The Philippines’ Nuclear Gamble

Stationed on the western coast of Bataan near the foothills of Mount Natib, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) has lain dormant for nearly forty years. Commissioned during President Ferdinand Marcos Sr’s administration, the plant was almost completed in 1984, costing the country $2.3 billion. Today, the Philippines is revisiting its nuclear energy ambitions as part of a broader strategy to cut its emissions.

In 1984, the nuclear fuel was delivered, but by February of 1986, the Marcos regime was toppled by the People Power Revolution. The project had already drawn heavy criticism for corruption and overpricing. In April of that year, the tragic Chernobyl disaster intensified public distrust in the plant, prompting the new administration to decide to close the gates to BNPP . Now under his son, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (‘Bongbong’), BNPP is poised for a revival.

Outlined under the National Renewable Energy Program (NREP), the Philippines aims to achieve 50% renewable energy generation by 2040. However, coal continues to dominate power generation, producing 61.9% of the country’s electricity in 2023. While the government views nuclear as a low-emission alternative critical to the clean energy transition, critics argue it risks diverting attention and resources from more viable and rapidly deployable renewable solutions.

On September 18, 2025, Marcos Jr. signed the Philippine National Nuclear Energy Safety Act ( PhilATOM ) , establishing a domestic regulatory body required to meet the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) nuclear safety standards. By complying with international standards, the Philippine government is signaling its commitment and willingness to incorporate nuclear energy into its mix, making it more attractive to potential investors.

Mark Gino Aliperio, a Science and Technology Fellow at the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, a government agency, defended the push to add nuclear energy to the Philippines’ energy sector, citing the country's heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels.

“75% of our energy comes from fossil fuels… our oil is imported. We do have our own sources like natural gas but the supply is running out… [and] the vast majority of our coal is imported from Indonesia… We really need to find an alternative, that's why the government is looking into nuclear to replace coal as our reliable source of energy,” outlined Aliperio.

He points out that coal currently serves as the Philippines' baseload energy source, providing a reliable power supply that runs continuously to keep the grid stable, and argues that nuclear is best suited to replace it. “We want to replace it with other sources of reliable energy, and we know nuclear is the most reliable.”

For Aliperio, nuclear and renewables aren’t competing options but complementary ones. “We’ll have renewables and a backup nuclear plant,” he says, calling it a “perfect combination.” This view is shared by many nuclear advocates, who argue that renewables can be inconsistent due to seasonal fluctuations in solar generation and the vulnerability of wind infrastructure to typhoons, while nuclear offers a steady, low-carbon output unaffected by weather.

Yet not everyone agrees that nuclear power is the most reliable path forward. Jefferson Chua, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace Philippines, warned against nuclear risks in a country prone to natural disasters.

“We just need to look back a few days ago where there was a 6.9 quake in Cebu on an unmapped fault… that gives us a picture of how little we actually still know about these seismic and tectonic events,” Chua said, referring to the earthquake that shook Cebu on September 30, with thousands of aftershocks taking place over the next week.

“The Philippines is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world… we're number one in the World Risk Index,” says Chua. He emphasised that, “wherever you put these reactors… they will inevitably face at least one kind of risk… that will potentially disrupt operations and… endanger the safety of the communities around those areas precisely because of how dangerous nuclear energy is, and of course, the waste.”

As for reliance on imported fuels, Alnie Demoral, an energy analyst at the think tank Ember, cautions that nuclear carries dependencies of its own. “Nuclear may enhance energy independence by reducing reliance on imported coal or gas, but without domestic uranium resources, it cannot deliver full energy sovereignty. While uranium imports may be less volatile than fossil fuels, they still tie the Philippines to external supply chains, unlike geothermal, solar, or wind, which are fully domestic.”

She adds, “The Philippines already has abundant domestic renewable potential…These resources offer reliable, locally available pathways to strengthen the energy mix without the long lead times or external dependencies of nuclear.”

Lincoln Hill, Director of Policy and External Affairs at the UK’s Nuclear Industry Association, explains that nuclear supply chains can, in fact, be carefully curated with trusted partners. As an example, he explained that “nuclear is huge for the energy security [of Ukraine]. All of the fuel is mined in Canada, converted in Canada, enriched in the UK and the Netherlands, fabricated into fuel in Sweden, then sent to Ukraine. That’s a reliable chain of partners.”

As with anything, he says that “you do have to trust your partners…if you're importing coal, if you're importing LNG, you're going to have to rely on somebody.” Hill contrasted this partnership with the kind of vertically integrated nuclear deals offered by Russia and China, which he warns can come with geopolitical strings attached. He emphasized the importance of sourcing from democratic and transparent suppliers to avoid becoming vulnerable to manipulation.

As for the Philippine government's proposed plan, Alipero detailed that “the government is looking at three options. The first one is to revive the existing nuclear plant that was never operated in the 1980s. The second one is to build a new large plant. And third is to have small modular reactors.”

Small modular reactors, or SMRs, are prefabricated compact power plants that can be transported to their desired location. They have been suggested as a good option for countries like the Philippines, which consists of thousands of islands with areas not connected to the primary grid. There are currently only two operational SMRs worldwide, one being in China and the other in Russia.

Alipero says that SMRs, while promising, will not be introduced in the near future, stressing that the Philippines “will not be the guinea pig of nuclear reactors”. But Chua remains skeptical, expressing concern that “the Philippines will become a testing ground for these unproven pieces of technology.”

The Philippine government plans to add 1,200 MW of nuclear power by 2032, but estimates to revive the Bataan plant alone range from $1 billion to $2.3 billion. Chua warns this is just the beginning, pointing to “the long-term compounding costs [and] maintenance because of extreme weather events,” and notes, “The energy sector here in the Philippines is highly privatized, we will be at the whims of market forces. A lot of these costs, even the upfront costs…will be borne from taxpayer money.”

Demoral points to renewables as an easier investment: “Directing the same investment toward renewables and storage is a lower-hanging fruit: projects can be built faster, rely on local resources, and strengthen the energy mix without the long lead times or regulatory hurdles of nuclear.”

Unique to the Philippines' nuclear debate has been the Catholic Church. While Alipero's government agency has had to contend with the church’s pushback, Greenpeace has utilised it to its advantage by collaborating with church leaders and coalitions. “The past few years, we've seen stronger emphasis on the environment and climate from grassroots church communities, and I think that's where the power really lies,” says Chua.

While proponents like Alipero view nuclear energy as a safeguard and a necessity for the future of Philippine energy, Chua rejects the revival of nuclear energy. “Nuclear energy is not the clean energy solution for the Philippines. It's really baffling that there is such a strong push towards nuclear energy when there's…indigenous and more accessible sources. We're at the time when renewable energy and even battery storage prices are going down and getting more competitive.”