Nuclear Energy GSSS 2010 Debate: Difference between revisions
From Santa Fe Institute Events Wiki
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<b>Resolved: Nuclear energy production should not be a part of the US energy supply.</b> | <b>Resolved: Nuclear energy production should not be a part of the US energy supply.</b> | ||
<b><u>*Format:</u></b> | |||
:Introduction - Moderator - 3 minutes | |||
:Opening Arguments - 5 minutes | |||
:First Rebuttals - 3 minutes | |||
:Back and Forth - Max 1 minute per team | |||
:At 25 Minute Mark.... | |||
::Closing Statements- 2 minutes | |||
:Wrap Up - Moderator - 1 minute | |||
:: Each round keeps the same A->B order decided by coin at the beginning of the debate | |||
<b><u>*Affirmative:</u></b> | <b><u>*Affirmative:</u></b> | ||
| Line 44: | Line 54: | ||
[http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Reprint_10-3.pdf Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms] | [http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Reprint_10-3.pdf Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms] | ||
[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es801747c Net Radiative Forcing from Widespread Deployment of Photovoltaics] | |||
[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined] | [http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:20, 21 July 2010
| 2010 Global Sustainability Summer School |
Topic Brainstorm
Resolved: Nuclear energy production should not be a part of the US energy supply.
*Format:
- Introduction - Moderator - 3 minutes
- Opening Arguments - 5 minutes
- First Rebuttals - 3 minutes
- Back and Forth - Max 1 minute per team
- At 25 Minute Mark....
- Closing Statements- 2 minutes
- Wrap Up - Moderator - 1 minute
- Each round keeps the same A->B order decided by coin at the beginning of the debate
*Affirmative:
Critical readings & resources
--From The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research • IEER
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy [WARNING: link is to full text, 257 pgs.]
Nuclear isn't necessary, from Nature Reports Climate Change
--From Caldicott, H.
Nuclear energy: money can't buy love by David Noonan, ABC (Aus), 3 March 2010]
--From Union of Concerned Scientists: A Resurgence of Nuclear Power Poses Significant Challenges [1]
--Natural Resources Defense Council: New Nuclear Power Plants Are Not a Solution for America's Energy Needs [2]
Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy
*Negative:
Critical Readings and Resources:
US Pledge to Copenhagen Accord
National Academy of Sciences: America's Energy Future
MIT's The Future of Nuclear Power
Role of nuclear energy to a future society of shortage of energy resources and global warming
Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms
Net Radiative Forcing from Widespread Deployment of Photovoltaics
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined
