Nuclear Power

Breeder reactors are nothing new! My opponents gleaming description of fast breeder reactors gives the reader a sense that breeder reactors are the great white hope for the nuclear industry. Finally, the problem of nuclear waste can be solved. Whoa whoa, don't break out the champagne just yet. Fast breeder reactors are nothing new, they've been around since the dawn of nuclear power. The breeder reactor was created by Leo Zhilard in 1943, and anyone who knows that name, knows that Dr Zhilard worked on the Manhattan project. Breeder reactors are nothing new, and there are reasons they haven't been in wide use commercially since their inception. This technology has proven to be insanely expensive to create, and breeder reactors are known for being unreliable. One might get the idea that these reactors can just start eating up spent nuclear waste material like a hungry hippo and that's the end of that, but the truth is breeder reactors still need a reliable source of uranium. Also, the nulclear waste these reactors can allegedly clean up, needs further processing before it's reactor ready, and that's an industrial sized operation, and also leaves a radioactive salt residue that will need to be stored. If we look at plutonium as a commercial commodity, plutonium costs are known to swing wildly because of processing costs, and ever changing global policy on storing, procesing, and shipping. Experiment breeder reactors have never been able to reach their intended goals of output because of plutonium cost. Also there are fears of shipping the plutonium, because those shipments could be sought after by terrorists, or could be invoved in an accident, which could cause an environmental catastrophe. There are a number countries that are in persuitt of developing this technology, but many scientists around the world point out that Germany and France have tried this technology in the seventees and they did not have gleaming results. http://thebulletin.org... http://www.japantimes.co.jp... http://thebulletin.org... Nulclear reactors take to long to build. My opponent claims nuclear power is the most effective way to reduce global warming. He points to the year 2050 as the point of no return. https://www.google.com.... Page 9 of this report shows, the US National Commission of Energy estimates the US would need to build 300 to 400 new reactors in the next 30 to 40 years for the US to become carbon free. Nuclear reactors can take up to 10 years to build and have taken far longer, and no country has the ability to build that many reactors in that short of a time frame. I'm sorry, but nuclear power is not a viable option for reducing green house emissions to a safe level by 2050. Furthermore, I do concede that solar and wind farms produce less energy than nuclear, because that is the old outdated standard of renewables, and they need to rely heavily on fossil fuels. The new standard of homeowner solar or wind, combined with energy storing batteries is becoming more efficient and less expensive and will not need to rely on fossil fuel backups. Energy storing batteries may not be able to store enough energy yet, but I wonder what this debate will be like 5 or even 10 years from now. We must realize there are so many companies working toward the goal of "off the grid" energy production that by a simple calculation of reason, renewable energy will continue to advance rapidly and will easily meet the goal of cutting carbon emissions by 2050. http://www.theverge.com.... Here's another renewable technology coming to fruition. Are you prepared for nuclear terrorism? My opponents (and all of societies) near complacent attitude toward nuclear terrorism is frightening. Harvard University concluded that there are so many organizations working toward the same goal of nuclear terrorism that we have to expect that a nuclear terrorist attack WILL occur in a western nation eventually. Even more alarming is that same report said that we cannot rule out the possibility of a terrorist organization building an improvised weapon that could be as destructive as the Hiroshima bomb! A US and Russian joint report said that once a terrorist organization is able to obtain the components needed, it would only take a few skilled technicians to build an improvised nuclear weapon. http://news.harvard.edu... https://www.google.com... Inside job!!!! My opponent brings up the fact that nuclear technicians and anybody who has access to a nuclear power plant goes through a stringent background check and psychological examination, however he showed no evidence of that. I pointed out that an airliner packed with passengers went missing, and it's believed the pilot purpously downed the plane. I should point out that pilots go through a stringent background check, and psychological check as well, but that's not a fix all solution by any means. Furthermore, there are no global governing laws on nuclear plant vetting procedures, and even if there were, these procedures could certainly not be enforced in countries that are unfriendly to western countries. A terrorist organization could concievably get what they need in another country to inflict the harm in our country. Nuclear relies on goverment bailouts!!! Government investment in renewables are a measure of implementing new technology and making it more available to the public. Government investments in nulclear energy, is to save nuclear energy companies from failing. I understand renewable energy relies on goverment money to help bring their products to the masses, and to help further develop promising technologies. Renewable energy is on the cutting edge of advancement, whereas nuclear energy has nothing more to offer. There is no "new" reactor prototype. Waste annihilators and fast breeders have been around since the inception of the industry. I will answer my opponents question "why are bailouts necessarily bad?" In my oppinion, if taxes are taken from someone who does not rely on nuclear power, and used to help stabilize nuclear energy costs, it's not fair to that taxpayer, and it's not ethical. Furthermore, if taxes are taken from someone who does rely on nuclear power, then they're paying twice. That's not really cost stabilization. If tax dollars are taken from taxpayers to invest in a new technology (renewables) that will eventually be paid back to said taxpayers in the form of lower energy costs, then that's a smart government investment. The renewable industry will eventually be self reliant and prove to be more cost effective, the nuclear industry has never been capable of that.http://www.psr.org...