Energy and place debates
Essential Questions: 1. How does energy production impact place?
2. How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence
your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
Video of Debate: Click Here
My Humanities project: Click Here
2. How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence
your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
Video of Debate: Click Here
My Humanities project: Click Here
Joint scientific statement: Background information
- What are environmental and safety considerations for the storage of nuclear waste?
Environmental and safety considerations of nuclear energy are primarily concerned with the safe storage of nuclear waste. Currently, the United States has reactors that are of the same type as the ones subject to a meltdown in Japan. In the U.S., there are 23 nuclear reactors that have the same system for nuclear containment, meaning that, if power is lost in the plant, there is nothing to prevent the nuclear fuel from melting out the bottom. Electricity is needed to move the coolant through the power plant and keep it below melting levels, so when electricity is lost, proper failsafes must be in place to prevent a meltdown.
There are many safety concerns associated with nuclear power, but modernizations in the way that nuclear power plants are built can reduce the probability of similar disasters. The primary safety concerns are due to nuclear waste, which can be defined in three categories: high-level, intermediate-level, and low-level waste.
According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), high-level radioactive wastes can be harmful to humans. These high-level wastes are the end products of nuclear reactions, when the uranium or other radioactive element is “spent” and cannot be harnessed for fuel. Because these rods are radioactive and extremely hot, they must be cooled and “shielded” for storage. Though there is currently no permanent storage for the high-level waste, the United States government has promised to create permanent storage for it (“Backgrounder”) This repository will be put in Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
According to World-Nuclear, there are storage techniques currently that render nuclear waste harmless to humans aboveground. These are shallow storage facilities that are completely safe, according to the website. Countries are developing long-term, deep geological disposal for nuclear waste as well, which is considered to be a more viable solution for the future. However, nuclear waste remains active for such long periods of time that storage needs to be carefully designed to avoid nuclear emissions.
Sources
"ANS / Public Information." ANS / Public Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"Agreements Abound at France-China Summit." Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel. N.p., n.d.
Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
"Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste." NRC:. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima." Scientific American Global
RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
"Nuclear Power Plant." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
- Describe the science involved in global climate change and how it relates to emissions from nuclear power plants and fossil fuel power plants.
The earth’s atmosphere naturally makes it warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. The gases in the atmosphere help to trap radiation and heat coming from the sun, as well as radiation emitted from the earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would be much colder and uninhabitable. These greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the sun and make the planet warmer as they increase in quantity. Any gas with 3 or more atoms per molecule functions as a greenhouse gas. The main gases in our atmosphere cannot function in this way; for example, nitrogen and oxygen each have two atoms per molecule and argon has one atom per molecule. One of these gases is carbon dioxide. Before the last two hundred years, carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere never exceeded 280 parts per million (ppm). Currently, we are at 390 ppm of carbon dioxide. This is a substantial increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and can be attributed to human activity in part (“Greenhouse Gas”).
In particular, the increase in carbon dioxide can be attributed to the emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels such as petroleum and natural gas. The power plants run on fossil fuels to create energy to power the United States. Since the fuels these plants run on are made of carbon and hydrogen, they undergo a process called combustion, reacting with oxygen in the air to produce carbon dioxide and water. This carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere and, because of the large amount of energy required to keep the United States running, a lot of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by 2100 we could see global warming by an average of 6 degrees in a high-emissions scenario. According to the EPA, this will cause water shortages in dry places, the destruction of ecosystems such as reefs, and about 30% of the world’s wetlands lost.
In terms of environmental impacts, nuclear fuel does not directly produce carbon dioxide emissions. Natural gas, coal, and petroleum power all emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere directly. The emissions that indirectly come from nuclear power come from on-site expenses. For example, after mining and refinement, uranium must be shipped to a power plant to be made into energy. However, according to the EPA, these numbers are much lower than those from natural gas (1135 lbs / mWH), coal (2249 lbs / mWH), or petroleum (1672 lbs / mWH.
The harmful emissions stemming from a nuclear power plant come in the form of radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is a harmful byproduct of the creation of nuclear energy. It is classified into two categories: high-level and low-level waste. Low-level waste is not as dangerous and is stored in above-ground containment. This waste is left until it can be disposed of as normal waste. Currently, there are 7 facilities licensed to dispose of low-level radioactive waste in the United States.
High-level radioactive waste is currently stored in temporary places, but there are attempts being made to move waste permanently underground in a designated repository by the United States government. This high-level waste includes the fuel rods from the nuclear reactor. It must be stored permanently underground because the radioactive elements can take hundreds of thousands of years to decay fully and become safe for disposal (“Backgrounder”).
Sources
"Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste." NRC:. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"Curriculum Resources." Curriculum Resources. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
"Greenhouse Gas." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2014. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
Environmental and safety considerations of nuclear energy are primarily concerned with the safe storage of nuclear waste. Currently, the United States has reactors that are of the same type as the ones subject to a meltdown in Japan. In the U.S., there are 23 nuclear reactors that have the same system for nuclear containment, meaning that, if power is lost in the plant, there is nothing to prevent the nuclear fuel from melting out the bottom. Electricity is needed to move the coolant through the power plant and keep it below melting levels, so when electricity is lost, proper failsafes must be in place to prevent a meltdown.
There are many safety concerns associated with nuclear power, but modernizations in the way that nuclear power plants are built can reduce the probability of similar disasters. The primary safety concerns are due to nuclear waste, which can be defined in three categories: high-level, intermediate-level, and low-level waste.
According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), high-level radioactive wastes can be harmful to humans. These high-level wastes are the end products of nuclear reactions, when the uranium or other radioactive element is “spent” and cannot be harnessed for fuel. Because these rods are radioactive and extremely hot, they must be cooled and “shielded” for storage. Though there is currently no permanent storage for the high-level waste, the United States government has promised to create permanent storage for it (“Backgrounder”) This repository will be put in Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
According to World-Nuclear, there are storage techniques currently that render nuclear waste harmless to humans aboveground. These are shallow storage facilities that are completely safe, according to the website. Countries are developing long-term, deep geological disposal for nuclear waste as well, which is considered to be a more viable solution for the future. However, nuclear waste remains active for such long periods of time that storage needs to be carefully designed to avoid nuclear emissions.
Sources
"ANS / Public Information." ANS / Public Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"Agreements Abound at France-China Summit." Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel. N.p., n.d.
Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
"Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste." NRC:. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima." Scientific American Global
RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
"Nuclear Power Plant." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
- Describe the science involved in global climate change and how it relates to emissions from nuclear power plants and fossil fuel power plants.
The earth’s atmosphere naturally makes it warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. The gases in the atmosphere help to trap radiation and heat coming from the sun, as well as radiation emitted from the earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would be much colder and uninhabitable. These greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the sun and make the planet warmer as they increase in quantity. Any gas with 3 or more atoms per molecule functions as a greenhouse gas. The main gases in our atmosphere cannot function in this way; for example, nitrogen and oxygen each have two atoms per molecule and argon has one atom per molecule. One of these gases is carbon dioxide. Before the last two hundred years, carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere never exceeded 280 parts per million (ppm). Currently, we are at 390 ppm of carbon dioxide. This is a substantial increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and can be attributed to human activity in part (“Greenhouse Gas”).
In particular, the increase in carbon dioxide can be attributed to the emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels such as petroleum and natural gas. The power plants run on fossil fuels to create energy to power the United States. Since the fuels these plants run on are made of carbon and hydrogen, they undergo a process called combustion, reacting with oxygen in the air to produce carbon dioxide and water. This carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere and, because of the large amount of energy required to keep the United States running, a lot of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by 2100 we could see global warming by an average of 6 degrees in a high-emissions scenario. According to the EPA, this will cause water shortages in dry places, the destruction of ecosystems such as reefs, and about 30% of the world’s wetlands lost.
In terms of environmental impacts, nuclear fuel does not directly produce carbon dioxide emissions. Natural gas, coal, and petroleum power all emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere directly. The emissions that indirectly come from nuclear power come from on-site expenses. For example, after mining and refinement, uranium must be shipped to a power plant to be made into energy. However, according to the EPA, these numbers are much lower than those from natural gas (1135 lbs / mWH), coal (2249 lbs / mWH), or petroleum (1672 lbs / mWH.
The harmful emissions stemming from a nuclear power plant come in the form of radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is a harmful byproduct of the creation of nuclear energy. It is classified into two categories: high-level and low-level waste. Low-level waste is not as dangerous and is stored in above-ground containment. This waste is left until it can be disposed of as normal waste. Currently, there are 7 facilities licensed to dispose of low-level radioactive waste in the United States.
High-level radioactive waste is currently stored in temporary places, but there are attempts being made to move waste permanently underground in a designated repository by the United States government. This high-level waste includes the fuel rods from the nuclear reactor. It must be stored permanently underground because the radioactive elements can take hundreds of thousands of years to decay fully and become safe for disposal (“Backgrounder”).
Sources
"Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste." NRC:. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"Curriculum Resources." Curriculum Resources. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
"Greenhouse Gas." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2014. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
Opening and closing statements
Debate Opening Statement
Good evening. My name is Tony Williams, I would like to start this debate by admitting that there are a lot of good things about nuclear energy. It is inexpensive and efficient, and there is an abundance of uranium available for mining. However, we are here to discuss whether nuclear power is a clean energy source for the future and should be given government backing, as you may have seen on the debate question. While nuclear doesn't release fossil fuels into the atmosphere, it pollutes the environment with nuclear waste and, more importantly, mining.
Nuclear is efficient in that it takes very little uranium to make a lot of energy. In comparison to fossil fuels, it creates more energy for less raw material. But the question at hand is not about the efficiency of uranium, but whether it is a clean energy source for the future.
Nuclear power plants do not use much uranium, comparatively. However, there is still the question of where that uranium comes from. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Committee, over 100,000 tons of toxic mill tailings are produced to make the amount of uranium necessary to power a plant for a year. This mill tailings are radioactive and contain toxic heavy metals like selenium, uranium, and thorium. According to world-nuclear, these heavy metals can contaminate groundwater. Does this sound clean to you?
Cement Creek up in Silverton contains heavy metals and is severely toxic, as said by Ty Churchwell. The Animas becomes uninhabitable to fish until much farther downstream in the valley, and this is only due to one tiny tributary. To improve the entire watershed of the Animas River System, a multi-million dollar treatment facility needs to be built and manned with taxpayer dollars. If federal subsidies are given to nuclear power, as proposed by the motion, dollars out of our pockets go straight into contaminating our watershed with toxic heavy metals.
Our opponents are going to argue their point by highlighting the cleanliness and efficiency of nuclear energy, but I would like you to look at the facts. Though it takes very little uranium to power a plant, the amount of mill tailings produced is 400 times higher. The most important point to remember is that we are not debating whether nuclear is more efficient than fossil fuels, but whether it is a clean energy source. As I look back on the contaminated drinking water that comes from radioactive mill tailings, I have a hard time believing that nuclear is a better energy option. For this reason, please vote against the motion that nuclear is a clean energy source and should be used in the future.
Closing Statement
It is easy to turn a blind eye to all of the problems that nuclear energy causes this world, but it is just as bad as fossil fuels as a long-term solution. I urge you all to look closely at the facts and the motion before voting.
The motion states that nuclear energy is a clean energy source and should be funded by the government. Our opponents talked about the efficiency of nuclear energy in contrast to fossil fuels, but this hardly makes up for the atrocities that the nuclear process commits throughout its lifespan.
Cement Creek is just an hour’s drive from here and is a potent example of how harmful mining can be to the environment. Not only does the harmful mining cost us a lot of money during the cleanup phase, but it costs the environment as well. The radioactive materials involved take hundreds of thousands of years to decay fully, and small mistakes with these substances can destroy all life around them.
Sure, the technology might lower the risk of groundwater contamination, but is it really worth running the risk of permanently losing access to our earth? And where will these radioactive mill tailings go when they build up? Nuclear energy is certainly NOT a clean energy source for the future, and voting for the motion is harmful for both budget and the natural environment.
Good evening. My name is Tony Williams, I would like to start this debate by admitting that there are a lot of good things about nuclear energy. It is inexpensive and efficient, and there is an abundance of uranium available for mining. However, we are here to discuss whether nuclear power is a clean energy source for the future and should be given government backing, as you may have seen on the debate question. While nuclear doesn't release fossil fuels into the atmosphere, it pollutes the environment with nuclear waste and, more importantly, mining.
Nuclear is efficient in that it takes very little uranium to make a lot of energy. In comparison to fossil fuels, it creates more energy for less raw material. But the question at hand is not about the efficiency of uranium, but whether it is a clean energy source for the future.
Nuclear power plants do not use much uranium, comparatively. However, there is still the question of where that uranium comes from. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Committee, over 100,000 tons of toxic mill tailings are produced to make the amount of uranium necessary to power a plant for a year. This mill tailings are radioactive and contain toxic heavy metals like selenium, uranium, and thorium. According to world-nuclear, these heavy metals can contaminate groundwater. Does this sound clean to you?
Cement Creek up in Silverton contains heavy metals and is severely toxic, as said by Ty Churchwell. The Animas becomes uninhabitable to fish until much farther downstream in the valley, and this is only due to one tiny tributary. To improve the entire watershed of the Animas River System, a multi-million dollar treatment facility needs to be built and manned with taxpayer dollars. If federal subsidies are given to nuclear power, as proposed by the motion, dollars out of our pockets go straight into contaminating our watershed with toxic heavy metals.
Our opponents are going to argue their point by highlighting the cleanliness and efficiency of nuclear energy, but I would like you to look at the facts. Though it takes very little uranium to power a plant, the amount of mill tailings produced is 400 times higher. The most important point to remember is that we are not debating whether nuclear is more efficient than fossil fuels, but whether it is a clean energy source. As I look back on the contaminated drinking water that comes from radioactive mill tailings, I have a hard time believing that nuclear is a better energy option. For this reason, please vote against the motion that nuclear is a clean energy source and should be used in the future.
Closing Statement
It is easy to turn a blind eye to all of the problems that nuclear energy causes this world, but it is just as bad as fossil fuels as a long-term solution. I urge you all to look closely at the facts and the motion before voting.
The motion states that nuclear energy is a clean energy source and should be funded by the government. Our opponents talked about the efficiency of nuclear energy in contrast to fossil fuels, but this hardly makes up for the atrocities that the nuclear process commits throughout its lifespan.
Cement Creek is just an hour’s drive from here and is a potent example of how harmful mining can be to the environment. Not only does the harmful mining cost us a lot of money during the cleanup phase, but it costs the environment as well. The radioactive materials involved take hundreds of thousands of years to decay fully, and small mistakes with these substances can destroy all life around them.
Sure, the technology might lower the risk of groundwater contamination, but is it really worth running the risk of permanently losing access to our earth? And where will these radioactive mill tailings go when they build up? Nuclear energy is certainly NOT a clean energy source for the future, and voting for the motion is harmful for both budget and the natural environment.
project reflection
In this debate, I debated against the motion: “Nuclear power is a clean source of energy and the government should provide incentives for its use.” This was quite difficult for me because I believe that nuclear energy is the future of efficient energy, at least until we can subside demand and increase solar and wind energy. I believed this before the project, compounded it through the evidence I found during the project, and I still believe that nuclear energy is the future. This made it morally difficult for me to persuade everyone in the audience that nuclear is a perilous and dirty form of energy.
Though I didn’t know much about nuclear, I knew that it was a good alternative simply because it doesn’t emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now I have much more evidence to back up my claim, but my claim remains the same. The only thing that really changed my mind a lot was the water usage; however, agriculture uses 97% of the water that the U.S. uses. This is a huge percentage, so the water usage of nuclear plants is really not that big a deal. However, for me, the permanence of nuclear waste is the biggest problem with nuclear. But the little amount of waste produced by nuclear makes it a good short-term option to reduce global warming in the atmosphere. For me, the strongest reason to use nuclear is that it doesn’t produce fossil fuels and has the power to help us stop global warming.
If I were to research further into this topic, I would research nuclear fusion. I’ve heard that fusion has the potential to create vast amounts of energy with very little nuclear waste, but the amount of power required is much higher. I think that this could be an interesting option for the future, in particular if we are able to use solar or wind to get the large amount of power required to start the fusion reaction started.
One of the difficult parts of debates was arguing against the side of the motion that I believed in. I had a lot of evidence on my side, but I was constantly thinking about how I would argue the other side, which began to distract me from my point. I think that I performed well in the debate and argued the motion well by using the wording of the motion to my advantage. My speaking went well during the entire debate and I only stumbled a few times throughout. In particular, I rebutted some of Conor’s claims about nuclear fusion; he claimed that we could completely react a pellet of uranium, but I called his bluff and showed the audience that we cannot.
However, I made some faulty claims in the debate as well. Luckily, nobody noticed that Cement Creek actually resulted from silver mining and not uranium mining! I didn’t know this either until it was too late to change what I was going to say in my opening and closing statements. Checking this fact, silver mining created the Cement Creek problem and not uranium mining. Another fact I checked was nuclear fusion and how far away it is: Tatum claimed that fusion would be up and running within the next 5 of 10 years. The International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor (ITER) is not predicted to be up and running until 2027, which is 13 years in the future, so his claim was faulty. Also, these things often run over the time they are predicted, so I would predict that this won’t happen until at least 2035.
Humanities and chemistry didn’t really combine as much as I was expecting in this project. However, my sense of place gave me a good idea of what I believe in terms of nuclear power. I am a conservationist; I believe that modern luxuries and nature should be able to coincide peacefully, and that innovations provide this path. Nuclear power, in my opinion, is a great source of clean energy that should continue to be worked at in the future.
Though I didn’t know much about nuclear, I knew that it was a good alternative simply because it doesn’t emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now I have much more evidence to back up my claim, but my claim remains the same. The only thing that really changed my mind a lot was the water usage; however, agriculture uses 97% of the water that the U.S. uses. This is a huge percentage, so the water usage of nuclear plants is really not that big a deal. However, for me, the permanence of nuclear waste is the biggest problem with nuclear. But the little amount of waste produced by nuclear makes it a good short-term option to reduce global warming in the atmosphere. For me, the strongest reason to use nuclear is that it doesn’t produce fossil fuels and has the power to help us stop global warming.
If I were to research further into this topic, I would research nuclear fusion. I’ve heard that fusion has the potential to create vast amounts of energy with very little nuclear waste, but the amount of power required is much higher. I think that this could be an interesting option for the future, in particular if we are able to use solar or wind to get the large amount of power required to start the fusion reaction started.
One of the difficult parts of debates was arguing against the side of the motion that I believed in. I had a lot of evidence on my side, but I was constantly thinking about how I would argue the other side, which began to distract me from my point. I think that I performed well in the debate and argued the motion well by using the wording of the motion to my advantage. My speaking went well during the entire debate and I only stumbled a few times throughout. In particular, I rebutted some of Conor’s claims about nuclear fusion; he claimed that we could completely react a pellet of uranium, but I called his bluff and showed the audience that we cannot.
However, I made some faulty claims in the debate as well. Luckily, nobody noticed that Cement Creek actually resulted from silver mining and not uranium mining! I didn’t know this either until it was too late to change what I was going to say in my opening and closing statements. Checking this fact, silver mining created the Cement Creek problem and not uranium mining. Another fact I checked was nuclear fusion and how far away it is: Tatum claimed that fusion would be up and running within the next 5 of 10 years. The International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor (ITER) is not predicted to be up and running until 2027, which is 13 years in the future, so his claim was faulty. Also, these things often run over the time they are predicted, so I would predict that this won’t happen until at least 2035.
Humanities and chemistry didn’t really combine as much as I was expecting in this project. However, my sense of place gave me a good idea of what I believe in terms of nuclear power. I am a conservationist; I believe that modern luxuries and nature should be able to coincide peacefully, and that innovations provide this path. Nuclear power, in my opinion, is a great source of clean energy that should continue to be worked at in the future.