Nuclear > Wind

--Rebuttal-- Con quotes Mark Z. Jacobson on how nuclear weapons are linked to nuclear energy, however Mark Z. Jacobson is hardly an unbiased or respectable source, as it's been shown that his attempts to quantify the death toll of fukishima are junk science [23]. But to quote Margaret Thatcher, "A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us" [24]. Con talks about the danger of being tempted by nuclear weapons, but this was notably demonstrated to thaw the cold war, once the world's two greatest superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, saw how disastrous the concept of nuclear war really was [25]. Con cites the disaster at Chernobyl as a reason why nuclear power is dangerous, however this doesn't even remotely apply to modern nuclear power plants for the following reasons; - Chernobyl was the product of a severely flawed Soviet-era reactor design, combined with human error - Key differences in modern Western reactor design, regulation, and emergency preparedness makes it 'highly unlikely' that a Chernobyl-type incident could happen in the modern Western world - One of the main reasons Chernobyl was so bad was because the government did not begin emergency evacuations until 36 hours after the event - The government in Western nations, after a disaster such as this, would monitor and test any food/water that could be unsafe (see: the Three Mile Island incident in 1979) [26] All modern Western nuclear power plants have extensive safety features to prevent large-scale accidents and radioactive releases. The Chernobyl reactor had none of these and was unstable at low power levels. Even with the poor reactor design, the officials could have averted many radioactive exposures to the population with an effective emergency response. But still it is a point of interest that the levels of radiation at Chernobyl are similar to the levels of radiation you'd be exposed to is the same as you're exposed to on a commercial jet [27]. Con also brings up the point of nuclear waste, however this problem is avoided with the use of Fast-breeder reactors, which would 'dramatically decrease' the amount of high-level waste [28, 29], Roger Helmer MEP writes. Con raises concerns about the amount of radiation that is produced by nuclear power plants, despite the fact that nuclear power plants emit radiation at such a level that the average person living with 50 miles of one is exposed to the same amount of radiation as they are from their smoke alarm [30]. Con uses one source to argue against the tritium radioactive gas and chlorofluorcarbon that nuclear power plants produce, however this is extremely misleading, as the data the source bases its claims on is from 2001 data on a 1950s power plant [31]. Besides previous evidence given of how big the problem of types of radiation produced from nuclear power plants really are, as it's pointed out, current strategies of using highly efficient gas centrifuge technology will use no CFCs and will therefore avoid these problems. Con claims that nuclear is not renewable, but it actually is, using nuclear fusion, a process which uses hydrogen and means that we will be able to have an unlimited supply of (significantly cleaner) nuclear energy [28, 32]. He also, in the same paragraph, implies that wind is significantly better than nuclear because of their difference in greenhouse effect. However, as scientific evidence from Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University and Parliament shows [1, 2], the difference between wind and nuclear in Carbon Dioxide emissions is either insignificant or none. But even if we didn't have this evidence, that wouldn't be a reason to use wind energy over nuclear energy, because as Google engineers in IEEE spectrum Ross Koningstein & David Fork pointed out after Google's rejection of renewable energy (3 years after cancelling their project RE Con's final point to support his contention that nuclear is not as environmnetally friendly as wind is that nuclear energy "contaminates water", however this does not appear to be a problem in modern Nuclear technology, as even the incident at Fukishima posed 'No threat' to water [35]. Con's last contention is that wind energy is more supported by the public, and I concede that if you do a survey and ask people what sounds like a good idea, wind energy/renewables or fossil fuels/nuclear, they will opt for wind, but numerous incidents in the past have shown us that when people actually experience what it is like living close to a Wind Turbine, they often develop a strong opposition; - Petition in Alabama, to stop Wind Turbines, started by a 6-year-old girl, receives over 1,000 signatures [36] - Over 2,000 people march against Wind Turbine proposals in Ireland (2013) [37] - Over 7,000 people march against Wind Turbines in Dublin, Ireland (2014) [38] - Three families in Wisconsin leave their homes because their symptoms of WTS are so severe [39] - WTS recorded in Denmark [40] - Research in Canada confirms WTS [14] Sources [23] http://www.marklynas.org... [24] http://www.brainyquote.com... [25] http://www.sparknotes.com... [26] http://www.nei.org... [27] [28] http://www.ukipmeps.org... [29] http://en.wikipedia.org... [30] http://www.nei.org... [31] http://www.neinuclearnotes.blogspot.co.uk... [32] http://en.wikipedia.org... [33] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [34] [35] http://www.bloomberg.com... [36] http://www.change.org... [37] http://www.independent.ie... [38] http://www.demotix.com... [39] http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com... [40]