Alyssa Marie V. Llanes ENGLCOM-WCN09BArgumentative Essay First Draft

In recent times, the power rates have increased due to the maintenance of some power plants which are being shut down by Meralco—the only company that generates electricity for the Philippines (Gonzales, 2013). Most of the power plants being used are burning fossil fuels and coal, but due to the carbon dioxide emissions, the Philippines would need a better source for energy. During the reign of Ferdinand Marcos, a nuclear power plant was built in Bataan. It was designed to generate 621 megawatts of electricity. This nuclear power plant was built to answer the 1973 Oil crisis. Marcos believed that if the Philippines were to have nuclear energy, then the demand for imported oil would decrease greatly. However, in 1986, Marcos was overthrown by the People Power Revolution in which the Aquino administration had begun. After hearing the nuclear power plant outburst in Chernobyl, Aquino decided not to open the nuclear power plant in Bataan (Valdez-Fabros, 1998). The Philippines has encountered numerous cases of brown outs due to the lack of electricity. There are many places in the Philippines that don’t get enough electricity because the more industrialized places eat up most of the electricity. Coal powered plants won’t be enough to power all the places in the Philippines, what’s more is that it produces too much carbon dioxide that it contributes to global warming. Hence, the nuclear power plant in Bataan should be re-opened because it generates more energy, exhausts clean air, and uses non-renewable resources.

Firstly, the nuclear power plant in Bataan should be re-opened because it generates more energy. Nuclear power plants generate around 11% of the world’s energy needs using only a small quantity of fuel minus the pollution that burning Fossil fuels produce (“Energy Resources: Nuclear Power”, 2013). In addition, as the number of power plants increase, the construction costs will decrease making the price of nuclear-generated electricity more affordable (Burgess, n.d.). Moreover, the Nuclear Energy Institute (2013) stated that for the past 18 years, the average cost of production remained at 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. Hence, the construction of the power plants not only opens up more job opportunities which could without a doubt give a rise to the employment rate in the Philippines, but also diminish the cost of electricity. Furthermore, with the technology today, nuclear power plants can have a “passive system” that enables the plant to shut down even without a human operator in case of malfunctions (Burgess, n.d.).

On the other hand, the nuclear power plants can generate more energy efficiently compared to other sources of energy. Nevertheless, it is high maintenance. According to Burgess, there are some critics who argue that the cost benefits aren’t all true. The electricity that the power plant produces may be cheaper, but the costs for building and maintenance are expensive. For that reason, nuclear power plants need more money for maintenance compared to fossil fuel and coal powered plants because nuclear power plants handle highly radioactive fuels

using uranium or thorium for fuels. Clearly, if a nuclear power plant will not have regular maintenance, a possible leakage could happen and affect the people living around it. For instance, re-opening the nuclear power plant in Bataan, if ever there would be a leakage, a lot of people could get affected, their homes, their livelihood—everything. Moreover, storing nuclear waste for a long period of time is costly and dangerous. Besides, where would they store the nuclear waste in the Philippines? Placing it under the ground won’t help because the waste could contaminate the water that flows under the ground. However, scientists can find a way to re-use the toxic waste. But still, what if for every time the people re-use it, the higher the radiation it brings?

Secondly, the nuclear power plant in Bataan should be re-opened because it exhausts clean air. In the Philippines, especially in Manila, there are a lot of air pollutants, jeepneys, for instance. Using a coal-based power plant is not helpful to the environment, but nuclear power plants are. In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency claimed that nuclear power plants do not contribute to the carbon dioxide emissions compared to burning of coal and fossil fuels. Furthermore, nuclear power plants generate electricity by nuclear fission which is the splitting of atoms in a series of nuclear reactions (Burgess, n.d.). The process of nuclear fission is cleaner than that of coal-based plants because it does not emit carbon dioxide. There have been some criticisms about nuclear power plants because people could use solar power and wind power instead—if a clean source for energy is what they are looking for. Although, compared to solar and wind power, using nuclear power can generate a lot of energy faster than solar and wind panels combined.

However, nuclear power plants exhausting clean air do not help with the problem about the carbon dioxide emissions because it has a different problem which is toxic waste. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, nuclear power plants do not contribute to the carbon dioxide emissions, but, the Environmental Protection Agency also said that the fossil fuels are being used in the mining of the uranium, the enrichment process of the uranium, and the transportation of the uranium to the nuclear power plant. Moreover, Brain and Lamb (2000) said that even though it generates a great load of electricity, it still generates 20 metric tons of radioactive waste annually and that’s just for one nuclear power plant, if you take account of all nuclear power plants then it would equal to 2000 metric tons of radioactive waste. 2000 metric tons of radioactive waste that is being dumped around, kept in tightly sealed containers, or buried under the ground annually. What happens if the people run out of places to store the radioactive waste? Additionally, the Philippines is not a big piece of land unlike America or Russia, storing the radioactive waste will not be easy.

Thirdly, the nuclear power plant in Bataan should be re-opened because it uses non-renewable resources. As stated before, nuclear power plants only use small amounts of uranium every time, thus, it could last longer compared to other non-renewable resources that produce high amounts of carbon dioxide. Although, with the technology of today, scientists could easily

find ways of re-using non-renewable resources such as the uranium that is used for nuclear power plants. Since renewable resources are still very much unreliable and not to mention expensive, nuclear power plants are the best substitute. Furthermore, Burgess mentions that radioactive waste has a shorter half-life—it takes only hundreds of years than thousands to decompose.

In contrast, non-renewable resources won’t be able to suffice after a few years. Depending on non-renewable resources won’t be efficient. Uranium is a scarce resource—it is expected to last for only the next 30 to 60 years (“Pros and cons of nuclear power”, n.d.”). After that, where would they base the nuclear energy? Furthermore, 37 years from now, renewable resources could power 100% of the world (“Arguments for and against nuclear power”, n.d.). In addition, Choi (2008) mentioned that in the near future, uranium mining may demand more energy, water and chemicals. Moreover, it could also release more greenhouse gases.

As a final point, the nuclear power plant in Bataan should be re-opened it generates more energy, it exhausts clean air, and it uses non-renewable resources. The Philippines is in need of electricity and this can be the answer, but it needs maintenance. Furthermore, the nuclear power plants do not contribute to global warming, but it leaves toxic waste. However, the scientists have found a way to re-use the toxic waste, which could lessen the worries of the people. Lastly, it uses non-renewable resources—renewable resources are not yet reliable and nuclear power plants could generate more power, but uranium, may not be around anymore after a few decades.

References

Arguments for and against nuclear power. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/infobox-arguments-for-and-against-nuclear/#.UptTuNIW1ui

Brain and Lamb. (2000). How nuclear power works. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm

Burgess. (n.d.). 10 pros and cons of nuclear power. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-pros-cons-nuclear-power.htm

Choi. (2008). Uranium supply decline clouds nuclear power’s future. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://www.livescience.com/2463-uranium-supply-decline-clouds-nuclear-power-future.html

Hore-Lacy. (2011). The opposition’s opening remarks. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/681

Nuclear energy. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://www.fi.edu/guide/wester/benefits.html

Nuclear energy. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_energy.html

Nuclear energy. (2013). Nuclear energy institute. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Nuclear-Power-Plants-Contribute-Significantly-to-S

Nuclear power. (2013, October 28). Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/nuclear.htm

Power plant safety features. (n.d.). Decay heat. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://emilms.fema.gov/IS3/FEMA_IS/is03/REM0404030.htm

Pros and cons of nuclear power. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability

The pros and cons of non renewable energy sources. (2011). Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://nonrenewableresources.webs.com/prosandcons.htm

Valdez-Fabros, C. (1998, October 16). The continuing struggle for a nuclear-free Philippines. WISE News Communique. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from http://www.wiseinternational.org/?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/499-500/4935.html