Energy and Place
Essential Questions:
1. How does energy production impact place?
2. How does your sense of place, your environmental ethic, and your understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
2. How does your sense of place, your environmental ethic, and your understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
Joint Scientific Statement
The following answers to the enlarged questions are my portion of the Joint Scientific Statement that served as a form of research and debate preparation:
What are the Environmental and Safety Considerations for the Storage of Nuclear Waste?
The storage of nuclear waste is a complicated process. There are three levels of intensity by which radioactive waste is categorized: low-level, intermediate-level and high-level waste. When radioactive waste is marked as “low-level waste” it means that it is not considered harmful to people of the surrounding environment. It mainly comes from materials such as concrete, clothing or metals. Low-level waste is either stored on site at the nuclear power plant or shipped to a low-level waste disposal site (IAEA, Focus). The disposal sites are a good option for large amounts of radioactive waste because they contain the material in safer areas. Most disposal sites in the U.S. can be found in one of the following states: South Carolina, Washington, Utah and Texas (IAEA, Storage).
Intermediate-level waste, also known as ILW, is comprised of resins, chemical sludge, metal fuel cladding and contaminated materials from a plant reactor. This particular level of waste is stored in the same manner as the low-level waste, but it requires shielding in steel containers due to the higher level of radiation (IAEA, Focus). In order to protect the environment by not letting the waste into unspecified areas, the packages used to transport the nuclear waste are designed to withstand the various conditions that it may be exposed to in transport (World, Transport).
Finally, high-level waste has the most potential to cause harm because it contains fission products and transuranic elements that are generated in the reactor core. Over 95% of the total waste produced for electricity generation is highly radioactive (Representing, 2013). HLW is stored on site for multiple years in large tanks of water to cool the waste until it reaches a point that it can be vitrified and placed into borosilicate glass. Vitrification is a process used to stabilize and encapsulate HLW that involves mixing the waste with a substance that will crystallize and calcinate when heated. The process of calcination removes the water from the waste to enhance the stability of the resulting glass product (Thompson, 2010). The melted radioactive waste is subsequently encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders after vitrification and stored in disposal repositories. Often times, HLW will create short-lived fission products. These products are derived from long-lived actinides and the distinction between the long and short-lived product is essential in the management and disposal of HLW (Representing, 2013).
If the necessary steps are not taken to ensure safe storage of the radioactive waste, it can have serious health effects on humans. For instance, when the human body is exposed to plutonium, it will often lead to detrimental effects on internal body systems. Exposure to plutonium can occur during ingestion, inhalation, and contamination to an open wound. The least likely type of exposure is inhalation, yet it causes the most severe effects. It is difficult to create an airborne dispersion of such a heavy metal, but when it does occur it is generally through insoluble plutonium oxide having a particle size less than 0.01 mm. When this chemical is inhaled, the majority of it is expelled through exhalation or mucous flow from the bronchial system. Then the small amount that is not expelled gets transferred to the blood or lymph system and progressively works its way towards the liver and bones (World, Plutonium). There is evidence that when plutonium is inhaled it can cause cancer, mutations, and various other terminal illnesses.
The design of the disposal repository is an essential aspect of storing nuclear waste because even a miniscule mistake could contaminate groundwater with radioactive elements, affecting humans and wildlife. The vaults containing the radioactive waste are similar to a swimming pool, reinforced by several inches of concrete and stainless steel in order to prevent any possible draining. The nuclear waste itself is placed in racks under approximately twenty feet of water. The threat of radiation is eliminated because both the water and the stainless steel causes the radiation to rebound, therefore keeping it in the pool.
As long as nuclear power companies take the precautions needed to store their waste in the appropriate manner, the potentially dangerous implications of radioactive elements can be minimized.
Works Cited:
"Disposal Aspects of Low and Intermediate Level Decommissioning Waste."Pub.iaea. International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 14.
"Focus on Low and Intermediate Level Waste." IAEA.org. International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d. Web.
"Plutonium." Plutonium. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
“Radioactive Waste Management" Representing the People and Organizations of the Global Nuclear Profession. World Nuclear Association, Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.
"Storage of Radioactive Waste." Safety Standards for Protecting the People and the Environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d. Web.
"Transport of Radioactive Materials." Transport of Radioactive Materials. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"What Is Uranium? How Does It Work?" What Is Uranium? How Does It Work. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014
Thompson, Linda. "Vitrification of Nuclear Waste." Vitrification of Nuclear Waste. Stanford University, 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
Operating Processes of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants
What is the fuel for light water nuclear reactors and what form does this fuel take?
The basic fuel used in a light water reactor is uranium and plutonium. Uranium occurs naturally and is 500 times more abundant than gold, and it is also found in concentrations of about four parts per million in granite which makes up 60% of the Earth’s crust. However, only 0.7% of natural uranium is fissile (or useful in nuclear power generation) (World, Fuel). Uranium-235 is a fissile isotope and isolation of it requires a physical process (known as enrichment) of concentrating one isotope relative to the others. To complete the process of enrichment, the uranium has to be in a gaseous form. Often, uranium dioxide can be used as a fuel type for reactors that do not require enriched uranium. Alternatively, uranium hexafluoride is used if the reactor requires enriched uranium. The gaseous uranium hexafluoride will be separated into two streams, one to be enriched to the required level and the other to be depleted into U-235 (World, Power).
The fuel used in the reactors generally takes the form of ceramic-like pellets. They are formed from pressed uranium oxide which was encased in a metal tube to form a fuel rod. Depending on the varying need of consistency in the characterizations of the fuel, the dimensions of the pellets and other components will change (World, Fuel).
"The Nuclear Fuel Cycle." Representing the People and Organizations of the Global Nuclear Profession. World Nuclear Association, Dec. 2012. Web.
"Nuclear Power Reactors." Nuclear Reactors. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
How much energy does a typical power plant produce? How many homes can this serve?
On average, a nuclear power plant in the U.S. will generate approximately 11.8 billion kilowatt-hours. With 65 nuclear plants containing 104 operating reactors that generated a total of 769 billion kilowatt-hour, the nuclear power is making up 19% of the nation’s electricity. A typical household in the U.S. consumes around 11,200 kWh per year and a typical power plant can power up to 893,000 homes. This means that for as long as the nuclear power stays a sustainable resource, we should be able to power 58,045 million homes in a year (EIA, Energy).
"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." How Much Electricity Does a Typical Nuclear Power Plant Generate? U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
How do power plant operators control the rate of power generation and how easy is it to change power supply to meet demand?
When it comes to the generation of nuclear power, the energy is produced within the fuel by a chain reaction of fissions of nuclei among its atoms. The control rods are slowly lifted until a chain reaction can be sustained and as the reaction proceeds, the number of uranium nuclei decreases as the fission by-products build up. Up until the point that a chain reaction can no longer be maintained and the fuel needs to be replenished, the control rods are what dictate the power generation.
Nuclear power is not considered a type of energy production that works on a supply and demand basis. It is used as a base load power while fuels such as coal or natural gas are used to ramp up electricity generation if need be. Ideally, nuclear power plant energy is meant to be produced at a stable and constant rate to avoid a potential meltdown. This type of energy is not used as a “changing power supply” because of how slowly the neutron’s respond to the control rod changes. Think of it as an electric stove versus a wood stove. An electric stove will start producing heat immediately like natural gas, whereas a wood stove takes energy to begin producing similar to nuclear power (Hyper Physics, Control Rods).
"Control Rods for Fission Reactors." Control of Fission Chain Reactions. Hyper Physics, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
What do power plant designers and operators do to ensure safety?
Power plant designers must keep in mind that there are specific levels of exposure to radiation that are considered to be safe for a person over time. That led them to create a way to control the radiation doses by remote handling operations in the core of the reactor. Also, if/when the workers are exposed to radiation, the amount of time in which the workers spend in the area should be limited. Workers at nuclear power plants are often supported by continuous monitoring of individual doses to ensure low radiation exposure. Though they are small steps of precaution, the nuclear power industry works towards ensuring the lowest levels of radiation exposure to their workers (World, Safety).
"Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors." Safety of Nuclear Reactors. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
What is the lifespan of a typical light water reactor nuclear power plant? What is the current status (age & condition) of the US nuclear power plant fleet?
The average light water reactor nuclear power plant has a lifespan of approximately 30-40 years. However, nearly all of the elements in a nuclear power plant can be replaced except for the reactor vessel. This essentially means that for as long as the elements are replaced, a light water nuclear plant could live up until the point that the reactor vessel can no longer safely produce fuel. There are realistic methods to increasing the lifespan of a light water reactor, but one feature currently being redesigned is the active controls so that will allow for an operational intervention in the event of a malfunction (Wachter, 2010).
Wachter, Bruno De. "Life Expectancy of Nuclear Power Plants." The Global Community for Sustainable Energy Professionals. Leonardo Energy, 31 Jan. 2010. Web.
What is the typical efficiency of a light water nuclear reactor?
Based on the SAS Output data from the EIA, it is comparable to say that nuclear energy has an efficiency rate of approximately 31%. On average, nuclear power is more efficient than petroleum energy production, but slightly less than coal and significantly less efficient than natural gas (EIA, SAS).
"SAS Output." SAS Output. EIA, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
How often do fuel rods and control rods need to be replaced and how is this process conducted?
Control rods are used in nuclear reactors to control the fission process between uranium and plutonium. The functionality of the rod depends on its ability to absorb neutrons from the fission chain reaction. By lowering the control rod into the core, it absorbs the neutrons, which then cannot take part in the chain reaction. On the other hand, when the control rods are lifted, more neutrons strike the fissile U-235 or plutonium-239 and the chain reaction intensifies. They control the neutron flux by either increasing or decreasing the number of neutrons available to split into more uranium atoms (Grayson, Control).
Grayson, James. "Control Rods in Nuclear Reactors." Courses. Stanford.edu, n.d. Web.
If you would like to view the entire compilation of my debate team's Joint Scientific Statements, feel free to click on this link! Joint Scientific Statement
The storage of nuclear waste is a complicated process. There are three levels of intensity by which radioactive waste is categorized: low-level, intermediate-level and high-level waste. When radioactive waste is marked as “low-level waste” it means that it is not considered harmful to people of the surrounding environment. It mainly comes from materials such as concrete, clothing or metals. Low-level waste is either stored on site at the nuclear power plant or shipped to a low-level waste disposal site (IAEA, Focus). The disposal sites are a good option for large amounts of radioactive waste because they contain the material in safer areas. Most disposal sites in the U.S. can be found in one of the following states: South Carolina, Washington, Utah and Texas (IAEA, Storage).
Intermediate-level waste, also known as ILW, is comprised of resins, chemical sludge, metal fuel cladding and contaminated materials from a plant reactor. This particular level of waste is stored in the same manner as the low-level waste, but it requires shielding in steel containers due to the higher level of radiation (IAEA, Focus). In order to protect the environment by not letting the waste into unspecified areas, the packages used to transport the nuclear waste are designed to withstand the various conditions that it may be exposed to in transport (World, Transport).
Finally, high-level waste has the most potential to cause harm because it contains fission products and transuranic elements that are generated in the reactor core. Over 95% of the total waste produced for electricity generation is highly radioactive (Representing, 2013). HLW is stored on site for multiple years in large tanks of water to cool the waste until it reaches a point that it can be vitrified and placed into borosilicate glass. Vitrification is a process used to stabilize and encapsulate HLW that involves mixing the waste with a substance that will crystallize and calcinate when heated. The process of calcination removes the water from the waste to enhance the stability of the resulting glass product (Thompson, 2010). The melted radioactive waste is subsequently encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders after vitrification and stored in disposal repositories. Often times, HLW will create short-lived fission products. These products are derived from long-lived actinides and the distinction between the long and short-lived product is essential in the management and disposal of HLW (Representing, 2013).
If the necessary steps are not taken to ensure safe storage of the radioactive waste, it can have serious health effects on humans. For instance, when the human body is exposed to plutonium, it will often lead to detrimental effects on internal body systems. Exposure to plutonium can occur during ingestion, inhalation, and contamination to an open wound. The least likely type of exposure is inhalation, yet it causes the most severe effects. It is difficult to create an airborne dispersion of such a heavy metal, but when it does occur it is generally through insoluble plutonium oxide having a particle size less than 0.01 mm. When this chemical is inhaled, the majority of it is expelled through exhalation or mucous flow from the bronchial system. Then the small amount that is not expelled gets transferred to the blood or lymph system and progressively works its way towards the liver and bones (World, Plutonium). There is evidence that when plutonium is inhaled it can cause cancer, mutations, and various other terminal illnesses.
The design of the disposal repository is an essential aspect of storing nuclear waste because even a miniscule mistake could contaminate groundwater with radioactive elements, affecting humans and wildlife. The vaults containing the radioactive waste are similar to a swimming pool, reinforced by several inches of concrete and stainless steel in order to prevent any possible draining. The nuclear waste itself is placed in racks under approximately twenty feet of water. The threat of radiation is eliminated because both the water and the stainless steel causes the radiation to rebound, therefore keeping it in the pool.
As long as nuclear power companies take the precautions needed to store their waste in the appropriate manner, the potentially dangerous implications of radioactive elements can be minimized.
Works Cited:
"Disposal Aspects of Low and Intermediate Level Decommissioning Waste."Pub.iaea. International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 14.
"Focus on Low and Intermediate Level Waste." IAEA.org. International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d. Web.
"Plutonium." Plutonium. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
“Radioactive Waste Management" Representing the People and Organizations of the Global Nuclear Profession. World Nuclear Association, Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.
"Storage of Radioactive Waste." Safety Standards for Protecting the People and the Environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d. Web.
"Transport of Radioactive Materials." Transport of Radioactive Materials. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"What Is Uranium? How Does It Work?" What Is Uranium? How Does It Work. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014
Thompson, Linda. "Vitrification of Nuclear Waste." Vitrification of Nuclear Waste. Stanford University, 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
Operating Processes of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants
What is the fuel for light water nuclear reactors and what form does this fuel take?
The basic fuel used in a light water reactor is uranium and plutonium. Uranium occurs naturally and is 500 times more abundant than gold, and it is also found in concentrations of about four parts per million in granite which makes up 60% of the Earth’s crust. However, only 0.7% of natural uranium is fissile (or useful in nuclear power generation) (World, Fuel). Uranium-235 is a fissile isotope and isolation of it requires a physical process (known as enrichment) of concentrating one isotope relative to the others. To complete the process of enrichment, the uranium has to be in a gaseous form. Often, uranium dioxide can be used as a fuel type for reactors that do not require enriched uranium. Alternatively, uranium hexafluoride is used if the reactor requires enriched uranium. The gaseous uranium hexafluoride will be separated into two streams, one to be enriched to the required level and the other to be depleted into U-235 (World, Power).
The fuel used in the reactors generally takes the form of ceramic-like pellets. They are formed from pressed uranium oxide which was encased in a metal tube to form a fuel rod. Depending on the varying need of consistency in the characterizations of the fuel, the dimensions of the pellets and other components will change (World, Fuel).
"The Nuclear Fuel Cycle." Representing the People and Organizations of the Global Nuclear Profession. World Nuclear Association, Dec. 2012. Web.
"Nuclear Power Reactors." Nuclear Reactors. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
How much energy does a typical power plant produce? How many homes can this serve?
On average, a nuclear power plant in the U.S. will generate approximately 11.8 billion kilowatt-hours. With 65 nuclear plants containing 104 operating reactors that generated a total of 769 billion kilowatt-hour, the nuclear power is making up 19% of the nation’s electricity. A typical household in the U.S. consumes around 11,200 kWh per year and a typical power plant can power up to 893,000 homes. This means that for as long as the nuclear power stays a sustainable resource, we should be able to power 58,045 million homes in a year (EIA, Energy).
"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." How Much Electricity Does a Typical Nuclear Power Plant Generate? U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
How do power plant operators control the rate of power generation and how easy is it to change power supply to meet demand?
When it comes to the generation of nuclear power, the energy is produced within the fuel by a chain reaction of fissions of nuclei among its atoms. The control rods are slowly lifted until a chain reaction can be sustained and as the reaction proceeds, the number of uranium nuclei decreases as the fission by-products build up. Up until the point that a chain reaction can no longer be maintained and the fuel needs to be replenished, the control rods are what dictate the power generation.
Nuclear power is not considered a type of energy production that works on a supply and demand basis. It is used as a base load power while fuels such as coal or natural gas are used to ramp up electricity generation if need be. Ideally, nuclear power plant energy is meant to be produced at a stable and constant rate to avoid a potential meltdown. This type of energy is not used as a “changing power supply” because of how slowly the neutron’s respond to the control rod changes. Think of it as an electric stove versus a wood stove. An electric stove will start producing heat immediately like natural gas, whereas a wood stove takes energy to begin producing similar to nuclear power (Hyper Physics, Control Rods).
"Control Rods for Fission Reactors." Control of Fission Chain Reactions. Hyper Physics, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
What do power plant designers and operators do to ensure safety?
Power plant designers must keep in mind that there are specific levels of exposure to radiation that are considered to be safe for a person over time. That led them to create a way to control the radiation doses by remote handling operations in the core of the reactor. Also, if/when the workers are exposed to radiation, the amount of time in which the workers spend in the area should be limited. Workers at nuclear power plants are often supported by continuous monitoring of individual doses to ensure low radiation exposure. Though they are small steps of precaution, the nuclear power industry works towards ensuring the lowest levels of radiation exposure to their workers (World, Safety).
"Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors." Safety of Nuclear Reactors. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
What is the lifespan of a typical light water reactor nuclear power plant? What is the current status (age & condition) of the US nuclear power plant fleet?
The average light water reactor nuclear power plant has a lifespan of approximately 30-40 years. However, nearly all of the elements in a nuclear power plant can be replaced except for the reactor vessel. This essentially means that for as long as the elements are replaced, a light water nuclear plant could live up until the point that the reactor vessel can no longer safely produce fuel. There are realistic methods to increasing the lifespan of a light water reactor, but one feature currently being redesigned is the active controls so that will allow for an operational intervention in the event of a malfunction (Wachter, 2010).
Wachter, Bruno De. "Life Expectancy of Nuclear Power Plants." The Global Community for Sustainable Energy Professionals. Leonardo Energy, 31 Jan. 2010. Web.
What is the typical efficiency of a light water nuclear reactor?
Based on the SAS Output data from the EIA, it is comparable to say that nuclear energy has an efficiency rate of approximately 31%. On average, nuclear power is more efficient than petroleum energy production, but slightly less than coal and significantly less efficient than natural gas (EIA, SAS).
"SAS Output." SAS Output. EIA, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
How often do fuel rods and control rods need to be replaced and how is this process conducted?
Control rods are used in nuclear reactors to control the fission process between uranium and plutonium. The functionality of the rod depends on its ability to absorb neutrons from the fission chain reaction. By lowering the control rod into the core, it absorbs the neutrons, which then cannot take part in the chain reaction. On the other hand, when the control rods are lifted, more neutrons strike the fissile U-235 or plutonium-239 and the chain reaction intensifies. They control the neutron flux by either increasing or decreasing the number of neutrons available to split into more uranium atoms (Grayson, Control).
Grayson, James. "Control Rods in Nuclear Reactors." Courses. Stanford.edu, n.d. Web.
If you would like to view the entire compilation of my debate team's Joint Scientific Statements, feel free to click on this link! Joint Scientific Statement
Opening and Closing Statements
Debate Video
Click Here to view the full debate video!
Project Reflection
-What motion did you debate and what side of the debate were you arguing?
The motion that I was debating was the question of whether or not nuclear power is a clean source of electrical energy and if the United States Government should provide incentives for the construction of new nuclear power plants throughout the United States. My side in the debate was arguing against nuclear power.
What was your initial position on the motion: for, against or undecided? Final position?
My initial position on the motion was for nuclear power. By the end of the process of researching and getting a solid understanding of both the pro's and con's of nuclear power, I was highly in favor of it. The debate helped solidify my opinion on nuclear power because I heard arguments from both perspectives that I had not considered before.
Discuss how your position on the motion changed over the course of this project. What arguments, evidence
and reflections on place either caused you to question your position, change your mind or solidified your
opinion?
Initially, my perspective of nuclear power was fairly negative. But, after learning about how efficient it is, as well as how the fission process of creating nuclear electricity does not create greenhouse gas emissions, my opinion changed and I am now pro-nuclear power. The main arguments regarding nuclear power that helped change my mind was that nuclear power does not release greenhouse gases and, in comparison to other power sources, the amount of waste produced from nuclear power is very small. Because it does not release gases that contribute to global warming, acid rain, or urban smog, I find that nuclear power would help us get on track to creating cleaner air overall. Also, uranium contains thousands of times more energy per unit of weight than fossil fuels, making the amount of waste small in volume and easy to manage and secure at the nuclear sites.
What arguments and pieces of evidence do you find to be strongest for each side of the motion?
On the for nuclear power side of the motion, I find the lack greenhouse gas emission to be the strongest motion. Using this angle, they were able to create arguments about the status of our planet and how, by using nuclear power, we are able to take steps towards creating a healthier and safer planet.
On the other hand, the against side was able to argue about the dangers of radioactive waste in the case of meltdowns. This allowed us to discuss terminal illnesses, mutations and various other health defects when humans are exposed to radioactive power.
What question(s) would you like to research further to have better understanding of energy issues? They can
be related to the motion but do not need to be.
I am interested in what happens to the fracking areas after it can no longer provide natural gas. Is the Earth somehow able to recreate the resources that were taken out? Or will there be holes where the pipes went for an unspecified amount of time? I would like to research this question further in hopes of getting a better understanding of the process and result of obtaining natural gas.
If you argued for the side of the motion you take, describe how it was to intellectually engage with someone
who disagreed with you/If you argued for the side of the motion opposite of what you believe, describe how it was for you to argue a
perspective you disagree with.
Because I was arguing against what I believe in during the debate, it was much harder to effectively craft persuasive arguments. I felt as though I was repeating myself with my chosen arguments because I could not find enough information to make nuclear power seem bad. My team and I seemed to latch onto the main ideas of health risks, greenhouse gas emission during uranium mining, and cost. I think that as a whole my team had a difficult time crafting strong arguments for the debate.
-How does the personal environmental ethic and sense of place you developed in Humanities inform and affect
the position you took on the motion?
One of my environmental ethics is sustainability so I believe that is why I am pro-nuclear power. With power production through coal or natural gas, we are depleting the ozone layer faster than we realize. Our Earth holds everything that we know, and I think it is paramount for us to begin treating it that way. I find that nuclear power is the only long-lasting option for power production that is fairly clean. Renewable resources are great, but they cannot provide the amount of electricity that the world needs which is why nuclear power is such a realistic and tangible option for beginning the process of sustainability.
Watch your debate and assess your performance in the debate. What aspects went well? What aspects did not
go as well as you would have liked? If you had a chance to do it again what would you do differently? Consider
the arguments you used, how you responded to your opponents questions and how you presented yourself.
Public speaking is something that I struggle with, and it was apparent during my opening statement. When I speak in front of an audience I generally begin to shake, so when I was saying my opening statement, I was leaning on the podium as a way of preventing that. Unfortunately, it was obvious how much I was using it as support and does not exemplify good public speaking skills. I also think that I talked to quickly during my opening and closing statements, in fear of running out of time.
Something that I would go back and change about the debate is knowing what questions our moderator was going to ask. I felt as though too much time was spent scrambling for answers than an actual solid debate because we (on both sides) were surprised and not prepared by the questions. Also, if I were to redo the debate, I would change the angle of my arguments. I felt as though I was repeating a couple of main points throughout the course of the debate, so I would try to research more and learn more ways to work different arguments into various situations.
Perform a fact check on two statements made by yourself, your opponents or your teammates during the
debate. Clearly indicate the statements you are checking and what you discovered.
At the time mark of 24:50, Allie stated that the cost of building a nuclear power plant is higher than that of an equivalent gas or coal-fueled plant. When I checked this fact on the World Nuclear Organization, I found that this was correct and that it was right of her to state that it is a significant cost difference.
The other statement that I checked was Zach's when he said that particles of uranium and thorium can be found in coal. What I found is that Zach was correct with this fact. Radiation exposure from coal burning is dependent on the concentration of radioactive elements in the coal and fly ash that remains after combustion. According to the US Energy Database, the frequency distribution of uranium concentration for approximately 2,000 coal samples concentrations of uranium fell into the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million. Thorium occurred in a similar range of 1 to 4 parts per million
The motion that I was debating was the question of whether or not nuclear power is a clean source of electrical energy and if the United States Government should provide incentives for the construction of new nuclear power plants throughout the United States. My side in the debate was arguing against nuclear power.
What was your initial position on the motion: for, against or undecided? Final position?
My initial position on the motion was for nuclear power. By the end of the process of researching and getting a solid understanding of both the pro's and con's of nuclear power, I was highly in favor of it. The debate helped solidify my opinion on nuclear power because I heard arguments from both perspectives that I had not considered before.
Discuss how your position on the motion changed over the course of this project. What arguments, evidence
and reflections on place either caused you to question your position, change your mind or solidified your
opinion?
Initially, my perspective of nuclear power was fairly negative. But, after learning about how efficient it is, as well as how the fission process of creating nuclear electricity does not create greenhouse gas emissions, my opinion changed and I am now pro-nuclear power. The main arguments regarding nuclear power that helped change my mind was that nuclear power does not release greenhouse gases and, in comparison to other power sources, the amount of waste produced from nuclear power is very small. Because it does not release gases that contribute to global warming, acid rain, or urban smog, I find that nuclear power would help us get on track to creating cleaner air overall. Also, uranium contains thousands of times more energy per unit of weight than fossil fuels, making the amount of waste small in volume and easy to manage and secure at the nuclear sites.
What arguments and pieces of evidence do you find to be strongest for each side of the motion?
On the for nuclear power side of the motion, I find the lack greenhouse gas emission to be the strongest motion. Using this angle, they were able to create arguments about the status of our planet and how, by using nuclear power, we are able to take steps towards creating a healthier and safer planet.
On the other hand, the against side was able to argue about the dangers of radioactive waste in the case of meltdowns. This allowed us to discuss terminal illnesses, mutations and various other health defects when humans are exposed to radioactive power.
What question(s) would you like to research further to have better understanding of energy issues? They can
be related to the motion but do not need to be.
I am interested in what happens to the fracking areas after it can no longer provide natural gas. Is the Earth somehow able to recreate the resources that were taken out? Or will there be holes where the pipes went for an unspecified amount of time? I would like to research this question further in hopes of getting a better understanding of the process and result of obtaining natural gas.
If you argued for the side of the motion you take, describe how it was to intellectually engage with someone
who disagreed with you/If you argued for the side of the motion opposite of what you believe, describe how it was for you to argue a
perspective you disagree with.
Because I was arguing against what I believe in during the debate, it was much harder to effectively craft persuasive arguments. I felt as though I was repeating myself with my chosen arguments because I could not find enough information to make nuclear power seem bad. My team and I seemed to latch onto the main ideas of health risks, greenhouse gas emission during uranium mining, and cost. I think that as a whole my team had a difficult time crafting strong arguments for the debate.
-How does the personal environmental ethic and sense of place you developed in Humanities inform and affect
the position you took on the motion?
One of my environmental ethics is sustainability so I believe that is why I am pro-nuclear power. With power production through coal or natural gas, we are depleting the ozone layer faster than we realize. Our Earth holds everything that we know, and I think it is paramount for us to begin treating it that way. I find that nuclear power is the only long-lasting option for power production that is fairly clean. Renewable resources are great, but they cannot provide the amount of electricity that the world needs which is why nuclear power is such a realistic and tangible option for beginning the process of sustainability.
Watch your debate and assess your performance in the debate. What aspects went well? What aspects did not
go as well as you would have liked? If you had a chance to do it again what would you do differently? Consider
the arguments you used, how you responded to your opponents questions and how you presented yourself.
Public speaking is something that I struggle with, and it was apparent during my opening statement. When I speak in front of an audience I generally begin to shake, so when I was saying my opening statement, I was leaning on the podium as a way of preventing that. Unfortunately, it was obvious how much I was using it as support and does not exemplify good public speaking skills. I also think that I talked to quickly during my opening and closing statements, in fear of running out of time.
Something that I would go back and change about the debate is knowing what questions our moderator was going to ask. I felt as though too much time was spent scrambling for answers than an actual solid debate because we (on both sides) were surprised and not prepared by the questions. Also, if I were to redo the debate, I would change the angle of my arguments. I felt as though I was repeating a couple of main points throughout the course of the debate, so I would try to research more and learn more ways to work different arguments into various situations.
Perform a fact check on two statements made by yourself, your opponents or your teammates during the
debate. Clearly indicate the statements you are checking and what you discovered.
At the time mark of 24:50, Allie stated that the cost of building a nuclear power plant is higher than that of an equivalent gas or coal-fueled plant. When I checked this fact on the World Nuclear Organization, I found that this was correct and that it was right of her to state that it is a significant cost difference.
The other statement that I checked was Zach's when he said that particles of uranium and thorium can be found in coal. What I found is that Zach was correct with this fact. Radiation exposure from coal burning is dependent on the concentration of radioactive elements in the coal and fly ash that remains after combustion. According to the US Energy Database, the frequency distribution of uranium concentration for approximately 2,000 coal samples concentrations of uranium fell into the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million. Thorium occurred in a similar range of 1 to 4 parts per million