march 2020 advanced public forum brief...nuclear power advocates feel that by using new designs in...

National Speech & Debate Association • updated 3/13/2020

MARCH 2020 ADVANCED PUBLIC FORUM BRIEF

March 2020 Advanced Public Forum Brief 2

National Speech & Debate Association • Public Forum Debate: MARCH 2020 ADVANCED BRIEF

Resolved: The United States should

increase its use of nuclear energy for

commercial energy production

This topic brief was written by Jesse Meyer. Jesse is a diamond coach, recipient of the Donald Crabtree

Service Award, the state of Iowa’s 2015 Coach of the Year, member of the TOC’s PF advisory board, and

board member of the Iowa Forensics League. He is currently an assistant coach at Iowa City West High

School. He can be reached at [email protected].



Table of Contents

Contents Resolved: The United States should increase its use of nuclear energy for commercial energy production

....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Definitions and Framework ....................................................................................................................... 7

Framework ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Definitions ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 12

Sample Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 13

Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 15

Proliferation ............................................................................................................................................. 16

Sample Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 18

Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 21

Mining ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Sample Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 23

Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 25

Waste Disposal......................................................................................................................................... 26

Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 27

Terrorism ................................................................................................................................................. 28

Sample Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 29

Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 30

Economics ................................................................................................................................................ 31

Sample Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 32

Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 34

4th Generation Reactors ........................................................................................................................... 35

Sample Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 38

Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 40

Nuclear Renaissance ................................................................................................................................ 41

Sample Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 42



Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 43

Accidents .................................................................................................................................................. 44

Sample Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 46

Further Reading ................................................................................................................................... 48

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 49



Introduction

The concept of radioactivity was discovered by scientists and husband and wife Pierre

and Marie Curie in 1898. During an experiment a substance that was created by the processing

of inert elements created the element Radium. This element emitted a huge amount of

radiation over time and slowly poisoned the Currie’s. Shortly after their deaths, scientists saw

the potential behind the idea of radioactive elements in both energy production and potentially

weaponization. However, dur to the times, ideas had moved faster than science and technology

and all attempts at this failed.

The dream of radioactive energy fueled many a science fiction writer. In 1914, HG.

Wells, was inspired to write the alien weapons in his book, War of the Worlds, off of the

potential destructive power of atomic energy. In 1924. Winston Churchill wrote a speculative

policy on the political implication of atomic weapons. In 1933, Adolf Hitler rose to power in

Germany. His desire to create a third Reich that spanned the globe, he determined that a

weapon of immense power would be needed to overcome the resource disadvantage of the

German empire. Fearing what he might make them construct, Jewish and other German

scientists fled the nation and settled in London and the United States. It was through this

migration that Leó Szilárd fled to London where he proposed, and in 1934 patented, the idea of

a nuclear chain reaction via neutrons.

. In August 1939, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt

warning him concerned that Germany might have its own project to develop fission-based

weapons. Roosevelt responded by setting up the Uranium Committee, It was only after the

attack on Peral Harbor that Roosevelt took things seriously. Roosevelt appointed Robert

Oppenheimer to head up the group of scientists whose soul job was to develop atomic

weapons into something that can be used the allies before the NAZI’s. This project was called

the “Manhattan Project.” With headquarters at Oak Ridge and Los Alamos, the Americans

began their work. During this time, the United Kingdom was read into the file, but the USSR was

not. Oak Ridge processed the uranium into workable nuclear material and Los Alamos

constructed the weapon.

At this point, the development of nuclear energy split from nuclear weapons. Although

nuclear reactors were necessary in the production of weapons grade nuclear material for the

bomb, the waste heat created by the processing and radioactivity posed a huge problem for

scientists. After some thinking, scientists determined that the radioactivity could be cooled with

water. The steam produced by the boiling water could then be channeled into a turbine and

used to power a huge generator. Soon, scientists were using this generator to power the

laboratory and the bases on which the generators were constructed. As nuclear weapons

development took off in the days after World War II< more and more nuclear material was



needed, and thus more and more nuclear power plants were built to process the fuel. By the

time you reach the late 1950’s, nuclear power plants were being constructed across the United

States. They were touted as a means for cheap and clean electricity. News agencies hyped the

power as the “wave of the future” and science fiction come to life. Politicians argued this power

would become so numerous that it would make other forms of power absolute and expensive.

Due to several nuclear accidents, which will be covered later in this brief, the push for

nuclear power began to lose traction in the 1970’s and continued through the mid 2000’s.

The decline in nuclear power began at 3 Mile Island and rapidly accelerated through the

1990’s, but after the Japan disaster, the shutdown of nuclear plants accelerated. By 2015. The

majority of European nuclear power plants had been put into shutdown or listed as soon to be

shutdown. There hasn’t been any new nuclear construction in the United States since 1996.

With most of the new nuclear plants being scrapped shortly after construction starts due to

inflated costs and public disapproval. Many politicians have seen nuclear power as aa thing of

the past since natural gas and other fossil fuels are at an all time low as of now. However, with

the rsie in climate change science, many are looking for an all-natural and carbon neutral

method of power production. Nuclear power advocates feel that by using new designs in

nuclear power plants, we can achieve the goal of environmental protection and nuclear safety.

Recently, as of February 2020, both the senate and house have taken up new nuclear power

funding bills that are supported by both parties. Nuclear opponents argue that safety might be

solved, but other issues remain. Storage of nuclear waste, finding nuclear fuel, and the threat of

nuclear terrorism are all real threats that must be addressed by politicians and nuclear

advocates.

One thing is for sure, as we enter the 2020’s, with the rising cost of energy and the

threat posed by climate change, something needs to be done to find a clean and renewable

source of energy. We are at a junction in human history where we must decide which

renewable will become the core of our energy production.



Definitions and Framework



Framework

When we look at framework for this topic, we can see what is probably the first topic of

the academic year where using a cost benefit analysis where the impacts are equivalent and

line up will come into play. So let’s break down the weighing mechanism and see how we will

use this to our advantage.

The first is on lives saved. Nuclear energy has the potential to save a huge number of

lives as most scientific data shows that it has the change for a massive reduction in carbon

emissions and over all pollut9ion. Carbon not only causes greenhouse warming, but is a known

cancer-causing element in large doses. Furthermore, carbon can build up in the lungs and

organs of air breathing animals and cause respiratory illnesses and death. There is evidence to

show that the deaths caused by this are significant. On the other side, the deaths caused by the

radioactivity and accidents is also great. Although you don’t see a nuclear meltdown often,

when you do, the effects are widespread and last for a generation. In Pennsylvania and the

Ukraine, the deaths caused by the nuclear disaster might not have killed that many

(Pennsylvania) or killed only a few hundred first responders (Ukraine) at first, the long-term

effects from the radiation are still being felt.

Economic is another metric that can be used to weigh the impacts. As we near a period

of peak oil and where natural gas and coal are becoming at odds in the eyes of pollution wary

public, we need to find ways to lower the costs of our energy. Nuclear power creates the

change for a long term and semi renewable source of energy that with our current planet

reserves of radioactive material, last for generations. However, the flip side is that under most

models, nuclear power plants are hard to maintain, cost a lot to build and staff, and require

special training to do so. This all costs money. And at the end of the day, there is the overall

cost of how much is really saved per kilowatt hour of energy produced. Statistics vary on this

and are biased towards the goals of the writers and data collection experts that report them.

Public welfare is a broad category that will be addressed more in the sections below, but

in general, there are many issues that come with nuclear power that must be addressed in

order for this power source to be considered. Issues concerning the storage of nuclear waste,

the threat of this waste being stolen by terrorists and used in a dirty bomb or other device, the

threat of a nuclear accident that causes massive destruction to an area, or even the threat of

nuclear proliferation caused by a snowball rush of nations trying to build nuclear power plants

as well all exists in the real world. There is even the threat that other nations may take the US’s

increase in nuclear power production as a sign that we are ramping up our nuclear weapons

programs again and this could start an arms race.

Environmental protection will also be covered below, but as a summary, the harms of

drilling for and use of fossil fuels is unsustainable. Even with new carbon locking technology or

other pollution removal science, we are nearing the point of no return for global warming. As



nations rush to find ways to meet their Paris Climate goals, one solution that many have touted

in that of nuclear power. On the other hand, the environmental effects of radiation as well as

the mining that must occur to find the uranium can be very destructive to the environment.

Finally, you will have debates over feasibility. The general idea here is that although

nuclear sexists now, it takes upwards of a decade for a new nuclear power plant to be brough

online. This slow response might hinder any advantages that the pro seeks to leverage. In the

meantime, there are adequate sources of renewable power right here right now in the form of

wind, solar, and geothermal. Although having their own disadvantages in terms of cost,

pollution, and area of use, the debate to be had is whether the status quo solves better than

nuclear power.



Definitions

The United States

Arguably the central government + the states

Refers to the location of the power production. Parts may be made in other countries, but the

location of the final nuclear power plants is the United States.

Commercial

Defined as a publicly traded entity engaged in a profit-making business.

Excludes government owned government owned power plants.

Government will still regulate nuclear power. Nuclear power is heavily monitored and regulated

in the US.

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Energy- energy created by using nuclear material in fission reaction to heat water into steam that turns a generator turbine

James A. Lake, Ralph G. Bennett, John F. Kotek, 1-26-2009, "Next Generation Nuclear Power," Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/next-generation-nuclear/

The reactor core of a pressurized water reactor is made up of arrays of zirconium alloy–clad fuel

rods composed of small cylinders (pellets) of mildly enriched uranium oxide with the diameter

of a dime. A typical 17-by-17-square array of fuel rods constitutes a fuel assembly, and about

200 fuel assemblies are arranged to form a reactor core. Cores, which are typically

approximately 3.5 meters in diameter and 3.5 meters high, are contained within steel pressure

vessels that are 15 to 20 centimeters thick

The nuclear fission reactions produce heat that is removed by circulating water. The coolant is

pumped into the core at about 290 degrees Celsius and exits the core at about 325 degrees C.

To control the power level, control rods are inserted into the fuel arrays. Control rods are made

of materials that moderate the fission reaction by absorbing the slow (thermal) neutrons

emitted during fission. They are raised out of or lowered into the core to control the rate of the

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/next-generation-nuclear/



nuclear reaction. To change the fuel or in the case of an accident, the rods are lowered all the

way into the core to shut down the reaction.



Environment

World record heat waves, continent sized brushfires, melting ice caps, and rising sea

levels. Not the plot to the next great Hollywood summer movie but rather the headlines from

the nightly news taken from just this year. As human species, we face the greatest threat to our

existence, ourselves. For generations, our burning of fossil fuels has released huge amounts of

stored carbon into the atmosphere. Over time, this carbon has built up and created huge

hazards. Climate change caused by the warming of one part of the Earth and the global cooling

of others has changed global weather patterns. Areas that normally don’t see wild weather

swings have experienced climate conditions not seen in generations. Droughts across the

Southern hemisphere this past winter caused some of the world’s largest and most expansive

wildfires. Areas near or close to the tropical coasts are experiencing stronger and stronger

tropical storms, while in the Northern hemisphere, a destabilized jet stream has given areas as

far south as Texas repeated blasts of Arctic air every winter for a decade.

Furthermore, the carbon that is produced by humans is so great that it is affecting the

health of humans Current estimates from the World Health Organization report that each year,

thousands of people world wide die from lung diseases caused by pollution and pollution

related causes. Child related cases of asthma and other breathing disorders have spiked in

recent years, and the carbon is starting to build up to the point where it is affecting ocean

acidity. Even climate change deniers are starting to come around to the fact that something is

wrong and that we need to take a stand now.

Many people see nuclear power as the solution to this. Nuclear power is a clean and

relatively pollution free form of energy production. In the long term, there is very little crambo

that is produced by the production of nuclear energy. On the other hand, opponents argue that

the risk to the environment as caused by a nuclear accident or the background radiation

emitted by nuclear power plants is too great and can cause as much harm to both plant and

animal life as carbon. Their alternative is to look to other forms of renewable energy such as

wind and solar to fill in the gap.

When debating this point, it is important to quantity the impacts. In this regard, you can

do so in lives lost or saved. Both sides have pretty good data on both. The pro’s evidence will

seem to be better as they have more concrete evidence on the exact numbers of deaths caused

by carbon death while the con’s numbers on radiation deaths is more speculative and lower.

What the con has going for them is the magnitude of the issue. The risk of a plant meltdown is

slim, but even in cases where global warming and climate change happen, life will survive.

When a nuclear power plant blows up or where radiation escapes, there is almost no chance of

survival. Quantify this to the judge and look to the weighing mechanisms first and foremost to

frame your impacts.



Sample Evidence

2 billion tons of carbon dioxide are produced in the US each year and 99% of this is

from emissions. Nuclear power is the best way to solve Jordan Wilkerson, 101-26-2016, "Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power," Science in the News,

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/reconsidering-risks-nuclear-power/

The United States emits an immense amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is extremely likely that the rising global temperature

trends since the mid-20th century is dominantly due to human activity. No scientific organization of

national or international standing disputes this. Furthermore, the US Department of Defense has

officially stated that climate change poses a serious national security threat. In light of all of this, the

United States recently ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, which means we are committed to

significantly reducing our carbon emissions. How do we do that?

Given that, in 2015, we released 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from electricity generation

alone, and fossil fuels accounted for over 99% of these emissions, a great place to start would be to

begin replacing fossil fuel power plants with alternative energy sources. The main alternatives are solar,

wind, and nuclear. The first two are certainly alluring, attracting the investment of a lot of government

money worldwide. However, they are also variable. The wind isn’t always blowing; days aren’t always

clear and sunny. This isn’t to say relying solely on renewables is impossible or even unrealistic with some

clever storage and transportation strategies. However, it is a challenge to replace the constantly running

fossil fuel power plants with sources that are intermittent.

Ideally, we’d have a source that doesn’t emit CO2 and is consistently reliable; this is known as a

baseload energy source. In this context, nuclear energy is the main alternative energy source that works.

Yet, unlike its fickle counterparts, nuclear energy is subjected to hostile attitudes adopted by a number

of governments in the world which restrict the building or continual operation of power plants. Fear for

Chernobyl and Fukushima-type catastrophes exacerbate the unpopularity of going nuclear. The US,

currently the world’s largest producer, relies on nuclear energy for 20% of its overall electricity

generation. Yet there has historically been a strong anti-nuclear movement in the US, and the sentiment

is still somewhat present today, as demonstrated by closures of nuclear power plants and stances held

by prominent political figures such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. In order to assess whether such

notoriety is deserved, we need to learn about the physics of nuclear power and compare the statistics of

its supposed dangers with that of existing energy sources.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/reconsidering-risks-nuclear-power/



Massive decarbonization efforts will need nuclear power to word World Nuclear Association, 2017, "Nuclear Power Today," https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-

library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

In this decarbonization scenario, electricity generation from nuclear increases by almost 62% by 2040 to

4409 TWh, and capacity grows to 601 GWe. The World Nuclear Association has put forward a more

ambitious scenario than this – the Harmony programme proposes the addition of 1000 GWe of new

nuclear capacity by 2050, to provide 25% of electricity then (about 10,000 TWh) from 1250 GWe of

capacity (after allowing for 150 GWe retirements). This would require adding 25 GWe per year from

2021, escalating to 33 GWe per year, which is not much different from the 31 GWe added in 1984, or

the overall record of 201 GWe in the 1980s. Providing one-quarter of the world's electricity through

nuclear would substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions and have a very positive effect on air

quality. World overview All parts of the world are involved in nuclear power development, and some

examples are outlined below .For up-to-date data on operable, under construction and planned reactors

worldwide, see table of World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx



Further Reading

Alternative Energy, 4-26-2012, "Is Nuclear Power Safe for Humans and the Environment?,"

https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/questions/is-nuclear-power-safe-for-humans-and-

the-environment/

Clive Elsworth, 6-15-2016, "The environmental impact of nuclear power generation,"

TheGreenAge, https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/effects-of-nuclear-power/

Lexi Corral,, 7-22-2019, "Nuclear Energy Benefits The Environment – Bechtel ," Bechtel

Corporate, https://www.bechtel.com/blog/sustainability/july-2019/nuclear-energy-

benefits-environment/

Rose Kivi, 4-25-2018, "How Does Nuclear Energy Affect the Environment?," Sciencing,

https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html

World Nuclear Association., 1-25-2018, "Nuclear power is essential for energy, environment

and the economy," https://www.world-nuclear.org/press/briefings/nuclear-power-is-

essential-for-energy-environment.aspx

https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/questions/is-nuclear-power-safe-for-humans-and-the-environment/

https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/questions/is-nuclear-power-safe-for-humans-and-the-environment/

https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/effects-of-nuclear-power/

https://www.bechtel.com/blog/sustainability/july-2019/nuclear-energy-benefits-environment/

https://www.bechtel.com/blog/sustainability/july-2019/nuclear-energy-benefits-environment/

https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html

https://www.world-nuclear.org/press/briefings/nuclear-power-is-essential-for-energy-environment.aspx

https://www.world-nuclear.org/press/briefings/nuclear-power-is-essential-for-energy-environment.aspx



Proliferation

Nations are kind of like small children. When one sees what the other has, everyone

becomes envious and wants the same thing. This might be fine if it comes to hosting the

Olympics or creating public works, but what if the thing that drives ambition is the drive for

weapons so powerful, one use could end all life on Earth?

As was stated earlier in this brief, the process to create nuclear fuel for reactors is also

necessary to create the nuclear matierla for warheads. As fluoride is combined with ground up

uranium, the radioactive material can be separated into a yellow powder called “yellow cake.”

This yellow cake is then pressed into nuclear fuel rods and sent to powerplants for refinement

and use. The leftover material that is left behind is volatile and is just right for the production of

nuclear warheads and bombs. This material is pressed into spheres and used in the core of our

largest thermonuclear warheads.

The risk that we run on this is that as nations seek nuclear energy, they inherently have

lots of nuclear material that is left behind. It should be no surprise that the largest nations with

nuclear power plants also are the largest nuclear weapons states in the world. Other states like

Iran have been developing their civilian nuclear power sector as a cover for the development

for the enrichment of uranium for a nuclear weapons program. Other nations like Pakistan and

North Korea didn’t even try to hide their intentions. When asked on the international stage,

they openly stated that they were seeking the bomb and electrical power was a pleasant side

effect.

Now,whether the fear be missing out on deterrence, having an attack waged on you, or

not being a part of a superpower club, since United States first tested their atomic bomb,

others have wanted the same power. The USSR wanted it so that they could stand up to what

they saw as an aggressive capitalist system that might sweep them out of power much like

others had in the centuries prior. Nations like the United Kingdom and France wanted nuclear

weapons as a deterrent from Soviet aggression. China developed their program after

disagreements with both the United States and Russia. India and Pakistan developed weapons

as a deterrent against each other, Israel’s undisclosed weapons program is meant to stop the

flood of wars that besieged them during the 1960’s and 70’s and North Korea is preparing for a

potential attack from the United States.

In the 1960’s fearing a surge in nations gaining nuclear weapons, a treaty was proposed

that would ban the further development of nuclear weapons and restrict the nuclear powers to

the nations that currently were in possession of them. Ratified in 1969 and coming into power

in 1971, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT contained and covered all but four UN

member states. India, Pakistan, Israel have never signed the treaty while South Sudan, formed

in 2011 has yet to join. North Korea announced that it was leaving the treaty in 2003 although it



has failed to submit the proper paperwork to do so. The basic idea of the treaty was to prevent

the uncontrolled spread of weapons to new states. This spread is referred to as horizontal

proliferating as it would increase the number of states with weapons. It does nothing to

address the numbers that each country that currently has. That term is vertical proliferation.

The founders of the treat agreed that with more nations came a harder time policing and

controlling the use of weapons. Any conflict could then become a flashpoint for a nuclear

exchange and a potential nuclear war. The founders agreed that although they could not get

any nation to disarm by treaty, having fewer nations with bombs was preferable to more

nations.

Although good intentioned, even the best of intentions can fail. As stated above, the

three nations that have yet to sign that were in existence when this treaty was ratified are part

of the nuclear superpower club. North Korea, a nation that may or may not be part of the treaty

openly defied the treaty nonetheless and developed nuclear weapons without any major world

repercussions

For this topic, the point that you will want to argue is that the energy production by the

United States will put other nations on edge. They will perceive the United States as entering

another phase of a nuclear arms race. In doing so, other nations would rush to also build up

their weapons stockpiles and thus we are deep in arms race. The impact would stem from the

impact to miscalculation in an arms race or the threat that that states with nuclear weapons

would be tempted to use them. On the pro, you would argue that nuclear power has existed for

decades and this point is non unique as during the rush to build nuclear power plants, the world

actually saw a decline in the number of nuclear weapons. .



Sample Evidence

Proliferation would be rapid and lead to nuclear war Taylor no date, Theodore fellow of the American physical society, “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,”

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/pdfs/taylor.pdf Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of “latent proliferation,” finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war. A sudden rush of nuclear proliferation among nations may be triggered by small nuclear wars that are won by a country with more effective nuclear forces than its adversary, or by success of nuclear terrorists in forcing adherence to their demands. Proliferation of nuclear weapons among nations could spread at an awesome rate in such circumstances, since “latent proliferation” is far along in at least several dozen nations, and is increasing rapidly as more nuclear power plants and supporting facilities are built in more countries. In summary, much more serious international attention than is now

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/pdfs/taylor.pdf



New nuclear states lead to instability Horowtiz Michael 2-10-2009, Dept of Political Science @ UPenn, “The Spread of nuclear Weapons and

International Conflict: Does Experience Matter?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, SAGE The hypotheses above are compared to a null hypothesis predicting no effect between time and behavior. Given the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable, the most appropriate statistical model is logistic regression.18 These tests include Huber-White robust standard errors and control for the possibility of fixed time effects with peace-year splines (Beck, Katz, and Tucker 1998).19 Table 1 presents initial statistical representations of the relationship between MID reciprocation and the possession of nuclear weapons, building from a simple model without any control variables to larger models including relevant controls. The results show a clear and consistent statistically significant impact to learning over time with nuclear weapons. The control variables behave in the predicted directions. As Schultz finds, reciprocation is less likely when a challenger is democratic. Interestingly, as the relative power of Side A in a dispute increases, reciprocation appears more likely. This suggests that the general relationship between power and dispute reciprocation is not necessarily linear. Neither the dyadic-satisfaction variable nor the joint-nuclearpossession variable, measuring whether both sides have nuclear weapons, is significant. 20 In general, the significance of the Side B nuclear-weapons variable suggests there is something inherent about nuclear capabilities that influences militarized behavior, although the nuclear variable for Side A is not significant. However, the results show that nuclear experience matters as well. The Side A nuclear-experience variable is –0.024 and significant at the .05 level. Given the caveats above about the indirect nature of these tests, the nuclear-learning argument seems clearest in explaining the results for challengers. The negative and significant coefficient for Side A shows that the challenges of older nuclear states are reciprocated significantly less than the challenges of younger nuclear and nonnuclear states.



Nuclear bomb making is part of the enrichment process not the reactors.

Governments like the US have been using civilian power as a means to enrich uranium

for years.

Nathanael Johnson, 4-11-2018, "Meltdowns, waste, and war: Here are the real risks of nuclear," Grist,

https://grist.org/article/nuclear-is-scary-lets-face-those-fears/

Nuclear … war?

After uranium ore is milled into yellow cake, it goes through an enrichment process where centrifuges

spin uranium to transform it into nuclear fuel. Keep that fuel spinning longer, and it eventually turns into

the stuff that can level cities. So you can’t separate nuclear power from nuclear war. The crucial link in

this connection between energy and weaponry is the enrichment process, not the reactors. You can’t

build a warhead with nuclear-reactor fuel. You need to enrich it further. So as long as new reactors get

their fuel from existing enrichment facilities, it doesn’t increase the risk of nuclear proliferation, says

Matthew Bunn, a nuclear policy analyst at Harvard. “As long as we keep control of enrichment and

reprocessing, nuclear power can spread without spreading nuclear weapons,” Bunn explains.

There’s no guarantee that the United States and its allies will be able to keep control of the technology

needed to concoct weapons-grade uranium. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is trying to make a deal to have

the United States, Russia, or China build it a nuclear power plant. But Saudi Arabia refuses to say that it

won’t then build the infrastructure needed to create nukes. Sometimes, governments say they want to

develop enrichment technology to generate their own fuel when they actually want to start making

warheads. Iran, for instance, has insisted that it’s only enriching uranium for reactors, but the fact that it

built a secret enrichment plant — and says it could produce weapons-grade uranium within a week —

suggests that something else is up.

You don’t need weapons-grade fuel to cause a disaster. Nuclear experts also stress over the possibility

of a terrorist attack. In 1982, after training for 10 years, an anti-nuclear activist named Chaim Nissim

shot five rocket-propelled grenades at the Superphénix nuclear plant on the Rhone River in France. The

reactor was still under construction, so there was no danger of a meltdown. The grenades damaged the

outer concrete shell but not much else.

Nuclear experts are sure that terrorists have considered attacking working plants with the aim of

causing a meltdown. So facilities need security: guns, guards, and gates.

“You need to make sure you have enough security that so bad guys don’t do what the tsunami did to

Fukushima — cutting off the power and disabling the backup power to start a meltdown,” Bunn says.

Most nuclear plants have so much security that terrorists look elsewhere, “at a dam or a chemical plant

instead,” he says.

It appears to be working so far. There hasn’t been an attack on a civilian reactor since Nissim’s attack 36

years ago.

Let’s continue our tour of things that can go wrong in the nuclear fuel cycle. After getting enriched, fuel

goes to the reactor, and that’s where you run the risk of meltdowns.




Further Reading

Center for Arms Control, 4-24-2018, "Nuclear Proliferation Risks in Nuclear Energy Programs,"

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, https://armscontrolcenter.org/nuclear-

proliferation-risks-in-nuclear-energy-programs/

Harvey Wasserman, 6-20-2019, "Will nuclear proliferation challenges limit a significant

expansion of global nuclear power?," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/will-nuclear-proliferation-challenges-limit-a-significant-

expansion-of-global-nuclear-power

Miller, Nicholas L. "Why Nuclear Energy Programs Rarely Lead to Proliferation." International

Security, vol. 42 no. 2, 2017, p. 40-77. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/676855.

ScienceDaily, 11-6-2017, "Nuclear energy programs do not increase likelihood of proliferation,

study finds," https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171106112256.htm

Steven Authors, 4-5-2009, "Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation?," American Academy

of Arts & Sciences, https://www.amacad.org/publication/nuclear-power-without-

nuclear-proliferation

https://armscontrolcenter.org/nuclear-proliferation-risks-in-nuclear-energy-programs/

https://armscontrolcenter.org/nuclear-proliferation-risks-in-nuclear-energy-programs/

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/will-nuclear-proliferation-challenges-limit-a-significant-expansion-of-global-nuclear-power

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/will-nuclear-proliferation-challenges-limit-a-significant-expansion-of-global-nuclear-power

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171106112256.htm

https://www.amacad.org/publication/nuclear-power-without-nuclear-proliferation

https://www.amacad.org/publication/nuclear-power-without-nuclear-proliferation



Mining

Does the possession of nuclear energy mean that we are culpable for the actions caused

by the creation of said weapons? Critical writers and postmodern philosophers have written

that the ownership of nuclear energy poses an ongoing genocide against the third world and

indigenous people as the tests were done on native lands or lands far from the lives of the

average Westerner. We did so under the idea that few would know about those that were to be

affected and even fewer would care. Furthermore, the harms from testing dramatically impact

those in poverty or lesser developed countries more as the radiation causes higher rates of

cancer and death. In the Western world, modern medicine can be used to treat and cure such

ailments but in the poorest parts of the world, people are left to survive on their own. Also,

when testing was done, scientists were aware of prevailing winds and tests were done to carry

the waste and radiation away from inhabited US soil while disregarding native and third world

lands.

We also have the mining of the uranium. Every country has their own mine or mining

source. In the United States, the Western deserts of Nevada and the Colorado flats are the

perfect place to find nuclear material. But for most of the world, the best place to find uranium

is in Africa. For generations, African nations were tasked with mining this material for sale to

the nuclear powers. Even when sanctions and bans on “blood” products like diamonds were

being put into place, nuclear material remained off the list. To this day, large amounts of

nuclear material that has been used in bombs from the United Kingdom to China was mined

with child slave labor from Africa.

The final issue at hand when it comes to mining of uranium is whether we have enough

of a stockpile to become energy dependent. Although the flats of Colorado and Nevada are

home to thousands of tons of raw materials, if we expand the nuclear energy capacity of the

United States to the levels at which we need to in order to become energy independent, what

will our stockpiles look like in twenty or thirty years? Will we be stuck in the same import

dependent state that we are today with oil?

When debating this point, you will need to argue that the lives worldwide are at risk. No

matter how many lives are saved from pollution or other climate causes, we trade off by

shifting the harms to others in areas that are generally hidden from our view by the modern

media. Just because the news doesn’t report on the deaths in Africa due to mining or the harms

caused in Colorado by deep shaft explosions, the harms still exist. This is a chance to leverage

the concept of out of sight is not out of mind and that judges have to consider the entirety of a

cost benefit, not just that of the United States. On the pro, you will want to go for outweighing.

Question the exact statistics of the negative and push them to bring up real numbers and

evidence on the topic. Chances are that most of their evidence is anecdotal.



Sample Evidence

Mining causes health problems with miners and environmental hazards in the area.

This disproportionately affects native populations as many mines are on native land

Nathanael Johnson, 4-11-2018, "Meltdowns, waste, and war: Here are the real risks of nuclear," Grist,


Is it any wonder that nuclear power scares people? The word nuclear alone conjures up a parade of

terrors: the sinister radiation, the whiff of apocalypse, and the tendency to go boom.

Those are the obvious sci-fi horrors. But nuclear power comes with plenty of other risks that aren’t so

obvious: the hazards of uranium mining, the fouled water, and the radioactive waste.

So do these horrors mean nuclear power shouldn’t be part of our tool kit for fighting climate change?

After all, it doesn’t produce greenhouse gases. That’s why some have pushed to keep existing nuclear

power plants open, and even build more. Often, nuclear nightmares are considered in isolation rather

than weighed against the alternatives. Nobody, for instance, wants to get stuck with nuclear waste that

stays radioactive for 10,000 years — but perhaps some would prefer that to coal waste, which contains

mercury and lead and remains toxic forever.

When it comes to nuclear power, the risks appear right from the beginning of the process with uranium

mining. And they continue to pop up throughout the nuclear life cycle, from enrichment and reactor

operation to the radioactive waste at the end. It’s a process fraught with hazards.

Mining

When I started asking around about reasons to oppose nuclear power, I was surprised by how the

history of uranium mining kept coming up. There’s a reason for this: It’s appalling.

The writer Peter Hessler visited the uranium towns of Utah and Colorado and met men breathing

through oxygen respirators and women who had buried miners after they suffered agonizing deaths.

One described her uncle’s decline to Hessler: “His lungs just crystallized and he was spitting up this

bloody stuff. They told us it was parts of his lungs.”

During World War II, the U.S. government began digging for uranium throughout the Southwest to

create the first atomic bombs. Officials saw early on that the work posed a hazard, says Stephanie Malin,

a sociologist at Colorado State University, but they didn’t tell the miners or the people living in the

surrounding communities. After all, they were making a secret weapon.

“They made recommendations — better ventilation in the mines, radiation monitors,” Malin says. “But

these recommendations were made in classified public health documents in the 1950s. The government

responded by not doing anything until the 1970s.”

Crushed rock from a uranium mill in Moab, Utah. U.S. Department of Energy




Meanwhile, people living downstream drank water seeping out of the mines, full of radioactive isotopes.

Cancer clusters began to emerge, Malin tells me.

Many uranium mines were on the Navajo Nation, a 27,000-square-mile territory in northern Arizona and

New Mexico. And this isn’t just ancient history.

“An undetermined amount of uranium mines still exist on native lands, and the government hasn’t

finished cleaning up the ones we know about,” says Cecilia Martinez, executive director of the

environmental justice group, Center for Earth, Energy, and Democracy.

The federal government has fairly sophisticated clean-up plans, but politicians have refused to provide

the money needed to carry them out, says Cindy Vestergaard, who studies the uranium supply chain at

the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank.

Mining today is much safer than it was during the Cold War, Vestergaard says. It takes at least a decade

to complete all the environmental- and social-impact assessments needed before you start a new mine.

“One thing I can say about mining is that it’s radically different than it was in the ‘50s and ‘60s,”

Vestergaard says.

So mining’s much safer, but that’s not the same as safe. Studies have found increased risks ranging from

lung cancer to diabetes in communities near uranium mines (though there’s not enough evidence to

prove that mining is the cause). Other studies have suggested that modern-day miners are more likely to

get sick than white-collar workers.

Mining of all kinds scars the land and puts people in danger. Coal and tar sands mining cause the same

problems on a larger scale. Even renewable power relies on people unearthing the cobalt, indium, and

other materials for solar panels and batteries.

There are bits of radioactive material scattered throughout the earth’s crust, and when you excavate

tons and tons of rock, you’re going to get exposed to a lot of it. As a result, the people digging up the

elements required to make solar panels collectively get a little more radiation than the people mining an

equivalent amount of uranium. Blasting out the iron ore needed to build wind turbines and generate the

same amount of power exposes miners to a little less radiation.

Whether any of this radiation is harmful depends on how it’s spread around. The earth, bananas, and

airplane trips give us small, harmless doses of radiation all the time. But a giant dose can kill. A United

Nations report found that individual uranium miners are exposed to roughly 4 percent of the federal

limit of radiation for x-ray technicians and other workers who deal with radiation.



Further Reading

Brady Mccombs and Ellen Knickmeyer, 4-11-2015, "Trump Wants $1.5 Billion to Revive U.S.

Uranium Mining," Time, https://time.com/5784266/trump-uranium-mining-stockpile/

Joanna Walters, 7-17-2017, "In the Grand Canyon, uranium mining threatens a tribe's survival,"

Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/17/grand-canyon-

uranium-mining-havasupai-tribe-water-source

Kate Groetzinger, 12-12-2019, "More Domestic Uranium Mining Could Mean Business For

Southern Utah," https://www.kuer.org/post/more-domestic-uranium-mining-could-

mean-business-southern-utah

Tom Dichristopher, “Nuclear wasteland: The explosive boom and long, painful bust of American

uranium mining,” CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/04/the-miners-that-fuel-

americas-nuclear-power-and-atomic-arsenal-are-di.html

Us Epa,Oar, 1-19-2017, "Radioactive Waste From Uranium Mining and Milling," US EPA,

https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium-mining-and-milling

https://time.com/5784266/trump-uranium-mining-stockpile/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/17/grand-canyon-uranium-mining-havasupai-tribe-water-source

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/17/grand-canyon-uranium-mining-havasupai-tribe-water-source

https://www.kuer.org/post/more-domestic-uranium-mining-could-mean-business-southern-utah

https://www.kuer.org/post/more-domestic-uranium-mining-could-mean-business-southern-utah

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/04/the-miners-that-fuel-americas-nuclear-power-and-atomic-arsenal-are-di.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/04/the-miners-that-fuel-americas-nuclear-power-and-atomic-arsenal-are-di.html

https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium-mining-and-milling



Waste Disposal

The waste created from nuclear power production is as deadly and as numerous as what

as a nuclear explosion. This waste is harmful, hot, and takes up space. As of 2020, there is no

good method for disposal. In the past, the idea of burying the waste far underground was

popular with policymakers until they realized that few people wanted nuclear waste dumps

anywhere their homes. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s. the government attempted to bury the

waste at mountain sites like Yucca, but pulled their plans when native tribes protested that not

only should they be forced to live with a radioactive mountain on their land, but the burial

locations were sacred to them. Above ground storage facilities in the Pacific Northwest store

radioactive material in glass rods in pools of pater filled with graphite and iodine. These work

for now but we are running out of space. Ideas of dumping the waste in deep sea trenches has

been debated and in the 1950’s, waste from the Manhattan Project was dumped 200 miles

west of the Golden Gate Bridge. This was stopped after scientists found that the metal

containers would rust over time and they didn’t know how the waste would react with

saltwater.

In areas like Russia or as we are seeing in India, Pakistan, and North Korea, waste is

generally left in remote areas. In 2004, hikers in Russia, searching for warmth from a cold

winter day, came across a site that was oddly devoid of snow. They settled in and made camp.

In the center of this camp they discovered a small sphere that was radiating heat. They used

this to cook their meals and as warmth. They were found in the morning, dead where they fell

asleep, radiation blisters covering their skin. They had wandered into a dumping zone for old

Russian bombs. The sphere was a core to an old atomic weapon. In India and Pakistan, and

based on spy data, in North Korea, waste is being buried in shallow areas of military bases in

remote locations.

In this point, it will be key to argue that the waste is our problem and it is happening

now. Across the United States, we have storage facilities and container trains that are filled to

the brim with nuclear waste as they seek a final resting place for their deadly payloads. Unlike

other forms of waste that can be burned off or recycled, this waste takes thousands of years to

become safe for dumping into nature. As seen above, the harms from nuclear waste are huge

and have a real-world impact on people. The pro side will be at a huge disadvantage when it

comes time for this point. However, they can hedge their case on the development of new

reactors that don’t produce as much nuclear waste or that use nuclear waste as a fuel source.



Further Reading

Rachel Becker, 8-28-2018, "How a nuclear stalemate left radioactive waste stranded on a

California beach," Verge, https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/28/17765538/san-onofre-

nuclear-generating-station-radioactive-spent-fuel-waste-yucca-mountain

David Biello, 1-28-2009, "Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a

Renewable Energy Source?," Scientific American,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-

energy-source/

Darius Dixon, 11-30-2013, "The $38 billion nuclear waste fiasco," POLITICO,

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/nuclear-waste-fiasco-100450

Jeff Mcmahon, "New Map Shows Expanse Of U.S. Nuclear Waste Sites," Forbes,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-

u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/

John Vidal, 8-1-2019, "What should we do with radioactive nuclear waste?," Guardian,

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/what-should-we-do-with-

radioactive-nuclear-waste

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/28/17765538/san-onofre-nuclear-generating-station-radioactive-spent-fuel-waste-yucca-mountain

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/28/17765538/san-onofre-nuclear-generating-station-radioactive-spent-fuel-waste-yucca-mountain

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/nuclear-waste-fiasco-100450

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/what-should-we-do-with-radioactive-nuclear-waste

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/what-should-we-do-with-radioactive-nuclear-waste



Terrorism

With anything as large and as tempting as a nuclear power plant , you run the risk of

terrorism. Even prior to the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States government had

prepared a response and safetly measures for an attack on an American nuclear reactor. Most

of these response drills were based on the concept that the attack was launched by an enemy

state and were potentially nuclear in nature, but the idea that small scale attacks or a potential

takeover of nuclear power plants could happen.

The risks are twofold. Terrorists have stated in the past a desire to gain control of a

nuclear weapon or nuclear material for a dirty bomb. Waste that is just sitting around in a

forest makes an easy target. For those that wish to cause damage without the work, the US has

rated the transport system for nuclear material to disposals sites as “poor.” Even the concept of

lost weapons leads us to danger. Lots of rouge nations can recover debris from the ocean, so all

it would take is for them to find the wrecks and they would or could have an instant bomb. So

although we face harms from the maintenance of the weapons, we also face harms of the

disarming of the weapons. In this debate, it will really come down to weighing of the impacts

and balancing out that no one side will be entirely harm free. Both sides will have negatives, so

it comes down to weighing and using your framework to adequately argue how the judge

should prioritize impacts.

The other argument is that the plants themselves pose a risk. As we enter the year 2020,

the oldest nuclear power plant currently in operation will turn 50. This half century of power

production means that the plant is largely the same as it was when it was built back when

Richard Nixon was president. The threat is that terrorists armed with high yield explosives or

bombs or even a 9/11 style aircraft attack might breach the reactor walls and cause the release

of nuclear material or even cause a chain reaction that might cause a nuclear meltdown. The

counter argument to this is that based on testing, the US military has crashed fighter jets

traveling at full speed into concrete walls built in the same manner as the walls of a reactor and

the jets only left burn marks. The walls are 10 feet thick with reinforced concrete and steel. In

some cases, newer reactors are designed to withstand earthquakes and the direct blast from a

nuclear warhead. To quote one nuclear safety officer, “They would need the Avenger’s Hulk to

break a reactor, and if they had one of those, we have bigger issues to worry about.”



Sample Evidence

Nuclear plants are terror targets

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 18, 2008, p. B6 Along with proliferation, there are terrorist threats to existing nuclear reactors, such as Entergy's controversial Indian Point nuclear plant just 24 miles north of New York City. Lovins calls these "about as fat a terrorist target as you can imagine. It is not necessary to fly a plane into a nuclear plant or storm a plant and take over a control room in order to cause that material to be largely released. You can often do it from outside the site boundary with things the terrorists would have readily available."

An attack on a nuclear plant will kill 500,000

Eben Kaplan, Council on Foreign Relations, 2006, Anti-Terror Measures at U.S. Nuclear Plants, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10450/%20antiterror_measures_at_us_nuclear_plants.html

An attack on a nuclear plant could release a high level of radiation that would gravely endanger public health. A 2004 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists says a successful attack on the Indian Point nuclear facility thirty-five miles north of Manhattan could cause as many as 44,000 near-term casualties, and 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/impacts-of-a-terrorist-attack-at-indian-point-nuclear-power-plant.html



Further Reading

Gwyneth Cravens, 3-1-2002, "Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks,"

Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/terrorism-and-nuclear-energy-

understanding-the-risks/

Matthew Author, "Reducing the greatest risks of nuclear theft & terrorism," American Academy

of Arts & Sciences, https://www.amacad.org/publication/reducing-greatest-risks-

nuclear-theft-terrorism

Michael Shellenberger, 7-6-2018, "If Nuclear Plants Are So Vulnerable To Terrorist Attack, Why

Don't Terrorists Attack Them?," Forbes,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/07/06/if-nuclear-plants-are-

so-vulnerable-to-terrorist-attack-why-dont-terrorists-attack-them/#1028007d5877

Naeem Ulfateh, 8-3-2018, "Why countries still must prioritize action to curb nuclear terrorism,"

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/why-countries-still-

must-prioritize-action-to-curb-nuclear-terrorism/

Union of Concerned Scientists, "Nuclear Plant Security,"

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-plant-security

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/terrorism-and-nuclear-energy-understanding-the-risks/

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/terrorism-and-nuclear-energy-understanding-the-risks/

https://www.amacad.org/publication/reducing-greatest-risks-nuclear-theft-terrorism

https://www.amacad.org/publication/reducing-greatest-risks-nuclear-theft-terrorism

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/07/06/if-nuclear-plants-are-so-vulnerable-to-terrorist-attack-why-dont-terrorists-attack-them/#1028007d5877

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/07/06/if-nuclear-plants-are-so-vulnerable-to-terrorist-attack-why-dont-terrorists-attack-them/#1028007d5877

https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/why-countries-still-must-prioritize-action-to-curb-nuclear-terrorism/

https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/why-countries-still-must-prioritize-action-to-curb-nuclear-terrorism/



Economics

At the core of the topic we also run into the concept of the cost. This functions in two

different manners. The first is the cost of the plant production. Due to government regulations

and the high cost of safety, the per plant cost has skyrocketed from a few hundred million in

the 1970’s to a few hundred billion dollars today. In fact, several plants have seen their

construction halted or slowed due to ballooning costs to the consumer and the companies that

are building them. This is only compounded as the federal subsidies designed for nuclear

energy production have expired or been removed. This means that the raw cost to nuclear

energy rests on the shoulders of the private industry that must construct the plants. When wind

and solar energy are easier to produce, take up less space than a nuclear power plant, and

where the people that live around the solar field or wind turbines don’t constantly fear for their

lives from a meltdown, the choice is easy for many utility companies.

Second, we get to the idea of cost per kilowatt hour. This is the raw cost to the

consumer as a means of gauging electrical efficiency and energy production efficiency. In this

case, we see that over the past decade, the cost per KwH has dropped significantly for wind and

solar power as the technology has been refined and has become more widespread. Coal and oil

have risen slightly has the fossil fuel market has slowed and as regulations on pollution have

started to drie up costs. Nuclear power, however, has reminaed high. Where coal and oil might

be at 4 cents per KwH and wind and solar at 8, nuclear power has sat around 10 to 15 cents per

KwH for the greater part of a decade. This is almost four times the going rate of fossil fuels and

double the rate of other renewables. This means that over the course of a month, a family’s

power bill would be double that of a family operating with a utility company that uses only

renewables.

When arguing this point, it will be critical to get accent this final point to the judge.

Families are in general, at a time of economic belt tightening across the board. If you can

characterize the costs of energy as being double that for nuclear power as they are for standard

energy production or that of other renewables, you will only need to explain that is is like

having another house on their electric bill. For most judges, especially the parent judges, this

will really hit home. You can in fact put this in to terms of real dollars through the evidence but

you might not need to go that far. On the pro, you will need to argue long term vs short term.

This will be a hard thing to do as lots of people will be tempted to vote with their wallet, but if

you argue the greater good necessitate a higher energy cost in order to eventually bring down

the costs as more and more plants are built, then you might be able to win the long term. You

can also try to win the argument that with new technology, the cost of energy production and

plant construction will go down. All of the costs listed above are for old 3rd generation reactors

while the next wave of nuclear power will likely be built on 4th generation technology.



Sample Evidence

Nuclear power is cheaper than other energy sources

Richard Rhodes, 7-19-2018, "Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution," Yale E360,

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-

environmentalists-climate

A final complaint against nuclear power is that it costs too much. Whether or not nuclear power costs

too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide, but there is no question that a full

accounting of the external costs of different energy systems would find nuclear cheaper than coal or

natural gas.

Nuclear power is not the only answer to the world-scale threat of global warming. Renewables have

their place; so, at least for leveling the flow of electricity when renewables vary, does natural gas. But

nuclear deserves better than the anti-nuclear prejudices and fears that have plagued it. It isn’t the 21st

century’s version of the Devil’s excrement. It’s a valuable, even an irreplaceable, part of the solution to

the greatest energy threat in the history of humankind

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate



Nuclear power has only increased in price over the last fifty years. The government

has provided billions in loans to this industry

Physicians for Social Responsibility, 7-13-2009, "Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About

Nuclear Power," https://www.psr.org/blog/resource/dirty-dangerous-and-expensive-the-truth-about-

nuclear-power/

Nuclear is Expensive

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear

industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.” More than 50 years and tens of billions of

dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. The cost of nuclear

reactors built between 1974 and 1996 went up – not down – over time. The estimated cost for new

reactors has quadrupled since the early 2000s. 12 Despite the poor economics, the federal government

has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry – the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more

than $7 billion in production subsidies and tax breaks, plus loan guarantees and other incentives for

nuclear power. The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry – and the most expensive for U.S.

taxpayers– comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the

nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. There are currently $18.5 billion

authorized for nuclear loan guarantees; the nuclear industry is seeking over $100 billion in guarantees.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high – well

above 50 percent.”13 Moody‟s has called new reactors a “bet the farm” investment.



Further Reading

Annmarie Fauske, 5-11-2017, "Cost Benefit Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants," No Publication,

https://www.fauske.com/blog/cost-benefit-analysis-of-nuclear-power-plants

Investopedia, 4-13-2011, "The Economic Reasons Behind Nuclear Power," Forbes,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2011/04/13/the-economic-reasons-

behind-nuclear-power/

John Parsons, 5-26-2015, "What does nuclear power really cost?," World Economic Forum,

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/what-does-nuclear-power-really-cost/

Nico Bauer, Robert J. Brecha, Gunnar Luderer Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Oct 2012, 109 (42) 16805-16810; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1201264109

Noel Wauchope, 6-20-2019, "Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done

about it," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-

nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/

https://www.fauske.com/blog/cost-benefit-analysis-of-nuclear-power-plants

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2011/04/13/the-economic-reasons-behind-nuclear-power/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2011/04/13/the-economic-reasons-behind-nuclear-power/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/what-does-nuclear-power-really-cost/

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/



4th Generation Reactors

Small Modular Reactors

Next Generation Reactor

Small and can be constructed in short amount of time in remote areas.

Can use low yield radioactive fuel.

Cheaper than light water reactors of the past

https://www.americanexperiment.org/2019/07/iaea-discusses-small-modular-reactors/

https://www.americanexperiment.org/2019/07/iaea-discusses-small-modular-reactors/



Thorium Reactors

Uses thorium as the fuel.

Very little nuclear waste is created.

Higher energy output than old reactors.

Cost is more to construct and produce the fuel rods

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/07/a-short-primer-on-modern-nuclear-reactor-design/

Forced Water Reactors

Uses hot water currents to force water into a turbine.

The water is then forced back into a cooling tank where gravity draws it up into the reactor

again.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/boiling-water-reactor

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/07/a-short-primer-on-modern-nuclear-reactor-design/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/boiling-water-reactor



Pebble Bed Reactors

Uses tennis ball sized “rocks” of graphite with nuclear fuel encased in them.

As the fuel burns out, the “pebbles” disintegrate and fall to the bottom of the reactor and are

funneled into the removal bed. A new “pebble” is dropped in from the top.

Safer and more efficient than old reactors.

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2016/02/pebble-bed-reactor-meltdown-proof.html#.Xl4buahKhNA

Other types

Sodium cooled- uses liquid sodium to cool the reactor

Gas cooled- Uses inert gas to cool the reactor

Fast Breeding- used rapid nuclear production ot produce energy fast

Floating- SMR’s that can be built on floating platforms to be towed to emergency locations.

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2016/02/pebble-bed-reactor-meltdown-proof.html#.Xl4buahKhNA



Sample Evidence

SMRs key to spurring the development of nuclear technology – increases the

competitive edge.

Chuck Fleischmann 2011 “Small Modular Reactors Could Help With U.S. Energy Needs”, American

Physical Society, Vol. 6, No. 2, October 2011,

http://www.aps.org/publications/capitolhillquarterly/201110/backpage.cfm

The timely implementation of small reactors could position the United States on the cutting edge of

nuclear technology. As the world moves forward in developing new forms of nuclear power, the United

States should set a high standard in safety and regulatory process. Other nations have not been as

rigorous in their nuclear oversight with far reaching implications. As we consider the disastrous events at

the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility, it is imperative that power companies and regulatory agencies

around the world adequately ensure reactor and plant safety to protect the public. Despite terrible

tragedies like the natural disaster in Japan, nuclear power is still one of the safest and cleanest energy

resources available. The plan to administer these small reactors would create technologically advanced

U.S. jobs and improve our global competitiveness. Our country needs quality, high paying jobs.

Increasing our competitive edge in rapidly advancing industries will put the United States in a strategic

position on the forefront of expanding global technologies in the nuclear arena.

http://www.aps.org/publications/capitolhillquarterly/201110/backpage.cfm



Thorium reactors empirically work

Richard Martin 2012., http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-

energy-problems)

Well, that's what's interesting about the story, right. There's a very complicated history of thorium and

uranium in the early days of the Manhattan Project and then in the '50s and '60s in the days of the

fledgling nuclear power industry. And the thing to remember about thorium is it's not a new technology.

We worked with it extensively. It was used in some of the earliest nuclear physics experiments by Marie

Curie, by Ernest Rutherford when he first started to understand the principle of nuclear decay and so on.

And so the early nuclear physicists were very familiar with it. And then in the '30s, fascism rose in

Europe. We had to fight World War II, and uranium, which is much better for making bombs, took over

the stage, as it were, and that's when thorium actually sort of was pushed aside. But I have to tell you

that at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, there was extensive work done on - not just on

thorium as a nuclear fuel but on an alternative form of reactor, as well. what was then called the molten

salt reactor and is now known as the liquid fuel thorium reactor. So it's an entirely different reactor

technology, as well as a different fuel. FLATOW: Was one actually built? MARTIN: Yes, so the molten

salt reactor experiment ran from about '59 until 1973, when it was canceled, and the director of Oak

Ridge, Alvin Weinberg, who was a great proponent of thorium and of molten salt reactors, was actually

fired by the Nixon administration in 1973, partly because of his belief that we needed an alternative

form and that thorium was really a better fuel. And so they ran the molten salt reactor, started out

running it on conventional uranium, transitioned to uranium-233, which as I mentioned is the byproduct

of thorium once it's in a nuclear reactor. And it was completely proven. I've read the documents from

Oak Ridge, in which they were - the officials were reporting on the results of this experiment, and it's

basically Dr. Weinberg, thank you very much, your experiment has been a complete success, and now

we're shutting it down.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems



Further Reading

Alice Shen, "How China hopes to lead way in next-generation nuclear power," South China

Morning Post, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2181396/how-china-

hopes-play-leading-role-developing-next-generation

Discover Magazine, "Nuclear Technology Abandoned Decades Ago Might Give Us Safer, Smaller

Reactors," https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/nuclear-technology-

abandoned-decades-ago-might-give-us-safer-smaller-reactors

Leigh Phillips, 2-27-2019, "The new, safer nuclear reactors that might help stop climate

change," MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612940/the-

new-safer-nuclear-reactors-that-might-help-stop-climate-change/

Nathanael Johnson, "Next-Gen Nuclear Is Coming—If Society Wants It," Wired,

https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/

Power Engineering, 4-19-2016, "Are Gen IV Nuclear Reactors the Future?," https://www.power-

eng.com/2016/04/19/are-gen-iv-nuclear-reactors-the-future/#gref

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2181396/how-china-hopes-play-leading-role-developing-next-generation

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2181396/how-china-hopes-play-leading-role-developing-next-generation

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/nuclear-technology-abandoned-decades-ago-might-give-us-safer-smaller-reactors

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/nuclear-technology-abandoned-decades-ago-might-give-us-safer-smaller-reactors

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612940/the-new-safer-nuclear-reactors-that-might-help-stop-climate-change/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612940/the-new-safer-nuclear-reactors-that-might-help-stop-climate-change/

https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/



Nuclear Renaissance

Since the turn of the country and the renewed interest in solving both climate change

and solving energy independence, the term “nuclear renaissance” has come to mean the

renewed interest in nuclear power and nuclear science. At this time, under the leadership of

outgoing President Bill Clinton, nuclear engineering programs from around the countr4y saw a

huge push and expansion in their nuclear science programs. At this time, private companies

began to form plans to construct new nuclear power plants built around new 4th generation

designs.

According to the International Energy Agency in 2005

“A nuclear renaissance is possible but cannot occur overnight. Nuclear projects face

significant hurdles, including extended construction periods and related risks, long

licensing processes and manpower shortages, plus long-standing issues related to waste

disposal, proliferation and local opposition. The financing of new nuclear power plants,

especially in liberalized markets, has always been difficult and the financial crisis seems

almost certain to have made it even more so. The huge capital requirements, combined

with risks of cost overruns and regulatory uncertainties, make investors and lenders

very cautious, even when demand growth is robust.”

In this time, worldwide, 10 new nuclear reactors were constructed and brough online. This is

the most that we have seen brought online since the first nuclear push of the Cold War. During

this same time, 67 nuclear reactors were ordered and put under construction. In March of

2017, the renaissance in the United States saw a set back when the largest utility company in

the Pacific Northwest, which had contracted to build several reactors, went bankrupt. In 2019,

the North Carolina Power Industry announced that they were shuttering construction of their

new nuclear plants.

Despite these setbacks, the push is still on as cheaper plants based on new designs are

being constructed in Idaho, Ohio, and California. Time will tell if they are finished, but as of

now, they still help others hold hope that the renaissance is moving forwards.

The arguments here is US leadership. In many areas of technology, the United States has

fallen behind. One area that we can reclaim our leadership is that of nuclear power. This will

also allow the United States to reclaim their lost image after withdrawing from the Paris

Climate Agreement. The con will want to argue that the impact to leadership is outweighed by

the risks and cost associated by nuclear accidents and waste. Furthermore, with the inability to

actually bring plants online, the leadership is shaky at best.



Sample Evidence

A nuclear renaissance is not coming now

Economist 5-4-2011 “Nuclear power When the steam clears,”

http://www.economist.com/node/18441163)

America, which leads the world in installed nuclear power, may lead the world in turning away from the

technology, too. In 2007 Congress agreed to provide loan guarantees for nuclear power; some 28

applications for new stations have since been filed. Barack Obama pledged in his state-of-the-union

address in January 2010 to build a “new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants”. Even before

Fukushima, though, this was looking increasingly unlikely. The recession hit demand. Ever-more-

available shale gas brought a cheap and reliable alternative route to domestically fuelled electricity. And

the lack of climate legislation meant there was no price on carbon, which would have favoured nuclear

power. There are just two new American reactors under construction, neither with full regulatory

approval (a third, approved under an earlier system and then put on ice, is also under way). Few in the

industry expect many more. Applications for around 20 plants to extend their licences are before the

government and requests for 15 more are expected shortly. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has

already granted them to 64 plants, most recently on March 21st to Vermont Yankee, which is of the

same design and vintage as the Fukushima reactors. This similarity has not been lost on the Vermonters

trying with renewed vigour to shut it down. Expect more local opposition in years to



Further Reading

Peter Bradford, 7-11-2013, "Nuclear renaissance was just a fairy tale," Guardian,

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/11/nuclear-renaissance-power-

myth-us

Keith Johnson, 3-23-2015, "Nuclear Renaissance, Redux," Foreign Policy,

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/23/nuclear-renaissance-redux-china-japan-reactors-

fukushima/

Mark Hibbs, 11-30-2016, "The Nuclear Renaissance?," Carnegie Endowment for International

Peace, https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/11/30/nuclear-renaissance-pub-66325

Molly Samuel, 8-6-2017, "How The Dream Of America's 'Nuclear Renaissance' Fizzled," NPR.org,

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/06/541582729/how-the-dream-of-americas-nuclear-

renaissance-failed-to-materialize

Tim Yeo, 1-7-2018, "It's Time for the West's Nuclear Renaissance," National Interest,

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/its-time-the-wests-nuclear-renaissance-23967

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/11/nuclear-renaissance-power-myth-us

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/11/nuclear-renaissance-power-myth-us

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/23/nuclear-renaissance-redux-china-japan-reactors-fukushima/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/23/nuclear-renaissance-redux-china-japan-reactors-fukushima/

https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/11/30/nuclear-renaissance-pub-66325

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/06/541582729/how-the-dream-of-americas-nuclear-renaissance-failed-to-materialize

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/06/541582729/how-the-dream-of-americas-nuclear-renaissance-failed-to-materialize

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/its-time-the-wests-nuclear-renaissance-23967



Accidents

Whenever you harness the power of the sun inside a cement building, you run an

inherent risk to the safety of the people in the area. For decades, nuclear engineers and

political leaders have known about the risks of nuclear power and what might happen if a plant

were to go into a state of meltdown. Their mentality was “Plan for the worst, hope for the

best.” The general idea was that they hoped that they would never need the emergency plans

they created. Sadly, this would not hold true.

In the 1970’s, two disasters made the harms of nuclear power a reality. The first was the

nuclear accident at 3 Mile Island in Pennsylvania. Here, a reactor went into overload after a

water pump failed and the cooling system depressurized. The nuclear fuel rods boiled off their

the water in the reactor and exposed the uranium rods to open air. Unable to cool themselves,

the rods melted and created a nuclear slag that is thousands of degrees and radioactive. This

slag ate through the floor of the reactor and threatened to enter the water table. Furthermore,

the hydrogen gas created by the boil off filled the reactor and threatened to blow the top off

the chamber, spilling thousands of cubic tons fo radioactive gas and material into the air. It was

only with the talents of the local authorities, the federal government, and a little luck that the

reactor was brough under control.

In Chernobyl, a test of the safety systems caused a short in the electoral system that

caused the water pumps to shut down. Unable to restart the pumps, a meltdown occurred, the

hydrogen gas that was created was ignited by a spark and the reactor blew up, thousands of

tons of radioactive waste were thrown into the air. Nuclear fires burned for days as authorities,

unaware of the dangers, fought the fires with no radiation protection. After sand was dumped

on the reactor to smother the fire, construction of a giant cement tomb was started. Competed

years later, this tomb houses the entire nuclear reactor, which is still radioactive and hot. Due

to the radioactivity, the cement is decaying and at present rates, will not be able to contain the

building for much more than another 20 years. Hundreds of rescue workers died as a result of

the radiation poisoning and thousands more suffer from the side effects of radiation to this day.

Finally, in 2011, after a tsunami took out the main power grid at Fukushima in Japan, the

cooling system failed, and a meltdown began. To solve this, the Japanese government began to

pump thousands of gallons of water from the ocean into the reactor to keep it cool. They

drained the spent water into a holding building and later, holding tanks.. However, this was not

enough storage space and after much deliberation, they began to dump the water into the

ocean in controlled bursts. Although a meltdown was averted, hundreds of thousands of

gallons of nuclear tainted water were flushed into the ocean.

These points are the easiest to argue as most judges are familiar with the accidents that

you will talk about. The impact scenario is easy to paint as the images of Japan and the



warnings that overtook out news for a year in 2011 are still fresh in the minds of many. On the

pro, you argue probability. The idea that there have been hundreds of thousands of hours of

nuclear power operation and only three accidents with no true meltdowns has shown that we

can control the power to an extent Furthermore, the nuclear accidents that we saw in the past

are limited to the 3rd generation of nuclear power plants. New generations of nuclear power

plants use new safety measures that might prevent future nuclear disasters.



Sample Evidence

As Many as 90,000 died from Chernobyl Lionel Beehner, Council on Foreign Relations, 2006 (Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html) Devastating, experts say. When reactor number four at Chernobyl spewed radiation levels 100 times as strong as Hiroshima's fallout, plans for new plants were shelved across the globe and many politicians, particularly those in Europe, pushed to phase out nuclear power. Chernobyl was decommissioned, but the health impact—at least 4,000 deaths from radiation-related illnesses, the UN Chernobyl Forum estimates, not including mental illnesses stemming from displacement, high divorce rates, and depression—remains a serious concern twenty years later. Greenpeace, in a new report, disputes the UN figures and puts the number of people who may die from Chernobyl-related illnesses as high as 90,000.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/chernobylhealthreport



Many near-miss nuclear accidents Lisbeth Grunlond, Union of Concerned Scientists, December 2007, Nuclear Power in a Warming World,

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Nuclear-Power-in-a-Warming-World.pdf

Nuclear power plants have experienced scores of more minor accidents and near-misses. These

include an accident in Japan in December 1995, when the Monju reactor leaked sodium

coolant, setting off a serious fire. Sodium burns fiercely when in contact with air and reacts

violently when added to water, making it difficult to control. A recent example of a near-miss is

the 2002 discovery that the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio had a sizable hole in its head: only a

thin skin of stainless steel kept radioactive materials from spreading within the plant. Continued

operation for a few more months would have led to a Three Mile Island-style core meltdown, or

worse (see Box 1).12 In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has reported four dozen

“abnormal occurrences” to Congress since 1986, and notified the International Atomic Energy

Agency of 18 nuclear “events” since reporting began in 1992.13 While no technology can be

perfectly safe, nuclear power is an inherently risky technology, and minimizing its risks requires

stringent safety standards and practices. The United States has relatively strong safety

standards for nuclear power. However, serious safety problems continue to arise because the

NRC does not adequately enforce those standards. Of course, accidents are not the only

measure of safety, and the absence of accidents does not necessarily indicate that there are no

safety problems. The number of U.S. reactors shut down for a year or longer to address

numerous safety problems provides strong evidence of poor safety practices and inadequate

NRC enforcement. A weak “safety culture” within the NRC itself prevents effective oversight.

The agency also relies on flawed approaches to assessing risks and inspecting nuclear facilities,

and its standards for preventing and mitigating severe accidents are too low.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Nuclear-Power-in-a-Warming-World.pdf



Further Reading

Aravind Devanand, Markus Kraft, Iftekhar A Karimi. (2019) Optimal site selection for modular

nuclear power plants. Computers & Chemical Engineering 125, pages 339-350. Crossref

Arnie Gundersen, 2-26-2020, "The US government insurance scheme for nuclear power plant

accidents no longer makes sense," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,

https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-

power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/

Dave Lochbaum,, 7-5-2016, "Nuclear Plant Accidents: Sodium Reactor Experiment," All Things

Nuclear, https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-plant-accidents-sodium-

reactor-experiment

Debora Mackenzie, 3-15-2011, "Briefing: How nuclear accidents damage human health," New

Scientist, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20244-briefing-how-nuclear-

accidents-damage-human-health/

Robert Rapier, 4-5-2017, "Three Accidents That Derailed The Nuclear Power Industry," Forbes,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/05/12/three-accidents-that-derailed-the-

nuclear-power-industry/

https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-plant-accidents-sodium-reactor-experiment

https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-plant-accidents-sodium-reactor-experiment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/05/12/three-accidents-that-derailed-the-nuclear-power-industry/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/05/12/three-accidents-that-derailed-the-nuclear-power-industry/



Conclusion

As we enter the 2020’s, we are faced with some of the greatest crisis of our time. Global

tensions in the Middle East have put our energy reserves at risk of being price spiked by war and

conflict, fossil fuels are reaching peak producing levels, and climate change is threatening to hit the

levels at which there will be a point of no return. In order to stabilize the futures of our selves and that

of our children, it has become obvious that we will need to find an alternative method of energy

production. Developments in solar, wind, and other sources of renewable energy have taken the world

by storm, but the spread has not been fast nor as expansive enough to slow the growing world

problems. To fill the void, many have looked to the past to find guidance for the future. Nuclear power

has been tapped to fill that void.

Proponents of nuclear energy argue that the technology has existged for years, and during the

nuclear golden age of the 1960’s and 1970’s, nuclear energy produced a huge percentage of the United

State’s energy. With further developments in nuclear energy production and with new reactor designs,

safety issues of the past have been addressed and costs are coming down. However, the fear of a

nuclear meltdown are still ripe in the minds of the public. Three nuclear disasters in the past 50 years,

including one as recent as a decade ago, have soured the public perception of nuclear energy.

Furthermore, the mining of nuclear material and the storage of nuclear waste all pose major issues to

the “clean” nature of nuclear power.

This debate is about the course of action for the future. Both sides will have to admit that there

is a problem with the status quo, but which direction we take, as a nation, to solve the energy and

climate change crisis is at the core of the debate. Impact weighing will have to reflect both the needs of

the people as well as the fear and desires of the people as well. Public policy can’t be reliably crafted or

designed without the public opinion. In this case, the “public opinion” is that of the judge. Teams would

be best served by pretending that the judge represents the greater public at large. Your goal then is to

convince the judge that the prospects of nuclear power are or aren’t net beneficial. Treat this like you

are on the campaign trail and you are speaking to a group of voters rather than an individual judge.

Remember to debate issues that the judge will likely latch on to, like total cost, taxes, economics, health

issues, or the impact to the family.

Have fun and good luck.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0757023/

march 2020 advanced public forum brief...nuclear power advocates feel that by using new designs in...

Documents