Nuclear Power

Thanks, Smooosh! I. Uranium MiningMost of my opponent's argumentation has to do with uranium mining. He argues at various points that it is environmentally hazardous and unsafe, though these issues are somewhat interrelated. He also suggests that the finite nature of uranium makes nuclear a non-renewable resources. It is important therefore to explain the real impact of uranium mining moving forward. A. Breeder ReactorsBreeder reactors are reactors which produce more fissile material than they consume, allowing some of the produced fissile material to be reused as fuel. Imagine if I could produce ten units of energy, from a single unit. I can then use one of the ten units I created to create an additional ten units, and so on. The system feeds itself. [1] This kind of reactor has the potential to substantially reduce the need for uranium mining in the future because it can recycle its own fuel. Breeder reactors are 100x more efficient than other kinds of reactors, and "in fact can supply all the world's energy needs at present costs. " [2] Russia, China, and India are all actively pursuing this technology, and it has already been deployed in various facilities around the world (e. g. Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Plant). [1] Rapid investment in and development of this kind of reactor could solve the vast majority of the harms Pro talks about by drastically cutting demand for uranium. Breeder reactors also solve for sustainability. "It is frequently said that the amount of uranium available can support the world's energy needs for only about 1000 years. Under this definition, nuclear fission is not a very long-term energy source. Such arguments ignore the fact that usual estimates of the world's uranium resources refer to quantities available at the current market price of about $40 per pound. .. However, if used in breeder reactors, the cost/kWh is reduced by more than a factor of 100, so one can afford to use much more expensive uranium. For example, uranium costing $1000/lb would contribute only 0.03 cents/kW-h to the cost of electricity and would thus represent less than 1 % of the total cost. At that price, the fuel cost would be equivalent to that of gasoline priced at a half cent per gallon. " [2] Taking into account various sources of uranium, my source finds that "all the world's energy requirements for the remaining 5"10^9 yrs of existence of life on Earth could be provided by breeder reactors without the cost of electricity rising b as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This is consistent with the definition of a 'renewable' energy source in the sense in which that term is generally used. " [2]B. Research & DataIf you refer back to my last speech, you will find some evidence from the OECD, which accounts for both the "direct and indirect" impacts of nuclear power on pollution. These indirect effects explicitly consider uranium mining. The report states, "there are some indirect emissions that can be attributed to nuclear energy, principally due to the use of fossil-based energy sources in the various steps of the nuclear fuel cycle (for example, during uranium mining). " Despite factoring in uranium mining, the reports nevertheless concludes that nuclear power is cleaner than coal, natural gas, biomass, solar, and hydropower energy. [3] Pro does a lot to tell us how uranium mining pollutes the environment, but he never puts forth any empirical data which compare the polluting effects of uranium mining against the environmental clean benefits of nuclear plants. This data shows that, when all elements of the nuclear energy chain are considered, nuclear power still benefits the environment. II. Cost SavingsA. Levelized CostsPro says that we should assess the cost of nuclear power using "levelized costs. " I agree, which is why the data I cited used levelized costs. I repeat my study's findings: "Nuclear power has a lower levelized cost than advanced coal with carbon capture, conventional combustion turbine, biomass, offshore wind, photovoltaic solar, and thermal solar. " [4] The very method Pro says is most credible supports the Con position. B. BailoutsHonestly, I don't see how this is relevant. Firstly, it's just non-unique. Fossil fuels and renewables are all heavily reliant on government subsidies and assistance. Consider that "[m]ost renewable energy industries are heavily dependent on government subsidies, and without constant taxpayer support, many renewable energy industries cannot survive. Both American and British renewable energy companies have failed when policymakers decrease subsidies. " [5] Secondly, given how cheap nuclear is, it stands a good chance of eventually being able to ease of the subsidies, particularly once the fossil fuel industry began to fade in earnest. Thirdly, why are bailouts necessarily bad? Keeping energy prices down for consumers with subsidies benefits the entire economy, because there is no sector of the economy which does not rely on energy. Cheaper energy thus puts more money in firms pockets so that they can grow, boosting the economy. III. Obsolete or Necessary? Pro cites the Tesla Powerwall as an example of a soon-to-be "mainstream option for home energy consumers. " This struck me as rather perplexing for several reasons. Firstly, we're not just talking about modernized countries with homes capable of accommodating such technologies and homeowners capable of buying them. Secondly, it's not clear that this technology will be able to make up from a loss of nuclear power any time soon. In the US, the Paolo Verde nuclear plant, which has three reactors, is capable of 94,488 MWh. If we divide this by three to approximate a single reactor, and then convert it to KWh, we get this number: 31,496,000 KWh. [6] Tesla's best model, by comparison, can manage 250 KWh. [7] In other words, a single nuclear reactor can produce about 126,000x the energy. As of right now, the 2,500 Powerwalls in existence seem nowhere close to being able to fill the void Pro is hoping they'll fill. And this just isn't about the Powerwalls, novel as they are. The evidence I have shown repeatedly illustrates that nuclear plants fill a void that alternatives just can't--either because those alternatives are unable to produce sufficient quantities of energy or because of intermittency. Pro also claims that renewables will likely continue to improve apace; that's possible, but not guaranteed. But it is equally possible that nuclear power will also become "more efficient and less expensive," particularly as technologies like breeder reactors revolutionize the industry. Finally, Pro concedes that renewables like wind and solar are intermittent, but seems to miss the part where I show that nuclear power plants can run at 90% capacity year-round. [8] Therefore, nuclear plants don't require back-up generators, unlike wind and solar. IV. MiscellaneousA. TerrorismPro cites literally no case of nuclear terrorism happening, nor does he offer any data on how likely it might be to happen. But, let's talk about some specific risks. Firstly, cyberterrorists could conceivably cause a meltdown, but only if all security protocols (including emergency shutdowns) were penetrated. Even then, it is unclear if a meltdown would kill anyone, because nearby communities are often well-trained to respond to a meltdown situation [9] and because only 1 meltdown has every resulted in fatalities. Secondly, there is the risk of a physical assault on a power plant, leading to a meltdown--which again brings up the issue of whether a meltdown would result in fatalities. Thirdly, Pro worries about "inside jobs. " But, employees would likely undergo extreme vetting, making these unlikely. Finally, another fear would be terrorists stealing material to make a dirty bomb or similar device. Yet, most of the damage from a dirty bomb would be confined to the immediate area of the explosion (less than a city block up to a few square miles), and radiation levels would likely be so low that they would not pose any immediate health risks. Plus, such bombs would emit gamma radiation which is readily detectable. [10] In other words, these devices are little more lethal than conventional explosives. B. Thermal PollutionPro makes a completely unsubstantiated and offhand comment about thermal pollution. In fact, thermal pollution is basically irrelevant. "The study analyzes whether the magnitude and distribution of thermal pollution is sufficient to be a meaningful contributor to global and regional climate change. .. The authors find that, in total, the magnitude of the thermal pollution around the globe is very small (nearly negligible) in comparison to estimates of the influence of the 'greenhouse effect'. " [11]C. DropsPro drops quite a few of my key arguments, including: Nuclear Power and Medicine, Nuclear Power and Vehicles, and Nuclear Power and Space Exploration. Pro never directly responds to my data showing that nuclear power kills fewer people per terawatt hour than other energy sources or to the fact that nuclear meltdowns seem to be getting rarer. He also never even mentions the France example. D. TimePro says he doesn't want immediate implementation. But, remember, emissions must drop 80% by 2050 to avert a GW catastrophe. If he can't show that alternatives can achieve this without nuclear, he incurs those harms. And if he truly believes nuclear is net contributor of pollution, he should want to stop them sooner rather than later to avert that threshold. V. Sources1 - . https://tinyurl.com...2 - . https://tinyurl.com...3 - R2, Source 54 - R2, Source 145 - . https://tinyurl.com...6 - . https://tinyurl.com...7 - . https://tinyurl.com...8 - R2, Source 79 - . https://tinyurl.com...10 - . https://tinyurl.com...11 - . https://tinyurl.com...Thus, I negate. Thanks to the readers for following along and to Smooosh for the debate.