This house believes that the Philippines should use This house believes that the Philippines should

hould NOT
nuclear energy use nuclear energy

 It is a reliable power generation source.  It is highly potential to cause catastrophic damage

Due to high electricity demand and inadequate supply, Dangers associated with nuclear power are, in many
it is common for Filipinos to experience brownouts or ways, different from the dangers we face from other
unscheduled outages on power plants. There is always methods of getting energy. Large-scale property damage
a power shortage looming over the country however, and evacuation costs from nuclear accidents are the key
according to Secretary Ernesto Pernia of Philippine liabilities of having a nuclear facility in an earthquake-
Socioeconomic Planning, from 2014 to 2018, the prone country like the Philippines. In a matter of hours,
Philippines' total energy consumption has been a nuclear disaster could generate global fear and horror.
growing at an average of 4.22% per year and as we This has been illustrated in Ukraine and Japan. The
experience economic growth the country's energy 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine led to the deaths of
requirement is seen to increase four-fold by 2040, by 30 employees in the initial explosion, and it resulted in a
an average of 5.7% per annum that is why we must variety of negative health effects on thousands across
find a way to meet the country’s power demand in Russia and Eastern Europe. While in 2011, a massive
order to sustain our economic growth, and the use of tsunami bypassed the safety mechanisms of several
nuclear power will be an effective way to meet such power plants, causing three nuclear meltdowns in
demand. One of the biggest benefits of nuclear energy Fukushima, Japan, which resulted in the release of
is that it is a reliable power generation source. When a radioactive materials into the surrounding area. In both
nuclear power plant is functioning properly, it can run disasters, hundreds of thousands were relocated,
uninterrupted for one to two years. According to millions of dollars have been spent, and the radiation-
World Nuclear News (WNN), UK's Heyshame II plant related deaths is evidently high. Cancer rates among
ran without needing refueling for a record-breaking populations living in proximity to Chernobyl and
940 days in 2016. This results in fewer brownouts or Fukushima, especially among children. The danger that
other power interruptions. The running of the plant is has been experienced by both countries is most likely to
also not contingent on weather, which is an advantage happen in the Philippines if the use of nuclear energy
considering the extreme weather events in the will be pursued.
Philippines. Nuclear energy will be a more stable form
of energy for the country. Unlike solar and wind
energy, which need the sun to be shining or the wind
to be blowing, nuclear power can be generated at any
time throughout the day. This means that a nuclear
power plant can produce energy nonstop. We won’t
have to experience any delays in energy production to
sustain the country's economic growth.

 Low Cost of Operation  Incurs high capital expenditure

Building nuclear power plants has a high initial cost, Constructing a nuclear power plant requires an
but the Philippines already have the Bataan Nuclear enormous capital outlay. Despite being relatively
Power Plant. The plant is already completed, it just inexpensive to operate, nuclear power plants are
never became operational, seeing this, the country incredibly expensive to build, and its cost keeps rising.
could just rejuvenate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant From 2002 to 2008, the estimated cost to build a nuclear
from its initial construction, then it will now have the plant grew from $2 billion to $9 billion, and power
advantage of being one of the most cost-effective plants often surpass their cost estimates during
energy solutions available in the country, and even construction. Even though the Philippines already have
though the expense of setting up nuclear power plants the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, its decades of unuse
is moderately high, the expense of running them is surely need refurbishment. The plant has fallen into
quite low. The cost of the uranium, which is utilized as disrepair, and some of the equipment installed has
a fuel in this process, is low, and it is needed very little become outdated. Over 80% of the plant is needed to be
to produce massive power. The cost to produce overhauled while the rest had to be replaced. Russia has
electricity from nuclear energy is much lower than the been urging the Philippine government to restart the
cost to produce energy from gas, coal, or oil. In facility. Experts from the Rosatom State Atomic Energy
Nuclear energy, less uranium is needed to produce the Corporation made a discreet visit to Bataan in 2017 to
same amount of energy as coal or oil. According to the inspect the nuclear facility. The Russian experts
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), "One uranium fuel reported that the Bataan plant can become operational
pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal, 149 but would require repairs costing between US$3 billion
gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas." to US$4 billion. With that, pursuing Nuclear energy in
Also, nuclear power has a comparatively low risk for the Philippines will actually cost us so much, from
cost inflation. Its price is likely to remain low or get planning to rehabilitation. Taxpayers' money would be
even lower as technologies advance. Because of that, put to better use harnessing cheaper, safer, and more
the price of nuclear energy can be predicted well into sustainable renewable sources, such as solar and wind,
the future. This will help the country achieve lower which can also be more quickly deployed, compared to
electricity prices, it can lower the costs of electricity to nuclear plants, which can take decades to build.
up to P2 per kWh, compared with the rates of coal-
fired power plants, which can go for as much as P6
kWh.

 Zero carbon emissions  Produce radioactive waste

Nuclear energy doesn’t burn anything in the chemical Generating nuclear power does not emit harmful
sense. There is no fire, no smoke, no ash as we know greenhouse gases in the air. However, it does create
it. There is only heat produced by the invisible fission hazardous waste. The waste created by nuclear power
reaction. Nuclear power reactors do not produce any plants remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of
carbon emissions. This is a huge advantage over years after it is created. Many issues arise when trying
traditional energy sources, like fossil fuels, which to figure out how to store this radioactive waste. Waste
releases tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. continues to accumulate at nuclear power plants, as
Excess carbon dioxide is one of the leading causes of there is no long-term storage facility for it. The
climate change. So, the less carbon and greenhouse gas accumulation of hazardous nuclear waste will become
emissions in energy sources, the better. In fact, an issue once power plants run out of storage space.
according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), The Plus, if there is a compromise in the storage facility,
current consumption of nuclear energy production such as a leak, the radioactive material could cause
already prevents 528 million metric tons of carbon significant damage to surrounding areas. Different
dioxide from being released into the atmosphere countries have already started looking for a place stable
annually. By embracing nuclear energy, the enough for nuclear waste disposal since 1982, however,
Philippines could lower its CO2 emissions. This no such site has been found.
reduction in greenhouse gases is a great indicator of
how switching to nuclear energy can help reduce
climate change in the long run.
References:

ASEAN. (2019, December 25). Philippines considering nuclear energy. The ASEAN Post.
https://theaseanpost.com/article/philippines-considering-nuclear-energy

Delina, L. (2016, September 12). Nuclear Philippines is a future full of costly risks. Inquirer.
https://opinion.inquirer.net/97258/nuclear-philippines-future-full-costly-risks

Gravitz, A. & Todd, L. (2006). 10 reasons to oppose nuclear energy. Green America.
https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-
oppose-nuclear-energy

Greenpeace Philippines. (2020, May 24). Nuclear energy will be a great burden on Filipinos.
https://www.greenpeace.org/philippines/press/9669/nuclear-energy-a-great-burden-on-
filipinos/#:~:text=Quezon%20City%2C%20Philippines%E2%80%94Greenpeace%20today,and
%20disaster%20risks%2C%20including%20unsolved

Lane, C. (2020, December 6). Nuclear energy pros and cons. Solar Reviews.
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons

Spring Power & Gas. (2018, December 5). The pros & cons OF nuclear energy: is it safe?.
https://springpowerandgas.us/the-pros-cons-of-nuclear-energy-is-it-safe/

Yinglun, S. (2019, August 30). Philippines' energy requirement to increase four-fold by 2040.
Xinhuanet. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-08/30/c_138351194.htm