P. 1
WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final

WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final

|Views: 31|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Dec 16, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Nuclear power produces less c02, is more affordable, and can provide a substantial amount
of power – it’s better than all the other alternatives.
Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna

Nuclear power is green in multiple senses. The most important criteria by which to judge any viable
alternative to petroleum is the magnitude of its contribution to global warming. Well, uranium or
petroleum fission produces no carbon emissions whatsoever, since there is no carbon involved.
cooling process does produce water vapour, but water vapour and carbon dioxide are both greenhouse gases
in the same sense that Roger Federer and I are both tennis players (and water vapour emissions, moreover,
can be controlled). The environmental downsides of nuclear power are therefore not any more severe
than other alternative energy sources, such as wind or solar power, and are arguably less severe than
biofuels like the ethanol that Obama heartily supports.
These energy sources all entail waste heat,
produce solid waste and have other drawbacks - but the environmental drawbacks of all of them,
nukes included, are quite modest. From a fiscal perspective, nuclear power enjoys enormous
advantages over other environmentally friendly energies.
At their present state of technological
development, nuclear reactors can already power large industrial societies. Wind and solar power are
not there yet, and biofuels (particularly ethanol) are something of an embarrassing racket,
extraordinarily inefficient and requiring huge government subsidies to be propped up.

It will take 1200 years for other alternative energies to catch nuclear power.
, Council on Foreign Relations, November 6, 2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html KP

It’s a shame this is an online discussion, because surely Michael Mariotte couldn’t have written his remarks
with a straight face. You do the math: Nuclear energy annually has provided 20 percent of U.S.
electricity supplies since the early 1990s, and even with a marked increase in overall electricity
demand, it constitutes more than 70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit
greenhouse gases or controlled pollutants into the atmosphere. Renewable energy technologies over
that same time period—even with subsidies like production tax credits in place—have increased their
share of U.S. electricity production to 3.1 percent from 2.9 percent. At that rate of growth, it will take
renewable technologies another twelve hundred years just to equal the share of electricity production
that nuclear energy has provided since 1992.
But just to give Michael the benefit of the doubt, let’s take a
more generous look at what wind power’s true believers are saying, as reported by Reuters last June from the
American Wind Energy Association’s annual conference in Los Angeles: “The U.S. wind power industry will
see half a trillion dollars of investment by 2030 to take the renewable source up to 20 percent of U.S.
electricity generation, an industry conference heard on Monday.” Hmmm … 20 percent by 2030. Remind me
again which technology’s offerings Michael proclaims to be “too little, too late.” The silly premise that
Michael and many other critics employ with regard to nuclear energy’s clean-air benefits is to suggest that,
simply because a substantial number of new nuclear plants is needed to accommodate our sector’s “wedge”
of carbon prevention, then construction shouldn’t be undertaken at all. That line of thinking used to be called
throwing out the baby with the bath water. The reality is that all carbon-free energy technologies, working
hand in hand with improved energy efficiency and conservation measures, are needed to meet this threat.

Renewable energy is simply not ready yet
Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no
power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP
Despite the promise of renewables like solar, wind, and hydro power — which by the 22nd century will
be all we've got left — their current forms can't sustain more than a fraction of our current energy
usage. Yes, let's pursue them aggressively, but let's also keep the lights on in the meantime.

SDI 2008

114 of 249


AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->