Nuclear Energy Is Beneficial to Society

Let's consider Pro's round two arguments in favor of nuclear energy: Amount The first of these is the amount of fuel available, and how long it could potentially last. The figures quoted here are so rubbery and based on speculation as to be pretty well meaningless. We are told that based on current consumption rates and current known supplies there is around 230 years worth of material remaining. This is fair enough. Then, we are told that using other sources of uranium, and other radioactive elements and isotopes that are not currently in use, and fission technologies that are not yet in production, the figure "could" be raised to thirty thousand years. That's a massive jump, and a lot of "ifs". Finally, Pro makes the claim that "it may be so that, at current energy consumption, we could sustain ourselves for 1 million years on nuclear fission reactions alone." This is a quantum leap from the thirty thousand quoted in the referenced article, and the source is not quoted. Pro, could you please provide the source of this claim? Pro closes his argument by stating "Nuclear energy clearly has much greater reserves than fossil fuels, and energy that is always available, unlike renewables". Unlike the elastic figures and speculation about future technologies used by the nuclear industry to estimate there may be around 30,000 years worth of atomic fuel left, we know for certain that "The sun runs out of hydrogen fuel in its core about five billion years from now"[1]. Furthermore, since winds are caused by heating of the Earth by the sun, we know for certain without any speculation that there is five billion years worth of renewable energy left, regardless of how much is used. Efficiency According to Pro, "Nuclear energy is cheaper and more efficient that other forms of energy, as it has a greater capacity factor and lower per unit energy costs than than other forms of energy, both fossil fuels and renewable." This argument is just not true, as typically, figures quoted by nuclear energy producers look only at ongoing production costs, and ignore massive initial setup costs - for example $10 billion to construct a reactor, and clean up costs of up to hundreds of billions of dollars (as discussed in my round two argument) when something goes wrong. "Cheap" atomic energy is based largely on massive subsidies: "Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running."[2] Furthermore, private sector investors recognize that nuclear is not an economically viable energy option for the future: "Nowhere [in the world] do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants." Only continued massive government intervention is keeping the nuclear option alive."[2] In summary, as Time Magazine eloquently puts it: "private capital still considers atomic energy radioactive, gravitating instead toward natural gas and renewables, whose costs are dropping fast. Nuclear power is expanding only in places where taxpayers and ratepayers can be compelled to foot the bill."[3] Environment This is where the pro nuclear lobby have to stretch the furthest. According to Pro, "Nuclear energy actually has very little effect on the environment". Perhaps Pro should try convincing the Navajo people, whose lands were used for uranium mining from 1944 til 1986, of that. It is no coincidence that "Risk of lung cancer among male Navajo uranium miners was 28 times higher than in Navajo men who never mined"[4]. In addition, "Rates of birth defects in babies born to Navajo women living in uranium mining areas in New Mexico and Arizona between 1964 and 1981 were 2 to 8 times the national averages, depending on the type of defect."[4] Or perhaps he should try convincing the Scottish farmers of the "minimal" environmental impact of nuclear power generation: "The direct consequences of the accident [Chernobyl] were felt in Scotland until 2010 when the last of the agricultural restrictions put in place following the catastrophe were lifted".[5] But it isn't over yet. Even today, 28 years after Chernobyl, "the country could still face contamination from the world's worst nuclear accident if the 1,600-mile exclusion zone around the now defunct power plant goes up in flames. The forests have been allowed to grow wild and unmanaged since the tragedy almost three decades ago and have continued to absorb contamination still evident in the area. Raising temperatures and lack of rain have now created a serious risk of a massive blaze, which could rage on for several days and have far-reaching consequences. Lack of resources mean spotting and putting out flames before they burn out of control is near impossible although a core group of volunteers is trying to do their best. Scientists in Scotland agree the prospect of redistribution of contaminated particles is "very real""[5]. The radioactive half life of products used in nuclear power generation ranges from tens of years to millions of years. Radioactive products which are left laying on the ground (tailings), or buried under the ground or ocean leave an environmental legacy that could last well beyond the life expectancy of the human race. And now I'd like to consider some additional arguments raised by Pro in round three: Firstly, we have this rather odd statement: "The only real consideration for nuclear waste is the radioactivity and the potential threat to life that it creates. However, the considerations are not important". Hopefully, this represents an unfortunate choice of words, and not really a total disregard of the many tens of thousands who have already died or will die as a result of accidents which have already occurred in the nuclear industry. Concerning storage of nuclear by products, various solutions are being explored globally; but no permanent solutions have been implemented. One pro-nuclear source admits: "Currently, no country has a complete system for storing high level waste permanently".[6] Regarding transportation of nuclear waste, Pro states that "elaborate packaging" reduces the chance of a catastrophe to almost none. It would be interesting to see the "probabilistic risk analysis" on which these figures were based, but it is not essential, because the argument ignores the most significant factor - the potential for terrorism. As I pointed out in round two, this month has seen the first recorded instance of a deliberate attack on a nuclear reactor. Particularly with the increasing use of drone technology, the potential for an attack on radioactive materials during transport is a very real, and very frightening possibility. And no amount of "elaborate packaging" will be effective against a missile attack. The remaining arguments from Pro in this round seem to be, in the main, denials of plain facts on the dangers of radioactivity from the nuclear industry. For example: - "Miners of radioactive materials are actually much safer than are popularly believed". - "As for genetic mutations, again, while the risk is there, the dangers and probabilities of receiving any adverse effects are small." - "As for nuclear disasters, these are actually very rare" - " " core melting and containment failure " can cause few if any deaths to the public, regardless of the scenario that led to the core melt and containment failure." All of these claims are contradicted by facts that I have raised in round two. Rather than refute them again here, I will refer to them in the last round when I summarise our respective cases. And finally, on the subject of economic viability, Pro cites an article by the Nuclear Energy Institute in saying: " "Analysis shows that every dollar spent by the average nuclear plant results in the creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 in the state economy and $1.87 in the U.S. economy." A big cost equals an even bigger gain". Again, this claim by a major interest group is simply smoke and mirrors. It refers to the yearly "economic output" from a typical nuclear power generator, and claims it to be in the order of $470 million dollars per year. Yet what is not factored into this is the cost to construct the reactor in the first place. Even allowing for only $8 billion dollars which is claimed in the article, this gives an interest bill alone (at a modest 5%) of over $400 million dollars per year, which virtually wipes out all profits made. In comparison to this, renewable energy sources have negligible construction costs and vastly lower operating costs. References: [1] http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu... [2] http://www.motherearthnews.com... [3] http://content.time.com... [4] http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us... [5] http://www.express.co.uk... [6] http://nuclearinfo.net...