Considering the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change, should the United States shift its energy supply away from fossil fuels by replacing them with nuclear power?
Two professors in the Department of Civil Engineering and two undergraduates from the Woodrow Wilson Debate Council paired off on Wednesday night to discuss this very issue, arguing the pros and cons of whether the United States should expand its supply of nuclear energy as an alternative to its current dependence on fossil fuels.
The debate, sponsored by Students for Environmental Action, intended to raise awareness about environmental sustainability on campus.
With their sides decided by a coin toss, Assistant Professor Sauhel Siddiqui and sophomore Daniel Takash defended the merits of nuclear power while Professor Ben Hobbs and freshman Vignesh Ramchandran argued instead that wind and solar power are more economically viable. Seven years ago, Hobbs was appointed the University’s director of the environment, energy, sustainability and health institute, with a goal of reducing on campus carbon emissions by 50 percent by the mid 2020s.
During the opening arguments of the debate, Ramchandran asserted that the first thing to consider is the question at hand.
“There is no question over the need to reduce carbon emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels, but there are far better alternatives to nuclear energy,” Ramchandran said.
“Nuclear power would be too little, too late, and too expensive,” he added.
He argued that a single nuclear plant creates risk of loosing five to ten billion dollars over night as was the case at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukishima.
“The key words here are carbon emissions,” Siddiqui said during his opening arguments. “Carbon emissions are something that you see in the long run ten, twenty, forty, fifty years down the line.”
Siddiqui and his partner were not against using other alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power, but they argued that such intermittent power sources needed to be complemented with something more permanent and efficient such as nuclear energy.
The amount of space it takes to produce six to eight kilowatt hours of power for wind turbines and solar cells respectively can be used to produce 5000 kilowatt hours of nuclear power.
During the rebuttal period, Hobbs said that despite being better at producing wattage, the capital investment that goes into a nuclear power plant actually makes the energy sources less efficient because investors are wary of risk.
“The free market does not want nuclear power,” Hobbs said. “In the United States it is heavily subsidized by state governments and can cost ten times more for capital and infrastructure than traditional power plants.”
He went on to say that nuclear power as a civilian energy source is only possible through government subsidies, which cover liability insurance for the surrounding areas in case of a meltdown.
“No other technology asks for an exemption from liability [insurance] because no other technology needs it,” he said.
Takash, who Siddiqui credited with having prepared the majority of the material for the debate, rebutted by saying that the free market sometimes does not take into account negative externalities such the environmental damage from carbon emissions.
“We should not be held to the whims of the market, because the market created climate change,” Takash said. “We should offer subsidies when the market fails. We should encourage investment and research to learn from our mistake.”
He went on to point out that he advocates nuclear energy not as the sole alternative to fossil fuels, but as a non-intermittent part of a diversified system including wind, solar, and geothermal energy.
During their concluding arguments, both sides reaffirmed their respective positions. Ramchandran argued that nuclear energy is too expensive due to liability insurance and too risky as evidenced by previous disasters. Siddiqui said that the free market is not good at handling externalities. He also said that the U.S. should be a leader in the field because it has the financial resources to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants.
Towards the end, the discussion opened up to a question-and-answer session with the audience.
