Peter Berexa

Argumentative Speech in Favor of Nuclear Power

Mark Twain once said, “And what is a man without energy? Nothing - nothing at
all.” The world's supply of energy is at risk. Oil fields are being depleted around the
globe. For example, the world’s second largest oil field, Kuwait's Al Burqan Field, will be
depleted within 40 years. However, there are viable solutions to this problem.
Now, how many of you are afraid of nuclear power? Alright, now what if I told
you that you pick up more combined radiation from brick walls and bathrooms than the
total yearly output of a nuclear power plant? Or if I told you that in this day and age,
nuclear meltdowns are really just media hype? Far more lives have been lost due to the
effects of coal power and mining coal than would be at risk from building a nuclear
power plant. Additionally, supporting a new form of energy would create jobs and boost
the struggling economy. The experts agree- Dr. Ray Perryman of The Perryman group
notes that there are many economic boosts that come from building a nuclear plant,
saying that more than 700 permanent jobs are created per plant, with 6,500 ancillary jobs
for industries like transportation. These jobs would have a 90 percent higher salary than
the area averages.
Building nuclear plants has a very positive effect on surrounding land. Just imagine what
building a nuclear plant in a rural area would do for its people. Property values would
increase and many Americans once forced into low paying jobs by a simple lack of
opportunity could have not only higher paying jobs, but clean and reliable energy.
This energy would also be safe. Modern nuclear plants are built in layers of nearly
impenetrable materials that shield people from the potential hazards of nuclear power.
The first layer of safety is the uranium oxide itself, which has a ceramic coating to keep it
from reacting with anything it shouldn’t. These pellets are safe enough to hold in your
bare hands. The second is the airtight zirconium shield that surrounds the fuel rod.
Zirconium is noted for being stronger than steel, and completely non-toxic to plants and
animals. The third layer is the reactor pressure chamber which forces pressure inward
towards the fuel rod and is made of 30cm thick steel. The fourth is the pressure resistant
airtight structure that the reactor is built in. And finally, the fifth safeguard is the reactor
building that houses the reactor and any hazardous components. These are built of the
same reinforced concrete and steel that the department of defense uses to negate the
effects of nuclear attacks. This was not used at the Chernobyl meltdown in the USSR,
which greatly increased the number of casualties.
I know that at least one person in the audience is concerned about storage of
nuclear waste. Storage of what little nuclear waste cannot be recycled is also extremely
safe and redundant. First, the waste is “glassified” to reduce its activity. Then it’s put into
a sealed reinforced steel canister. These canisters have been quote “completely safe since
the mid-1960’s” and will only become stronger as technology advances. The canisters are
burned at 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit for half an hour, dropped onto a six inch diameter
steel rod, and crashed into by trucks and trains traveling 80 miles and 120 miles per hour,
respectively. They are then stored above ground in secured locations in the desert. Risks
from nuclear waste are almost non-existent, and America is at much more risk from
relying on oil for defense than from storing nuclear waste.
Nuclear energy is also extremely efficient. It is currently our only viable alternative to
coal, and one of our best weapons in the fight against carbon emissions. To start, one
pound of Uranium 235, the fuel for nuclear power, can produce the energy of 50,000
pounds of coal. To really make it clear- coal produces over 66 million pounds of waste
each year, while nuclear power produces about 65,000 pounds, 90% of which can be
recycled and used to generate more power. This means that coal produces 26,000 times
more waste, and by waste I mean 66 million pounds of useless and toxic ash. This just
goes to show how incredibly inefficient coal is. A major switch to nuclear power would
reduce carbon ozone destroying carbon emissions by 600 pounds per second. Now, many
people say that coal is a good source of energy for America because it is plentiful here.
This may be true, but coal mines are dangerous, and, as a fossil fuel, coal will run out.
Uranium is plentiful in the United States, and is more easily mined as it is close to the
surface.
So I urge you to speak out. All nuclear power needs now is a voice. You can be that
voice. When it comes to an energy crisis, I think Gene Kranz said it best- “Failure is not
an option.”