Nuclear Power

Thanks to Smooosh for this debate. I will now present my case. I. IntroPro is implicitly using a cost-benefit analysis framework to analyze the arguments in this debate by appealing to the negative consequence he believes will arise from negating the resolution. That's fine--I can accept a cost-benefit analysis framework for this debate. This allows us to skip a lengthy framework debate and move straight into the issues. Given that many of the disadvantages to negating (e. g. terrorism) that Pro brings up would seem to be inherent to nuclear power at all times, Pro should argue for immediate or near immediate prohibition of nuclear power. Any phase-out mere prolongs the dangers Pro talks about, if you buy that his dangers are real. This is particularly relevant in terms of global warming (GW). If the point of reducing pollution is to end global warming, then action ought to be taken immediately (as I will show later on). And if uranium mining is as polluting as Pro claims, Pro ought to want it to end now, not later. Pro himself writes, "nuclear energy is the WORST polluter of all energy sources. Most scientists believe, if we stop using fossil fuels today the effects on the environment would begin to reverse in as little as a decade. " Clearly, Pro should want us to stop using nuclear "today" if this is what he's arguing. Finally, it is important to note that it is not my task to show that nuclear energy will always be desirable in all circumstances. Merely, I must show that it ought not be prohibited. In this sense, Pro has a harder task ahead of him, because if nuclear power has neutral or beneficial outcomes, there is no good reason to prohibit it. Only if nuclear power is clearly harmful, would Pro be able to affirm under a cost-benefit paradigm. II. Global WarmingA. GW Needs to be Tackled SoonWe've all seen the reports about rising temperatures and sea levels. We've heard political pundits on the right deny that the problem exists and castigate the left for its alarmism. Yet, the data seems to confirm that the left's alarmism may be justified. If the earth's temperature rises between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, 20-30% of the world's animals and plants could vanish. [1] This would constitute 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 global food shortages. [2, 3] In order to stabilize temperatures before 2050, CO2 emissions will have to fall 60-80% by that time. [4]B. Nuclear Power cuts down on Greenhouse Gases (GHG)"Cumulatively, nearly 60 GtCO2 have been avoided globally since 1971, thanks to nuclear power. Thus, if the present nuclear energy capacity were to be phased out and replaced by remaining technologies in the world's current energy mix. .. global annual CO2 emissions from electricity supply would rise by 12%. " [5] These OECD findings also show that, when factoring in direct and indirect emissions, nuclear power is cleaner than coal, natural gas, biomass, solar, and hydropower energy. The example of France is also a great case study in how nuclear power can significantly and positively impact the environmental picture. In fact, "the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and '80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year. " [6]C. Nuclear Plants vs. the AlternativesI've already established that nuclear power is cleaner, in terms of GHG emissions, than the alternatives, but it also has some other advantages related to its energy capacity. In the US, the average solar plant or wind farm operates at 15 or 25% capacity, respectively. In contrast, a "nuclear plant can operate also at 90 percent of full capacity and can replace a coal-fired plant on a one-to-one basis. " It would take six solar plants or four wind plants to replace a single coal-fired plant. [7]Moreover, many alternative forms of energy suffer from inherent intermittency. The wind is not always blowing, the sun is not always shining, and the rivers are not always flowing (or at peak fullness). Nuclear power, however, can run at the same pace year round, and is not contingent on the weather to operate. The fact that nuclear power is clean, can produce more energy than alternatives, and is not subject to environmental conditions in the same way that the alternatives are, makes is a key tool in combating GW. It would make sense to scale up nuclear to quickly address the threat posed by GW, because of nuclear's advantages. Any phase out would likely prolong our reliance on coal, because of the inefficiencies of the non-nuclear, clean alternatives. III. Nuclear Power's Practical AdvantagesA. Nuclear Power is Cheap"On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour. " Nuclear power has a lower levelized cost than advanced coal with carbon capture, conventional combustion turbine, biomass, offshore wind, photovoltaic solar, and thermal solar. [14]B. Nuclear Power is SafeNuclear power kills fewer people per terawatt hour than coal, oil, natural gas, biofuel, peat, rooftop solar, wind, and hydro, averaging just 0.04 deaths per terawatt hour. [15] Since the first nuclear power plant was constructed 63 years ago, there have only been three major nuclear meltdowns: Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Of those, only one--Chernobyl--produced any fatalities [16, 17, 18]. That's 1 accident every 21 years, but, in reality, the accidents are becoming rarer. TMI and Chernobyl were less than 10 years apart, but Fukushima was 25 years after Chernobyl [16, 17]. And, Chernobyl happened only because of a design flaw that, given its notoriety, will never again be repeated. IV. Miscellaneous Benefits of Nuclear PowerA. Nuclear Power and MedicineRadioisotopes are key for conducting CT Scans and nearly half of all US cancer patients receive some kind of radiation-based treatment. More than 80% of drugs are tested using radioisotopes, and radioisotopes are used in medical research (e. g. finding a cure for AIDs). [8] Moreover, alternatives like cyclotrons (a kind of particle accelerator which can produce some kinds of radioisotopes) cannot replace nuclear power in serving the medical community. "More than 80 per cent of the radioisotopes used in medical procedures worldwide come from research reactors. Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), which decays to form technetium-99m. .. the most commonly used radioisotope--is currently only produced in nuclear research reactors. A recent report (2010) from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency indicates that non-reactor technologies for Mo-99 production are still decades away from fruition, and expresses strong doubts as to whether they could ever substitute for reactor technologies. " [9]B. Nuclear Power and VehiclesNuclear-powered submarines are a key elements of some countries' defense forces, and prohibiting that technology could disadvantage any one of them in the face of the others, should those others not similarly prohibit that technology. Nuclear-powered icebrakers are important for keeping Arctic trade routes open, for rescues, and for research. They are more powerful than conventional icebrakers, giving them a wider range of use. [10]C. Nuclear Power and Space Exploration"Unmanned spacecraft rely on radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) for the power they need for space exploration. RTGs use heat from plutonium to generate electricity. " [11] RTGs of this kind could also be useful for rovers. Rovers, like the European Space Agency's Rosetta, often carry solar panels and batteries that they rely on for power. Rosetta landed in an area shaded by cliffs, meaning that it could only send out data for 64 hours before it shutdown. [12] A non-solar power source, like RTGs, could prevent wasted missions like that. They could also allow rovers even in areas not subject to constant shade to transmit continuously, not just when then sun was up. This technology is currently in the works: "The Idaho National Laboratory's Centre for Space Nuclear Research in collaboration with NASA is developing an RTG-powered hopper vehicle for Mars exploration. " [12] Looking towards future missions into space beyond our solar system, nuclear power will be an essential tool. "Nuclear energy proves to be the most effective when attempting to make long distance missions in space. Nuclear energy not only provides way more power than batteries, fuel cells, and photovoltaic, but it also is an enduring source of energy as it has a much longer lifespan. Unlike solar energy, nuclear power is not dependent on the intensity of the Sun's rays, which makes it the optimal choice for traveling into deep space. " [13]V. Sources1 - . http://tinyurl.com...2 - . http://tinyurl.com...3 - . http://tinyurl.com...4 - . http://tinyurl.com...5 - . https://tinyurl.com...6 - . https://tinyurl.com...7 - . https://tinyurl.com...8 - . https://tinyurl.com...9 - . https://tinyurl.com...10 - . https://tinyurl.com...11 - . https://tinyurl.com...12 - . https://tinyurl.com...13 - . https://tinyurl.com...14 - . https://tinyurl.com...15 - . https://tinyurl.com...16 - . https://tinyurl.com...17 - . https://tinyurl.com...18 - . https://tinyurl.com...Thus, I negate. Thanks to the readers for following along and to Smooosh for the debate. I look forward to a great debate.