Debate Review – Is it time to revive nuclear power?
Judges: Miriam Schwartz, Neyra Azimov, Nicole Babushkin, Adiba Ishak, Haran Ratna.
The first debate overall ran very smoothly and was very informative. The sides were careful to not repeat themselves in their initial statements and kept their statements interesting. They also were overall very good about sticking to their topic and keeping the goal of their statement clear and proving their point from the perspective of the role they were playing. The only problem we could see is at the end, with the question/answer portion, it got very repetitive and started to just be a never-ending circle where either side refused to budge. Another problem is with some presenters, they failed to maintain eye contact and talk to the audience—therefore, even though the content of their presentation was fairly exciting, the audience had trouble focusing.
The debate began with President Bush (Ilya) opening and introducing his party and then with his statement. He believed that based on the facts and statistics of nuclear power usage and the number of recent accidents, it is not only completely safe to switch over to nuclear power, but necessary to save the environment. He brought the example of France where 78% of their power is nuclear and haven’t had any problems.
McCain (Bushra) went next. She followed up McCain’s platform by adding that their point isn’t to switch complete dependence on coal to complete dependence on nuclear energy, rather to introduce an alternate energy source to lighten the burden and lead eventually to energy independence. She brought another example of safe nuclear power usage—the NAVY, and added that once the plants are built, it would be extremely cheap to run them and it will emit minimal CO2.
Next went the environmentalist (Jonathan Chan). He expanded on how nuclear power is environmentally friendly in that it emits much less CO2 than fossil fuels and said that we cannot rely on wind or solar power because they simply can’t provide enough power to sustain us. In fact, using them in excess would harm habitats and cause more damage to the environment.
After him, the New Energy CEO (Jonathan Lin) presented. He looked at nuclear energy from an economic perspective. He said that the incredible undertaking that building such plants would be would create thousands of new jobs. He also said that many of the problems making it difficult to use nuclear power today stem from government regulations rather than actual problems. For example, reprocessing Uranium is not allowed currently in the United States.
The store owner (Colette) followed. She brought graphs and said that even though it may seem as if the price of oil has been going down, if you look at an expanded graph, it is still incredibly more than it was several years ago.
The Geologist (George) that spoke next also made some interesting points. He stated that Uranium would be more politically favorable to import because it is in all the countries we are allied with (as opposed to countries from where we import oil from). He addressed the uranium-radiation concern, saying that reprocessing Uranium limits radiation effects to only 100-300 years and can then be reused to make more energy.
The Physicist Dr. Shteyler addressed the safety concerns saying that we have to look at the probability that something bad will happen. He said that nuclear reactors are covered with thick concrete domes that protect them. If a terrorist attack were intended, a plane would have to hit at particular angle and spot, which is very improbable. The workers who work at the reactors are also protected from the radiation through the suits and special badges.
We then turned our attention to the No-side. Alexandra gave a very good and brief summary of what her side would be talking about and introduced the first speaker, Salim. The Environmentalist argued that nuclear power is not a green source of energy. Contrary to the Yes side’s argument that nuclear power emits close to no carbon dioxide, Salim brought up the fact that the process that goes into digging, refining and transporting Uranium does, in fact, emit CO2. Therefore, the gap between CO2 emissions for fossil fuels and for Uranium is not as wide as most are led to believe.
The Oil Company Owner, Ali, showed concern for the high prices of nuclear power. He mentioned that it takes $14 billion to build a reactor, and since the bottle necks needed come in limited quantities (4 produced each year), that will cause competition in the market, higher prices, and reliance on foreign imports. Importing Uranium would just trigger a switch from dependency on oil to a dependency on Uranium.
Charissa, the Stockholder, was also worried about future dependency on Uranium. There are different types of Uranium in the earth and more than 99.2% is Uranium-238, which can’t fission spontaneously. So to use it we would have to process it and that will emit more harmful gasses and cost more money.
Nickeitta, the Public Interest Researcher, argued that if nuclear power plants continue to be used the way they are today, by 2050 the carbon emission would be the same as that of fossil fuels. She also gave an example of a nuclear power plant that produced 1427 tons of CO2 per day negating the Yes-side’s argument that nuclear power produces no CO2.
Barack Obama (Chinemerem) stressed on the idea that the time to revive nuclear power is not now. He explained that because there are still accidents occurring and generations will be affected, the time should be spent on more research rather than to jump to nuclear power.
The Environmentalist (Kyulee) focused on the problems that nuclear power poses. The wastes need a safe place to be stored in a way that would prevent future accidents. Thus, the wastes issue makes nuclear power even more expensive, dangerous, and ineffective.
The chemist (Majid) first explained the way a reactor operates and mentioned a few ways it can go wrong. Another problem, he said, involves dealing with the wastes. Current solutions such as burying the waste underground or reprocessing it can cause their own problems. He finishes off by citing DDT as an example of an area scientists were mistaken with and, therefore, efforts should be made with nuclear power not to repeat a similar mistake.
The Doctor, Alexandra, focused on the health risks and conditions dealing with nuclear power plants. Her primary concern is to examine the health and well being of individuals who were and might in the future be exposed to accidents by the nuclear power plants. She spoke about accidents such as Chernobyl and other locations with similar problems such as Turkey. She also focused on different facts concerning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide, Uranium production and financial issues.
Next spoke the mother, Alessandro. He began by demonstrating an image of a baby affected by nuclear power. His top priority concerned the health of his children. He states, “Accidents are bound to happen.” He talked about incidents involving nuclear power plants. He presented research and statistics involving the nuclear power plants. He showed a series of pictures of children with serious physical health problems.
The farmer focused on other alternative energies the United States can use. Solar and Wind energy she believed was a safe approach, safer than nuclear plants. In her opinion the sun is the safest approach for plants, animals and humans. She addressed the accident in Pennsylvania to prove that the United States could make mistakes. She introduced problems with her finances and stated that she is not willing to pay taxes for something that causes radiation that harms her plants.
Overall, the judging panel was pleased with the performance of both sides, especially since this was the first debate. Many people were nervous, stuttered, and made less eye contact than they should have. But, again, this was only the fist debate, and with practice there will definitely be improvement in those areas.