Nuclear Power

Thanks, Smooosh, for a great debate! I. Breeder ReactorsA. The OECDWhy did I mention breeder reactors in the first place? I mentioned them as a possible way to solve for the harms of uranium mining pollution. By dropping the OECD evidence, Pro has breeders irrelevant. The OECD evidence shows that, when factoring in direct and indirect emissions (including uranium mining pollution), nuclear power (not just breeders) is cleaner than fossil fuels, biomass, solar, and hydro. The report adds "[c]umulatively, nearly 60 GtCO2 have been avoided globally since 1971, thanks to nuclear power. " [1] In other words, nuclear power is cleaner than some of the renewables Pro endorses. In fact, Pro repeatedly mentions and defends solar throughout this round. B. ShipmentI think it is clear from the text of my argument that I meant the shipment of plutonium and uranium from mines would become rarer. And, in the long term, all types of shipment would become rarer, because after existing stockpiles of these elements are eliminated, the breeder reactors can be converted to become self-sustaining, without the need to new mining operations. C. PlutoniumPro criticizes me for failing to prove that "nuclear power plants are 100% safe" from terror. Yet, Pro is quick to say that the plutonium in his world will be "stored in safe storage facilities, not at the power plants themselves. " Can Pro assure me that those safe storage facilities are 100% safe from terror? Of course not. Pro is imposing an absurd double standard. The real issue is not whether either of us can be 100% safe, but rather whether nuclear power is safe enough that the benefits offset the risks. Moreover, in Pro's world, there will be more net plutonium than in mine. Obviously, if our goal is to minimize the chances of that plutonium falling into the wrong hands, we ought to attempt to destroy it. That means voting Con. On the point about costs, the plutonium from the already existing stores would not require additional refinement. My source explicitly notes that these stockpiles have already been "purified," because they were "extracted from spent fuel with the intention of using it to power an earlier generation of fast reactors. " [2] Even if they did require refinement, that would only be a temporary expense, as eventually the reactors would become self-sustaining. This gets back to the issue of long-term vs. short-term costs. D. CostsPro is only focusing on short-term costs. As I said in my last speech: "overtime, breeder reactors would likely recoup any initial losses by substantially reducing the expenses related to uranium and plutonium mining and shipment. Recall that in breeder reactors, the cost of uranium supplies is reduced 'by more than a factor of 100. '" Pro never substantively addresses my argument here; he says only that the "costs will be passed on to consumers. " But again, those costs will only be passed on in the short-term; in the long-term, it should end up saving consumers money. On commercial viability, I would point out that his source cites a single failed breeder reactor from 1966. Again, this is cherry-picked, just like his random example from India. His Japan example wasn't even the fault of the reactor itself--his own source placed the blame for the reactor's failure at the feet of incompetent administrators, not faulty technology. The fact is, nuclear technology has come a long way since 1966, and we're now seeing breeders come into commercial use. As I noted in R3, China, India, and Russia are all pursuing this technology; I even cited the Beloyarsk facility, which employs a commercial breeder reactor. Pro's other source (buzzle--which doesn't seem credible to begin with) is undated, so I cannot know if it reflects every breeder reactor currently in use. The source only says that the breeder reactor is not commercially viable. This seems no different than non-commercially viable renewables or normal nuclear plants, which are all supported by government subsidies. Finally, all of Pro's cost arguments are meaningless if we determine that breeder reactors are worth the expense. Pro writes: "If we are going to collectively invest in a RENEWABLE, clean energy source, then that is a government investment that I will except. " I have already shown that breeders (a) solve for sustainability--they could fulfill our energy needs for the next 5 billion years (see R3; Pro dropped that argument) and (b) are clean. It seems I've met Pro's own criteria. II. SafetyA. Attributable DeathsPro dropped that "[n]uclear power kills fewer people per terawatt hour than coal, oil, natural gas, biofuel, peat, rooftop solar, wind, and hydro, averaging just 0.04 deaths per terawatt hour" (see R2). These hard numbers are going to outweigh all of Pro's speculative comments about Chernobyl. Pro never disputes that only Chernobyl resulted in deaths--not Fukushima, not TMI--and he engages in rhetorical fear-mongering to make the Chernobyl disaster seem as bad as possible. The fact is, Pro doesn't know how bad it was--perhaps it was 100 deaths, or 500. Pro can't tell us. I gave you hard numbers; prefer them over conjecture. Moreover, nuclear pollutes less than solar at the very least (per the OECD data), and so is gaining some advantage there. Pro never contested that nuclear meltdowns are becoming rarer. The time between the first two meltdowns (TMI, Chernobyl) was less than half of the time between the most recent two meltdowns (Chernobyl, Fukushima). Pro has also failed to respond to the argument that Chernobyl only failed due to a design flaw that now, given the flaw's infamy, is unlikely to ever be repeated. B. DropsAdd in my medical arguments here. These went entirely conceded throughout the debate. 80% of drugs are tested using radioistopes. You need nuclear reactors to get the right radioisotopes. Pro's world would be a world where 80% of drugs failed to undergo necessary or useful testing. Pro's world would also make conducting CT scans more difficult and deny more than half of US cancer patients needed treatments. That only endangers life. If you use medicine, Pro's world is not the safer one. C. TerrorismPro dropped a litany of points: (a) the possibility of nuclear terrorism is not unique to my world, (b) HEU is currently being phased out of most reactors in favor of LEU, (c) dirty bombs are not significantly more dangerous than conventional explosives, (d) nuclear meltdowns have historically not been very deadly and (e) people who live near reactors are usually well trained and equipped to respond to a meltdown. Keep in mind too, no nuclear terrorist incident has yet occurred. Terrorists have two options: either steal fissile material to weaponize or trigger a meltdown. Meltdowns haven't been been very deadly in the past, and because employees are background checked and electronic systems are digitally protected, it would be hard to even trigger a meltdown. Also, because LEU is substantially less of a threat and because dirty bombs are not really more dangerous than conventional ones, it doesn't seem like stealing nuclear material would be all that productive for the terrorist either. III. Too Long to BuildPro's decision to merely restate his original argument does nothing to respond to the attacks I made against that argument. There was no internal justification within his source for that 300-400 number. His own source even called for expanding nuclear power--if he trusts the report, he should trust all of it, including its support of my position. That 300-400 number was based, according to Pro, on complete decarbonization by 2050, which is not my advocacy. And, most importantly, Pro entirely drops the example of France, which is a case study in how to do exactly what I am proposing. France proves that my proposal is feasible. IV. Miscellaneous OffenseA. AlternativesPro dropped that renewables are intermittent and require back-up generators, unlike nuclear plants. He conceded that nuclear plants produce substantially more power than alternatives. Both of these factors make nuclear an important part of our energy portfolio; nuclear makes up for renewables' deficits. Pro also talks vaguely about in-home energy sources--but all he does is speculate. He dropped his only concrete example of these (the Powerwall). B. CostsPro drops the levelized cost data (which isn't specific to breeder reactors). I am therefore showing (by Pro's preferred method) that nuclear reactors are cheaper than fossil fuels, as well as "biomass, offshore wind, photovoltaic solar, and thermal solar. "Pro also basically drops his bailout argument, saying only that he's a libertarian. But the standard in this debate is cost-benefit analysis, and his personal convictions don't change that. C. Really MiscellaneousPro drops the stuff about nuclear vehicles and space exploration. At the very least, these offer some kind of benefits. V. ConclusionThis debate comes down to weighing the costs against the benefits. In terms of costs, terrorism represents a minimal risk because it is not clear that nuclear plants would enhance their killing ability. Meltdowns rarely produce fatalities and dirty bombs aren't anything to write home about. Breeder reactors may not be good in the short-term, and some vague in-home alternatives may eventually materialize. In terms of benefits, nuclear power kills fewer people per terawatt hour than alternatives, is essential for medical treatments and research, is cheaper than alternatives (per levelized costs), are clean, produce large volumes of energy, could help us explore space, and could help us (via the French model) avert the GW danger threshold. Nuclear is safe, affordable, and useful. The benefits clearly outweigh the costs, and, therefore, we ought not prohibit it. Thus, I negate. VI. Sources1 - R1, Source 52 - R4, Source 2Thanks to Smooosh and to the readers and voters.