Home 
In his article, ?Not a cool idea: WWF raises alert on planned coal plants,? Jun Cruz says that with the historic Copenhagen climate talks just weeks away, the Philippines?tempered by a recent spate of destructive typhoons?is poised to go green with the recent passage of the Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729) and the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 (RA 9513). He says that many coal-fired powered plants, undoubtedly the dirtiest source of energy, are set to be erected in 2010 in the country which the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) vehemently opposes. And so the fight begins at home, he says.
WWF stresses that similarly priced, inexhaustible and cleaner energy sources are already available. In the Philippines, Cruz says, WWF recently laid out its strong stand against coal-fired power plants, and called out to those in the power sector to prioritize smarter green technologies. It maintains that the era for aggressive renewable energy (RE) options has come, and the continued construction of all coal-fired power plants nationwide belongs to a period that must come to an end.
According to Cruz, WWF Climate Change and Energy Programme Director Yeb Saño says that the power industry is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases to the Earth?s already packed atmosphere with fossil-based sources such as coal plants are the most prevalent emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). WWF claims that since renewable energy sources can provide the same amount of power and the technologies needed to efficiently harness these sources are currently available, and since the Renewable Energy Act provides very attractive incentives that boost the viability and profitability of these zero-emission energy options, it opposes the building of all coal-fired power plants nationwide. According to the WWF, power generation from coal plants contributes over 35 percent of the country?s CO2 emissions.
Coal plant projects are found in Cebu. Under construction in Naga City is a 200-MW circulating fluidized bed (CFB) power plant, a P5.7-billion ($120 million) joint venture of Kepco and Salcon Power Corporation. In Toledo City, Cebu Energy Development Corp. is constructing three coal plants with a working capacity of 82 MW each.
Granting that coal-powered plants produce much of the greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere, is that enough justification for halting all construction of new ones? What are the clean alternatives? In Cebu, for example, are they available in the required amount to meet current and future demand? At what price?
According to the WWF, the country is blessed with an abundance of indigenous sources of clean, renewable energy and that all the key industry leaders in the coal sector need to do is to take the initiative and show that a shift can be done.
The Department of Energy (DOE) reports that the country?s renewable energy potential is vast?with 4,531 MW from geothermal energy; 13,097 MW from hydropower, 277 MBFOE from biomass; 5.0-5.1 kWh/m2/day from solar; 76,600 MW from wind and 170,000 MW from oceanic waves. The power generated from oceanic waves alone is enough to address the power needs of the entire nation for decades.
Naturally, we need power, WWF Climate Change and Energy Programme Director Yeb Saño says, but it must be clean power. He claims that while coal-fired power plants seem superficially cheap today, the real costs may include the effects of climate change in the loss of hundreds of the country?s 7,107 islands due to rising sea levels, widespread disease from vector-carriers such as mosquitoes, plus flooded croplands and communities. He says that if we want to avoid another Typhoon Ondoy or Pepeng, clean power is not just our best option; it is our only option.
I do not necessarily disagree with WWF about clean power being our only option. My only question is about time. In the long run, that is true, but for the present and in the medium term, this is not entirely possible because of certain constraints. Renewable energy plants maybe cheaper to run but they also cost more to build. The wind and the heat of the sun are free. But harnessing them is not necessarily easy and cheap. Moreover, they are not around all day. When the wind is not blowing or when the sun is hiding, where do we get our supply of power?
Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their reports did not really envision the complete halt of coal-powered plants in view of the impossibility of meeting all our power demand from renewable sources alone. The potential is there but it will still take some time to realize that potential, not to mention the financing. Finally, there is economics. If producing energy from non-renewable source is profitable, business will be there.
As seen in many rich countries most of them are there now only because of high government subsidy or assurance that they get the price right for the energy they produce. Do we have that?
The long term direction is in non-renewable sources of energy, no doubt about.
