Skeehan 1

Robert Skeehan
Dr. Daniel Morris
ENGL 1120-5
13 June 2014
The Fight for Nuclear Power: Persuasive Arguments Made by Gwyneth Cravens and John Ritch
Today, one by one and in ever increasing numbers, governments around the world are
embracing nuclear power ... In so doing, they are responding to an imperative that is gaining ever
greater cogency on every continent (Ritch). The human race is in dire need of a viable source of
green energy as global warming runs rampant, acid rain is destroying forests, and the cost per
barrel of crude oil is increasing exponentially. In lieu of perfectly green energies such as solar
power and wind farms, which cannot make a significant impact on the energy demands of today,
Gwyneth Cravens and John Ritch each argue that if the human race is to maintain the biosphere
we currently live in, nuclear energy must be quickly employed and heavily utilized. The purpose
of this paper is to analyze and compare the arguments Ritch and Cravens present by sorting their
arguments in the three categories of ethos, pathos, and logos in order to prove that Ritch has the
strongest argument for nuclear energy.
Ritch has a strong ethos to begin with because he was the former director of the World
Nuclear Association. He argues that nuclear energy is the way of the future by first by citing all
of the major benefits of nuclear energy, next by allaying the fears of nuclear energy myths, and
finally by creating a plan of action to employ nuclear energy on an international scale.
Cravens takes a similar approach to the fight for nuclear energy. While she doesnt have
the ethos of Ritch, she begins her argument for nuclear energy by citing numerous precise
statistics supporting nuclear energy and its benefits, followed by quoting well known green
Skeehan 2
energy advocates who approve of nuclear energy, and finishes her argument by explaining how
the inner workings of a Gen-III nuclear prevents nuclear meltdown, even in the absence of
coolant.
First, the ethos of each author is established in different ways. Ritch has a powerful ethos
to begin with as he was the former director of the World Nuclear Association. He does not
however cite any major greenhouse advocates as Cravens does. This lack of green ethos may
cause his arguments to fall on deaf ears, even if his logos is completely sound. Cravens, however
begins her article by citing Lovelock, a well renowned green advocate and author of The
Revenge of Gaia. By citing Lovelock, Cravens captures an audience beyond those who are pro-
nuclear power because Lovelocks ethos appeals to an audience who wants immediate green
energy reform. Beyond the citation of green advocates, Ritch gains ethos by citing the nuclear
power strategies of world superpowers, many of whom garner a significant portion of their
energy from nuclear energy. In some two dozen countries representing the preponderance of
world economic activity and world population - from North America across much of Europe to
Russia and on to the major countries of South and East Asia, led by China and India - the value
of nuclear power has been reviewed and reaffirmed (Ritch) While the current use of nuclear
reactors is questionable to some readers, the citation of world superpowers could
overwhelmingly gain a positive response from the readers as those world superpowers have
probably invested capital into the research of nuclear energy and deemed it safe enough to
employ at large. Cravens further grows her ethos by citing Jesse Ausubel, who made a statement
indicative of the fact that if renewable resources such as wind, water, and biomass were to
contribute a meaningfully to the energy demand of today, it would cause serious harm to the
environment. By citing such a statement, Cravens appeals to both nuclear energy advocates and
Skeehan 3
green energy advocates through the use of logos and ethos, each of which can strongly appeal to
the audience on their own. Thus, while they each established their ethos differently, Ritch and
Cravens establish their ethos sufficiently as to not be taken lightly in their claims.
Ritch has a much stronger logos in his argument, as his experience in the World Nuclear
Association allowed him access to the established technologies, strategies, and plans for nuclear
energy proliferation. In his argument for nuclear energy, Ritch clearly lays out the step-by-step
plan he believes is necessary to establish the nuclear energy growth needed to divert a global
disaster (Ritch). While these steps may or not be taken in the future, the mere fact that he has a
plan of action lends him more charisma and ethos. Beyond that, Ritch goes on to address the
legitimate public concern (Ritch) of nuclear waste. While spent uranium fuel rods do have a
half-life of 150,000 years, the disposal procedures put in place by the industry allows for safe
transport and storage of radioactive material. A strong scientific consensus favors deep
geological repositories as a safe and affordable means of achieving long-term storage of nuclear
waste and used nuclear fuel (Ritch). While he could have been more detailed about the
scientific consensus, Ritch relates the fact that safe transport and storage of nuclear waste is
feasible through to use of todays technology. As for the readers who believe waste of any sort is
unacceptable in the process of power generation, Ritch points out the fact that if the entire world
were to switch to nuclear generation tomorrow, we would - in a full year - create and safely
dispose of a quantity of high-level nuclear waste that is less than the amount of carbon waste that
today's power plants spew into Earth's atmosphere every five minutes (Ritch). Such a staggering
offset is hard to overcome in the short term as a green-energy advocate, and thus Ritch employs
logos masterfully in his article. Cravens however manages a strong and logical argument by
citing impactful statistics. To begin, she cites the fact that the United States [alone] has over 500
Skeehan 4
coal-fired plants, and the particulates released from those plants kill 24,000 Americans each year
as the particulates cause lung and heart problems (Cravens). When these statistics are coupled
with the fact that nuclear energy does not produce even a 1000
th
of the carbon emissions per watt
of power produced that coal burning does, her argument for nuclear energy is greatly enhanced.
Finally, pathos was only employed in an indirect fashion by Ritch while he was utilizing
logos. He cited the fact that 80% of the world whether in poverty or in developing countries
lives off a mere 20% of the worlds energy production. Ritch states that with the development of
nuclear reactors, excess energy could be directed at desalinization plants in order to make ocean
water drinkable. This cause is paramount in the humanitarian efforts of today because there is an
ever growing number of humans without potable drinking water in Africa and other third-world
countries. Cravens likewise utilizes pathos and logos simultaneously in her reference to coal-
fired plants. Thus, while neither writer utilized pathos extensively, Ritch more effectively
utilized pathos by referencing thy energy-intensive humanitarian effort that excess energy could
be directed toward today.
While Cravens and Ritch each are arguing for the use of nuclear energy, Ritch has by far
the more compelling of the two arguments in the three categories of ethos, pathos, and logos.
Ritchs strong personal ethos as a previous General Director of the World Nuclear Association,
while biases, lends him a strong pedestal for any argument for (or against) nuclear energy he
makes. His knowledge of statistics and the workings of the nuclear energy industry lent him the
tools necessary to build a compelling and logical argument that employed both logos and pathos.
Cravens, who is a journalist, holds no specialization in nuclear energy and has to rely on outside
sources for her argument. She chooses to build her logical structure on the fact that, as Ritch
said, spent nuclear fuel could be stored safely, but made no mention of the comparison to waste
Skeehan 5
currently generated by coal-burning plants to strengthen her argument as Ritch did. Finally in the
process of providing logos, Ritch also provided pathos in his citation about how 80% of the
world is living off of 20% of the energy produced, and if nuclear energy were utilized in a
widespread fashion, the energy for those in need would be more readily available. Cravens did
not directly appeal to pathos in any way within her article. In conclusion, Ritch had the stronger
argument for the usage of nuclear energy.

Skeehan 6
Works Cited
Cravens, Gwyneth. Better Energy Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. Ed. John D.
Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 8
th
ed. New York: Pearson Publishing, 2008.
582-584. Print.
Ritch, John. "The Necessity of Nuclear Power: A Global and Environmental Imperative." The
Necessity of Nuclear Power. World Nuclear Association, 2008. Web. 11 June 2014.
<http://www.world-nuclear.org/Archive/The-Necessity-of-Nuclear-Power/>.