Beginner's Tournament, Nuclear Power Plants

1. Rebuttal Cost: (#1 citation bad link).Inability to review figures provided. Analysis of nuclear power in 2013 for plants operational by 2020 [1] with total system cost associated is 95.2 MWh. But this is the price after tax credits are awarded which is $18/MWh, a production credit. This brings the costs to 113.2 MWh. Due to exorbitant upfront cost of construction and financing for a 1GW plant, the end cost of a 40 yr loan brings construction costs to 17 billion dollars. Even though the cost of nuclear fuel is substantially less expensive than fossil fuels, the upfront cost offsets this; resulting in nuclear power being substantially more expensive [2]. To further the point, in the US and Europe nuclear power plants have received substantial government subsidies [3, 4]. In The US 3.3 billion a year; with close to 330 million people in this country, that amounts to $100 per person/per year in tax dollars for every man woman and child. In the UK these subsides are so contentious they have been eliminated [6. p.17] In Germany, the unprofitability and significant cost of nuclear power has moved this country to phase out nuclear energy altogether by 2020 [7]. 2. Rebuttal Dangers: (After searching the whole site provided, I think have found the correct article you referenced.) Certainly lives matter. But, also this article makes note that from 2004 to 2010 deaths related to conventional power plants are significantly less than before emission control technologies. Latest figures are at 7,500 [8] and more efficient emissions control tech is advancing every day. I do agree coal and gas fired plants are not good but, nuclear power is worse. If we are looking at a death affect, let’s look at the Chernobyl after math. The 830,000 of individuals who worked on the plant to extinguish the fire and cap the plant after the explosion are at a higher risk for leukemia. As of 2005, of these workers, 112,000 to 125,000 have died. Of 6.5 million people in the vicinity, children and teens have a 1 in 31 chance of developing thyroid cancer [9], 6,000 cases confirmed in Ukrainian, Belarus and Russian have been reported up to 2005 alone[10]. Global death toll from fallout from Chernobylas of 2005 is estimated to totaling 985,000. Since1986 healthy birth rates in the area went from 80% to 20%. We are looking at a second generation of after effects. From the Fukushima Daiichi incident, cases of thyroid cancer are beginning to sprout up and are expected to continue for years to come [10] I ask you my respected opponent, do nearly a million lives matter? Though the ratio to number of plants in years of operation to accidents appears low, and there seems to be an assumption that they are relatively safe. But, when an accident does occur the results are devastating. It affects human lives, land and animals for decades into the future. It is not worth the risk. If a fire occurs at a natural gas or coal facility its impacts are very local, affecting fewer lives with no long term human or environmental affects. A: “Clean: Nuclear fuels are technically infinite and it does not produce harmful gases into the atmosphere we live in.”( #3, 4 & 5 citations bad links) Though I could not view your sources, but let’s examine the environmental harmful gases produced. A nuclear plant while in operation has a near zero carbon emissions. What is involved in the life cycle of a nuclear power plant, construction, mining uranium, processing and transportation of radioactive bi-products and decommissioning of plants all has a carbon footprint associated. Nuclear power plant life cycle in emissions is at 66 gCO2e/kWh, which is lower than coal and natural gas. Although, nuclear power does throw off 2x as much in carbon in the form of solar photovoltaic at 32 gCO2e/kW. Wind farms off shore are only at 10 gCO2e/kWh [12]. With the extraordinary high cost of construction over alternative energies, even here the carbon footprint can be smaller. Yes, there is ample uranium, estimated to be about 250 years worth. But, uranium mining is hazardous to health. It is mostly done in open pit mines. Miners often suffer from lung cancer after breathing in uranium tailings. Mining activities contaminate the water table which has caused cancer in indigenous populations [13]; death and more death. For the purpose of this debate I’m not required to prove that fossil fuels are bad or to suggest an alternative source of energy. I need only to prove that Nuclear Power plants are bad per my opening statement. http://www.eia.gov... http://large.stanford.edu... http://www.economist.com... http://www.ucsusa.org... http://cen.acs.org... https://www.gov.uk... http://www.dw.com... http://www.catf.us... http://www.cancer.gov... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.ens-newswire.com... http://www.nature.com... 13. http://ieer.org...