Ang Nuklear ay MASAMA, at ang BNPP ay MAPANGANIB Adjunct Professor, Nat’l Inst. of Geological Sciences, U.P. Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois at Chicago DOST Balik Scientist Kelvin S. Rodolfo
<ul><li>8 points </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear weapons and nuclear power are inseparable twins. </li></ul><ul><li>Uranium is not a local fuel, and its use would place us at the mercy of foreign producers. </li></ul><ul><li>Uranium is a finite and shrinking resource that is increasingly competed for as reactors proliferate globally. </li></ul><ul><li>Uranium is not as “carbon free” as the nuclear lobby says, making 1/3 rd as much CO 2 per kilowatt as natural gas. </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear wastes remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. </li></ul><ul><li>No country has yet solved the problem of permanent storage. </li></ul><ul><li>Building a new nuclear reactor or retrofitting the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is very expensive and susceptible to graft and corruption. </li></ul><ul><li>Bataan and the entire Philippines are too tectonically and volcanically active for safe siting of a reactor and its wastes. </li></ul>
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=25304 From decommissioned nuclear weapons
Solar Geothermal, wind, hydro, biomass Conservation Fossil fuels Nuclear fission Nuclear fusion Other
Ang International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at ang World Health Organization (WHO) ay parehong ahensiya ng United Nations. Noong 1959 ang IAEA ay ipinagbawal sa WHO ang pagaral ng mga problemang kalusugan galing sa paggamit ng nuklear ng militar at pang enerhiya, pati sa pagbigay ng babala kung may panganib. Mulang 1986, nooong panahon ng napalaking disgrasyang nuklear sa Chernobyl, Ukraine, ang WHO ay hindi inaral nito. Kasi, kung lilitaw ang katunayan, maging napakalaking problema ng nuclear industry sa buong mundo.
Ang uranium ay nasa mga “Continent” lamang. Walang Uranium sa Pilipinas! 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 6 7 8 8 8
Projected Demand for Uranium by World’s Nuclear Plants (International Atomic Energy Agency, May 2001) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Thousands of Tonnes Uranium <ul><li>2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 </li></ul><ul><li>YEAR </li></ul>Low use scenario Middle use scenario High use scenario
http://www.daguilar.com.au/images/UraniumPricechart_000.JPG $26/lb between March 2003 and May 2005 $138 June 10, 2007
<ul><li>Exploration, mining and milling </li></ul><ul><li>conversion </li></ul><ul><li>enrichment </li></ul><ul><li>fabrication </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear reactors </li></ul><ul><li>storage </li></ul><ul><li>reprocessing </li></ul><ul><li>vitrification </li></ul><ul><li>Final disposal </li></ul>Nuclear fuel cycle From slide by Meg Honrado, 2006
http://www.unitednuclear.com/low.htm Low-level uranium ores Typical concentrations in rock ores: 0.1%
http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/sask/mining/upitmine.jpg uranium pit mine at Rabbit Lake , Saskatchewan, Canada
Sa katunayan, ang nuclear energy ay gumagawa ng maraming CO2 din. Ang Uranium ay galing sa bato. Napakaunti ang laman ng pangkaraniwang Uranium ore: 0.1% U. Ang BNPP ay gagamit ng 100 toneladang Uranium kada taon -- laman ng 100,000 ton na bato. Kaya lang, kalahati lang ang makuha ng milling Kailangan imina ng 200,000 ton bato, gilingin sa mill, i-refine, gawing fuel rod.
Bawat kilowatt-hour na nangaling sa plantang nuklear ay gumawa ng 1/3 kadami sa nanggaling sa pagsunog ng natural gas. Ang pinakayaman na mga mina ay mabilis nauubos dahil sa pagdami ng mga plantang nuklear. Lalaki ang CO2 galing sa nuklear kasama sa pagbaba ang laman ng mga natitirang ore bodies. Magkapanahon na ang CO2 galing sa Uranium ay aabot sa nanggaling sa pagsunog ng fossil fuel. – J.W.S van Leeuwen and P. Smith, 2004, Nuclear Power – The Energy Balance. http://beheer.opvit.rug.nl/deenen/Nuclear_sustainability-rev3.doc
The last 50,000 years of Humanity Nuclear wastes will still be toxic at least 100,000 years in the future 50 40 30 20 10 5 0 Thousands of Years BC AD Modern humans flourish; complex language; bladed tools 25,000: last Ice Age; peopling of the Americas 12,000: Agricultural Revolution 3,000BC: Writing, pyramids Human civilization
Data are normalized for one metric ton of light-water reactor fuel. http://www.ccnr.org/usgs.html Example: After 10,000 years, Plutonium 239 from one ton of BNPP reactor fuel must be diluted with one million cubic meters of water to be safe to drink. After 100,000 years, it still must be mixed with 100,000 cubic meters.
Plutonium 239 half life is 24,100 years Plutonium 240 half life 6,560 years Half now decayed; second half life begins After 9,000 years, the faster 240 decay changes the reactor-waste Pu 239/240 ratio, doubling it to weapons grade. Half gone 0 10,000 20,000 24,100 0 6,560 13,120
Virtually every democratic nation that has embarked on a programme for the disposal of ‘high-level’ nuclear waste has run into similar trouble, and few have found a way forward. Bitter fights with concerned citizens have derailed plans in Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom. – Nature v 440 p 988 20 Apr 2006
Yucca Mountain… despite years of research it is still not clear how well this particular site would meet the stringent regulations called for . . . National Academies of Science recommends a regulatory period of several hundred thousand years, which could mean keeping the waste safe all the way through the next two ice ages… [L]ocal people have never been more united in their rejection of the plans. Yucca Mountain has been studied as a possible site for nuclear-waste disposal since 1978. A bevy of experiments in an eight-kilometre tunnel built in the side of the mountain have looked at how water, heat and stray radioactive material might move through the rock. The data are used to estimate exposure rates for humans who might stumble across the site centuries or millennia into the future. In recent years, some of those experiments have shown that waste could migrate to the water table more quickly than expected. And studies of young volcanoes around the mountain have raised concerns about a breach occurring at the site --Geoff Brumfiel, 2006, Forward planning, Nature v 40 p 987-989.
05 0401 Yucca Probe Focuses on Possibly Faked Data The Associated Press Friday 01 April 2005 E-mails suggest efforts aimed at clinching nuclear waste project. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7361346/ Washington - E-mails by several government scientists on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump project suggest workers were planning to fabricate records and manipulate results to ensure outcomes that would help the project move forward. "I don't have a clue when these programs were installed. So I've made up the dates and names," wrote a US Geological Survey employee in one e-mail released Friday by a congressional committee investigating suspected document falsification on the project. "This is as good as it's going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff." In another message the same employee wrote to a colleague: "In the end I keep track of 2 sets of files, the ones that will keep QA happy and the ones that were actually used." QA apparently refers to "quality assurance."
Seek Plan B for Nuclear Waste By Erica Werner The Associated Press March 25, 2005 http://www.silive.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/base/politics- Yucca Mountain, approved by Congress in 2002, is planned as a repository for 77,000 tons of defense waste and used reactor fuel from commercial power plants. The material is supposed to be buried for at least 10,000 years beneath the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But the project has suffered serious setbacks, including funding problems and an appeals court decision last summer that's forcing a rewrite of radiation exposure limits for the site. Some 55,000 tons of commercial reactor fuel and 16,000 tons of high-level defense waste are already waiting at sites in 39 states. The government, which originally promised nuclear utilities it would begin accepting their spent fuel in 1998, is facing billions of dollars in lawsuits for failing to make good on that pledge. April 2008: 56,000 + 20,000 = 76,000. Yucca storage already almost exceeded; no new site being developed.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/index.htm Interim Storage Spent fuel stored in a “spent fuel pool”. Water absorbs radiation and disperses heat from spent fuel.
Storing radioactive waste in surface facilities such as spent-fuel ponds is expensive and risky. Nature v 40 p 989, 20 April 2006.
When SF Pool is full, highly radioactive fuel assemblies are moved to large casks outside. Weapons and explosives easily available in the US could penetrate the casks, releasing much radiation.
Spent nuclear fuel stored underwater and uncapped at the Hanford site, Washingon State, USA.
First Plan ’ 89 start construction ’ 99 Plant start operating ’ 93 Terminated Second Plan New strategy 2005 Start vitrification ’ 95 Terminated Third Plan Privatization 2008 Full scale operation ’ 00 Terminated Fourth Plan under Bechtel 2011 Full scale operation ’ 05 Terminated 2006: $200 million funding cuts halt construction 2018 operational History of Hanford Tank Waste Treatment Latest plan 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 www.ecy.wa.gov/features/hanford/images/HPG/hanf2.jpg
05 0328 Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized By Shankar Vedantam The Washington Post 28 March 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5408-2005Mar27.html Science academy study points to risk of attack. A classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences has challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water. The report concluded that the government does not fully understand the risks that a terrorist attack could pose to the pools and ought to expedite the removal of the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to attack. The Bush administration has long defended the safety of the pools, and the nuclear industry has warned that moving large amounts of fuel to dry storage would be unnecessary and very expensive.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): Loss of pool water could lead to spontaneous ignition of the zirconium alloy cladding of the most recently discharged spent fuel assemblies. The resulting fire would spread to adjacent fuel assemblies and propagate across the pool. It would be difficult if not impossible to extinguish the fire once it had started. Spraying water would make it worse because of an exothermic reaction between steam and zirconium . A fire in the spent fuel storage pool would release huge volumes of radioactive gases to the atmosphere, just as in the case of fire in the reactor core, including a large proportion of the radioactive cesium-137, which is water-soluble and extremely toxic in minute amounts.
Loss of pool water could happen in various ways, such as the failure of pumps or valves, piping failures, an ineffective heat sink, a local loss of power, and malevolent acts. According to the NRC Report, a fire in the spent fuel pool at a reactor like Vermont Yankee in Pennsylvania, USA, which stores 488 metric tonnes of spent fuel, would cause 25,000 fatalities over a distance of 500 miles if evacuation were 95 percent effective . But that evacuation rate would be almost impossible to achieve. Earthquakes? Volcanoes?
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students.html Pressurized water reactor (PWR)
Govt mulls opening Bataan nuclear power plant--energy chief By TJ Burgonio Philippine Daily Inquirer June 07, 2008 MANILA, Philippines -- The government is seriously studying the option of opening the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant to bolster the country's energy supply, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes said Saturday. Reyes said that a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency that inspected the power plant in Bataan months ago has reported that this could be rehabilitated in at least five years at a cost of $800 million. OOPS! Is Sec. Reyes being seriously misinformed, misquoted, misrepresented or misunderstood?
"In the case of Bataan, the plant was completed over 20 years ago. Our mission visited the plant to gauge the current state of the plant, but our suggestion to the Philippines was simply on what steps they need to take and what needs to be considered to complete their own assessment," explained Akira Omoto, Director of the IAEA´s Division of Nuclear Power and leader of the mission to the Philippines. "The government has to assess what the new licensing requirements should be, how to modernize the two-decades old technology to current standards, and how to confirm that all aspects of the plant will function properly and safely. “ It is not the IAEA´s role to state whether the plant is usable or not, or how much it will cost to rehabilitate," said Omoto. IAEA Advises Philippines on Next Steps for "Mothballed" NPP Staff Report [24 June] 12 July 2008 www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/bataannpp.html
July 3, 2008: Hon. Congressman Mark Cojuangco [5th District of Pangasinan]filed House Bill 4631 of the 14th Congress, “Mandating the immediate re-commissioning and commercial operation of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant”. BNPP is situated on Napot point, near the east coast of Subic Bay. The Explanatory Note to the Bill misquotes our work as certifying the safety of the site: “ Top geologists have evaluated Bataan and, with the exception of Mt. Natib which is a dormant volcano whose last eruption was estimated to have been between 11.3 to 18 thousand years ago (Cabato et al. 2005) and which is ten kilometers (10 km) from the BNPP, could find no anomalies in locating the plant there.” BNPP is not 10 kilometers away from Natib, it is on Natib, which is the entire northern half of the Bataan peninsula.
Cabato, M. E. J. A., Rodolfo, K. S., and Siringan, F. P., 2005, History of sedimentary infilling and faulting in Subic Bay, Philippines revealed in high-resolution seismic reflection profiles: Jour. Asian Earth Science 25 849-858. “ . . . A breach in the caldera of Mt Natib is the most likely source of a presumed pyroclastic deposit in the eastern bay that is associated with sediments about 11.3–18 ka, indicating that a Natib eruption occurred much more recently than previously documented for this volcano.” [11,300 to 18,000 years aqo] BNPP
The faulting interval: about 2,000 years. The last faulting episode: about 3,000 years ago. BNPP
12 January 1977, Nuclear Technologist III Elmer C. Hernandez and Senior Nuclear Technologist Gabriel Santos, Jr.: “Report on the evaluation of the geological and seismological studies made on the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant – I Site”. “ 1. The proposed site . . . is very near the Manila Trench – Luzon Trough tectonic structures. “ 2. The proposed site is literally bracketed by significant and very strong (high magnitude) historical earthquakes…within a 100 kilometer radius. In fact…one … occurred (1970) within 1-2 km of the proposed site itself in Napot Point. “ 3. The probability of an epicenter of an earthquake occurring at the site is unacceptably very high. Covering a span of 74 years, 49 significant earthquakes occurred in the above area, one of which one occurred within 1-2 kilometers of the proposed site itself. . .”
Hernandez - Santos, Jr.: Report (con’t): “ 4. Known significant and major earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 8 were apparently overlooked and not considered in the computation of the shutdown earthquake design basis . . . “ 5. Earth satellite data… suggest the presence of a lineament in the site itself. Ground magnetometer data… appear to substantiate the existence of a probable fault at the proposed plant location.”
Hernandez-Santos January 12, 1977 report conclusion: “… The above review has revealed the high risk potential for the protection of health and safety of the public if the proposed site is accepted. High probability earth motions associated with earthquakes due to the Manila Trench – West Luzon Trough displacements and presence of a probable fault in the plant location itself may lend to structural failures causing the release of radioactive materials from the nuclear power plant or may cause extensive damage to the plant.”
Prof. Ernesto Sonido, UP-Diliman Department of Geology and Geography, 25 January 1979 memorandum submitted to PAEC: “Observations on a field inspection of the trenches constructed by NPC to answer PAEC Question No. 2 entitled ‘Confirming the absence of shore faults south of Napot Point, Morong, Bataan’”. NPC had cut trenches through a postulated fault and reported no evidence of faulting in them “without considering the difficulty of detecting faults in thick overburden and easily ‘healable’ rocks exposed in the trenches.” Numerous mistakes by NPC, including a 90° error in the given direction of a trench; much field information already destroyed or obscured by ongoing construction.
Dr. Sonido and Mr. John Palmer, groundwater consultant of contractor firm Ebasco, agreed on site that “the postulated fault is a fault zone with a width equal to the width of [a] river [south of Napot Point?] and that the existing river is along the fault...“ Numerous seepages along fractures in otherwise impermeable rocks, and variable depths of a ‘tuff’ horizon in more than 30 boreholes at the plant site “…suggest that the area had been tectonically active…”.
USGS National Earthquake Information Center Earthquakes in Natib vicinity, 1973-2008 1 4 Napot Point
1 <ul><li>#, Date Ms Depth (km) </li></ul><ul><li>24/06/91 4.6 53 </li></ul><ul><li>22/07/81 5.3 69 </li></ul><ul><li>14/07/04 4.3 97 </li></ul><ul><li>05/08/02 4.9 100 </li></ul><ul><li>06/08/98 3.9 150 </li></ul><ul><li>06/09/02 4.4 33 </li></ul>2 3 4 5 6 Earthquakes near BNPP 1981-2004 Napot Point
Pinatubo’s Pre- and Post-Eruption Topography Old summit x1745 masl Caldera area: 5.4 km 2 Base: Jones and Newhall, 1996 Caldera rim x 1485 New summit Volume lost: 2.1 – 3.3 cubic kilometers Old summit point now 920 meters above sea level. Lost elevation = 1745-920 = 825 m Lake surface 3 km 2
Pyroclastic flow: Dense, flowing cloud of very hot gas mixed with explosion debris Caldera collapse commonly releases enormous pyroclastic flows 100 kilometers per hour, 500 degrees C
Most productive nuclear generating station in the world. 1989, Unit 1 opened, producing 4.9 Terawatt hours. 1996, All seven units on line, produced 45.242 TW-h. 1999, Peak production year, 60.505 TW-h. 2007, M W 6.6 July Chūetsu earthquake 19 km offshore from plant, the strongest to ever affect a nuclear plant. Shaken beyond design basis, KKNPP was shutdown for an extended for inspection. May 2008, TEPCO decision: greater earthquake-proofing needed before operation can resume. February 2009:The entire plant is still shut down for exhaustive inspections and seismic upgrades. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant of Tokyo Electric Power Cp (TEPCO)
Earlier Events May 2000, Unit 6 had to be shut down when increased concentrations of Iodine were detected in the coolant loop. 9 September 2002-27 January 2003, all reactors were shut after deliberately falsified data were discovered. Units 1, 2, and 3 generated no electricity during the entire 2003 fiscal year. 2003 Production: 19.869 TWH. 12 June 2004, the vacuum in the condenser in Unit 1 began to decrease. Operators reduced power to stabilize condenser pressure and ran it that way for some time. 4 February 2005, Unit 1 manually shut down due to leakage of steam in the lower floor of the turbine room. 3 July 2005, Unit 5 reactor, condenser vacuum decreased, and tripped the turbine to protect it. 26 May 2006, Cracking in the hafnium control blades. 12 July 2006, worker exposed to radiation over the legal limit.
The first ever radiation released into the ocean by an earthquake. 400 drums containing low-level nuclear waste stored at the plant knocked over by aftershocks, 40 losing their lids. Traces of radioactive Cobalt 60 and chromium 51 released into the atmosphere. Solid lines: faults recognized earlier. Dotted lines: New faults found by Nakada et al. after 2007 quake. Epicenter Mw 6.6 16 July 07 quake 19 kilometers
Energy Production of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant 2002 Falsified data 2007 Chūetsu earthquake
Marami pong salamat sa inyong lahat. Mabuhay ang Bataan!