulatory
process and submit pertinent documents to support [its claims], Leonin said. This
includes documents showing that a Fukushima-type disaster or any kind of natural or
man-made disaster will have minimal effects to the population and the environment, as
prescribed by national and international requirements and standards."
The PNRI is speeding up the structuring of its regulatory requirements. Once a national
policy is in place, the BNPP and all subsequent nuclear power plants will be subjected
to the regulatory process, which will take at least 5 years to complete.
Cheaper than coal
Apart from seeking a study of the viability of reopening the BNPP, the DOE also
recommended converting what Bloomberg dubbed an "empty shell" into a coal plant.
But former Pangasinan representative Mark Cojuangco, who supports nuclear fuel,
argued that the country cannot be tied further to fossil fuels. In the 14th Congress, he
filed House Bill 4631 or the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant Commissioning Act of 2008.

According to Cojuangco, 1.7 million tons of coal, equivalent to a 200-kilometer train, is

needed to power a plant non-stop for an entire year. In contrast, he said, it would take
only a little amount of nuclear fuel to produce great power. Nuclear fuel that could fit into
a medium truck would be enough to generate electricity every 18 months. That could
replace the 1.7 million tons of coal needed to produce electricity every year, or 2.5
million tons of coal every 18 months.
In a Rappler interview two years ago, Marcelo said the 620-megawatt (MW) capacity in
Bataan can supply 10% of the Luzon grid. The island regions power requirement
reached a peak demand of 8,791 MW during the summer. But in the congressional
hearing late last year, NAPOCOR was not able to provide figures on how this would
translate to consumer costs.
Oriental Mindoro 2nd District Representative Reynaldo Umali, the chairman of the
House Energy Committee, then asked NAPOCOR to rid the public of false hopes
concerning lower electricity charges.
The real costs of nuclear power
Umali also mentioned that the $1 billion rehabilitation budget could build several
renewable energy plants. In 2011, the government established the National Renewable
Energy Program, which aims to boost the current capacity of renewable sources from
5,438 MW to 15,304 MW by 2030. But Cojuangco believes renewable energy solar
and wind, in particular are less reliable sources due to their non-baseload nature,
which would require an investment 4.34 times bigger than backup sources such as coal,
gas, and nuclear.
For environmental group Greenpeace, the imminent costs of commissioning and
operating the BNPP would outweigh its power generation benefits, given the failures of
other nuclear facilities abroad, and the burden of debt that was passed on to Filipinos.
Greenpeace released its position paper amid the discussion on the merits of
Cojuangcos HB 4631. (READ: 'Nuclear power to lower electricity costs')
The group also cited Finland as an example in constructing a new reactor that took 1.5
billion in excess in 2009 values. Rehabilitation would surpass $1 billion because of past
experience on nuclear plant overruns and delays, the BNPPs age, and documented
defects." Greenpeace also urged stakeholders to look closely at the price tag of all
stages of a nuclear plants lifetime and beyond. In nuclear power, direct costs are
incurred for construction, operations and maintenance (including uranium fuel), waste
storage, and decommissioning.
The group argued that the commissioning budget will be taken from state coffers as
such, there will be provisions to raise money via surcharges to consumers and/or
international or domestic loans."

The PNRIs Leonin said that it does not matter if it would take $1 billion or more, as long
as the BNPP, if revived, performs safely in the long run. [It is] the responsibility of the
owner or operator to inform the public of all issues for them to have an informed basis
for making a stand, Leonin said.
He added that the countrys President would still have the last say when it comes to
reviving nuclear power. The chief executive holds the power to halt plebiscites. For
Philippine Ambassador to Austria Zeneida Angara Collinson, the countrys
representative to the IAEA in Vienna, the Philippines should not fear nuclear power.
Senators divided on revival of Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

Senators have opposing positions on the possibility of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
(BNPP) being revived to ensure the long-term supply of energy in the country.
At the hearing of the Senate committee on energy Wednesday, Energy Sec. Alfonso
Cusi said he was in favor of reviving the 620-megawatt nuclear plant, declaring that it
was safe for use.
I have a bias. If I will make a decision, I will open it but its not for me to decide, its for
the country to decide, Cusi told the committee. While Cusi assured that we have
sufficient supply, reviving the Bataan plant would beef up power reserves, lowering the
risk of parts of the country being placed under yellow and red alerts as what happened
in recent months.
What we are trying to do is to have that reserve. We have to make that as a policy. Is
that 5 percent of the demand, 10, 15 or 20 percent? Cusi said. Napakanipis ng
reserve. Pag nakuha yun, we would have a stable supply. Yung yellow at red alert, hindi
na pangangambahan ngayon yun, he added.
But Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, chairman of the energy committee, opposed the plan,
saying the needed $1-billion investment to refurbish the power plant would be better
spent on more feasible generation projects. Gatchalian added that the BNPPs
location atop a geological fault makes it a safety hazard for the entire Luzon island
group.
He said the plant, built four decades ago, was simply outdated. "At this point our country
simply has not developed the necessary technical expertise to operate BNPP or any
modern nuclear power plant in a safe and cost-efficient manner," Gatchalian said.
For his part, Sen. JV Ejercito said he was in favor of DOEs position in seriously
considering reopening the plant, with it potentially being the cheapest source of energy.

I was suprised that this is really in a very good condition...Its owned by the taxpayers.
Ang sa akin lang, why dont we reconsider using it? Its an asset worth billions and thats
just sitting there, Ejercito said. Sen. Richard Gordon said that while tapping nuclear
power is unpopular, it was still an option worth considering, especially with the possible
energy demand that comes with the countrys increasing growth rate.
I dont care if nuclear is unpopular....Ang importante satin dito, malaman nating mga
senador ano ba ng down the line? You have a plethora of options. What are we doing to
get power here? Gordon said. Sen. Nancy Binay said it was high time that the DOE
make a final decision on the BNPP, whether or not it should be reopened or completely
shut down.
Cusi said the DOE was studying all options available to them. The problem is that,
what we have now - oil, diesel, natural gas, and coal - that has a limited life. Up to a
certain time, the Malampaya that will be over, that will be depleted by 2022 or 2024,
Cusi said.

V.

RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

Nuclear energy is one of the renewable energy resources we have today, it is a

cheaper alternative compared to other elements like coal, oil and natural gas. These
gases as Ive mentioned only have a limited life or only exists on a specific number of
years while uranium which was being used in nuclear power plants lasts up to 265
years. Nuclear energy being processed in nuclear power plants has two sides. Like a
coin, it has two faces, the positive and negative side.

Advantages:
1. Operating nuclear power plants will save foreign exchange
2. Nuclear power plants will result in cheap electricity
3. Nuclear power plants can contribute in increasing the technology in power generation
system.
4. Nuclear power plants, avoid the emission of carbon dioxide
5. The risk of accident in nuclear power plants is low and declining. Actually previous
accident in Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island is because of human error.
6. There would be job opportunities when a power plant will be operated.

Disadvantages:
First, the possible amount of radioactive materials that they will get inside the power
plant, especially those workers operating inside the nuclear power plants. the protective
cloth they wear and tools they use can contain radioactive materials that can stay for a
thousand of years can affect organisms and the environment around them.
Second, radioactive materials can be extremely toxic, causing burns, and increasing the
risk for cancers, blood diseases, and bone decay depending on exposure.
And lastly, Nuclear energy is being used to create nuclear weapons such as atomic
bombs for the personal interest of a nation.

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was one of the most controversial and most speaked
about issue in the Philippines, it gathered a lot of reactions and comments coming from
different Filipinos, whether they agree with it or not.
It was constructed during the administration of Former President Ferdinand Marcos and
was fully built on 1986. But due to national consensus, the power plant did not operated
at all. It was kept and maintained for 30 years because of the fear Filipinos have in
mind.
If we will only be educated about nuclear energy, then Filipinos might reconsider
Bataan Nuclear Power plant. We need to be educated about what can it do to our
country, the long term benefits, costs and the possible harmful effects. But we believed
that Nuclear power plants would cause us radiation and would be harmful for us.
BNPP is another source of energy if we utilized it and put it into use. There will be no
power shortages and it can supply 1/3 of Luzons energy needs.
It will also lower the costs of electricity for the Luzon group of Islands.
People always feared that what if the BNPP would release radioactive materials and
will endanger our lives, actually, the reactor of the BNPP where nuclear activities and
radiation occurs is covered by 1 meter thick wall, and 1.5 inches stainless steel. The
reactor has a vacuum inside, in case of a nuclear explosion, that will undergo into a
special type of filter and will be released as clean air. If the walls will break, all the
elements or radioactive materials will be trapped inside the reactor, because it is
vacuum sealed, meaning hihigupin papasok
It is also safe to Tsunamis because it is 18 meters high above sea level and away from
the Iba, Zambales fault line. It is near to Mt. Natib, but according to PHIVOLCS, Mt.
Natib is already 70,000 years inactive.

 Yes, it is costly enough to put up a power plant and even the rehabilitation of BNPP
would costs as much as $ 1 million all in all including the rehabilitation of the materials,
the training of the employees and etc.
If the power plant will be utilized as of today, it will costs a lot and the residents near
BNPP needs to be relocated.
If we were to think, these are the problems that we may encounter but if we would
consider its benefits, the benefits outweighs the costs.
BNPP can be used as an energy reserve for the current and future generation, for us
to have a stable amount of energy. It is also useful in the long run because of the
benefits it can provide not only for our economy but also for our environment.
Nuclear power plants are environmentally friendly because it reduces 10% of the
carbon dioxide emissions.

VI.

TRIVIAS

1. Did you know that you can get as much as 0.01 milirem of radiation in eating a
banana, compared to 0.009 radiation of being inside the nuclear power plant for
an hour?
2. Did you know that, 1 small uranium pellet can provide electricity for an average
size household for nine months.
3. Did you know that there are 13 viable locations where a power plant in the
Philippines will be built, but only Morong, Bataan was chosen because of its
strategic location and safest place. It is 18meters high above sea level, which is
higher than the recorded 15 meters high tsunami that hit Fukushima japan in
2011. It is also near the sea and away from the nearest fault line which is in Iba,
Zambales.

V. SOURCES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_Philippines
http://www.napocor.gov.ph/index.php/bataan-nuclear-power-plant
http://8list.ph/site/articles/8-questions-about-the-bataan-nuclear-power-plantanswered-254
http://rogue.ph/how-to-dismantle-an-atomic-bomb/
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/579582/money/economy/senatorsdivided-on-revival-of-bataan-nuclear-power-plant
http://interaksyon.com/business/131957/doe-mulls-reviving-bataan-nuclearpower-plant
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Economy&title=bataannuclear-plant-will-take-years-to-rehab-house-committee-told&id=115276

http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/08/30/16/cusi-govt-may-open-mothballedbataan-nuclear-power-plant
http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2013/08/06/1057341/bataan-nuclear-powerplant-reopen-it-or-not
http://www.philstar.com/business/2016/08/31/1618827/government-open-tappingnuclear-power
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/09/01/nuclear-power-bataan-powerplantalternative-source-energy-senate-power-crisis.html
http://cnnphilippines.com/videos/2016/08/30/Bataan-nuclear-power-plant-revivalbeing-studied.html
http://www.rappler.com/business/industries/173-power-and-energy/107377reopen-bataan-nuclear-power-plant
https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/nucenergy.html
http://www.nnr.co.za/what-is-nuclear-energy/
http://www.nnr.co.za/what-is-nuclear-energy/
http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/nuclear-energy/
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-technology/how-nuclearpower-works#.V9lbiPl97IU
http://www.nei.org/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-futuregeneration/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/Archives/campaigns/climate-change/endthe-nuclear-age/nuclear-energy-not-a-solution/bataan-nuclear-powerplant/#hiddencost
http://thestandard.com.ph/opinion/columns/power-point-by-elizabethangsioco/215083/9-benefits-of-operating-the-bataan-nuclear-power-plant.html
http://www.rappler.com/business/industries/173-power-and-energy/90525regulatory-body-bataan-nuclear-power-plant-revival
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/146852-bnpp-trust-accountability

http://www.rappler.com/business/industries/173-power-and-energy/143201-dmcipower-new-palawan-plant
http://www.rappler.com/business/industries/173-power-and-energy/107377reopen-bataan-nuclear-power-plant
http://thestandard.com.ph/opinion/columns/power-point-by-elizabethangsioco/215083/9-benefits-of-operating-the-bataan-nuclear-power-plant.html