View Single Post
Old 07-29-2012, 02:37 AM
Latio-Nytro's Avatar
Latio-Nytro Offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,467
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Latio Nytro
Revolution Uprising
For Nuclear Power

We're closing in on a kind of...Issue. Nuclear Power. It's INFAMED as a way to make mutants, a dangerous substance to work with, environmentally unfriendly in many, many aspects, and more. Nuclear Waste being dangerous, and the power of nuclear bombs being a looming source of discomfort for some, are both serious issues.

However...There's this. You see, based on a bi-product released into the environment, a power plant based on coal versus a nuclear plant will wield more-yes, MORE-radiation than a nuclear plant over 50 years. With a minor leakage on the nuclear plant. Moreover, the only bi-product in that regard is water, released into the air as steam. I'm serious. The Nuclear Waste does NOT go out into the environment out of its own accord, apparently.

On another note...We have this:
Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Nuclear Power is currently the cheapest source of energy. Costing a mere 1.76 cents/kilowatt-hour, compared to coal which costs 2.21 cents/kilowatt-hour.
Yes, that is completely true. COMPLETELY TRUE. Not one word of those two sentences are wrong. Also noteworthy: Assuming we don't change our usage of fossil fuels, they'll become unsustainable. That would cause some...Err...Rather terrible repercussions economically. Using Nuclear Power could be the difference between further ecologic and economic disaster then, and ecologic and economic prosperity then.

They're also more efficient. One uranium pellet will generate 17 MBTU. To put that into perspective, that take 1780 pounds of coal to generate, or 149 Gallons of Oil. One pellet is less than 5% of a Kilogram. Even with a $100/Kilogram cost, it becomes much less relevant. That is cost efficiant. To add onto that, if the price is doubled, then electricity's price rises about 5%. Anywhere from a 30% to a 70% percent rise, by contrast, can be expected from doubling the price of natural gas or coal. Who wants that?!

Moreover, nuclear energy is quite unique. So much power in such a relatively small mass means that applications are broad. The U.S.S Nautilus is our first Nuclear Powered Ship. The U.S.S Enterprise (NOT RELATED TO THE ENTERPRISE OF STAR TREK FAME) is our first Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier. Meanwhile, Civilian uses have been astounding. Smaller generators can power Malls, Schools and even Solitary Homes. Albeit at the time there isn't a particularly safe method to do so, public transportation is also possible.

...And, of course, I must point out fallacies in reasoning in my current opposition, which so far includes only Judge Dredd.

Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Most nuclear waste stays radioactive for thousands of years. This waste is being stored underground. As the use of nuclear power goes up, so does the amount of nuclear waste. As the population raises,more and more land is being taken up. Do you see where I am going? Nuclear Power works in the now because its cheap and they have places to store it.. Future generation wont be so lucky. As our population swells the amount of waste will start to become hazardous to future generations. Not only will it be effecting our children's children, it will effect the overall damage to planet will be catastrophic.

As far as storage goes, they have suggested shooting in space or burying it inside of mountains. People will also say that they have almost perfected safe storage of nuclear power now, so there is no need for such extreme measures. This may be simi true based in areas that have the money to store it properly but what happens in places that don't have the money.
Those places usually don't have nuclear power plants. It can easily be assumed that any country introducing Nuclear Power would also REQUIRE that costs being taken in would include a method of safe storage. I must also point out that you have stated that we've pretty much perfected the art of Nuclear Waste Disposal: We seal them in radiation-proof containers VERY WELL TESTED to make sure none of that harmful radiation comes out outside of it. Then you point out it would lead to ecological disaster. The only Bi-Product we cannot advert entering the environment safely and is completely impossible to avoid from using Nuclear Power is water, in the form of steam. Water, in terms of the environment, is harmless. The other product-Nuclear Waste-can be safely disposed of thanks to our perfection in the technique of nuclear waste storage, and albeit definitely harmful, is rendered harmless by said storage techniques.

Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Two major disasters have happened because of the use of Nuclear Power. The Fukushima disaster in 2011, a scary little fact here. Some parts of our eastern cost were hit with more radiation than some parts of Japan. Than we look at the Chernobyl disaster, a city that will be unlivable for a thousand years.
Disasters caused by errors made in handling, receiving, and extracting any and all sources of power are almost impossible to avoid: Oil Spills, for example. They are HUGE ecological disasters, and their impact lasts FAR longer than we'd ever wish. While Nuclear Power can be a much more dangerous power source due to its very nature, over time we discover new ways to handle nuclear power, and eventually the risks of such things could become almost nonexistent. This is true for all power sources in general, but that's not really important for this argument, now is it?

Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Last but not least, any country that has nuclear power and the ability to create nuclear weapons.
There is an explicit reason why the Cold War never became World War 3. Neither the USA or the Soviet Union wanted to start a Nuclear War, and everyone was tiptoeing around the possibility, using indirect force and political actions to gain favor over direct confrontation-because they didn't want to use nuclear missiles and they didn't want to get hit by nuclear missiles. They could destroy the whole world with nuclear war, and they d**m well knew it. The Cold War ended because both sides were scared s**tless by the threat of being attacked by the other side with nukes. It was no joke, and the arms race was devoted strictly to making sure that the retaliation from one side wouldn't become weak enough that the opposing side could destroy it.

Nuclear power can have its risks, and by far, the creation of nuclear weapons through the extraction of weapons-grade Plutonium in Nuclear Waste is a very, very cold reality (though, on the flipside, the same process can be used to remove the fuel-grade Uranium as well, thereby drastically reducing the radioactive power of nuclear waste, thereby making it less dangerous). However, the Government would have a steel grip on these kinds of ultra-dangerous materials. We're not talking about Marijuana-We're talking about F***ING NUKES that can remove entire cities off the map. That is dead serious.

Ultimately, Nuclear Power has its pros and cons like any other, and quite frankly the pros do outweigh the cons. The reason why it's being so thoroughly debated is because of the fact that it is the same power that can make nuclear warheads, and disasters like Chernobyl. However, with proper care and precautions, I believe Nuclear Power can be a safe option for the world at large.

This was the only site I used in the whole article. (Look Ma, no Wikipedia!)
The Avatar is from 5TailedDemonLizard!

Houndour@4051: Hatch@4066, Houndoom@4123, Level100@4351.

The Nonexistant White Nuzlocke! BEHOLD IT AND DESPAIR!

Reply With Quote