Nuclear Energy Is Beneficial to Society

Amount The 30,000 year figure comes from fast-breeder reactors, which create their own fuel through a process called a breeding reaction. In one example, uranium-238 (the stable, and therefore currently unusable, isotope of uranium) is bombarded with a neutron, creating a uranium-239, which goes through two beta-decays to plutonium-239, which is another fissionable material. Uranium-238 is much more abundant than uranium-235. ". .. the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235. " So this means that 140 times more fuel can be generated than with uranium-235, and this is where the 30,000 figure comes from. [1] The 1 million year figure comes from a rough estimation of all the fissionable materials available plus the amount of breeder reaction product fissionable material. Again, there are many different fissionable isotopes and many other atoms able to make a fissionable material through a breeder reaction. Further, there are unconventional extraction methods, such as from seawater. ". .. the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium"60,000-year supply at present rates. " It seems possible that there are 1 million years worth of fissionable and potentially fissionable materials on the Earth, and likely that the number at least closely approaches it. [2] But after 1 million years, we will surely a purely sustainable source of power (nuclear fusion? ), and renewables currently are no where near sustainable. For example, to be sustainable in solar, one would have to cover 1% of the Earth in Silicon solar panels. The surface area of the Earth is around 510 million square miles, 1% of which is around 5.1 million square miles, which is about half the size of the US, and this assumes that the area will be sunny 100% of the time. In addition, you'd have to create storage areas and power distribution centers, which are currently beyond our capacities (solar energy can only be used locally). Similar problems accompany wind, and hydro harms the environment horribly. Overall, renewables are not sustainable at this moment. We have to find some other source for the time being and nuclear has the longest-available supplies. [3][Google search of surface area of the Earth and US] Efficiency It is true that the capital costs to build a nuclear power plant are high, but when the price per unit energy is considered, it is a good investment. Here is a graph that breaks down the cost of nuclear, gas, coal, and wind energy into different categories, including start-up costs: "The relatively high capital cost of nuclear power means that financing cost and time taken in construction are critical, relative to gas and even coal. But the fuel cost is very much lower, and so once a plant is built its cost of production is very much more predictable than for gas or even coal. " This is once of the problems with investment in nuclear power, which I will explain more in depth later. [4] Nuclear is competitive in operating and management costs because of the low cost of fuel compared to fossil fuel power plants and because of the low cost of operating and management itself for renewables. Fossil fuels also have to contend with carbon taxes, increasing the costs of the energy they produce. [4][5] Overall, "August 2003 figures put nuclear costs at EUR 2.37 c/kWh, coal 2.81 c/kWh and natural gas at 3.23 c/kWh (on the basis of 91% capacity factor, 5% interest rate, 40 year plant life). With emission trading @ EUR 20/t CO2, the electricity prices for coal and gas increase to 4.43 and 3.92 c/kWh respectively. " The OCED study mentioned that everywhere, nuclear power is cheaper than wind energy as well. The problems with solar were already mentioned. This graph shows costs for major low-carbon energies; it is clearly lower than (on average) all other forms of renewable energies[4][6]: So why the decline in nuclear power investment? It has to deal with start up capital. Ellen Vancko, nuclear project manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists, says that, "They [investors] can buy them much more cheaply than they can build them. " Nuclear power plants are currently still profitable after they have been built, and they depreciate in value, making it better to upgrade old ones than build new ones. New, appliable technologies don't look profitable yet. There will come a time when building new nuclear power plants will become profitable again. Take the breeder reactors mentioned earlier. "Breeder reactors, which will become more economical in 50-100 years, will eventually appear and eliminate all supply issues. " Overall, the decline in investment in nuclear power is not a sign of its inefficiency, and it will rise again. [7][8] Environment My opponent's mining studies are old and are the result of bad mining practices. Since then, the safety of miners has increased dramatically. I won't repeat the quotes I provided in the last round, as they speak for themselves. However, I will add, "The maximum dose received is about half of the 20 mSv/yr limit and the average is about one tenth of it. " If you remember my last round arguments, the instances of cancer only rise after 50 mSv per year, which miners don't even get close to reaching. [9] Using Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power is sloppy. Chernobyl was the result of extraordinary circumstances, none of which have to do with the safety of nuclear energy. "The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was the result of major design deficiencies in the RBMK type of reactor, the violation of operating procedures and the absence of a safety culture. " Chernobyl was not the result of dangers inherent in nuclear energy generation, but rather in easily correctable errors in operation and management. Apart from Chernobyl, there has been no accident even remotely close to this magnitude. [10] What I meant by "important" is not that the considerations are irrelevant no matter the cost, but that the costs are very low Once again, nuclear energy causes fewer deaths than any other form of energy. If my opponent is holding out for some major catastrophe that dwarfs Chernobyl, then he will probably be disappointed as safety measures continue to rise, plants become cleaner, and more effective (i. e. more power for less material) plants come. The chart ins source 11 shows even more forms of energy and their respective death risks, and as can be seen, nuclear has the lowest of them all. On top of that, deaths are projected to decrease even further with the new generation of power plants. "All new builds must be Gen III and higher, with passive redundant safety systems, and all must be able to withstand the worst case disaster, no matter how unlikely. " I'm not sure why my opponent keeps arguing about the deadly risks of nuclear power when I've pointed out several times it's safety record. [11] As for nuclear waste disposal, my opponent forgot the rest of the quote. ". .. but many have plans to do so in the next 10 years. There are a number of well-developed proposals from the USA, Sweden, Finland and France for the disposal of long-lived radio-active waste. All the proposed disposal techniques employ multiple barriers, as discussed above, to isolate the waste from the biosphere for at least 100,000 years. [And by then, the radioactivity would have deteriorated]" This happens well in nature, such as with the Oklo reactor. [12] On the potential terrorist threat, the way nuclear reactors are designed is strong enough to prevent a general terrorist attack. In the very unlikely case that the containment chamber, there would not be any immediate effects, and the site could be contained before any long term effects would occur. "The study of a 1970s US power plant in a highly-populated area is assessing the possible effects of a successful terrorist attack which causes both meltdown of the core and a large breach in the containment structure " both extremely unlikely. It shows that a large fraction of the most hazardous radioactive isotopes, like those of iodine and tellurium, would never leave the site. .. The extent and timing of this [if it does leak] means that with walking-pace evacuation inside this radius it would not be a major health risk. "[10] Conclusion Nuclear energy is cheap, safe, efficient, and its potential is great. Overall, it represents a very good option for energy, and the time that we have the sufficient materials, we will certainly have found something else, maybe even sustainable nuclear power. Sources [1]: . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [2]: . http://www.scientificamerican.com... [3]: . http://www.brynmawr.edu... [4]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [5]: . http://www.eia.gov... [6]: . http://www.theccc.org.uk... [7]: . http://www.nytimes.com... [8]: . http://www.americanenergyindependence.com... [9]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [10]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [11]: . http://www.forbes.com... [12]: . http://nuclearinfo.net...