200-word summary-"better off without nuclear power"

Issue : Nuclear Power

 

This house believes that the world would be better off without nuclear power.

 

Pin-Point SUMMARY

 

Prop.

1.    Atoms cannot be made to work for peace without making them available for war.

A.    This is a lesson we have learned the hard way. The original five nuclear-weapons states are now nine and will soon be joined by a tenth.

B.     All the newcomers have acquired their weapons under the guise of developing civil nuclear-power programmes.

C.    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has only slowed, not prevented, the spread of nuclear weapons.

D.   The skills and materials used in a nuclear-power programme are indistinguishable from those needed to build nuclear weapons. A third of the nations with civil nuclear programmes have attempted to develop nuclear weapons.

2.    There can be no argument that the world would be better off without more nuclear-armed nations.

A.     Among them will be reduction of the economic risks of nuclear accidents. They are significant. The catastrophe at Fukushima is not yet over but it is already clear that the eventual cost will exceed $100 billion.

3.    Two primary arguments are advanced for accepting the Faustian bargain offered by nuclear power.

A.    The first is that nuclear power is essential for energy security.

B.    The second is that it is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

4.    Nuclear power currently contributes surprisingly little to energy security—

A.    about 13% of the electricity delivered globally in 2009, perhaps as little as 2% of final energy.

B.    This was rather less than the 18% delivered by co-generation and renewables.

C.    Furthermore, this share is declining. In recent years more reactors have closed than have opened.

5.    Last year alone, not counting large dams, renewables added 50 gigawatts of new capacity—equivalent to about 40 nuclear reactors.

6.    The reality is that, even in a more electricity-dependent world

A.    the contribution of nuclear power to world energy supplies is so small that it is already being replaced by improved energy efficiency, renewables and fossil fuels. These options are cheaper, less risky and quicker than nuclear.

B.    Nuclear power cannot save the world from the necessity of deploying carbon capture and storage or facing the impossible choice of letting the lights go out or destroying climate stability. It is a high-risk distraction from what must become the central focus of the effort to deliver energy and climate security simultaneously.

 

Opp.

 

1.    World energy demand will be just the same as it was

A.     the demand for reliable electricity supply will still be on a path to doubling in two decades

B.    the options for meeting that demand will be just the same.

C.    On the basis of calm, rational consideration, nuclear power will be looking just as attractive as it did before.

2.    This does not mean we will not learn lessons from Fukushima.

A.    Clearly, we need to look again and ensure that every reactor in every country has reliable post-shutdown cooling available, and any other vulnerabilities addressed, even after the most extreme environmental events.

B.    Fortunately, that challenge has already been met by new reactor designs that use natural physical principles—notably convection—to cool reactors after shutdown.       

3.    The need for nuclear power is driven by several factors which have not changed:

A.    the need for a continuous, reliable supply of affordable electricity

B.     the importance of energy security so that fuel for electricity generation is not subject to geopolitical threats and uncertainties

C.     the need to minimise CO₂ emissions from power generation.

4.    Nuclear power generation meets these needs very well.

5.    So the focus is on the safety of nuclear power.

A.    Despite the present drama, that could hardly be better. In 14,500 reactor years of civil power generation, there have been no major accidents with human casualties except Chernobyl

B.    Most governments have called for a review of nuclear safety standards following the Fukushima accident, and clearly that makes good sense.

6.    What other major industrial accident has had such low human casualties—no deaths or serious injuries from radiation, at least thus far, and only three deaths on the Tepco site from the actual quake and tsunami? If it were a coastal LNG terminal overwhelmed by a tsunami more than twice as big as it was designed for, the mind boggles.