Bataan nuke plant conversion (to coal) likely: DOE

[phantom power]

MANILA, Philippines - The government is likely to convert the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) into a coal-fired power facility, said Energy Secretary Jose Rene Almendras.

Almendras said initial study conducted by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) is leaning towards converting the mothballed nuclear power plant into a "coal-fired" plant.

If proven feasible, Almendras said the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. (PSALM) would conduct a bidding for the technology to be used in building the coal-run power plant.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/10/03/11/bataan-nuke-plant-conversion-likely-doe

[kristopher]

1. "the country's most outstanding white elephant" costs $155,000 a day but no power

Philippines: Bataan nuclear plant costs $155,000 a day but no power
by Karl Wilson

NEARLY 30 years after work began on the Bataan nuclear power plant just north of Manila, Filipino taxpayers are still paying 155,000 dollars a day in interest on a structure that has never produced one watt of power.

..."The fact that we are still paying interest on a project that is 30 years old and has not produced a watt of electricity should send at least one positive signal to the investment community," he told Agence France-Presse in a telephone interview.

...The Bataan nuclear power plant was a knee jerk reaction by former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos to the energy crisis of the early 1970s.

...When Marcos was overthrown by the so-called People Power Revolution in early 1986 a team of international inspectors visited the site and declared it unsafe and inoperable as it was built near major earthquake fault lines and near the Pinatubo volcano which at the time was dormant...

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/866

[bananas]

3. "international inspectors visited the site and declared it unsafe and inoperable"

Too bad they didn't visit Japan.

[kristopher]

7. A real twist on the issue of nuclear plants and political revolutions...

The most common association is the worry that a seemingly stable country will obtain nuclear power technology and have a revolution that creates the risk of weaponizing the technology either by the new government or though loss of control of highly radioactive materials.

You have to wonder how many of the other 440 nuclear plants in the world would have failed if they had been subject to the same type of critical re-examination.

[Nihil]

2. Yet another unfounded rumour ...

... as everyone knows that nuclear power plants are only ever replaced
by renewables (*) ...

:shrug:




* (or imports from neighbouring nuclear or fossil fuel plants)

[txlibdem]

4. Burning tons of coal is going to be so much better for the environment

Also it proves what I've been saying all along: every Nuclear Power Plant either not built or shut down equals more coal plants.

We don't want any of that SsCcAaaRrrYy radiation, right? Whoops! Coal plants put out far more radiation into the environment that nuclear power plants: each 1GWe coal plant puts out 5.2 tons of Uranium (incl. 75,000 pounds of nuclear bomb material, U-235) and 12.8 tons of Thorium blowing out the smokestack or just dumped into a pit or pond nearby.

Gosh, I wonder what the anti-nuke zealots would say if I told them that the nuclear power plant nearest them was going to start pouring out 5 tons of Uranium...

[Kolesar]

5. Unless you are comparing them to the Fukushima nuclear power plant...eom

[txlibdem]

8. How many tons of U-235 did Fukushima spread downwind?

I've never been able to get an answer on that from anyone. And, for comparison purposes, what is the total amount of U-235 spread downwind of the coal plants in Japan?

[hunter]

6. It's even better if you burn coal in a less efficient "recycled" plant.

I may be wrong, but I think a modern turnkey coal plant would produce less carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour and have much lower operating costs.

This is more a political problem than an engineering problem.

If you had a factory fresh 1971 Chevy Vega mothballed in your garage, what would you do with it?

There really is no practical answer.

You probably wouldn't replace the engine with a small block V8 and drive it.

Unlike automobiles, I don't think anyone collects old never-been-used nuclear power plants.

[txlibdem]

9. It's actually quite a bad idea to put *any* power plant on a major fault line

So while I don't want a nuclear power plant there, I think it would be equally foolish to put an oil refinery or pipeline, natural gas power, or coal power station there.