Nuclear Power Debate Reflection
During my debate, we discussed the issue of nuclear power and my team and I argued against nuclear power. Coming into this project, I didn’t have a lot of knowledge about nuclear power and was undecided about whether I supported it or not. However, after the debate, it is hard not to partially support nuclear power. I think that we can start depending on nuclear power more heavily while we develop a long-term plan for energy production. However, I don’t believe that it should be our main power source because it isn’t renewable and we will extinguish our supply of nuclear fuel. Before beginning this project, I didn’t have a strong opinion about nuclear power. However, during the research stages of this project, especially the research for my position, I was not in support of nuclear power because I was mainly investigating the negative aspects of the motion. However, after sitting through the debate, my opinion has changed and I believe that we should be using nuclear power slightly more heavily than we are currently.
During the debate, I thought that the strongest argument supporting the motion was the argument that for every 1 person who dies from nuclear waste, 1000 people die from coal pollution. I don’t know where this statistic came from or if it’s reliable, but it’s very supportive of nuclear power. I think that the strongest argument against nuclear power is toxic waste. According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear power worldwide produces 10,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste per year and there still isn’t a long-term storage plan for this waste.
I purposefully signed up to argue the side of the motion that I disagreed with in order to further my education and understand opposing forces’ viewpoints. This was interesting because I had the opportunity to weigh my pre-research thoughts against the facts and statistics I uncovered through my research. After the debate, I am still in support of nuclear power, but don’t believe that we should rely solely on nuclear power for energy. The environmental ethic I developed in Humanities supports the moderated use of nuclear power meaning that it shouldn’t be relied on heavily, but we should use what we need with conservation and sustainability in mind. Therefore, it doesn’t support the position I took on the motion.
Watching my debate, I think my opening statement was delivered well. My volume was good, but if I could go back, I would work on making more eye contact with the crowd. I thought that I conducted myself well during open debate, but would have liked to have more statistics about the effects of toxic waste. I especially would have liked to have a statistic to respond to Miles saying there are 1,000 more times deaths from coal than from toxic waste. Finally, I would have liked to improve my body language throughout my peers’ opening and closing statements because I looked slightly unprofessional with my head resting on my hand.
The first fact I am going to check is my statement that our supply of uranium will be extinguished within eighty years. The World Nuclear Association confirms this fact. I will also be checking Miles’ statement that only one person dies from toxic waste per 1000 deaths from coal pollution. According to the website http://www.the9billion.com/, this statistic is based on kilowatt per hour produced. This statistic is unfair because we produce much more power through coal-fired power plants than through nuclear power and therefore this ratio is not accurate.
I would like to research further renewable energy because I believe that we should rely mainly on renewables with nuclear power as our reliable 24/7 energy source. I would like to look into the efficiency and price of renewables and explore why we aren’t using them more heavily.
During the debate, I thought that the strongest argument supporting the motion was the argument that for every 1 person who dies from nuclear waste, 1000 people die from coal pollution. I don’t know where this statistic came from or if it’s reliable, but it’s very supportive of nuclear power. I think that the strongest argument against nuclear power is toxic waste. According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear power worldwide produces 10,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste per year and there still isn’t a long-term storage plan for this waste.
I purposefully signed up to argue the side of the motion that I disagreed with in order to further my education and understand opposing forces’ viewpoints. This was interesting because I had the opportunity to weigh my pre-research thoughts against the facts and statistics I uncovered through my research. After the debate, I am still in support of nuclear power, but don’t believe that we should rely solely on nuclear power for energy. The environmental ethic I developed in Humanities supports the moderated use of nuclear power meaning that it shouldn’t be relied on heavily, but we should use what we need with conservation and sustainability in mind. Therefore, it doesn’t support the position I took on the motion.
Watching my debate, I think my opening statement was delivered well. My volume was good, but if I could go back, I would work on making more eye contact with the crowd. I thought that I conducted myself well during open debate, but would have liked to have more statistics about the effects of toxic waste. I especially would have liked to have a statistic to respond to Miles saying there are 1,000 more times deaths from coal than from toxic waste. Finally, I would have liked to improve my body language throughout my peers’ opening and closing statements because I looked slightly unprofessional with my head resting on my hand.
The first fact I am going to check is my statement that our supply of uranium will be extinguished within eighty years. The World Nuclear Association confirms this fact. I will also be checking Miles’ statement that only one person dies from toxic waste per 1000 deaths from coal pollution. According to the website http://www.the9billion.com/, this statistic is based on kilowatt per hour produced. This statistic is unfair because we produce much more power through coal-fired power plants than through nuclear power and therefore this ratio is not accurate.
I would like to research further renewable energy because I believe that we should rely mainly on renewables with nuclear power as our reliable 24/7 energy source. I would like to look into the efficiency and price of renewables and explore why we aren’t using them more heavily.