Nuclear Power

Thanks, Smooosh. I. Breeder ReactorsPro argues that breeder reactors are expensive, unreliable, and are susceptible to terrorism. Shipping plutonium would be a rare event, largely because breeder reactors can make their own plutonium. "[T]he number of neutrons produced per plutonium-239 fission is 25% more than from uranium, and this means that there are enough (after losses) not only to maintain the chain reaction but also continually to convert U-238 into more Pu-239. .. So, the fast reactor 'burns' and 'breeds' fissile plutonium. .. Both U-238 and Pu-240 are 'fertile' (materials), i. e. by capturing a neutron they become. .. fissile Pu-239 and Pu-241 respectively. " [1] In other words, breeder reactors would only require an initial shipment of plutonium before basically becoming self-sufficient. This minimizes the risk of terrorist attacks on plutonium shipments. The same holds true for uranium. Breeder reactors could reduce the risk of plutonium-related terror by reducing the world's plutonium supplies. Regarding civilian plutonium waste, "much of that British plutonium. .. has been extracted from spent fuel with the intention of using it to power an earlier generation of fast reactors that were never built. This makes it much more vulnerable to theft and use in nuclear weapons than plutonium still held inside spent fuel, as most of the U. S. stockpile is. " [2] Plutonium stockpiles are already sitting around. Either we use it as fuel, or we bury it and isolate it for thousands of years. Pro has repeatedly railed against the latter option as dangerous and potentially calamitous for the environment, so it seems wiser to simply use it up as fuel. Moreover, no one has even built a geological repository for this kind of plutonium. [2] Since plutonium reactors can be run in different ways (i. e. to maximize plutonium creation, to stabilize plutonium levels, or to destroy plutonium introduced into the system) breeder reactors are capable of both destroying these reserves and later being adapted to stabilize the amount of plutonium (so no new shipments or mining). [2] Such a process would reduce the net amount of available plutonium reserves in the world, decreasing the risk that such material could be used for nefarious ends, including in terrorism. This plan would also prevent the creation of the kind of waste storage sites Pro objects to. It's a win-win. Simply put, "[t]he plutonium stockpiles have to be dealt with. The only viable alternative to re-use is burial, which carries its own risks, and continued storage, with vast expense and unknowable security hazards to present and countless future generations. " Since breeder reactors are the only way to eliminate these stockpiles, we need to be investing in breeder technology. [2]As for the other issues, Pro says that breeder reactor technology has been "expensive to create. " Firstly, developing the technology and implementing it are different issues, and it seems that, 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. " [3] Secondly, even if Pro were to demonstrate that breeder reactors are costly, that is not the same thing as proving that their utility does not justify their cost, however usurious that cost may be. Finally, the issues of reliability Pro talks about, and also his arguments regarding cost, seem to hinge (based on a quick reading of his sources) on a single bungled test reactor experiment in India and an example in Japan, which went afoul more because of administrative incompetence than anything else, as the article notes. Neither of these cases indicate inherent flaws in the technologies or plants themselves. II. Too Long to BuildI looked at Pro's source, and at the source Pro's source cited. I found no substantiation for the claim that 300 to 400 new reactors would be needed in the next 30-50 years. I found precisely one reference to this statistic in the original report, buried on page 58. It reads in part: "If the number of nuclear reactors in the United States is to double or triple over the next 30 to 50 years, however, and the number worldwide is to grow ten-fold--as would be needed to have a large impact on greenhouse gas emissions. " [4] Forgive me if I don't find this un-sourced claim particularly inspiring. It is also interesting to note that this same report, on page 109, argues for expanding nuclear energy, not curtailing it. [5] If Pro is going to endorse the claim on page 58, he should not be able to avoid endorsing the claim on page 109. Even so, the example of France--which was dropped completely by Pro earlier--is a key success story in regard to rapid decarbonization. It manage to rapidly expand its nuclear capacity from the early 1980s to 2007 (a little under 30 years). In conjunction with the nuclear program, it also increase hydroelectric plants, so that 90% of its power was supplied by those two sources in 2007 (75% by nuclear alone). This more than meets the 60-80% goal within the timelimits given. France also used some innovative techniques to assist in the rapid development of nuclear power: "the most important aspect of French nuclear policy is its procurement strategy, which is centered on producing one standard nuclear technology, the pressurized water reactor. .. By focusing on a single type of reactor, the government encouraged standardization, economies of scale, rapid construction and quick installation in the emerging nuclear industry. " [5] If other countries replicate the French model, it is not inconceivable that the danger threshold could be averted in time. This is empirically demonstrates that what I propose can be done. It's also worth mentioning that I, of course, am not arguing for nuclear power to the exclusion of all other sources. I think nuclear is a key part of our energy portfolio, but, as with France, it should be combined with other useful energy sources. Also, I do not need to endorse "complete" decarbonization--only 60-80% decarbonization. Finally, Pro makes some vague mention about in-home energy sources, saying: "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. " But that is just the point: all Pro can do is wonder. There has been scant evidence in this debate that things like the Powerwall will be able to solve in time. Pro is trying to create a panacea out of hopes, dreams, and optimism--none of which happen to be concrete data and none of which always materialize in the face of an oftentimes frustrating and difficult world. III. TerrorismPro gives no reason why nuclear terror is unique to my world. Recall that we already have large stores of fissile material that are not simply going to vanish if nuclear plants shutdown. If a nuclear terrorist incident is inevitable, it is inevitable no matter which side prevails. We cannot even know if the incident would be worse in one world or another because such arguments boil down to mere speculation. To make a true nuclear bomb, terrorists would need highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. [6] Regarding the latter, I've already explained how negating could make terrorists using plutonium less likely. Regarding the former, HEU is currently being phased out of most of the reactors that use it, in favor of LEU. [7] This policy ought to continue, and would significantly impede efforts by terrorists to make a Hiroshima-esque bomb, or even something less grandiose. Pro adds that I haven't shown that people need to be background checked in order to access nuclear plants. I would've thought that self-evident, but there is evidence which supports my assertion. [8] I would also posit that it is more likely than not that nuclear technicians will have more thorough security checks than airlines pilots given the sensitivity of their jobs and of the technology they work with. Even in states unfriendly to the West, e. g. North Korea, understand that it would be idiotic not to secure their nuclear facilities. IV. BailoutsFirstly, my opponent lambastes breeder reactors as costly to develop, yet justifies massive subsidies for renewables because those subsidies are there to support new industries. This is hypocritical on its face. Even if the technology existed before, it is now being deployed on a scale it never had been before. In that sense, it is a new industry. Why support subsidies for one, but not the other? Secondly, the subsidies for renewables are still there to stop them failing. If the argument is that bailing out companies that couldn't otherwise survive is bad, then we ought not to be bailing out renewables either. Thirdly, nuclear will likely recoup its costs, as shown earlier. Fourthly, Pro never really contests that keeping energy costs down through subsidies benefits the economy. Finally, since we're using a cost-benefit analysis weighing calculus in this debate, Pro's ethical concerns about taxpayers are simply irrelevant. They don't weigh. V. DropsSince R4 is Pro's last speech, he cannot rebut anything he has dropped so far, per the rules against new arguments. Pro has dropped a lot--that thermal pollution is irrelevant, the OECD data, the levelized cost data, the Tesla Powerwall's pitfalls, that nuclear plants don't need back-up generators, and all four arguments under "Terrorism" in my R3, not to mention all the drops I noted under "Drops" in R3. These points are all now untouchable. I'll impact them next round. VI. Sources1 - . https://tinyurl.com...2 - . https://tinyurl.com...3 - R3, Source 24 - . https://tinyurl.com...5 - . https://tinyurl.com...6 - . https://tinyurl.com...7 - . https://tinyurl.com...8 - . https://tinyurl.com...Thus, I negate. Thanks to Smooosh and the readers.