Nuclear Energy Is Beneficial to Society

In this round, I will be addressing my opponent's three arguments against nuclear energy. Dirty To begin with, I will give a quote I provided in the first round, "Because uranium contains many thousands of times more energy per unit of weight than fossil fuels, the waste from a nuclear power station is very small in volume and is fully managed and extremely secure at the nuclear sites. " In other words, pro's first argument doesn't really present a problem. Sure, that amount of waste may seem like a lot, but in reality, it pales in comparison to waste from other forms of energy, such as coal-fired plants. [1] 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. "Storage ponds at reactors, and those at centralized facilities such as CLAB in Sweden, are 7-12 metres deep, to allow several metres of water over the used fuel comprising racked fuel assemblies typically about 4 m long and standing on end. The circulating water both shields and cools the fuel. These pools are robust constructions made of thick reinforced concrete with steel liners. Ponds at reactors are often designed to hold all the used fuel for the life of the reactor. " Putting the nuclear waste deep underground presents an even safer, long-term option, and unlike my opponent's claims, isolates the radioactivity from the biosphere, and eliminates any potential adverse effects. "This immobilises the radioactive elements in HLW and some ILW and isolates them from the biosphere. ""This method of disposal offers an assured means to isolate UNF-HLW and ILW over time periods sufficiently long to preclude any adverse impact on life on the Earth's surface. Repository plans generally allow for retrieval of nuclear waste, at least for an extended period of time. But the designs also provide for safe isolation even without human management. "[2][3] As for statistical evidence of danger to the public, "Potential problems from accidents in transport of radioactive materials are largely neutralized by elaborate packaging. A great deal of such transport has taken place over the past 50 years and there have been numerous accidents, including fatal ones. However, from all of these accidents combined, there is less than a 1% chance that even a single death will ever result from radiation exposure. Probabilistic risk analyses indicate that we can expect less than one death per century in U. S. from this source. "[10] Dangerous Miners of radioactive materials are actually much safer than are popularly believed, especially with the internal and external regulation because of scientific findings, and the occupation can actually be considered safe. "The revised occupational exposure limit is 20 millisieverts per year averaged over five consecutive years. .. the weight of scientific evidence does not indicate any cancer risk or immediate effects at doses below ablout 50 millisievert (mSv) per year. "[4] As for genetic mutations, again, while the risk is there, the dangers and probabilities of receiving any adverse effects are small. "The estimated risk of permanent damage to a second generation (grandchild) individual is 0.02 cases per million Micro-Sievert [ or around 20 cases per million milli-sievert] of exposure. " As can be seen, the dangers of working in radioactive mining, while larger than the average dose received by someone not working in the industry, is small compared to the doses needed for bodily abnormality. [5] But what of the dangers of working in nuclear reactors, or more importantly, the danger to individuals not involved in the nuclear energy process at all? The risks are much lower. "Despite popular belief, nuclear plants are relatively safe. For years, America's commercial nuclear energy industry has ranked among the safest places to work in the United States. In 2000, its industrial safety accident rate-which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work time, restricted work or fatalities-was 0.26 per 200,000 worker-hours. By comparison, the accident rate for US private industry was 3.1 per 200,000 worker-hours in 1998. .. Even if you lived right next door to a nuclear power plant, you would still receive less radiation each year than you would receive in just one round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles. You would have to live near a nuclear power plant for over 2,000 years to get the same amount of radiation exposure that you get from a single diagnostic medical x-ray. " All and all, nuclear energy has a very low rate of potential danger to anyone involved or not involved in the process of its production. The radiation dose to the public is less than one milli-sieverts a year. [6] As for nuclear disasters, these are actually very rare. Only three major instances ever occurred, once of which (Three Mile Island) was fully contained, another (Fukushima) resulted in no deaths, and the other (Chernobyl) was more the result of major design deficiencies and bad safety measures in place with Soviet nuclear reactors. "These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 15,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries. " Overall, none of these is a case against modern nuclear power plants. [7] Finally, on terrorism, the chances (it's never happened) and consequences are very small. "But further (see Sept 2002 Science paper and Jan 2003 Response & Comments), realistic assessments from decades of analyses, lab work and testing, find that the consequence of even the worst realistic scenarios " 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. "[7] Overall, coal plants cause 342 deaths per TW (terawatt, 10^12 watts), natural gas 85 deaths per TW, hydro 883 deaths per TW, and wind around 1000 deaths per TW (with regression analysis), while nuclear only causes 8 deaths per TW. It hardly seems appropriate to call nuclear the most dangerous of energy sources. [7][8] Expensive My opponent's first arguments rest on the three accidents mentioned earlier. Again, considering the amount of nuclear energy used over the years, that amount is small compared to damages to plants of other forms of energy, especially coal and hydroelectric (the latter of which requires the massive rerouting of capital). As for actual power plant cost, my opponent has not considered my opening arguments, and I'm interested to see what he'll have to say in this round. I will simply make one point here. "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. [9] Sources [1]: . http://www.cna.ca... [2]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [3]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [4]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [5]: . http://nuclearinfo.net... [6]: . http://learn.fi.edu... [7]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [8]: . http://www.forbes.com... [9]: . http://www.nei.org... [10]: . http://www.physics.isu.edu...