Post comments for all to see
Nuclear power using today’s technology is a process by which fissionable materials such as uranium undergo a decay in which matter is transformed into energy according to Einstein’s famous equation e=mc2. In the process, thermal pollution and radioactive wastes are produced—but no smog or soot.
We hope that these excerpts will serve as starting points for your declaration to the Forum/Againstum concerning nuclear energy. Feel free to use examples that illustrate your point, or facts from other sources. Just be sure to tell who the sources are, so that those whom you are trying to convince know the weight of your evidence!
Global Energy (International Energy Agency, 1992) provides some background on the current nuclear energy situation. "Safety concerns in the post-Chernobyl era and the fact that nuclear energy no longer enjoys undisputed cost advantages over its alternatives for the generation of baseload electricity have dampened the prospects for more rapid increases in nuclear output."
Should this be the case? Richard and Val Routley, in And Justice For All (Rowman and Littlefield, 1982) say this: "The matter of nuclear waste has many moral features... There is no known proven safe way to package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at the present...Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gram of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. A leak of even a part of the waste material could involve much loss of life, widespread disease and genetic damage, and contamination of immense areas of land. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1.5 million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity."
Mark C. Nelson, in Nuclear Power: Energy Source for the Future (http://www.usu.edu/~honors/ Writing/Nuclear/nuclear.html, 1996) has a different view, saying, "In heated debates, people argue over whether we should cut down forests, tame the rivers, harness the wind, or catch the sunlight. The ultimate task is to find a resource that is less expensive, more efficient, longer lasting, and safe. Nuclear power is that source. Indeed, given those conditions, nuclear power must be the power source for the future.
"One of the key strengths of nuclear power is the enormous amount of energy it produces from such small amounts of fuel. The fission of one atom of Uranium 235 creates almost 10 million times the amount of energy created by the combustion of 1 atom of Carbon in coal. 165.3 tons of natural Uranium will produce as much electricity in a LWR (Light Water Reactor) as about 2.75 million tons of black coal. In a comparison report on the generating costs of coal and nuclear plants, given a random site in the United States, nuclear was clearly less expensive. Because the cost of transportation and distribution of nuclear fuel is nearly negligible, the only situation where coal may have been as efficient as nuclear, is in the scenario of a 'mine-mouth site'. Only in this optimal situation is the cost of fuel for coal plants equal to that of nuclear plants. In any other situation, the cost of coal is greater. With the advent of the breeder reactor, the future of the nuclear industry could be even brighter. Bernard Cohen noted that using breeder reactors which are 100 times as efficient as normal LWRs, uranium supplies would last for billions of years, or theoretically, until the sun burns out."
What do you think? Head back to the Forum/Againstum and speak out!
Don't stop here! Find out more about the Nuclear Power debate by visiting these sites. We want you to be as informed as possible when arguing in the forum. Just don't forget to come back!
A Virtual Nuclear Power Plant Tour
This site provides a great deal of technical information about nuclear power, most of it in support of this energy source. It includes a list of frequently asked questions that covers everything from a comparison of nuclear energy to other sources to "What happens if there's an accident?"
Nuclear Information World Wide Web Server
This site provides a large gallery of even MORE nuclear energy sites, ranging from the Baylor College of Medicine's Radiation Health Effects Research Resource Page to the home of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
University of Florida - Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute
A site with information on ongoing research that should broaden the nuclear power debate beyond the atmosphere!
Don't be fooled by the title! This site actually answers anti-nuclear arguments with pro-nuclear responses.
A site giving the details on the world's most infamous nuclear accident and the consequences a decade later.
This site gives an almost complete listing of serious problems that might make us rethink nuclear power.
What do you think? Head back to the Forum/Againstum and speak out!