3RD Negative Speaker Constructive Speech

3RD NEGATIVE SPEAKER CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Fellow speakers and respective judges. We the negative side
believe that the construction and use of nuclear energy is impractical. Therefore, we strongly disagree to
what the affirmative side is trying to propose. As your 3rd negative speaker for this debate, I would
provide 3 points to further elaborate our opposition to their stand.
First, the construction of nuclear energy is already burdensome in so many ways let alone its
usage. It is easy to think that the use of nuclear energy will resolve our economic problems when
clearly it is not as feasible as it may seem. Furthermore, the Philippines lack National Position.
House Bill (HB) 8733, Republic Act No. 5207, Presidential Decree No. 1484 are the nuclear-related
legal steps but these are only for regulation purposes. The major political barrier in the Philippines is
its lack of national position on nuclear power generation. DoE Undersecretary Felix William
Fuentebella communicated that before making any decisions to pursue nuclear power
endeavours, the Philippines must have a firm national position on nuclear energy. Having an
unclear national position on nuclear power has a long history related to unsettled political
tensions between national authorities who support or oppose nuclear energy. The discussions
concerning nuclear energy in the Philippines have historically been, and continue to be,
influenced by various economic and political powers. Such a structural and bureaucratic lack of
direction leaves the Philippines in a stand-off position when it comes to nuclear energy. This lack
of national position can be attributed to diverging opinions from various groups, which have
increasingly participated in political and public forums about environmental risks, including
nuclear risks. What has drawn together the community of concerned citizens was to push the
current administration not to pursue nuclear power generation. The anti-nuclear movement in the
Philippines is an example of the public’s resistance that raised concerns about the long-term
disposal of highly toxic waste, safety and health issues, reliance on imported uranium, the high
cost of decommissioning, and other adverse effects of nuclear energy. When President Aquino
convened the Constitutional Convention, the coalition lobbied for a freedom-from-nuclear-
weapons provision in the new Constitution overwhelmingly ratified by the Filipino people. One
central content of the coalition's work at that time was the declaration of many provinces, cities,
towns, and schools as nuclear-free zones.
Second, According to the US Energy Information Administration, A major environmental

concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill
tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain
radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. The effects of radiation on a
population living near the influence of a nuclear facility can be shown to be hazardous to the
health of those people. Furthermore, The more nuclear waste accumulates, the greater the risk of
radioactive leaks, which can damage the water supply, crops, animals, and humans. Spent
nuclear fuel is dangerously radioactive and has the potential to release a poisonous chemical
element called plutonium into the environment. These goes against the Nuclear Wastes Control
Act of 1990 or Republic Act 6969 which explicitly prohibits the entry even in transit of nuclear
wastes and their storage or disposal into the Philippine territorial limits for whatever purposes.
Nuclear power plants also consume a vast amount of water for steam production and for cooling
during operation. The water used is then released containing heavy metals and salts which can
affect the quality of water and harm aquatic life. The waste from uranium mining operations can
also contaminate groundwater. This goes against the REPUBLIC ACT 9275 PHILIPPINE
CLEAN WATER ACT OF 2004. Meanwhile, An uncontrolled nuclear reaction in a nuclear
reactor could result in widespread contamination of air. Therefore, violating REPUBLIC ACT
8749 PHILIPPINE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1999. Workers in the nuclear industry are also
exposed to higher-than-normal levels of radiation, and as a result, are at a higher risk of death
from cancer. This will go against Republic Act No. 11058 or an “An Act Strengthening
Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Standards and Providing Penalties for
Violations Thereof.” that protects and promotes the safety of workers.
Third, the cost of nuclear energy’s construction is too expensive. The Philippines’ debt is
already 13.52 trillion pesos (roughly 229.88 billion U.S. dollars) at the end of September, 3.8
percent higher than the debt incurred in end-August, the Philippine Bureau of Treasury said on
Thursday. The government should focus more on the recovery of the people from COVID-19‘s
impact rather than building an infrastructure that could cost us another debt. I would also like to
debunk the rumour that nuclear energy is seen to lower electricity costs in the Philippines. We
would still have to import uranium or plutonium as nuclear fuel. The Uranium needed to fuel a
nuclear facility in the Philippines would have to be imported as deposits of it do not exist in the
Philippines. Not only would it reduce the Philippines’ energy independence, it would also render
the price we pay for our electricity needs dependent on changes in the price of Uranium in the
global market. With the recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia that affected the oil industry,
transportation of these substances are also another cost which would have to be shouldered.
Handling and storing nuclear waste and decommissioning power plants will also entail costs.
Looking at other countries, the US has allocated US$44.3 billion to build a permanent nuclear
waste disposal facility, the funds for such were sourced from the consumers. Meanwhile, in
Japan, 11 nuclear power companies have to spend US$123 billion to implement government-
mandated safety measures, maintain facilities, and decommission power plants. These do not
consider costs from accidents or damages from disasters, extreme weather, or terror attacks just
yet.In addition, the enormous toll of dealing with the disasters and safety issues that comes with
nuclear-generating energies. Greenpeace claims that utilizing cheaper, safer, and more
sustainable renewable sources, like the solar and wind energy that is abundant in the Philippines,
would be a better use of DOE's work and taxpayer funds. In comparison to nuclear facilities,
which can take decades to build, these can also be deployed more quickly. The energy
department of the Philippine government itself, through its National Renewable Energy Plan and
Roadmap, have outlined that the total potential overall output from renewable energy is more
around 250GW, excluding solar power. The said potential is already more than 10 times the
current total power mix of the whole country, with wind power alone, could produce around
76GW. And in recent times, we have seen a significant drop of renewable energy prices in the
country, with the lowest grid price tendered at around P2.99/kwh for solar and P3.50/kwh for
wind. Notwithstanding the price of rooftop PV which is already around P3.00/Kwh compared to
P11.00/kwh in Metro Manila. These developments can only further advance as more renewable
energy mechanisms are being implemented by the national government.
In conclusion, the construction and usage of nuclear energy are impractical as a source of our
electricity. From the lacking of national position, environmental wastes it can emit, and financial
expenses, it is clear that nuclear energy is not suited to be utilized by the Philippines.

3RD Negative Speaker Constructive Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3RD Negative Speaker Constructive Speech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3RD Negative Speaker Constructive Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3RD NEGATIVE SPEAKER CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH

Second, According to the US Energy Information Administration, A major environmental

You might also like