Nuclear Energies

My opponents main case on nuclear power is it is efficient, there is no doubting that. But this can be refuted if I show that the negatives outweigh the positive[s].

My opponent then says helium 3 can be used in nuclear power plants, so we have a lot of supply, yet he forgets the large costs it takes to get to the moon, as well as the costs of nuclear power (discussed later) in general. It costs 100 million dollars to get to the moon. (just for tourism) [1] As that was a source for tourism, we can assume the cost is higher for the nuclear power industry as they would have to base there with equipment and such, so going to the moon would raise prices and make nuclear power a poor option due to cost issues. Like, expensive energy? No thanks. So your argument fails, we must look into how much supply we have HERE ON EARTH. At current rates, we have 200 years before we hit no uranium. [2] Not only is that limited, but we can expect that increased production would lower the time, so lets assume 100-150 years. That is a limited supply, hence your argunemnt fails.

Now, my case (one point my opponent conceded) relies on a few things:

(1) Nuclear power is not clean
(2) Nuclear Power is not safe
(3) High costs of nuclear power
(4) Nuclear power = more chances of nuclear weapon problems.

I will argue these in order.

(1) Nuclear power is not clean

A common misconception is that "nuclear power is clean". The NEI and the world nuclear association use this all the time. The nuclear power plants are not non-green in itself, the generation emits no emissions, but the mining and building of the supplies/reactor are huge amounts of carbon.

The actual mining process is energy extensive. This is the mining process:

http://www.world-nuclear.org...; alt="" width="400" height="268" data-ektron-url="http://www.world-nuclear.org...; />

http://www.world-nuclear.org...

The whole process is energy intensive, and therefore lets out a large amount of emisions, therefore not "green". [3]

"In a case study in Germany, the Oko-Institute determined that 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kilowatt (kWh). Other international research studies show much higher figures (up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh). In comparison to renewable energy, energy generated from nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced, taking into account the entire nuclear fuel cycle." [4]

(2) Nuclear power is unsafe

The problem with nuclear power as opposed to other sources of energy is the possible problems that go wrong with nuclear power. No other source (except coal) has this type of radiation, ad radiation that does not get stored well. So with radiation, it already has more potential problems then the average power.

Also, there have been many accidents with nucelar power, one killed many. And in the future, chances of a nuclear power accident are high. [5]

Now my opponent may try to claim it is fairly safe, but this would ignore the main fact: When a nuclear power plant goes boom, it is worse then if a solar panel collapses. So the potential risks out weigh many beenfits.

(3) Costs

The energy itself is not expensive, around the same price as coal, but the large invesements needed are huge. And the problem is like above, unsafe.
“This is yet another example of how a multi-billion dollar investment can turn into a multi-billion dollar liability within minutes. The only way that new reactors will be built in the United States is if the economic risk is put upon the taxpayer through federal loan guarantees and/or upon ratepayers through advanced cost recovery,”[6]


(4) Nukes

My opponent conceded this:
". The benefits of nuclear fission can be applied to several technologies, like weapons, transportation, ect."

So, as my opponent conceded this I will be short and sweet.
"The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs. " [7]

CONCLUSION:

VOTE CON



[1] http://money.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[3] http://www.citizen.org...
[4] http://www.nuclearfiles.org...
[5] http://archive.greenpeace.org...
[6] http://www.foe.org...
[7] http://www.neis.org...

My opponent had only mentioned Nuclear Fusion once, so I will clarify this further.

Nuclear Fusion is Clean

1. My opponent argues that "Nuclear power is not clean," however he is incorrect in saying that Nuclear Fusion is not clean. This reaction only releases large amounts of heat, by radiation, in the first paragraph I should have said that the process radiates heat. Also my opponent said that Nuclear Power is unsafe. However, Nuclear Fusion is far safer, and would not have the same affects as a nuclear fission reaction. According to http://en.wikipedia.org..., it only releases energy, not radiation. Also my opponent mentioned Nuclear Power releases waste, however the Nuclear Fusion of process helium 3 and 2 only releases helium 4 and a neutron. Compared to Nuclear Fission, which my opponent really strained, the waste is easy to deal with and it is NOT radioactive.

Nuclear Fusion Works

2. According to wikipedia, a successful Nuclear Fusion process has been completed. This means there is a large potential use for this technology and it should not be turned down. Look further and Nuclear Fusion has the potential to power the world, for 150 billion years. Why would you ignore a technology that requires one reaction and continues to power a city for a long period of time? Well I wouldn't.

Nuclear Fusion is Sustainable

3.In order to start a Nuclear Fusion process, you have to simply combine TWO ATOMS, yes that's right, if you combine two atoms you gain a consistent energy flow over a long period of time. Another useful function to Nuclear Fusion could be cars, the cars would have an almost unlimited amount of fuel, and would have enough to power a car for a life time. Considering that Nuclear Fusion is so sustainable, it would be more than worth it to collect helium 3 from the moon.

Helium 3

4. Helium 3 is extremely expensive, returning with only 2 tons of helium 3 would cover the costs and still provide profit. According to
http://www.explainingthefuture.com... helium three is worth $3bn per tonne. According to wikipedia it costs 10 million dollars per ton of extra weight. Looking at more recent articles than my opponent, it actually costs 3 billion dollars to go to the moon. Not that this supports my argument, however two tons of helium 3 would cover all the costs. Also, on the moon there is an estimated 1,100,000, tons of helium 3 in just a depth of a few meters. Considering that there is a great supply on the moon, and that is replenished by the sun. Helium 3 would be a very valuable resource.

Conclusion:

Why turn down a sustainable energy that powers a city for a 150 billion years?

Vote Pro

http://www.explainingthefuture.com...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cleanliness of Nuclear Power

My opponents main point is on green house gasses (good point, I will argue that later) but I also if I recall argued its radioactive pollution. The radioactive waste IS NOT STORED in permanent storage bins, "At this time there are no facilities for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste/"[1] So this material, very bad and can last for hundreds of years[2], is not stored in a proper way. Further, radiation leaks trough the air (although usually minor and dont get air time) occur bust still cause environmental harm. [2] Also, the liquid or solid waste leaks too, other problems. [2] This point is nearly irrefutable.

Emissions:

"However, fossil fuel emissions are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant."[3]

My opponent still fails to dodge/argue this point, the uranium mining releases significant amount of pollutants.

Now, it is a fact the actual generation of nuclear power has no emissions, but the mining of uranium and turning uranium in to fuel is the part that creates the "hidden emission". [4] "Some studies have been done, and it turns out that the act of mining the uranium (digging up the ground, extracting the ore, etc) results in between 10 and 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide being produced for every tonne of uranium oxide extracted. Apparently, your everyday 1000MW nuclear power plant needs 200 tonnes of this uranium oxide a year, so that’s 2,000 to 10,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted, just to get the fuel out of the ground!"[4]

I will not give my position on global warming in this debate.

Nuclear power works

Yes, it does (depending on how you define "works"), but something working does not mean it is beneficial. I have proven this with my other arguments, further I have linked them to nuclear weapons. [5] Poor safety, [6] etc. Just because we can do things does not mean we should allow it.

Helium 3

My opponent thinks it is cost effective, essentially saying the fact here's an article. ok, How will helium3 help us? explain its cost effectiveness. "He-3 power may be too expensive given the high research and development (R&D) and construction costs."[7]

>Research costs
>Getting to the moon cost
>Gathering/making the equipment cost
>Re booting nasa to work cost[s]
>Development cost
>Converting the actual power plant[s] cost[s]

Poor argument when you get down to it.

CONCLUSION:

Drops many arguments, (4), (3), (2), but argued one, hence vote con. Refuted arguments, hence vote con. y devils advocating is successful, so vote con.


________________
[1] http://www.nrc.gov...
[2] http://www.fi.edu...
[3] http://www.epa.gov...
[4] http://www.low-impact.net...
[5] http://www.neis.org...
[6] http://archive.greenpeace.org...
[7] http://www.ehow.com...