Nuclear Power

Thanks again, Think. I. Scientific ConsensusThis is is an ad populum fallacy. Just because most people believe X to be true does not mean that X is actually true. At one point in time, most scientists believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, that humors were the causes of disease, that light was conveyed by a luminferous ether, and that the steady state theory explained the evolution of the universe. [18, 19] Each of these examples, which span from the 6th century to the mid-20th century, has been debunked over the years, despite enjoying temporary preeminence in the scientific community. In other words, the fact that most scientists believe X is not evidence for X, it is just evidence for the fact that most scientists believe X. Even if you don't buy that argument, Con only samples scientists from a single organization. Other groups, like Physicians for Social Responsibility, an arm of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and which I've cited already in this debate, does not support nuclear power. II. ReliabilityA. Nuclear power will become Less Reliable with GWSome damaging effects of climate change are inevitable. [20] Rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, and hotter temperatures will undermine the safety and functionality of nuclear plants. Heat waves can force reactors to shut down so that they don't overheat. This has already happened: "During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country's 58 nuclear power reactors. " [5] Extreme weather events, which will likely become more frequent may also increase the risks of meltdowns; if Fukushima could be caused by a tsunami, why could a super-typhoon not duplicate that disaster somewhere else? Thus, functionality will decrease and meltdown risks will increase in the future. B. Renewables Won't need Fossil Fuel Back-upsThis is true for three reasons:1. The Law of Large Numbers. LLN is "a probability theorem, which states that the aggregate result of a large number of uncertain processes becomes more predictable as the total number of processes increases. " Kind of like how sea turtles coordinate their egg-laying and -hatching so that so many cute baby turtles will be born at once that some are bound to survive, having many clean energy plants ensures that some will always be running so you don't need fossil fuel back-ups. If it is cloudy in Sacramento so that the solar panels can't work, it might be sunny in L. A. , so their solar panels can help supply both cities. Diversification is also useful, in that even if the solar panels in Sacramento aren't able to work, the wind turbines may be able to. Consider: "a study. .. found that an additional 15,000 megawatts of installed wind energy only requires an additional 18 megawatts of. .. reserve capacity to maintain the stability of the grid. " [21]2. Better Batteries Solve. As battery storage capacity improves, renewables can store extra energy they produce on good days to compensate for bad days, thus ending the need for back-ups. Batteries are getting better now--recently, researchers found a way to increase battery efficiency by 20% and to decrease the costs by 25%. [22]3. Some renewables are immune to intermittency. Geothermal and Hydropower energy draw from constant, predictable sources of energy, and are thus reliable. [23, 24] Hydro and geothermal can therefore be used as back-ups (instead of fossil fuels) to sources like solar. Hydro is also remarkably efficient--it's 50% cheaper than nuclear, can convert 90% of available energy into electricity, and some dams could conceivably produce 2,000+ MW of energy. [38, 39]III. EnvironmentA. Nuclear Cannot be Deployed in TimeTo stop seriously catastrophic climate change/global warming (GW), emissions must fall drastically by 2050. Nuclear cannot be scaled up in time to reduce emission by 60-80% by 2050. Therefore, nuclear power cannot stop GW.1. 2050 danger threshold. If the earth's temperature rises between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, 20-30% of the world's animals and plants could vanish. [25] This would essentially be a mass extinction. Increasing temperatures could cause sea levels to rise such that island nations like the Maldives or Marshall Islands or coastal cities like Venice and Bangkok could become entirely submerged; it could also cause crop yields to decrease, resulting in food shortages. [26, 27] In order to stabilize temperatures before 2050, CO2 emissions will have to fall 60-80% by that time. [28]2. Nuclear cannot be scaled up in time to accomplish 60-80% reduction. Scientists estimate that 115 reactors would need to be constructed per year to entirely decarbonise by 2050. [29] There is no precedent which would indicate that this is feasible. In France and Sweden, which both had periods of "rapid" nuclear expansion, the build rate was less than 3 reactors per year. [29] Most countries could not afford to build these plants, which could cost up to $9 billion each (or ~$1.04 trillion per year), straining even wealthy countries like the US. [30] Realpolitik also tells us that not all countries will participate in such an effort, for political, financial, or security reasons. Given these challenges, it is highly improbable that nuclear is an effective solution to GW. B. Nuclear Power = Radiological and Thermal Pollution"In addition to radiological pollution, nuclear power also contributes massive thermal pollution to both our air and water. It has been estimated that every nuclear reactor daily releases thermal energy. .. in excess of the heat released by the detonation of a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb blast. .. [N]uclear power contributes significantly to the thermal energy inside Earth's atmosphere, making it contraindicated at this time of rapid global warming. " [31]C. Renewables SolveScientists have analzyed 139 countries' unique situations and put together individualized plans that would allow these countries to rapidly switch from fossil fuels to things like solar and wind. They argue that implementation of this plan could achieve 80% renewables by 2030. [32] Because this plan is tailored to suit each country's resources, it has a higher likelihood of successful implementation than a one-size-fits-all nuclear approach. In terms of displacing CO2, wind (with levelized costs) is 24x more effective than nuclear; other renewables, like hydro, range from 2x to 20x more effective than nuclear. [33]D. SustainabilityFirstly, Con's card was not even about sustainability, where that is understood to mean being renewable/not beholden to limited resources like coal. His argument was essentially an extension of his reliable power arguments which I already responded to. Secondly, concerns over sustainability actually favor the Pro position. A "study, based on an analysis of global deposit depletion profiles from past and present uranium mining, forecasts a global uranium mining peak of approximately 58 kilotonnes by 2015, declining gradually to 54 ktons by 2025, after which production would drop more steeply to at most 41 ktons around 2030. " The study found that even under a modest 1% per year phase-out of nuclear power worldwide, there would be supply shortages. [34] This has two impacts: (a) it turns sustainability for the Pro, and (b) it further complicates any efforts to scale up nuclear as a response to GW. V. CostsCon essentially holds off on really expanding this point, so I'll address this more thoroughly when his arguments are presented. However, it is worth noting that the image of the chart he pastes into the debate pertains only to natural gas and coal against nuclear. I am not advocating for the use of natural gas or coal; just like nuclear, I want to phase out these energy sources as well. Because I do not have to defend the use of fossil fuels, Con's evidence does not actually rebut my specific advocacy; it only addresses a strawman. You'll notice that in my argument I explained how advanced nuclear was more expensive than geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric. That same source finds that biomass energy is comparable in cost to nuclear. [16] The cost of solar is rapidly decreasing--it is down 70% since 2009 (about 10% per year). [35] The trend of cratering costs is apt to continue: "The latest data show that the continued decrease in solar prices is unlikely to slow down anytime soon, with total installed prices dropping by 5 percent for rooftop residential systems, and 12 percent for larger utility-scale solar farms. With solar already achieving record-low prices, the cost decline observed in 2015 indicates that the coming years will likely see utility-scale solar become cost competitive with conventional forms of electricity generation. " [36] Nuclear, on the other hand, is experiencing a cost surge, jumping 2.25-4.5x from 2002 to 2008. [37] My earlier source [16] also reflects a cost increase for nuclear. IV. Sources18 - . http://tinyurl.com...19 - . http://tinyurl.com...20 - . http://tinyurl.com...21 - . http://tinyurl.com...22 - . http://tinyurl.com...23 - . http://tinyurl.com...24 - . http://tinyurl.com...25 - . http://tinyurl.com...26 - . http://tinyurl.com...27 - . http://tinyurl.com...28 - . http://tinyurl.com...29 - . http://tinyurl.com...30 - . http://tinyurl.com...31 - . http://tinyurl.com...32 - . http://tinyurl.com...33 - . http://tinyurl.com...34 - . http://tinyurl.com...35 - . http://tinyurl.com...36 - . http://tinyurl.com...37 - . http://tinyurl.com...38 - . http://tinyurl.com...39 - . http://tinyurl.com...Since