That Global Warming Means We Must Use Nuclear Power?

Question

ANy thoughts on this oir suggestions i can use as NEGATIVE in a debate?

Answer 1

the US has enough nuclear fuel for 500 to a 1000 years if it uses the right nuclear power cycle. with 300 reactors operating.

if the US reprocessed it spent reactor fuel we could get 150 times the energy from it that we do now.

plus we have a large amount of nuclear weapons pits that could be used for fuel.

we also have over 686,000 tons of depleted uranium that can also be converted to reactor fuel by a fast neutron reactor.

all this could be used if we build the right type reactors and fuel reprocessing plants.

also if we built a few accelerator driven nuclear plants we could get rid of most of the nuclear waste we have now plus the waste from reprocessing the spent fuel rods we now have stored in cooling ponds.

we also have many unmined deposits of uranium and thorium that could be used.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip32.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip42.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip54.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip64.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip65.htm

nuclear power along with a balanced wind. solar, geothermal, hydro and ocean power generation systems

would end our need to import oil.

plus using any excess power during non peak hours to desalinise water and pump it to inland desert areas.for.biofuelfuel crop use, inland farm use factory use or storage in for drought use.

also during non peak hours you could use the some types of nuclear power plants to make hydrogen.

the anti nuclear hype is a product of a soviet disinformation program during the cold war

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/artic...

we in the US are far behind the rest of the nuclear power using nations of the world.

even though we are the first to build reactors.

have the safest reactors

and have the best trained reactor operators in the world(US Navy trained)

the more the US gets behind on nuclear power the MORE danger there will be of another major nuclear power plant accident some where elce in the world.

as countries like russia and china build reactor for other countries.

or other countries try to build there own homebuilt reactors.

Answer 2

The strongest and most direct negative is that the US is right on the cusp of nuclear FUSION as our main source of power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NS...

Answer 3

treehugg, you mean like the new light bulbs that contain mercury that you treehuggers are ramming down our throats?

Answer 4

I have seen this debated several times, and a recuring point that comes up is, based on the current known supplies of uranium, if there was a large increase in powerplants the world could runout in as little as 20 years.

Another is nuclear power is so expensive most of the countries that have it subsidise it to produce weapons U.S., Russia, France, U.K. etc

Answer 5

by negative i assume you are arguing that nuclear power should not be used. i would try and argue that nuclear power is not safe.

there are increased rates of leukemia among children around nuclear plants when compared to the general population. there is also the effect mining has on the environment and Finlay you can argue that it is a limited resource so there are far better solutions currently available.

Answer 6

nuclear power is too dangerous. radioactive waste that doesn't really have anywhere to be stored and explosions causing cancer isn't exactly clean energy in my mind.

Answer 7

Why would you want to be against Nuclear Power? Its clean and safe, and cheap. Correction: its safe as long as you dont live in the USSR. The USSRs nuclear power plants mostly relied on stolen technology from the US so it was way more dangerous. Frankly, i think you're a hypocrite if you believe man causes global warming and that we shouldn't use nuclear power. By the way, sun spots cause global warming. Not us.