Nuclear Energy GSSS 2010 Debate: Difference between revisions
From Santa Fe Institute Events Wiki
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<i>Critical Readings and Resources:</i> | <i>Critical Readings and Resources:</i> | ||
[http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/application/pdf/unitedstatescphaccord_app.1.pdf US Pledge to Copenhagen Accord] | |||
[http://sites.nationalacademies.org/Energy/Energy_043338 National Academy of Sciences: America's Energy Future] | [http://sites.nationalacademies.org/Energy/Energy_043338 National Academy of Sciences: America's Energy Future] | ||
Revision as of 20:06, 20 July 2010
| 2010 Global Sustainability Summer School |
Topic Brainstorm
Resolved: Nuclear energy production should not be a part of the US energy supply.
*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
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined
