31
Yes: (Leader: Ilya; Associate: Vadim)
- Store owner (Colette Salame)
- New Energy CEO (Jonathan Lin)
- Environmentalist (Jonathan Chan)
- John McCain (Bushra Wazed)
- George W Bush (Ilya Ryvin)
- Physicist (Vadim Shteyler)
- Geologist (George Papadopoulos)
No: (Leader: Alexandra; Associate: Majid)
- Chemical Scientist (Majid Sahin)
- Doctor (Alexandra Chudner)
- Environmentalist (Kyulee Seo)
- Farmer (Miriam Harari)
- Concerned Mother (Alessandro Alempijevic)
- Oil Company Owner (Ali Sahin)
- Stock Holder (Ling Charissa Cheung)
- Public Interest Researcher (Nickeitta Leung)
- Barack Obama (Chinemerem Eze)
- Environmentalist (Salim Hasbini)
Judge Panel:
-
Neyra Azimov
-
Nicole Babushkin
-
Adiba Ishah
-
Miriam Schwartz
-
Haran Ratne
Yes: New Energy CEO
As the CEO of an alternative energy company, I believe that any shift from dependency on oil is positive. I strong support the building of nuclear plants to increase the use of a more efficient form of energy. Lessening the use of oil, especially foreign oil will not only help the environment, but also help the economy. The U.S. spends billions of dollars each year importing oil from foreign nations, especially nations in the Middle East. Unlike oil, nuclear energy is a sustainable energy, meaning that it meets the needs of the current generation, without compromising future needs. The supply of energy from oil depends on a diminishing source of oil. However, the supply of nuclear energy depends on the amount of uranium and thorium, which is very common in the Earth’s crust, providing a source of energy for approximately ten-thousand years.
Nuclear power Nuclear power is a more eco-friendly energy source, as it emits less greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) than fossil fuels, ultimately aiding in the fight against global warming. Nuclear power is also much more reliable than conventional electrical energy. Electrical energy has a much greater chance of failing, resulting in blackouts. However, the estimated rate that nuclear energy will fail for any given reactor is 0.6 times/year. Although the price of nuclear energy has risen, so have most other sources of energy, including fossil fuels and oil. As the CEO of an alternative energy company, it is my duty to find the most efficient and environmentally-friendly energy possible. Building nuclear power plants is one of the few solutions to the problem of the energy crisis.
Building nuclear power plants also opens up more job opportunities. If these facilities flourish, it will allow companies like mine to increase revenue and expand, building more plants and providing more jobs. With greater production and emphasis on alternative energy, the public will be persuaded to support alternative energy, informing people about the importance and significance of using other sources of energy aside from oil and fossil fuels. These power plants would be especially beneficial in small towns where energy such as electricity would be hard to afford. Because the cost of nuclear energy is so low, the cost domestically is much more affordable.
One of the main controversies surrounding nuclear power and building of nuclear power plants are safety. Many environmentalist groups exaggerate about the dangerous conditions and safety. A lot of these plants have numerous and redundant safety precautions and backup systems as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Another common misconception is that Hazardous toxic waste is dangerous and thus, nuclear plants are also dangerous. However, this is only true if the materials are not properly disposed of.
Another main concern is that the plants will become targets for attack. The plants have defenses against attacks as well. The structures are very robust and are equipped with missile shield and have containment buildings in case of radioactive leaks. As an avid supporter of alternative energy, I can say with confidence that nuclear energy is a good source of energy that is both cost-efficient and safe.
1 ^ Renewable Energy and Efficiency Partnership (August 2004).
2 ^ Makhijani, Arjun and Saleska, Scott (1996). “The Nuclear Power Deception”. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
No: Doctor
My primary concern as a doctor is the health and well being of people. At first glance, it may seem that an alternative energy source such as nuclear power will end the wars over oil, thereby eliminating the deaths of many people. However, if the fight for oil would be over, people will find new things to fight about, including, perhaps, if a certain country claims that another has nuclear weapons of mass destruction… In addition, while uranium may provide an alternative to oil, it also does not have an infinite supply. Once the uranium reserves start diminishing, wars will erupt over it.
It is also said that electricity produced by nuclear power plants does not contribute to global warming or pollution. This is not completely true. Fossil fuels are used to excavate and enhance uranium, build the nuclear reactor, and move and store the radioactive wastes. In addition, while high quality uranium is used, the power plant will emit a third of the carbon dioxide that is produced by a gas powered electricity generator. However, as that uranium becomes depleted, a nuclear plant will emit just as much carbon dioxide as gas powered one. In addition nearly 30 tons of highly carcinogenic waste is stored in cooling ponds near the reactors. An attack on these pools could release devastating amounts of radiation to the surrounding communities.
Concerning the costs: electricity created by nuclear power is supposed to be cheaper than that created using gas. Although it may seem that way when paying the bills, the amount of tax dollars that that government will have to spend to restore and maintain nuclear power is not trivial. The 2005 U.S. energy bill allotted thirteen billion dollars because the industry is not feasible without support from the government. Also, if there is an accident or a terrorist attack, nuclear power will be halted and all the money invested (literally by tax payers) will be thrown away.
The biggest problem with nuclear power, however, is that it poses a threat to people’s health. The disaster at Chernobyl and the incidents at other plants around the world have refuted the image of safety, and developing nuclear technology in the Third World poses further risks. However, even without accidents and attacks, despite the many precautions that nuclear plant companies are said to take, some radioactive materials are still emitted into the air and water. These include xenon, krypton and argon, which are fat-soluble gases. They are quickly absorbed into the blood stream after entering through the lungs and stored in the fat of the abdomen and upper thighs. From there they release high amounts of gamma radiation, which affect the nearby reproductive organs. This causes infertility or potential defects in these people’s children. Furthermore, the people themselves may develop cancer.
As a physician, I assert that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced.
Caldicott, Helen. “Nuclear Power and Uranium Mining.” Adelaide Advertiser. June 29 2007
Poole, Steven. “Nuclear threats and promises.” The Guardian. October 14 2006
Chemical Scientist Says No
An intelligent chemist once told me that the physicists involved in the Manhattan Project found great pride and enjoyment when their project succeeded. The chemist said, their joy was so immense that it was hard to tell if they were excited about the scientific knowledge or their ability to enhance a weapon that can kill or injure millions of people. Besides the fact nuclear reactions are used in weapons they are also an essential part of nuclear energy which is becoming quite popular as an alternative to fossil fuels. In this statement as a Chemical Scientist I’ll attempt to present to you two important and vital issues concerning nuclear power; potential danger and management of waste.
Nuclear power is produced by a process called fission. Uranium 235 is forced to split by bombarding a neutron into it. In the process an enormous level of energy is released. The entire process requires meticulous control procedures for safety and production. The immediate danger is if there is any accident involved in the process of producing energy, the power plant will explode and leak radioactive material all over the region. According to U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on oversight and investigation, an accident in a U.S. nuclear power plant could kill more people than were killed in Nagasaki(1). Splitting of Uranium gives a waste product known as Plutonium 239. Less than eight kilograms of Plutonium is needed to make a nuke similar to the one used in Nagasaki. In 2000 alone, there was enough waste made by the world to produce 34,000 nukes. In incidents of theft, the U.S. spent $250 million to leave separated plutonium from wastes too radioactive so that thieves can’t handle it. Thus, this makes the wastes even more dangerous. The world currently has 441 nuclear plants, owing 103 to the U.S., and more are being constructed. The catastrophe at Cornobyl caused 19 million hectares of land to be heavily contaminated, almost 100 times the radiation released in the atmosphere by bombing Japan. Radiation causes mutations in human genome and it carries into new-born children. Leaving them with damaged DNA that leads to illnesses and diseases.
People are told that nuclear power is becoming safer. However, they are not aware of the wastes produces. A plant annually produces 20-30 tons of nuclear waste. By 2035 the U.S. will have about 105,000 tons of waste. A considerable amount of nuclear energy is contained within the waste. Plutonium, a man made waste, has a half life of 24,000 years and is considered hazardous for 240,000 years. Currently, there is no way to dispose this waste. A proposed method is containing the waste and burying it deep underground. The burial site for the U.S. is chosen to be Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However, the burial site has not yet opened and all the wastes made from all the plants are stored at that nuclear plants. Transporting the waste to Nevada is considered to be extremely dangerous. A reason that the burial project has been terminated is that fact that pressure and heat or other geological events underground could cause the container of wastes to break and leak radioactive material into earth. Slowly the waste will make its way down into underground water and finds its way into ecosystems. This is a major ecological/environmental risk. Reprocessing the first round of waste can be used to make more energy and less harmful wastes, but the process is very expensive and even more wastes are produced. Reprocessing wastes is also the optimum way to proliferate nuclear weapons. The U.S. doesn’t consider reprocessing as an option. Other wastes that nuclear plants produce are large quantities of hot water or coolants that are dumped into nearby rivers, lakes, or oceans. This process can dramatically alter the water temperature and threaten marine life. The waste issue is a great argument in denying nuclear energy production.
Investing, maintaining, controlling, containing wastes and operating nuclear plants are very expensive. For instance, there is a shortage of Uranium, and it costs about $360/kg. Instead of investing money in the nuclear sector, governments should invest the money in less expensive and more “greener” alternatives such as bioenergy, geothermal, solar, wind, hydrogen, dams, and tidal.
References
1. Waging Peace website: http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/start/fact-sheet_ne&w.htm
2. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. government: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html
3. Ilan Lipper & Jon Stone, Nuclear Energy and Society website: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm
Issue 1: Is it time to revive nuclear power?
Oil Company Owner says NO
As an oil company owner, I believe that there are many reasons why we should not use nuclear power as our power source. Nuclear power is dangerous in many ways. One example that shows how dangerous nuclear power is the meltdown that took place in Chernobyl, Ukraine a couple of years ago. The accident caused millions of people to be exposed to radiation and as a result they suffered from cancer and other illnesses. Nuclear power can also promote other countries to create nuclear bombs and start wars that will be very disastrous. I believe we should invest in alternative energy that does not produce nuclear waste, that is cheaper to built, and it that it is cleaner.
The American Progress websites lists ten reasons why we should not invest in nuclear power. They believe nuclear power will not benefit the United States because to build a nuclear power plant today cost $14 billion dollars. The price has raised 185% between the year 2000 and 2007. Jim Harding a former director of power planning for Seattle city lights estimates that nuclear power today would provide electricity between 12 to 17 cents per kWh. The average U.S. price in 2006 was 8.9 cent kWh. The organization provides information stating that the productions of bottlenecks are limited. The Japan Steel company is the only company that produces the central part of a nuclear reactor. The company makes only four per year, reviving nuclear power in America will create competition with other nation. Thus, building a plant will cost more money.
Other arguments provided by the organization includes that the U.S. has not made a plant for 30 years, building one today will make us dependent on foreigners and fewer jobs for American. The waste produced by the nuclear plants has no storing areas leaving radiation waste out in the open. In 2007 the U.S. imported 47 million pounds or 92% of its Uranium. This will only change the oil problem faced today into an Uranium problem. Nuclear power needs large amounts on water to run the plant. There are many areas in the U.S. that has water shortages. Thus, nuclear power will increase the problem. Other, dry cooling systems have been developed as a substitution but, they are less efficient and more expensive.
Safety concerns and cost are also problems faced by nuclear power. Previous crises have many people afraid of nuclear power. People do not wish to have plants built close to their homes. The American nuclear industry does not believe that the price of nuclear energy will drop any time soon. The organization explains that other clean energy technologies are cheaper, cleaner, and faster to build. “Solar power, photovoltaics, advanced biofuels, wind power, and other energy technologies promise to revolutionize how electricity is generated in the 21st century.” They also believe that nuclear subsidies takes money away from more effective alternative energy.
Many other organizations and millions of people are against nuclear power. Reviving it will only cause problems, delays, and will waste money that could have been used for other sources which are safer, cleaner, and faster to build.
–http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/nuclear_energy.html
Issue 1: Is it time to revive nuclear power?
Oil Company Stock Holder says NO
As a stockholder, I discourage the revival of nuclear power as the new main source of energy provision. I understand the concern of many that a new source of energy is needed because there is a limited amount of oil resources and that it posted some environmental problems. However, I strongly disagree with those who believed that nuclear power is the solution.
Despite of the advantages of nuclear power, it is too dangerous to expand the use of it throughout. If nuclear power was to provide for everyone, we will need a lot more power plants than right now. It will post danger to the health of more human beings. Studies show that there are correlations between vicinity to nuclear power plants and childhood leukemia in Germany, Spain, and Italy, and very slightly in the United States and Canada. Studies also show that the insoluble nuclear fuel compounds and radiation can post short-term and long-term biological effects to the human body. Although further and longer periods of studies are needed, it is very dangerous to widen the area of power plants until we are sure it is safe.
Even though long-term effects of nuclear power need to be further studied, accidents of nuclear power cannot be forgotten. One of the examples was the incident at the Chornobyl nuclear plant in northern Ukraine. It did not only affect the area, but much of Europe. Much food and water was contaminated and people had to be evacuated. Many were affected and some died due to the extreme radiation. Although the United States claimed that similar event is not likely to occur in the US, it is not a guarantee. The nuclear power plants are highly complex and it is hard to completely control the process.
Partly because of the safety problems, nuclear power plants are expensive to maintain. It requires a lot of safety measures to run nuclear power plants. It also requires certain amount of land since the living around the power plants is risky. So even though it seems cheaper to use, it might be just an illusion.
Lastly, lets not forget what happened during World War II and afterwards. Nuclear power posted a great threat to the human existence. It is dangerous to widely develop and spread nuclear systems. If it falls under the wrong hands, the whole earth can be destroyed easily. Advancing technology is good to the human race, but it is also dangerous. Human beings can destroy ourselves by making wrong decisions. Thus we should think twice before making a major decision for the energy crisis.
Since nuclear power is strongly dangerous, we should wait for a better solution to the energy crisis instead of rushing into a decision that will affect the health of human beings further more. And for the mean time, we still have some oil resources to keep up the need of energy. We should, though, find ways to conserve the energy resources we still have so they can last longer until we find a better source of energy.
Work Cited
1. Easton, Thomas A. “Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues.” McGraw-Hill Higher Education. 1983-2008.
2. Hoffmann, Wolfgang, Claudia Terschueren, and David B. Richardson. “Childhood Leukemia in the Vicinity of the Geesthacht Nuclear Establishments near Hamburg, Germany.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 115.6 (June, 2007): 947-952.
3. Lopez-Abente, Gonzalo, Nuria Aragones, and Marina Pollan. “Solid-Tumor Mortality in the Vicinity of Uranium Cycle Facilities and Nuclear Power Plants in Spain.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 109.7 (July, 2001): 721-729.
4. Lang, Sakari, Kristina Servomaa, Veli-Matti Kosma and Tapio Rytomaa. “Biokinetics of Nuclear Fuel Compounds and Biological Effects of Nonuniform Radiation.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 103.10 (Oct., 1995): 920-934.
George W. Bush, President of the United States, says Yes to our Nuclear Power Revival.
My fellow Americans, we are on the eve of an energy crisis in the United States. Foreign oil, often imported from unstable regions around the world, has jeopardized our nation’s security. Unstable gas prices have hit the average American hard, making life for those on fixed incomes difficult. We need a stable energy supply, one that won’t endanger our environment and will further American economic leadership. By reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we will need to support a diverse and safe energy program. It is my belief that our nation must look to nuclear energy as the key energy source of the future. In an effort to advance clean and safe nuclear energy, my administration has promoted the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, effectively forging a powerful relationship between our government and industry. This will allow companies to make big-risk investments with backing from the federal government. Because a Construction and Operating License (COL) from the NRC can cost up to $50 million, this relationship will help offset the risks and uncertainties that come with developing a nuclear power plant (Bellemare). As a result, we hope to garner a new era in American energy while addressing some of the issues we are faced with today.
Diversifying our energy infrastructure will lessen our current dependence on foreign oil, and it will promote significant price stability. Most importantly, it will address the issue of global warming (Easton 223-225). Currently, 85% of the energy used in the United States comes from fossil fuels, which are in turn responsible for the 98% of our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. In 2004, the United States was responsible for 22% of global carbon dioxide emissions (”Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy”). By contrast, 78% of France’s electricity is produced by nuclear power. As a result, France has been able to drastically cut its dependence on foreign sources of oil, and it boasts some of the lowest electricity rates in all of Europe. Also, when compared to other industrialized nations, France has the honor of having one of the lowest rates of carbon emission (Ball).
I believe that this initiative will solidify our nation’s strength, and will make the world a more dependable and cleaner place for our children. We must, however, take certain precautions. Because of the large quantities of waste produced by a nuclear power plant, we must take important steps to make sure this waste doesn’t pollute the environment or fall into the wrong hands. I propose an international plan that involves developing new ways to reprocess, or recycle, nuclear fuel to be reused by a nuclear reactor. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is an important step in enabling the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide by means of nuclear reprocessing. This project will ultimately decrease the risk of global nuclear proliferation, reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, reduce waste, and encourage economic growth worldwide (”Department of Energy Announces New Nuclear Initiative”). I urge nations with advanced nuclear infrastructures to join me in this goal, and together we can make a brighter tomorrow. Thank you.
Ball. Jeffrey. “France’s nuclear push transforms energy equation,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 25 Mar 2006. 2 Sep 2008
Bellemare, Bob. “New Nuclear Plants Coming to the United States?.” Utilipoint. 17 Jan 2007. Utilipoint. 2 Sep 2008 .
“Department of Energy Announces New Nuclear Initiative.” U.S. Department of Energy. 06 Feb 2006. U.S. Department of Energy. 2 Sep 2008 .
Easton, Thomas. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. 13th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
John McCain
YES
The establishment of more nuclear power plants in the United States will solve some of the biggest problems our nation is facing today—energy crisis, rising gasoline prices, and high carbon emissions that are having detrimental effects on the environment. Nuclear power at the moment is our best guarantee for an efficient energy source that can eliminate or alleviate all these problems.
Nuclear power is a key element of my solution to the energy crisis that we are facing. What I want and what I will do, if president, is lead our nation to energy independence. We will not have to rely on foreign oil any longer; most of our energy will come from nuclear sources. The United States has 104 active plants. Currently, nuclear power plants produce 20% of the nations electricity supply. It has continued to supply 20% of the nations electricity supply for the past decades even though the demand has increased. It is obvious that nuclear power is a stable source for a large supply of energy. We are also abundant in uranium, a domestic resource. In fact, a small pound of highly enriched uranium can produce the same amount of power as millions of gallons of gasoline. No wonder nations around the world are considering reviving nuclear power. China, Russia, and India plan to build about 100 nuclear power plants altogether. France has already been heavily relying on nuclear power plants for energy. About 80% of the electricity supply in France is from nuclear sources. I believe that we are capable of doing the same, while implementing regulations and policies that will ensure proper management of nuclear waste and the safety of our citizens.
As president, I hope to create 45 new nuclear power plants by the year 2030. These nuclear plants will benefit our nation for the obvious reasons. Nuclear power plants do not result in any form of air pollution or emit carbon. Also, with the increased supply of electricity through nuclear power, the United States would not have to depend on only natural gas. As a result, the price of natural gas would decrease. It will also add diversity to the fuel source market; in other words, people would have the option of choosing their energy source without worrying about rising prices, which is inevitable if a nation relies on only one source of energy.
I do support alternative fuel sources, specifically alcohol-based fuel. However, we cannot guarantee that such alternative energy source can ensure independence from foreign oil, nor can we guarantee its success as a fuel source on a larger scale. Nuclear power however has been a source of supply for the past 60 years. It is a reliable, stable, and cheap source of energy. The development of 45 nuclear power plants will also stimulate the economy. However, I do understand the concerns of many citizens. Can nuclear power plants be safe? Is it expensive? Nuclear power plants have not led to any serious damages in France. In fact, in the United States, after 9/11, nuclear power production and waste management have become more reliable, efficient, and safe. I support the building of a major nuclear waste management facility in the Yucca mountains, which would store the waste of a number of plants. This would ensure the safety of our citizens and result in lower cost for waste management. Also, in terms of expenses, the establishment of nuclear plants is a worthwhile cause when considering the millions of dollars that are spent towards gasoline and potential fuel sources. None of the other forms of energy sources can guarantee the same stability of prices and availability as nuclear power. As president, I will give subsidies, low interest loans, and other incentives to financially aid the building of nuclear power plants. If I’m elected to office, I will end this energy crisis, our reliance on foreign oil, and cap carbon emissions through my nuclear power plan.
Associated Press, “McCain Promotes Nuclear Power.” 05 August 2008. CBS. 02 September 2008.
Brain, Marshall. “How Nuclear Power Works.” 09 October 2000. HowStuffWorks.com. 01 September 2008.
Hargreaves, Steve. “McCain’s nuclear plan: Doable, but risky.” 11 August 2008. CNN Money. 01 September 2008.
Wallace, Michael J. “Nuclear Power 2010 Program”. 26 April 2005. Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, Hearing on the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 Program.
Physicist: Yes
Every atom has a tremendous amount of energy. Nuclear fission and fusion reactions allow us to tap into a small portion of that energy. Most nuclear power plants rely on fission of large unstable isotopes such as uranium-235 (so the nuclei break down more readily). Since the reaction is not combustion and hydrocarbons are not even present, the process would not produce any greenhouse gasses. On the other hand, fossil fuels destroy the environment. Apart from global warming, polluting gas byproducts acidify soil and water, killing frogs, fish, amphibians, etc., eat through forests of century old trees (Greenland), and harm our lungs (as one can easily see by comparing city and rural people’s lungs).
Uranium is abundant in the earth’s crust and very accessible. It is cheap to mine and cheap to process into a usable form. Improved reactors increase productivity of uranium. About 95 percent of a used uranium rod can be reprocessed and reused. Expanding the use of nuclear power will only make processing cheaper. Though spreading nuclear power will probably require government investment, the plants will operate as any other power generating plants, privately. Undoubtedly, this cheaper alternative will grow (given the chance) and the investment will be worthwhile. Their construction and maintenance may even stimulate the economy.
However, it is safety that raises the most questions. For employee health, special garments and film badges reduce and monitor exposure to radiation. Addressing the question of potential terrorism, the nuclear plant in Long Island (built before 9/11,when this was not a big issue) is encased in large concrete domes. The plant could only have been penetrated by a plane if hit in a particular spot and a specific angle (the details are not revealed to the public for safety reasons). Nuclear plants also have armed guards and electrically monitored fencing. With extra precautions, such risks can be eliminated. Nuclear waste is only a threat if mishandled. With strong government regulation, waste can be either safely buried or reprocessed into a harmless form. France relies on nuclear power for 78 percent of its electricity, 28 percent of which it reprocesses. Even with these expenses, France has the cheapest electricity and cleanest air in Europe. The alternative, fossil fuel, produces much more waste including radioactive.
As for the meltdowns, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were both very tragic. Once again, these are preventable events. With legislation and strict control from the government, meltdowns need not be a worry. Advances in reactor models since Three Mile Island in 1979 also decrease the probability of a meltdown. As for the Soviet Union meltdown in 1986, the government valued productivity above safety. The meltdown was caused by design and operating errors; it was completely preventable. So, maybe nuclear power is only suited for advanced countries with a stable economy, ability to maintain the plants, and a concern for its citizens. A complete global conversion would probably be unwise. But most European countries and America could benefit greatly from it (since we use most of the energy anyway). I do not even propose that such countries convert to nuclear power completely. But lessening dependence on oil will benefit us economically, politically, and environmentally.
We can have planes and ships powered by nuclear energy. Electric cars can be plugged into meter-like outlets powered by nuclear reactors. Meanwhile, active research can perfect more efficient energy sources. For now, the drawbacks of fossil fuels outweigh the risks of nuclear power.
PBS Special: Shoreham Nuclear power Plant
IEEE Spectrum: Nuclear Wasteland 2007
Geologist: Yes
As a geologist I know that the byproducts of Nuclear Fission can cause great harm to the environment and contaminate our water supply and cause many illnesses. Nuclear fission however is not the type of energy I am supporting. I am supporting the research to find a way to finally have sustained and controlled Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is the process that occurs on our sun and creates an immense amount of energy. The light and heat that the sun gives off is all produced because of Nuclear Fusion and if we were able to harness this powerful energy source we would be able to provide all the energy each and every one of us needs.
The way that Nuclear Fusion works is when two hydrogen atoms, specifically two deuterium isotopes, collide to form a helium atom and release neutrons and an enormous amount of energy. If we could find a way to control the power of Nuclear Fusion we would be able to create energy for every person because the materials needed are found all over our earth. The deuterium isotopes required to create fusion can be found in water. This means that with the water from our oceans would supply an almost endless amount of material to create clean energy for all of us.
This is an amazing process because instead of possibly polluting our water supply with Nuclear Fission we could possibly harness the water through Nuclear Fusion to supply clean energy to everyone in the world. Fusion is possibly one of the cleanest sources of energy since the only byproducts are neutrons, however the energy yields are so much greater than any other method of producing energy we have today. We have now realized the consequences that other sources of energy dispense, such as: water and air pollution and of course global warming. Gasoline, coal and other energy sources pollute our environment and the constant drilling will eventually end our supply of fossil fuels (Easton, Thomas).
Many scientists have spent their life’s work trying to find a possible method of successfully sustaining controlled Fusion however no experiment has completely been accepted. As a scientist myself I hope that one day someone will stumble across the procedure that is capable of sustaining Fusion, and I don’t think that day is too far off.
The U.S. government will have to continue funding different experiments that hopefully will find the answer. I definitely believe that the money spent on this research will be put to good use because if one day the answer is finally found then the history of the world could possibly change just from this one discovery.
The energy provided by Nuclear Fusion could possibly end many of the world’s problems since the method of producing it would be rather cheap seeing that the materials come from plain water. Many of the suffering families in Africa and other remote parts of the world could finally be helped and the energy supplied to them could bring them running water and other amenities that they only wish to have.
There have been two experiments that nearly discovered the cheap way of producing sustained Fusion (An Experiment to Save Our Planet). Martin Fleischmann conducted the first experiment in 1989 and used an experiment called Cold Fusion, where an electric current passes through deuterium atoms (An Experiment to Save Our Planet). Rusi Taleyarkhan was the next scientist who in 2001 used a process called Sonar Luminescence, where a sound wave passes through a tiny bubble inside a fluid, expanding and collapsing the bubble so violently that the vapor molecules trapped inside bubble slam together and heat up so much that it gives off an incredible burst of heat and light (An Experiment to Save Our Planet). These experiments have not been accepted in the scientific community however as a geologist I hope that one day there will be no doubt whether Fusion is achieved so that the energy we produce can keep our planet clean and glorious.
An Experiment to Save Our Planet: Discovery Channel Special.
Easton, Thomas. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. 13th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
No: Public Interest Researcher says NO to nuclear power
Many have probably heard the word nuclear power tossed around in the media or political campaigns but have never taken the time to inquire about it. So there are numerous questions as to what nuclear power is, and the reason for the immense attention it has gotten via the media. Nuclear power is energy that is produced with the use of a controlled nuclear reaction. Generated using Uranium, nuclear power is used to generate electricity. The use of nuclear power is favorable to some [primarily profit seekers] while others are against the use of nuclear power as a result of its devastating risks to the environment and its inhabitants.
Some people favor the development and use of nuclear power because “it was perceived as offering a future of cheap, plentiful energy” that does not pollute the environment (Encarta). Nuclear energy is considered cleaner than fossil fuels such as coal and oil that pollute the air. Unlike fossil fuels it is believed that nuclear power does not release contaminants into the environment. Nuclear power does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide therefore nuclear power would not be a contributing factor to global warming. Likewise, it is believe that nuclear power would be a suitable substitution for fossil fuels, which are highly scarce resources and the use of nuclear power to generate electricity will lower the cost of electricity .
Unfortunately contrary to these supporters of nuclear power beliefs nuclear energy is not a renewable resource; nuclear energy is produced from Uranium, which is a scarce resource. Research shows that the “supply of Uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years (depending on the actual demand)” (Encarta). Also contrary to these supporters belief is that nuclear power produces small levels of carbon dioxide. The level of carbon dioxide produced by nuclear power is less compare to the levels of carbon dioxide produced from the use of fossil fuels therefore it might not be viewed as problematic to many. However, such small levels increases with the increase of nuclear plants. Likewise, using nuclear power to produce electricity might lower the cost of electricity use for consumers of electrical power however it will still have an impact on the nations economy. Developing nuclear plants is a very expensive and time-consuming venture.
However, the most devastating aspect of the use of nuclear power is that individuals will be exposed to the release of radiation. High levels of radioactivity present at the various stages of the nuclear cycle are release into the air, water and soil. Such emission makes society vulnerable to diseases such as cancer. Sadly children are most vulnerable to radiation in the environment.
Also it is not a major concern often stressed in the debate about the use of nuclear power. Nevertheless, it is known that the nuclear fuels uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are the materials used in the development of nuclear weapons. Thus, the development of nuclear power makes it more accessible and increases the chances of nuclear wars.
http://www.home.clara.net
http://www.encarta.msn.com
http://www.beyondnuclear.org
Storeowner says YES
As a storeowner in New York, I think mostly in terms of cost and benefit when deciding whether I am for or against anything.
On the issue of the Revival of Nuclear Power, the decision was a tough one, because short-term benefits seem to be completely absent either way.
Deciding against the revival would mean remaining dependent on energy as it is at present, and my present costs have been steadily increasing. This summer, my energy costs have even exceeded the cost of my lease on the business, which happens to be pretty high.
Deciding for the revival would mean taking a huge risk. While most of the arguments for increased nuclear power center around decreased energy costs, in the short-term it is highly likely that costs would become even larger as the transition takes place.
Is the long-term promise of cheap fuel worth the short-term potential costs?
I say yes, for a couple of reasons:
1) Oil costs have been steadily rising and will most likely continue to do so. The fear of a transition to Nuclear Power is due partially to the billions of dollars in unexpected costs that may arise, but we don’t exactly have any control over the price of our primary source of fuel, oil, either. Who’s to say that we won’t have even more unexpected costs if we remain as we are?
2) Even if these huge unexpected costs do come up during the transition to nuclear power, the benefit of being energy independent afterwards will, over time, offset the cost. The cost of nuclear power may at first be much greater than oil because of all the work needed to get the plants up and running, but as soon as that’s done, energy costs will stabilize and nuclear power will be cheaper than oil. Further support of this model comes from the U.S. Department of Energy, which reports nuclear power costs at 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour as compared with coal at 2.37 cents per kilowatt-hour, natural gas at 6.75 cents per kilowatt-hour, and oil at 9.63 cents per kilowatt-hour.
As for the safety concerns most opponents of nuclear power have, I say there isn’t much to argue. All that has to be done for safety is to properly train those who will be working in the industry and to establish an agency to perform quality control on all plants just like the health department does for food production facilities.
And finally, concerning the environment, nuclear power may be the temporary lesser of two evils until the technology for mass-producing renewable energy resources is researched and put into practice. Sure, there will be radioactive waste, and while that may sound like the end of the world to some, it is most probably a lot cleaner than the pollution being released while we sit around and discuss the possibility of change.
Christ, Steve. “Nuclear Energy Stocks”. Wealth Daily. June 26, 2008
“Leading Oil Companies See the Nuclear Option as a Key Player in the World Energy Market”. Universia Knowledge@Wharton. July 26, 2006
“Nuclear Power Revival - Real or Just Talk?”. EnviroPolitics Blog. May 17, 2008
Position: Concerned Mother says NO to nuclear power
As a mother of three children I believe that I speak for the entire mothering community when I say no to reviving nuclear power. A mother’s top priority will always be her child’s safety and well-being and that means providing a safe future. I came here to America after an incident in which a nuclear power plant exploded in Chernobyl. My homeland, Ukraine, became highly affected by the nuclear fallout. My father died from the effects of the fallout and my mother developed Leukemia. I had just become pregnant with my first child when this disaster occurred. His father had been in reactor number 4 when it exploded. I was left with nothing but the possibility that my children would suffer as well. So for my children I abandoned my mother with her Leukemia to move to America where my children could hopefully live safe and nuclear waste free lives. However the damage had been done. My first child developed thyroid cancer.
The disaster happened on April 26th, 1986. The number four reactors exploded and continued to burn for 10 days. The amount of radioactive fallout was ten times more than the amount released in Japan when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. The contamination spread enough to affect numerous countries such as Belarus, Scotland and England. According to a doctor interviewed in the Chernobyl Heart said that only 15 to 20 percent of babies born at the Gomel Maternity Hospital were born healthy.
People claim that nuclear power plants are generally safe and follow many safety precautions to make sure that another incident such as Chernobyl will not occur. However accidents are bound to happen. The nature of accidents is that they come unpredicted or otherwise they would never occur in the first place. The more plants we have the higher the chances will be that something can go wrong in one of them and recreate the disaster that has contributed so much ruin to my life. My two youngest children were able to escape the disaster of Chernobyl. However my first child is suffering and will probably not live a normal life. We are not that desperate for energy where it has become necessary to put the lives of innocent people at risk just to have an extra source of energy. As the top concern of a mother is to keep her children safe the top concern of a government should be to keep its people safe. So why create the extra unnecessary risk?
Environmentalist says YES to nuclear power
Dear Listeners,
Do you like the planet the way it is? I sure do. I enjoy the feeling of a cool fresh breeze, the vast outdoors, and the natural beauty found from the oceans to the mountains. I wish to have this lush green earth to enjoy into my old age and for my progeny, but I am afraid this may not be a reality. This blue, green gem in the vast universe can easily be tipped and become a barren wasteland like countless planets across the universe. While it is extremely unlikely we would destroy the planet like depicted in movies like the Matrix, careless expansion of industries during the 1800 and 1900s has shown we can definitely destroy habitats and bring many animal species to or near extinction. We must learn from the past and head to a new future of pollution-less industry. There is no reason why in the 21th century, we still must be operating crude fossil fuels that are bad for the environment and running out at a rapid pace. I believe we do not have to sacrifice modern conveniences and technology to conserve the planet. I believe we can revolutionize our energy productions to produce more energy than ever before while protecting our planet from pollutants better than ever. I believe it is time we invest in the future and into the ultimate fuel source - nuclear.
Nuclear power is such a powerful energy source just waiting to be developed. Although many environmentalists are afraid of such power being mishandled and causing catastrophic disaster, I believe technology has brought us to a new age where we can safely utilize nuclear energy. Nuclear energy makes sense because it is the only energy source that shows infinite promise with 0 pollutants. Wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources are far from solving today’s energy needs. According to the American Nuclear Society, one kilogram of uranium is approximately equivalent to 100,000 kilograms of oil! If nuclear power could replace all the fossil fuels, we would be contributing up to 27 billion tonnes per year less of CO2 gases among other pollutants! Sounds like a win-win situation doesn’t it? Produce more energy while producing no pollutants! If it were only that simple - nuclear power is one of the most dangerous power sources capable of causing hundreds of miles of destruction by nuclear fallout in the worse case scenarios. Therefore, may I suggest, we think out of the box when approaching such ideas?
Radiation swirls around space all the time. In fact, the sun emits solar flares 5000 million times greater than an atomic bomb (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16561). If such dangers exist in space, why not place nuclear energy productions into an area that would not harm the earth? Having nuclear energy plants on a space station or the moon far away enough from the earth to prevent damage in case of an accident makes sense and I believe with some research could become a viable solution to our energy needs. What is the most abundant resource on this planet? Water! It happens to make a great source of storage-able energy when it is separated into oxygen and hydrogen. I envision a green planet where the only “pollutants” that are emitted from human vehicles and devices is water vapor. Yes, when hydrogen and oxygen are used as fuel - the only pollutants that come out of it is water vapor. If we have power plants on a space station or the moon, water could be shipped to these locations and hydrogen and oxygen can be brought back. Hydrogen and oxygen are relatively safe fuels that could be used in everything from cars to powering homes. Nuclear energy can make this all possible.
I know there are many obstacles to making this happen, but nuclear energy is the only energy source that makes sense. Perhaps in the future, we will be drawing energy directly from the sun, or other innovative ideas, but I believe nuclear energy is feasible for today. We must stop trying to extend our fossil fuel usage. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, we will run out of oil in 43 years. We must look to the future and prepare for it before we have no future and our options from switching from fossil fuel to other sources are out.
The Environmentalist
Says No
Nuclear energy is derived from the separation or emergence, fission and fusion, respectively, of the nuclei of atoms. This process takes place in a nuclear power plants. The problem starts here: nuclear power plants are not the safest working environments. Dealing with highly radioactive elements such as uranium, plutonium, and thorium for fission and the fusion of hydrogen into helium, one can imagine the dangers that come with daily encounters with such hazards. The basic energy fact is that the fission of an atom of uranium produces 10 million times the energy produced by the combustion of an atom of carbon from coal (McCarthy). This kind of immense energy produced can easily get out of control and become catastrophic. Moreover, the dangers not only lie within the plant, potentially harming the workers, but also the possibility exists for nuclear explosions and spills. True, the use of nuclear energy may decline the use for fossil fuels as a primary source of energy, leading to less pollution in the air. Nevertheless, the effect of merely one nuclear explosion or spill will be far more overwhelming and detrimental to the environment and atmosphere than 10 years of fossil fuel pollution.
It is widely known that the use of fossil fuels leads to pollution due to carbon dioxide (CO2). If putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a big issue, why not develop and use solar energy? Solar energy works just as effectively to this purpose as nuclear energy does. Many say that solar energy is far from our near future in terms of development due to its price. However, wouldn’t the price of lives outweigh the mere difference of the development of solar energy instead of nuclear energy? After all, the development of nuclear energy isn’t free.
The biggest problem for the use of nuclear energy is the waste produced as a result of it.
A large reactor produces about 1.5 tons of fission products per year. The fission products are then put in a form for long term storage. But what if we run out of space for this “long term storage”? The Canadians are reviewing a plan for storing waste deep underground in the Pre-Cambrian “Canadian Shield”.
The U.S. plan is to store the waste in Nevada in the same area as has been used for underground nuclear tests. Some have even suggested blasting the waste into outer space. However, how can hiding the waste resolve any problems about eliminating it?
Nuclear energy may be used for energy purposes. However, the current use of nuclear energy has been significantly partial for the purpose of developing weapons of mass destruction rather than the development of new energy resources. I state the unfortunate truth that the development and use of nuclear energy give too much power and force to few individuals or nations. These few people who have the ability to control and use this energy have the potential to abuse it and cause nuclear warfare.
References:
McCarthy, John. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
Sophia C. Eze
Issue 1: Is it time to revive Nuclear Power
I have been called the Dr. No-To-Nuclear-Power by my political opponents. I reaffirm my previous statements that, it is not yet time to revive nuclear power in the United States. I do not however rule out the possibility of our using it, hopefully, in the nearest future as one of our alternative sources of power. I am a proponent of change, however, it must be a change we can all believe in. We really cannot continue to rely on oil and gas as our only source of power, however, nuclear power poses too much of a risk at this time, to use as a source of energy. The disadvantages far out weigh the advantages.
The nature of the highly radioactive substances such as the Uranium used in nuclear power is enough cause for us to be careful. I am advocating that more research be done on nuclear power production and the designing of safer power plants. This is to ensure that when we finally do use it, we can be assured that our families, and our communities are safe from harm.
Right now, I will not support a bill that proposes to start a project that might lead to devastating health problems in the society. I have two beautiful children and I would not want to make a decision that would most likely cause health problems for not just them but other young kids. I know I speak the mind of concerned parents and individuals as well .
No one ever plans for accidents to happen. Facing the fact that they might occur, and then weighing our options, is the wise thing to do. I insist that we should not take the lessons of the past for granted.
We all must not forget the accidents at Chernobyl and the Three–mile Island. At Chernobyl, 56 people lost their lives while close to 10,000 people in the surrounding area were diagnosed with cancer after the incident. At the Three-Mile Island here on our own native soil, we had a similar case, thankfully, no one was reported to have suffered harm from that incidence. Let us remember that the effect of nuclear accidents last for generations. Both cases were caused by minor technical problems which could have been avoided. We have to guard against making those mistakes.
For this precautionary reason, I cannot emphasise enough how much more beneficial it would be in the long-run, for more time to be dedicated to nuclear power research than to hastily sink in tax-payer’s hard-earned money into something uncertain. While the research on nuclear power goes on, we can expand our alternative sources of energy to include solar energy and wind–power which are both very affordable.
As a Senator and the Democratic Presidential candidate, I believe I owe it to my constituency to make the best decision I possibly can on their behalf. My stance in this case is no I do not believe it is the right time for the United States to revive nuclear power.
^ Nuclear power’s role in generating electricity [electronic resource]
Falk, Justin.
http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS93787
^ What is Your Stance on Nuclear Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE
Environmentalist
Against Nuclear Power
As an environmentalist, it is my duty to protect Earth and to inform my fellow humans about the dangers nuclear energy offers. We say we want to find alternatives to fossil fuels and oil to produce electricity. We say we want to phase out using coal because it is too dirty and emits too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but then we parade behind nuclear energy as the best and greatest way to save our planet. What people don’t realize is that even though nuclear energy may be clean, the carbon dioxide emitted by all the other process needed to make nuclear energy is simply not worth the conversion to nuclear energy. Yes, the total process of making electricity through nuclear energy emits less carbon dioxide on a whole than using coal or fossil fuels, but the amount is not that much less.
We need to consider the carbon dioxide emitted by digging for uranium, refining uranium, using cars and planes to transport the refined uranium, transforming uranium into fuel rods, and then transporting the spent uranium to be stored somewhere. It is simply impossible to gauge how much CO2 is emitted from beginning to end. Some estimates but the overall output at 8 to 65 grams/kilowatt hour for nuclear energy. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, can emit a maximum 370-grams/kilowatt hour. These numbers are too close to call nuclear energy a “green” power source. Therefore, we should spend our time investing in a legitimate green energy source, not one that is barely cleaner than the fossil fuels we use today.
Also, nuclear plants are simply unsafe. I would like to see the government explain how another Chernobyl incident occurred even though they reassured us that every step was taken to ensure our safety. Chernobyl affected millions of people, made land uninhabitable of years, and greatly increased the risk of cancer in Belarus, Ukraine, and much of Europe. If a plant were to explode in the United States, the human toll would be even greater.
Nuclear energy is simply not the way to power our future. It barely fixes the problems we are trying to solve with current energy sources, and if something were to go wrong, too many people would be hurt. We continue working alternative sources such as solar and wind until they have reached the capacity to power our country efficiently. We owe it to take care of the Earth, because without it, we have nowhere else to go.
^ Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues
^ http://www.kreativrauschen.com/blog/2007/05/13/co2-emissions-of-nuclear-energy- generation/
Issue: Is it Time to Revive Nuclear Power?
Role: Farmer
Position: NO
I don’t understand all this fuss about “nuclear power.” Why switch the country to a costly, risky, contaminating energy source, when we already have nature? Sun and wind are time-proven, real ways of creating energy. Best of all, sunlight helps my crops to grow free of charge!
The sun’s been around longer than the human race. We know what it is, what exactly it does and can do, how to use its energy the right way…basically, it is the safest energy source we’ve got. And of course, it gets the job done. And for much less money than those fancy huge nuclear plants would.
Call me stubborn, call me old-fashioned, call me a downright stick-in-the-mud. But under no circumstances am I willing to risk the health of the food I grow, and especially not the health of my family. Everybody knows how destructive those nuclear bombs were in Japan. Heck, they ended a world war! And two cities, too. Plus they damaged lives forever, either psychologically, physically, or mentally. All from that danged nuclear energy scientists discovered. Well I for one will never root for those enormous and dangerous plants. All it takes is one little leak to contaminate the air for miles and miles.
Radiation harms in every possible way. I don’t take too kindly to the idea of radiation-induced bodily poisoning or cancer. Especially when it’s going to be MY precious tax dollars that help pay for all this nuclear power!
Where’s the proof, you pro-nuclear hotshots ask? All over history, I answer, since it’s use in 1945. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the obvious first two examples. You argue back that nuclear power will never again be used for warfare? Even if that’s true, which there is no way to prove, how can you defend nuclear power plant explosions, like the one in Chernobyl in 1986? The then-called Soviet Union lost three times worth what they stood to gain from the plants economically. Were the thirty people killed form the blast worth the chance? Or how about the hundreds more who died from radiation poisoning? Even people living in Scotland, a whole 1400 miles away, felt the terrible effects of the explosion for years.
The U.S. is more cautious than the former Soviet Union, you claim? Well, what do you have to say about the horrible Three Mile Island nuclear accident? Though it happened in Harrisburg, surrounding areas in Pennsylvania got hit too. Hit with thyroid cancer, radiation contamination, and last but not least, plant mutations. Who would want to eat genetically mutated food, I ask you? Filled with all those dangerous and unstable chemicals…what a total waste of an otherwise good crop! There is no worse feeling for a farmer than seeing the food he worked so hard to produce all season go to waste. And all because some scientists think they discovered a better energy source than the heavenly body that’s been here all along- the sun.
How is this nuclear energy even created? Every step of its birth is hazardous to our already-fragile environment. Mining the necessary uranium contaminates the air, water, land, and worst of all, US! The entire ecosystem goes out of whack thanks to this unworthy, crazy energy source! You can try to downplay the risks all you want, bigshot CEO’s and war maniacs, but the facts remain. The extreme risk, expense, and waste of nuclear energy make it not worth our while. Stick to the resources we have, the ones we know that work. Say no to reviving nuclear power. Your food, wallet, and body depend on it.
^ http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-waste
^ Eaton, Thomas A., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues
I want to say that the position papers are pretty good. In particular:
1) I like how Jonathan Lin raises a point that the other side might make, and then disproves it or argues against it almost immediately after. For example, he will bring up the fact that many believe that nuclear power plants may be ideal targets for a terrorist attack. Immediately, he proves why that is not the case by explaining the various safety and backup mechanisms that newer power plants have.
2) I like the way Colette frames her response around her “role.” She brings up the concerns that a storeowner might have, and uses those concerns to address issues regarding nuclear energy.
3) I also like some of the introductions. They are clever and actually draw the reader in. Some of the techniques, like asking several rhetorical questions, work really well.
However, I want to say that it is important not to make broad sweeping statements. Although you are trying to show your side and persuade people to agree with your views, you don’t want to make blanket statements that can be easily torn apart in an argument. It is a lot more effective to make a statement a bit more specific which will allow you to defend it against criticism. Likewise, if a statement or point is exaggerated to prove a point, it too becomes vulnerable to criticism in a debate. It is better to be as honest as possible with as little hyperbole as possible.