Nuclear Debate
Last night I attended a debate hosted at Monash University entitled "Should Australia Embrace Nuclear Power". I am biased in this debate since I am for the affirmative. However, I do think that nuclear power is only part of the solution. I truly wish that every Australian house had a solar panel but at their high prices and relatively short lifetimes this probably won't happen for many years to come. Incidentally, I don't see any self-righteous hippies forking out vast sums to buy for solar panels. Oh, that's right. Hippies don't own their own houses.
The first speaker of the affirmative was a physicist who outlined the subtle difference between energy and power (the rate at which energy travels), and that energy in some form is all around us. The trick, unfortunately, is harvesting that energy. He discussed the number of solar panels or windmills required to supply Australia (and its ever growing populace) with adequate power, and how these methods are not suitable for supplying a constant (or base) power supply. Essentially, having a solar panel is all good and well, but what happens when it's cloudy for ten days (something not uncommon in Melbourne) or if the aluminium smelter in Gladstone demands vast amounts of power instantly. No amount of worshipping to the sun gods is going to save the day.
The first speaker of the opposition was a university researcher with extensive experience in solar technology. Unfortunately, he didn’t speak for very long and he wasn’t very clear due to his Iranian accent. He made a few unoriginal points about solar power being safe, and that nuclear power is a threat for accidents and terrorist attacks. He also pointed out later in question time that the coal power industry is subsidised by the government.
The second pro-nuclear speaker was a highly experienced nuclear physicist. He pointed out that nuclear waste doesn’t last nearly as long as the opposition claims, and proper reprocessing can allow 95% of the waste to be reused, with the final waste only needing to be stored in the ground for a couple of centuries, which can be done effectively by an Australian inovation called SynRoc. Finally, he claimed that Chernobyl only killed 56 people directly. Even I think that’s a tad ingenuous as the number of indirect deaths (due to cancer) is difficult to count on such a complex disaster. He did point out though that in the Western world such a reactor would have never been built.
The second anti –nuclear speaker was a representative for Greenpeace (not the most trusty worthy organization in my view). In all honesty, he relied upon obnoxiousness, poor humour, and sheer arrogance to get his way through. He wasn’t very technical, and one could tell that he was clearly out of his depth. At one point he claimed that us (the taxpayer) would have to pay for the nuclear power via government subsidiaries. Later on he asked us why should we allow BHP (and other such EVIL companies) make so much money on nuclear power. Which one is it? Either the government is paying for it, or the companies are profiting from it and, hence, are paying for it. I find it very hard to believe that a government would subsidise nuclear power if they didn’t have to. We all know how pro-privatisation the current government is. Unfortunately, this was lost on the people I was attending the debate with. In his defence, he did mention a couple of “near nuclear accidents” that had transpired in the last couple of years. He should have elaborated on them more to make a better point. I think people prefrerred his “debating” (read: sledging) techniques more than his actual argument points.
The final pro-nuclear speaker was a Law/Arts student debating champion who pointed out that the opposition were using scare tactics (seriously, of all the 400 plus nuclear reactors in the world, do you think a terrorist would try to steal uranium from a reactor in Australia – a safe, politically-stable, well-guarded nation – or some corrupt former Soviet Union country?). The final anti-nuclear speaker was some old doctor (his field not mentioned) who spoke about the US government storing uranium in an old salt mine in the sixties. He also read a “potential terrorist attack” section from an old military book written by a former political advisor. Not really up-to-date or relevant for that matter. He dwelled upon the fact that the guy was hired by three presidents. Little tip old-timer: President Ford hasn’t been around for a couple of years.
The debate was good enough and I’m glad I went. Coincidentally, I had listened to a similar debate last week where the opposition made considerably better arguments. It disappointed me strongly that the Greenpeace clown had to rely so heavily upon sarcasm and trendy anti-government sentiments, and that he simply side-stepped or denied certain issues. This person has been protesting since he was twelve. In his mind environmentalism is a religion. Accordingly, I quickly noticed the similarities between his debating approach and arrogant charm to those of American fundamentalist Christians. Ironic, since most of the anti-nuclear audience, I would dare say, would be strongly against their out-of-date beliefs.
The first speaker of the affirmative was a physicist who outlined the subtle difference between energy and power (the rate at which energy travels), and that energy in some form is all around us. The trick, unfortunately, is harvesting that energy. He discussed the number of solar panels or windmills required to supply Australia (and its ever growing populace) with adequate power, and how these methods are not suitable for supplying a constant (or base) power supply. Essentially, having a solar panel is all good and well, but what happens when it's cloudy for ten days (something not uncommon in Melbourne) or if the aluminium smelter in Gladstone demands vast amounts of power instantly. No amount of worshipping to the sun gods is going to save the day.
The first speaker of the opposition was a university researcher with extensive experience in solar technology. Unfortunately, he didn’t speak for very long and he wasn’t very clear due to his Iranian accent. He made a few unoriginal points about solar power being safe, and that nuclear power is a threat for accidents and terrorist attacks. He also pointed out later in question time that the coal power industry is subsidised by the government.
The second pro-nuclear speaker was a highly experienced nuclear physicist. He pointed out that nuclear waste doesn’t last nearly as long as the opposition claims, and proper reprocessing can allow 95% of the waste to be reused, with the final waste only needing to be stored in the ground for a couple of centuries, which can be done effectively by an Australian inovation called SynRoc. Finally, he claimed that Chernobyl only killed 56 people directly. Even I think that’s a tad ingenuous as the number of indirect deaths (due to cancer) is difficult to count on such a complex disaster. He did point out though that in the Western world such a reactor would have never been built.
The second anti –nuclear speaker was a representative for Greenpeace (not the most trusty worthy organization in my view). In all honesty, he relied upon obnoxiousness, poor humour, and sheer arrogance to get his way through. He wasn’t very technical, and one could tell that he was clearly out of his depth. At one point he claimed that us (the taxpayer) would have to pay for the nuclear power via government subsidiaries. Later on he asked us why should we allow BHP (and other such EVIL companies) make so much money on nuclear power. Which one is it? Either the government is paying for it, or the companies are profiting from it and, hence, are paying for it. I find it very hard to believe that a government would subsidise nuclear power if they didn’t have to. We all know how pro-privatisation the current government is. Unfortunately, this was lost on the people I was attending the debate with. In his defence, he did mention a couple of “near nuclear accidents” that had transpired in the last couple of years. He should have elaborated on them more to make a better point. I think people prefrerred his “debating” (read: sledging) techniques more than his actual argument points.
The final pro-nuclear speaker was a Law/Arts student debating champion who pointed out that the opposition were using scare tactics (seriously, of all the 400 plus nuclear reactors in the world, do you think a terrorist would try to steal uranium from a reactor in Australia – a safe, politically-stable, well-guarded nation – or some corrupt former Soviet Union country?). The final anti-nuclear speaker was some old doctor (his field not mentioned) who spoke about the US government storing uranium in an old salt mine in the sixties. He also read a “potential terrorist attack” section from an old military book written by a former political advisor. Not really up-to-date or relevant for that matter. He dwelled upon the fact that the guy was hired by three presidents. Little tip old-timer: President Ford hasn’t been around for a couple of years.
The debate was good enough and I’m glad I went. Coincidentally, I had listened to a similar debate last week where the opposition made considerably better arguments. It disappointed me strongly that the Greenpeace clown had to rely so heavily upon sarcasm and trendy anti-government sentiments, and that he simply side-stepped or denied certain issues. This person has been protesting since he was twelve. In his mind environmentalism is a religion. Accordingly, I quickly noticed the similarities between his debating approach and arrogant charm to those of American fundamentalist Christians. Ironic, since most of the anti-nuclear audience, I would dare say, would be strongly against their out-of-date beliefs.
posted by Engels at 11:12 am
2 Comments:
"I am biased in this debate since I am for the affirmative."
You think???
Hehe. Wondered if that was stating the bleeding obvious...
Post a Comment
<< Home