what you think of being Pro Nuclear power plant

[aiza]

I have this debate thats coming in class about being a pro Nuclear person. I'm the leader of my group and I'm asking for help in deffending my group. I've done my research and since Im in the Philippines and It has top be related to us here, Im having doubts of help. But it would really be nice to hear from diff. Points of view. Thanks.

[akcapr]

well, it doesnt pollute the air like fosill fuels, doesnt use up fossil fuels, and is relitively safe.

[YT2095]

What if there`s another Accident, it can and HAS happened in the past!

 

it Does pollute the waterways (water is used as part of the heat exchange mechanism)

 

What happens to all the waste? it`s not only Fuel rods that need to be gotten rid of, it`s most of the entire plant when it`s lifespan is over.

 

the more Power plants there are the greater targets for terrorists in planes again...

 

I can`t think of anymore, but you can expect at least SOME of these to be thrown in your teams direction, I`m actualy Pro-Nuclear myself, so I`m probably overlooking a good many other things that will fly in your direction, hope it`s of some help though

[swansont]

What if there`s another Accident' date=' it can and HAS happened in the past!

 

it Does pollute the waterways (water is used as part of the heat exchange mechanism)

[/quote']

 

But as rebuttals,

 

Coal releases a lot of radioactive material into the air, and

 

all "engines" reject heat, so coal and gas plants do similar thermal damage

[jdurg]

Another argument to be aware of is the 'nuclear power plants don't consume fossil fuels'. In reality, they do consume quite a bit. The act of processing the raw ore into a useable fuel requires a great deal of fossil fuel consumption. The plant doesn't directly use fossil fuels, but it indirectly uses a good amount of it.

[jsatan]

What if there`s another Accident' date=' it can and HAS happened in the past!

 

it Does pollute the waterways (water is used as part of the heat exchange mechanism)

 

What happens to all the waste? it`s not only Fuel rods that need to be gotten rid of, it`s most of the entire plant when it`s lifespan is over.

 

the more Power plants there are the greater targets for terrorists in planes again...

 

I can`t think of anymore, but you can expect at least SOME of these to be thrown in your teams direction, I`m actualy Pro-Nuclear myself, so I`m probably overlooking a good many other things that will fly in your direction, hope it`s of some help though [/quote']

They can take planes easy,

Fun to watch, its like back to the future, fire and gone, lol.

[YT2095]

I didn`t know about the coal bit, so yeah, that`s a great one

 

there`s actualy a few rebutals to most all (if not all) of the args I presented that he`s likely to hear, the Terrorist one is just plain lame from the get go, the accident one, well it`s weak but you can always claim that we`ve learned from these mistakes and technology has advanced well beyond these "primative" plants we used back then.

 

and to totaly Trash the lot of them, WHO SAID that these plants need to be ABOVE GROUND????

 

but I`de use that arg as a clincher, save the best Ammo till last if/when all else fails

[jdurg]

American and British Nuke plants are remakably well built. However, in 'poorer' countries which are just starting to get nuclear power plants, the structures aren't exactly 'plane worthy' and it's in those places that you have a lot to be concerned with.

[swansont]

Another argument to be aware of is the 'nuclear power plants don't consume fossil fuels'. In reality, they do consume quite a bit. The act of processing the raw ore into a useable fuel requires a great deal of fossil fuel consumption. The plant doesn't directly use fossil fuels, but it indirectly uses a good amount of it.

 

There's also the energy used in constructing the plant itself - the break-even is something like 15 years of operation. Which was a much better argument when the expected life of a plant was 20 years.

 

disclaimer: As with all of these quick-hit thoughts, though, research the facts throughly. I'm shooting from the hip here and could've gotten details muddled in my mind.

[aiza]

Oh wow, thanks guys, I knda feel low at this point coz Of being Pro because here "Anti" Is a given.

 

See the situation here is, That we have a a NPP already built here, long ago when Marcos was still president, and americans built it, It was formed by "westinghouse" ((hookay, Im not even sure who they are.)) but the thing was, during construction, the three Island mile accident had happened, so construction had to stop, The president "Then" Called a commitie to check on it, they studied the accident and did major upgrades for it not to happened here.

 

And as for the accident in Russia, Chernobyl,It was built with out containment shells. In other reactors, the containment shell will keep almost all radioactive material from spreading in case of an accident.

 

but another thing to point out here, is that when the first ship of fuel arrived, the plant was closed down due to the change of president, The question of our Debate now, is "should the NPP in Bataan (The place in the Phil. need to be opened, considering the electrical problem in the Phil.?"

 

as for the waste of all this, Im not even sure.....

[jdurg]

Well Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. It was a poorly designed system and run by people who weren't given all the information they needed to run it safely. I mean, they purposely turned off ALL safety mechanism to run the fatal test which led to the plant completely failing. Then, the surrounding people weren't informed of what was going on and the emergency personnel weren't properly informed either. (I mean, they were pouring water onto the liquid sodium/graphite fires!).

 

At Three Mile Island, a mechanical failure occured yet the safety systems put in place contained the 'incident'. You hear a lot of stories saying that x-amount of radiation escaped, but I find that laughable because how can radiation escape if there is no structural breach of the reactor? Yes there was a partial core meltdown, but the containment system kept the core intact. In reality, TMI was a great example of how the safety and backup systems in a Nuke plant can prevent a major accident.

[aiza]

Well Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. It was a poorly designed system and run by people who weren't given all the information they needed to run it safely. I mean' date=' they purposely turned off ALL safety mechanism to run the fatal test which led to the plant completely failing. Then, the surrounding people weren't informed of what was going on and the emergency personnel weren't properly informed either. (I mean, they were pouring water onto the liquid sodium/graphite fires!).

 

At Three Mile Island, a mechanical failure occured yet the safety systems put in place contained the 'incident'. You hear a lot of stories saying that x-amount of radiation escaped, but I find that laughable because how can radiation escape if there is no structural breach of the reactor? Yes there was a partial core meltdown, but the containment system kept the core intact. In reality, TMI was a great example of how the safety and backup systems in a Nuke plant can prevent a major accident.[/quote']

 

Thank you thank you!!!! that is something I'm going to have to put into my memory, see that two accidents are the major black eye in our debate so Im pretty sure the other team will use that against us. Danke! Rigato! Salamat! gracia!~~~LOl