Nuclear Energy

I would like to bring to my opponent’s attention that I will be leaving town Sunday and will not be able to continue this debate after that, so I hope that my opponent will be hasty in his responses so that this debate may conclude before then. My opponent’s first contention is that there are no suitable locations for nuclear power plants to be constructed. However, my opponent fails to realize several things. Firstly, regulations at both the state and federal level mean that nuclear power plants constructed in the United States are among the safest, most secure in the world. The plants are very resilient to natural disasters. For example, in the wake of Fukushima nuclear disaster several safety concerns were raised over U. S. nuclear facilities. One such plant was the Callaway Nuclear Plant near Fulton, Missouri which is located less than 500 miles away than one of the most active fault lines in North America: the New Madrid Fault. In the event that an earthquake caused damage to the facilities at Callaway there are several safety measures that could be activated to avert disaster, including:-Billions of gallons of fresh water from the Missouri River (which is located only a few miles away) could be pumped into the reactors to cool them-Backup diesel generators would supply emergency power, meaning that water could continue to be pumped into the reactors even if the plant had to be powered-down-The plant is capable of being powered down completely in several ways-Equipment at the Callaway site would detect any major, seismic activity and immediately power down the plant [1]In response to my opponent’s claim that U. S. nuclear facilities would be targets of terrorist activity, I will have to agree with him. Radical, Islamic terrorists would love to cause just a partial meltdown at a nuclear power plant near a major American city. However, once again precautions already in place would prevent such from happening. U. S. nuclear facilities are very secure in the sense that they have a 24-hour security presence and semi-restricted airspace exists around all U. S. nuclear facilities. In the post 9/11 world, the notion that anybody with malicious intentions could gain access to an American nuclear facility is simply speculative and unsubstantiated. As it is clear to see, the safety precautions at U. S. nuclear power sites help safeguard them from natural and man made disasters. By opponent’s second point of contention is that nuclear power plant’s require a large amount of monetary investment in the form of licensing and construction costs. However, I have some points that I would like to bring up in refutation of his argument. Firstly, one of the main goals of extra government investment into nuclear power would be the reduction of start-up costs. More government investment could lead to the formation of new, less costly construction techniques that would consequently increase the feasibility of nuclear power plant construction. One method by which government could lower the costs of nuclear power would be removing two-hurdle licensing and encouraging uniform design. Two-hurdle licensing is method of licensing still used in some states that require a license be obtained in order to construct the plant and an additional license be acquired to actually operate the plant. In some instances, this delayed the dates of the plants’ planned openings by several years resulting in additional, unseen costs. The worst case scenario happened at the Shoreham Plant on Long Island which was constructed but never allowed to operate. It is estimated that this cost New York taxpayers over five billion dollars [2]. By streamlining, the licensing process the government could lower costs associated with nuclear development. Even still though, the government could go a step further and encourage uniform design. Currently, all U. S. nuclear power plants are highly specific and use unique, one-of-a-kind equipment. This increases costs because it costs extra money to develop all of the unique equipment required for nuclear power plant construction. Also, it lengthens the construction process because all of the unique equipment has to be inspected and approved by federal regulators. By using tax credits and tax waivers, the federal government and state governments could encourage uniform design. [2] In his third contention, my opponent claims that investment should be directed towards cleaner, “greener” sources of energy. My opponent has made a mistake. He has assumed that by “investment” I mean additional funding into nuclear power plant development. However, by reviewing the definitions posted in Round 1--one can clearly see that the term “investment” does not just mean money. One way in which to increase investment in nuclear power would be to streamline and simplify the licensing process--something that would not require any additional funding. Secondly, my opponent claims that it is foolish to invest in nuclear power when so many “better” energy sources exist. However, more careful examination reveals some alarming facts about the practicality of wind energy. Windmills are extremely large, yet produce very little electricity. If the fully operable windmills in California, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Washington and Oregon were to run and produce electricity, the amount produced would be equal to one-third of 1% of the electricity produced in the United States in one year [3]. In addition, these wind farms impair environmental, ecological, scenic and property values, for obvious reasons. The bulk of the windmills become an eyesore in many scenic areas, may affect bird migration, and potentially would adversely impact ecological rarities. In his fourth point, my opponent brings up the environmental concerns related to nuclear waste and the availability of uranium resources. I agree with my opponent in saying that the waste produced by nuclear power plants is a real concern and that uranium and plutonium are not infinite resources. However, the nuclear waste problem is one that has been solved for quite some time. Regulations by the EPA, the DoE require that nuclear waste be disposed in such a manner that keeps it safe for at least one million years [4]. Burying the waste underground is a sensible means of disposal as it reduces its environmental impact while keeping it safely away from the human population. Also, as advances in technology continue one option that may become available for nuclear disposal is that nuclear waste be launched into outer space. Imagine, our nuclear waste hundreds of light-years away! How is disposal in this manner not environmentally friendly. My opponent also makes a point about the availability of uranium and plutonium--these things are not infinite resources. However, recent studies by independent agencies seem to suggest that the world holds more radioactive material than one might think. In fact, we have not reached “peak uranium” and new uranium deposits are being discovered everyday [5]. Also, recycled radioactive material form nuclear waste and decommissioned nuclear weapons serves as a major source of nuclear energy. While estimates are somewhat arbitrary, scientists predict that enough uranium exists in the world to sustain nuclear energy for several hundred years [5]. I would also like to point out to my opponent that he supplied no sources and did not even challenge my contentions. Thus, at this point I can claim to win by default. [1]. http://www.kmov.com...[2]http://nuclearinfo.net...[3]http://www.savewesternny.org...[4]http://environment.about.com... [5]. http://environment.about.com...