MOTION:
THAT NUCLEAR IS THE SOLUTION FOR OUR ENERGY PROBLEM
AFFIRMATIVE:
First
speaker:
The
honorable judges and audience. Let me introduce my team, my name is Fahrurozi,
my second speaker is Fahturohman and my third speaker is Eva Septiani . We are
affirmative team of the house. We are strongly agree that nuclear is the
solution for our energy problem. I am as the first speaker will define what
nuclear energy is and will talk about advantage of using nuclear energy from
environmental point of view. My second speaker will see the advantage from economic
point of view and my third speaker will give deeper evidence of the advantages
and make a conclusion.
Okay,
let me begin with the definition. Based on Wikipedia, nuclear power is the use of nuclear
reactors to release nuclear energy, and thereby
generate electricity.
As I said, I will talk about the advantages of using nuclear energy from
environment side. By using nuclear energy, we can omit carbon dioxide emission.
Therefore, it also contributes to greenhouse effect and global warming. Still
from wikipedia, it is mentioned that from the
beginning of nuclear power station
commercialization in the 1970s, it has prevented
the emission of approximately 64 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
(GtCO2-eq) greenhouse
gases, gases that would have otherwise
resulted from the burning of fossil
fuels in thermal power stations. Nuclear
power plants were also responsible for nearly half of the total voluntary
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions reported by U.S. companies in 1998, the
Energy Information Administration reported on January 4, 2000. As we
know, global warming will cause some problems like climate change, the rise of
sea level, oxygen depletion, the rise of ocean’s temperature and the melting of
ice.
Secondly,
nuclear power stations do not produce smoke particles to pollute the atmosphere or emit
gases that contribute to acid rain which can damage
fish and other aquatic animals, damage soil and other forest and vegetation, as
well as ocean acidification. In addition, it can affect human health. The
increased of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide have contribution to heart and
lung problem including asthma and bronchitis.
Next, nuclear energy produces a small amount of waste.
Therefore, it doesn’t have a great damage on the environment.
That’s why we have to change our oil resources to nuclear
energy because it has low effect to our environment. It can be seen that many
countries, like United States, Canada, French, Japan, Germany, Ukraine, etc
have implemented nuclear energy successfully.
Why the focus is on nuclear energy instead of energy
efficiency? Because there is no lobby for energy efficiency, but for nuclear
industry, have a strong lobby world-wide.
So, once again I say that we, as the affirmative team of the
house strongly agree with the motion that nuclear is the solution for our
energy problem. Thank you.
SECOND SPEAKER:
The honorable judges and audience.
My name is Fahturohman, I’m the second speaker of the
affirmative team will talk about the advantages of using nuclear energy from
economic point of view. But before going down to my own argument, I will make a
rebuttal to the negative team of the house. (MAKE A REBUTTAL)
Let me come to my argument that is the economic advantages
using nuclear energy. The technology is readily available. It doesn’t need to
be developed first. That’s why we will cut down our expense by using nuclear
energy. This won’t happen if we search for new oil resources or alternative
energy because it costs a lot. Besides, with only one single plant, it is
possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy.
Nuclear energy is by far the most concentrated form of energy - a lot of energy is produced from a
small mass of fuel. So, this reduces transport costs. We
can also control the output from a nuclear power station to fit
our needs. It is relatively easy to control the output. From geographical side,
nuclear power plants don't require a lot of space;
they do not need a large plot like a wind farm. So, it will be more economical
by using nuclear energy.
Furthermore, nuclear energy contributes to the government’s
revenue. For instance in Canada, according to a study by the Canadian Energy
Research Institute, Canada’s
nuclear reactors contribute C$6.6 billion per year to GDP, create C$1.5 billion
in government revenue and generate some $1.2 billion in exports. The nuclear
power industry employs 21,000 directly, 10,000 indirectly as contractors and is
responsible for another 40,000 jobs indirectly.
About C$13.26 billion (in 2005 dollars) was invested by the
government in Canada's nuclear program over 1952-2006 through AECL. This
investment has generated more than C$160 billion in GDP benefits to Canada from
power production, research and development, Candu exports, uranium, medical
radioisotopes and professional services, according to AECL. And all for this
reasons, the motion that nuclear is the solution for our nuclear energy problem
must stand. Thank you so much.
THIRD SPEAKER
The honorable judges and audience, I am Eva, the third
speaker of the affirmative team of the house will say that we are agree with
the motion. Here, I will give you some evidences why we have to agree with this
motion. I will continue the case in a minute, but before that there are some
things about the negative team speech that need to be addressed. (REBUTTAL)
Ladies and gentleman,
As
my first and second speakers have said before, there are many advantages that
we can get by using nuclear energy. They are from environment and economy point
of view which also impact another sector also. The advantages from
environmental side are that by using nuclear energy we can omit the carbon
dioxide emission, which later will also contribute to greenhouse effect, global
warming, acid rain, and so on. Nuclear energy
remains one of the cheapest, most efficient, and carbon-friendly forms of
energy generation that we currently have.
As mentioned at
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com, the reports in 1998, it has been calculated
the emission of the greenhouse gas has reduced for nearly half due to the
popularity in the use of nuclear power. Nuclear energy by far has the lowest
impact on the environment since it does not releases any gases like carbon
dioxide, methane which are largely responsible for greenhouse effect. There is
no adverse effect on water, land or any habitats due to the use of it.
In addition, it has been mentioned
by my first speaker that from the beginning of nuclear power station
commercialization in the 1970s, it has prevented
the emission of approximately 64 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
(GtCO2-eq) greenhouse
gases, gases that would have otherwise
resulted from the burning of fossil
fuels in thermal power stations.
The second reason is mentioned by
my second speaker. He sees the advantages from economy point of view. Nuclear
energy is cheaper and can give contribution to the government’s revenue.
MOTION: THAT NUCLEAR IS THE
SOLUTION FOR OUR ENERGY PROBLEM
NEGATIVE:
FIRST SPEAKER
ASSALAMU’ALAIKUM
WR WB
The
honorable adjudicators and audience
We
are the negative team of the house; I am …., the first speaker, … as the second
speaker, and ….. as the third speaker. We strongly disagree with the motion
that nuclear is the solution for our energy problem because some reasons like
from environment point of view, economy point of view, and security issue. I
will talk about environment and economy, my second speaker will talk about
security issues come from nuclear energy, and my third speaker will do the
rebuttal and give some examples about the disadvantages of using nuclear
energy.
But
before I come to my own arguments, let’s have a look what the first speaker of
affirmative team has said. (REBUTTAL)
The first reason why nuclear is
not the best choice for our energy problem is about its danger to the
environment which comes from nuclear waste. It is
extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several
thousand years. Yes, it is right that nuclear can omit the carbon dioxide
emission, but it’s only a little. It’s not comparable with the risks caused by
nuclear waste.
The principal risks associated with nuclear power arise from health
effects of radiation. They can penetrate deep inside the human body where they
can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer. If they strike sex
cells, they can cause genetic diseases in progeny. For example, among the
Japanese A-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been about
400 extra cancer deaths.
When
we talk about nuclear waste, it has also effect to the economy point of view.
The disposal of nuclear waste is
very expensive. As it is radioactive, it has to be disposed of in such a way as
it will not pollute the environment. In addition, decommissioning of nuclear power stations is
expensive and takes a long time. The problem is also on its development,
developing nuclear plant is very expensive. Companies that are
planning new nuclear units are currently indicating that the total costs
(including escalation and financing costs) will be in the range of $5,500/kW to
$8,100/kW or between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW plant.
In
conclusion, nuclear is not friendly to our environment, and it’s not economical
at all. Instead of using nuclear, we can search for new alternative energy
which comes from plants and animal feces which is friendlier to the nature.
So,
I state once again that we strongly disagree that nuclear is the solution for
our energy problem.
WASSALAMU’ALAIKUM
WR WB
MOTION: THAT NUCLEAR IS THE
SOLUTION FOR OUR ENERGY PROBLEM
NEGATIVE:
SECOND SPEAKER
ASSALAMU’ALAIKUM
WR WB
Ladies
and gentleman, I am … the second speaker of the negative team will talk about
security issues rise from nuclear energy. I will continue my speech in a
minute, but before that, there are some things about the second speaker of the
affirmative team speech that need to be addressed.
(MAKE
A REBUTTAL)
My
first speaker has talked about environment and economy point of view, now it’s
time for me to talk about the next reason why we strongly disagree with the
motion. From security and safety point of view, it can be seen that nuclear
energy has a high risk. Despite a
generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically
impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure
will always last.
An assessment conducted by the Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique (CEA) in France concluded that no
amount of technical innovation can eliminate the risk of human-induced errors
associated with the operation of nuclear power plants. Two types of mistakes
were deemed most serious: errors committed during field operations, such as
maintenance and testing, that can cause an accident; and human errors made
during small accidents that cascade to complete failure. One of the worst
nuclear accidents to date was the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. The accident killed 30 people directly and damaged
approximately $7 billion of property. Unfortunately, the disaster happened
again in 2011 that was in Fukushima, Japan. A
tsunami flooded and damaged the 5 active reactor plants drowning two workers.
Loss of backup electrical power led to overheating, meltdowns, and evacuations.
As stated in Wikipedia, Benjamin
K. Sovacool has reported that there have been 99 accidents at nuclear
power plants from 1952 to 2009 worldwide.
Furthermore, it can be used to make nuclear weapon. Nuclear power plants
as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No
atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in
New York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole
world. Thus, nuclear can harm the world’s security.
From those reasons, we
still argue that the motion that nuclear is the solution for our energy problem
must fall. Thank you.
MOTION: THAT NUCLEAR IS THE
SOLUTION FOR OUR ENERGY PROBLEM
NEGATIVE:
THIRD SPEAKER:
Ladies and gentleman, I am here as the third speaker of
negative team. My name is…. I’ll make a rebuttal to the affirmative team before
coming to my own argument. I strongly disagree that nuclear is the solution for
our energy problem. (REBUTTAL)
There
are three reasons which have been mentioned before. They are from environment,
economy and security point of view. Nuclear endangers the environment from its
waste which in form of radiation. It can penetrate deep inside the human body where they can damage
biological cells and initiate a cancer. If they strike sex cells, they can
cause genetic diseases in progeny. For example, among the Japanese A-bomb
survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been about 400 extra cancer
deaths.
Still
from nuclear waste, the disposal is very expensive. It must be carefully looked
after for thousand years. In addition the cost to build nuclear plant is very
expensive. That is between 6 billion and 9 billion dollar for each 1,100
MW plant. That’s why using nuclear energy isn’t
economic at all.
From
security point of view, my second speaker has mentioned that nuclear waste can
be used to make nuclear weapon and it also can be a target for terrorism
attack. So, it means that using nuclear energy endangers international
security. Besides, although there have been a
generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. Two types
of mistakes such as maintenance testing can cause an accident; and human errors
made during small accidents that cascade to complete failure. For example is
the the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. The accident killed 30
people directly and damaged approximately $7 billion of property. This accident
happened again in Fukushima, Japan during the tsunami disaster which damaged the 5 active reactor plants drowning two
workers.
In conclusion, nuclear isn’t the best solution for our energy
problem. Instead of using nuclear, as has been mentioned by the first speaker,
we can search for a new alternative energy from plants and animal feces. Thank
you.
Comments
Post a Comment