Nuclear Power

Breeder reactors are a pipe dream!!!!!! I'm perplexed by my opponents claim that "ship(ment of) plutonium would be a rare event". Plutonium is the by-product of the nuclear reaction process, it is essentially nuclear waste. Most of the worlds plutonium is stored in safe storage facilities, not at the power plants themselves. My opponent claims that fast breeder reactors can reduce the worlds plutonium supply, and he claims that shipping would be a rare event. For the breeder reactors to reduce the worlds plutonium supply, all the plutonium would need to be shipped to said reactors. The claim that shipping of plutonium would be rare, is entirely false. Furthermore, as I've pointed out before, this plutonium is not reactor ready, it needs an extra process of fusion with a heavy metal before it could be used in a breeder reactor. This extra process is an industrial sized task, which would require specialized processing plants, which would compound the already outrageously high price of the breeder reactors themselves. After the plutonium fusion process, there is a radioactive salt residue left behind. The nulclear industry has no plans in place to deal with the residue, and doesn't even speak of the residue for that matter. It would probably need to be stored away in a safe facility for hundreds of thousands of years. There is also the fact that this reprocessed plutonium is a very pure form of plutonium, and it would cause untold devestation if it were involved in an accident during shipment. This very pure plutonium would be exactly what a terrorist would need to build a true nuclear bomb. https://www.google.com.... The idea of breeder reactors being used commercially, borders on pseudo science, or science fiction. I challenge my opponent to answer one simple question. IF BREEDER REACTORS HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE 1943, WHY ARE THEY NOT IN WIDESPREAD COMMERCIAL USE TODAY? In my oppinion the high cost, (which is estimated at 4 to 8 billion dollars) and the time it takes to make these reactors, coupled with technical difficulties that still have yet to be completely worked out, make these reactors an expensive option at best. Furthermore, any potential accident of a breeder reactor could make Chernobyl look like a nice walk in the park. http://www.freep.com.... This statement is irrefutable: there has never been a commercially successful breeder reactor. Yes, there are a few breeder reactors in use today, but they are experiments in the economic feasibility of breeder reactors, which many countries have tried in the past, but all have failed. http://www.buzzle.com.... My opponent claims that the high cost of breeder reactor development is different than implementation of those reactors. I find that argument holds no water, because the cost of developing those reactors will be passed onto the consumers, or the taxpayers. The nulclear industry are not going to eat the losses out of the kindness of their hearts, someone will have to pay for it. Proponents of fast burning breeder reactors, and waste annihilating molten salt reactors, and any other experimental reactors will still try and push the need for further investment in the nuclear industry, even in lieu of all the evidence that nuclear waste reuse is expensive and dangerous. The only argument these proponents are left with, sounds more like a threat than a credible argument when they say, it's the only option we have to get rid of the worlds nulclear waste. So, what there trying to say is, WE have to pay for cleaning up the nuclear industries waste!?! I think that WE as a society are smart enough to not be intimidated or fooled by the nuclear industry any longer!!! Invest in renewables instead!!!!!!! There seems to be alot of back and fourth about government investment (bailouts) in this debate, and I'm not willing to let that die. My opponents argument relies heavily on the fact that renewables rely on goverment subsidies. I'm a libertarian, so the idea of any government subsidies sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me, but there is an energy crisis looming, our energy consumption is polluting our earth, and we need to deal with it. If we are going to collectively invest in a RENEWABLE, clean energy source, then that is a government investment that I will except. If we will continue to invest in an industry that leaves behind a toxic pollution that remains for hundreds of thousands of years, and there method of waste clean-up is unproven and underdeveloped, then that's unacceptable in my mind. I've provided evidence that renewable energy costs are continuously falling, while renewable energy efficiency is continuously rising. My opponent does nothing to show that nuclear energy costs are falling, or even stable, only to say that government investment in nulclear energy is what's needed for stabilizing costs. Prove nuclear power is safe!!!!! My opponent will need to show that reprocessing plutonium into the very pure strain needed for use in a breeder reactor, and then shipping that plutonium, is not dangerous. This highly pure strain of plutonium is exactly what a terrorist would need "to make a true nuclear bomb". The best method for keeping the ingredients of a true nuclear bomb out of the hands of terrorists, would be to not reprocess the plutonium, and abandon nuclear power altogether. My opponent fails to prove that nuclear power plants are 100% safe from cyber-terrorism or infiltration by force. All my opponent can offer as a rebuttal to this point is the fact that it hasn't happened in the past. I brought up the fact that US and Russian intelligence both consider a nuclear terrorist attack inevitable. My opponent opponent didn't even touch the fact that the UN and WHO both concluded that the true death toll of Chernobyl can never truly be known because radiation sickness can sometimes takes years or decades to kill someone, therefore can't be directly linked to Chernobyl, even though the initial radiation poisoning may have caused the death. My opponent shows a rather complacent attitude toward the possibility of a nuclear accident. Given the fact that major meltdowns have taken place in the past, proves it can happen again. My opponent also entirely dropped the point I made that, since most nuclear power plants are built by water, the possibility of an accident (flood at a nuclear power plant) is elevated, especially in lieu of rising sea levels and more frequent and more powerful storms. Nuclear power cannot impact greenhouse gas emissions in time!!!!!!!! I brought up the fact that the US National Commission of Energy estimates that the US would need to build 300 to 400 reactors before 2050 to make an appreciable impact on greenhouse gas emissions. I think his rebuttal missed the point entirely. That would mean 10 reactors a year for the next 30 years. I'm gonna go out on a limb, and call that impossible to do, furthermore that number of 300 to 400 reactors is only for the US, it doesn't include the number of reactors every other country would have to make by 2050. I implore my opponent to prove that either those numbers are a miscalculation, or that those numbers are an achievable task. I've assembled a number of questions that may help the reader put into context the many points made in this argument, and possibly make a better essesment of the argument. *Has my opponent proven nuclear power to be the most environmentally safe energy option? *Has my opponent shown that breeder reactors, or "next generation reactors" are safe, clean, and economically sound? *Has my opponent shown that breeder reactors are a viable option, or a continually failed experiment? *Has my opponent proven that meltdowns, radioactive leaks, or nuclear accidents are a thing of the past? *Has my opponent proven nuclear power costs are stable? *Has my opponent shown that the nuclear industry can be self sufficient and function without government subsidies? *Has my opponent shown that nuclear terrorism is impossible, or not likely? *If my opponent hasn't shown that nuclear terrorism is unlikely, has he shown that nuclear terrorism is not very impact full? *Will my opponent answer the question I pose to him, if breeder reactors have been around since 1943, why aren't they in wide spread commercial use today? *Have I proven renewables are safer than nuclear energy? *Have I proven renewable energy costs are falling? *Have I proven renewable energy is continually becoming more efficient? *Have I cast doubt on the ability of the nuclear industry to eliminate the possibility of an accident during shipment of reprocessed plutonium? *Have I shown that reprocessed plutonium can become a tool for terrorists? *Have I shown that breeder reactors are not economically sound? *Have I shown breeder reactors are unreliable, and unsafe? *Have I shown that breeder reactors are just a failed experiment by the nuclear industry? *Have I cast doubt on the ability of the nuclear industry to eliminate the nuclear waste it has accumulated over time? *Have I shown to you that nuclear energy is becoming obsolete? *Have I shown to you that nuclear energy is an unreliable, expensive and dangerous option? *Have I shown to you that we would benefit greatly from investments in renewable energy? *Have I shown that investments in nuclear energy is needless? I would like to extend my gratitude to bsh1 for this debate, it is the most interesting one I've been involved in. It was a great reminder of why I love this site. I wish bsh1 good luck, I hope to have more interesting debates with you in the future!!!