This
house believes that the world would be better off without nuclear power.
Prop.
u Extremely
high risk
è Nuclear
energy has a tremendous opportunity cost about safety
ü The
process of generation itself
² Mankind
must learn the lessons that history gives them
....1
Chernobyl & Fukushima incidents
....2
And other uncountable little incidents that
governments don’t reveal
² Although
you try very hard to block them, it is impossible to prevent it thoroughly
² The
result is catastrophic
....1
Radiation lasting for centuries
....2
Disable
....3
Death
ü The process
of clearing out the leftovers, which is inevitable
² There is
no safety-proven method of taking care of nuclear leftovers
² Currently,
nations are just dumping them in deep caves
....1
Potential of any kind of catastrophe
....2
IT is proven that these leftovers are
leaking out
² In cases
of dumping them in the ocean, strong and rich nations are passing their garbage
to poor, weak nations
....1
Provokes severe discrimination (big
problem) btw the rich and poor
u Unnecessary
è Nuclear
power currently contributes surprisingly little to energy security
ü about
13% of the electricity delivered globally in 2009, perhaps as little as 2% of
final energy.
ü This was
rather less than the 18% delivered by co-generation and renewables.
ü Furthermore,
this share is declining. In recent years more reactors have closed than have
opened.
ü Last
year alone, not counting large dams, renewables added 50 gigawatts of new
capacity—equivalent to about 40 nuclear reactors.
è The
reality
ü 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.
u Instability
è Nuclear
energy is instable not only because it’s not safe but also becuz of its instability
ü Instability
of delivery (the resources of making the energy)
² Platonium
is being weaponized by many countries that have it
ü Instability
of management
² IT is
extremely difficult to thoroughly take care of the generators and it is only done
with a term of decades
....1
Contributes to the safety issues, too
Opp
u High
necessity
è World
energy demand will be just the same as it was
ü The demand for reliable electricity supply
will still be on a path to doubling in two decades
ü The
options for meeting that demand will be just the same.
è On the
basis of calm, rational consideration, nuclear power will be looking just as
attractive as it did before.
ü the
need for a continuous, reliable supply of affordable electricity
ü the
importance of energy security so that fuel for electricity generation is not
subject to geopolitical threats and uncertainties
è The need to minimise CO2 emissions
from power generation.
u Prevention
of safety problems
è Lessons
from history
ü 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
è Actual
improvements (Developing stage)
ü Fortunately,
that challenge has already been met by new reactor designs that use natural
physical principles—notably convection—to cool reactors after shutdown.
ü Most
governments have called for a review of nuclear safety standards following the
Fukushima accident, and clearly that makes good sense
u Exaggerated
impacts
è Despite
the present drama, that could hardly be better.
ü In
14,500 reactor years of civil power generation, there have been no major
accidents with human casualties except Chernobyl
è Not
mutually exclusive from the process of other energies’ generation
ü 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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment