Debate Tournament Round 2 - Peter Parka vs. Anathelia

[retro]

Peter Parka vs. Anathelia

Nuclear Power

Nuclear power plants have become a huge issue recently, especially with the ever-increasing energy needs around the world. Proponents points to the fact that it's relatively clean source of energy that produces no greenhouse gases. They also point out that fossil fuels are a finite resource that will eventually run out. Opponents point to the Russian Chernobyl catastrophe as a reason why it shouldn't be considered. Another reason used is the fact that while nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, it does produce radioactive waste that must be stored far away from water sources and can remain radioactive for years.

Should nuclear power be used to meet the ever-increasing energy needs of the planet?

There will be three rounds, the first two will be limited to 350 words each, and the third round will allow 400 words. There will be no editing of your post allowed, unless it is approved by me, and only before your opponent has their chance to respond. You will have 24 hours from the conclusion of each post in order to post your response.

I would request that nobody, other than the participants, post in this thread until the conclusion of the debate.

I used a random number generator to determine who would lead off the debate.

Peter, you're up first...

 

[Peter Parka]

Should nuclear power be used to meet the ever-increasing energy needs of the planet?

I'm going to say yes on this one.
I'll start by simply outlining the benifits of nuclear energy. A nuclear reaction causes a huge amount of energy so is very efficient. Nuclear energy is very environmentally friendly as it produces no greenhouse gases or poisonous carbon dioxide. Uranium is the fuel used to create a nuclear reaction. As there is a high reserve of uranium to last for many years and you only need a tiny bit of it to generate a huge amount of energy, this is also an advantage over other energy sources. A single nuclear energy plant can create a huge amount of energy so very few of them would be needed. Nuclear energy is also easy and cheap to transport.

 

[anathelia]

While there are certainly positives to the usage of nuclear power over other forms, there are also several drawbacks. Not the least of which is the safety issue. There is absolutely no guarantee of 100% security in a nuclear power station. Accidents can and will happen, and they can be absolutely devastating to all forms of life. While nuclear power may not give off greenhouse gasses, it causes the same type of pollution as any other power plants: Thermal pollution. Thermal pollution hurts the environment in that the increased temperature of water decreases oxygen supply and can harm/kill aquatic animals that rely on their water being a certain temperature.

Also, while Uranium is a great source of energy in that there's a lot of it and the amount necessary to power something is not that great, the time that it needs to be stored as nuclear waste is upwards of 10,000 years. This is just to prevent it from being hazardous to the population. Thousands of years from now, when generations have passed and our language is dead, how will people know not to open these containers? Not to mention the fact that some sort of accident-related spill could happen at any time.

My final point is the target that nuclear power plants paint on themselves. To a group or person looking to cause a lot of damage with a small amount of work, a nuclear power plant packed with a radioactive substance is a perfect target for an attack. Explosions, whether they are intentional or accidental are incredibly dangerous and can cause widespread problems to people, animals, and the environment.

Overall, while nuclear power may be more efficient, I do not believe it to be safe source of energy, and there should be no global, or national, shift to further usage of it.

 

[Peter Parka]

You mention the safety issue but really, what energy is completely safe? I've lost count of the amount of people killed in coal mining disasters not to mention the atrocious conditions they work in and the health problems many of them suffer because of this. I sure as hell would feel a lot more comfortable and safe going to work in a nuclear plant than a coal mine. Plenty of other energy sources, petrolium, for example also cause thermal pollution so it's unfair to single out one energy source not to be used because of this.

There are drawbacks to all energy sources, granded but 1 kilo of uranium can produce the same amount of energy as 3000 tonnes of coal. Even if it does take 10,000 years to make the uranium safe (and advances in technology may well be able to change that in the future, it still would seem easier to store that kilo somewhere safely than repair all the damage digging up and using coal does to the environment.

I think as a terrorist target they wouldn't seem as likely as you think. Because of the top security round them, they would make an unlikely succesful hit to terrorists. Recent terrorists attacks have been by the terrorists finding weak spots and exploiting them, security on airplanes and then when that was tightened, trains.

I also think that a lot of the reason many people are against nuclear energy is because of the bad press it has recieved. It first came to the publics eye in WWII with two devestating bombs dropped on Japan and the image has now stuck. When people think of the word "nuclear" a big, chilling, mushroom cloud is the first thing they think of. Like many things, nuclear power can be used for harm but it can also be used for good too.

 

[anathelia]

Firstly, I would like to point out that I did not state, nor did I mean to imply, that other energy sources are not dangerous, just that the risks involved are less widespread and harmful in comparison. I would also like to point out that I did not single out nuclear power plants as the only producers of thermal pollution; it is a common problem amongst all power plants.

I will not deny the efficiency of a nuclear power source. The amount of product used to get the same result is substantially less. However, the current amount of Uranium in reserves is only enough to last ~85 years at the CURRENT rate of consumption. That number decreases as we increase our dependency on it as a source of energy. It is also a completely non-renewable source; once we've used it up, it's gone. I would also like to point out that while there may be a potential fix to the radioactivity of Uranium in the future, there currently isn't one. It is incredibly dangerous. The cost of storage, on top of the cost of maintenance, cleaning up spills, and just the cost of building or decommissioning a plant is higher than a fossil fuel plant.

Security at a nuclear power plant may not be as tight as you think it is. There are, on average, about 20 security guards on duty at any one time, and most of them are not very well trained in how to handle potential terrorist attacks. And this is in the U.S., where we supposedly tightened our security significantly after 9/11. Now imagine how easy it might be to get in and steal this nuclear power in another country, such as South Korea, North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran. These countries have a high probability for compromised power stations.

In summation, my argument is not that we should make a move away from nuclear power as an energy source. My argument is that we should not be making a shift towards using it more to meet the energy demands of our population.

 

[Peter Parka]

It seems to me that the environmental problems our earth has have been blamed on a wide variety of problems, CFC gasses, drilling for oil ect ect but little of it is caused by nuclear power. However it's nuclear power that seems to disproportionately be the scene for protesters. I believe this is because, as I mentioned previously, nuclear power is given an unfair bad press.

The amount of uranium to last is a wild guess at best, it's impossible to know how much of it is other countries that are very secretive and suspicious to outsiders and there is still plenty of the earth that isn't fully explored, Antartica and under the sea bed for example.

Tightening up security, if you believe that needs to be addressed is something which is relatively easy to do so no problems there. I dont believe we should stunt development and give into terrorists. That would just be waving the white flag. Virtually everything in life can be abused and used for harm so that's too simplistic saying we shouldn't use it in case it gets in the wrong hands, especially seeing a Western nation is the only country to have deliberately used it for harm, anyway.

In conclusion, there are problems with all energy sources but when compared with other options, nuclear energy is one of the best ways forward. It suffers from unfair bad press and there needs to be a shift away from this attitude. Instead of condemning it for it's relatively few problems, we should be embracing it and looking positively at ways to overcome these and make it even more safe and efficient.

 

[anathelia]

I might have been swayed to your side of the argument had you presented any viable solutions for the real problems I've brought up. It is possible that nuclear power gets an unfairly bad rap, but it's hard to blame anyone after situations like the Chernobyl disaster. The effect that waste spills can and have had on the environment are not something to just be ignored.

I know this sounds like a fairly weak closing argument, but I don't feel my points need anymore defending. The fact remains that the cons really outweigh the pros when you look at the situation as it sits currently. Unless, at some point down the road, people can provide solutions or fixes to the problems inherent in nuclear power, I truly believe that it is unwise to make a shift towards it as a way to meet the increasing energy demands of the world.

 

[retro]

This debate is closed. Ana's edit on her final post was approved to fix a grammatical issue.

Please refrain from posting in this thread until the voting has concluded and the results are made public.

You can PM your votes for the winner of the debate to me. Please include a brief explanation for the reasoning behind your vote.