Post- Debate Reflection:

-What motion did you debate and what side of the debate were you arguing?
I argued against the motion that nuclear power is a clean energy source. My
partners were Avra Saslow and Tony Williams.
-What was your initial position on the motion: for, against or undecided? Final
position?
My initial position is leaning more against the motion that nuclear power is a clean
energy source. Although Nuclear Energy is more efficient the affects after a tragic
accident are massive and release large amounts of radiation and waste. When these
catastrophes occur they affects the area in which they were in as well as areas close
by for generations or centuries. Based off of what has happened in the past such as
in Chernobyl, I do not agree that nuclear power is worth the risk. To this day people
are still struggling to recover from these accidents or have been diagnosed with
cancer from radiation. However there are great benefits from nuclear power so I am
still undecided on whether or not this source of energy is a good idea.
-Discuss how your position on the motion changed over the course of this project.
What arguments, evidence and reflections on place either caused you to question
your position, change your mind or solidified your opinion?
When I first began this project I automatically assumed that nuclear energy was
extremely bad simply from hearing the word nuclear. After my debate I was
informed on the benefits and reasons as to why nuclear power is a good idea for our
future energy source. Nuclear power is costly while building a nuclear power energy
source but once it is in place it is very efficient and provides lots of energy. Without
nuclear power the United States will not be able to support the amount of energy we
use. This argument was used in the debate by my opponents, which made me
reconsider whether or not nuclear energy is good idea for our main source of
energy. The only reason I still am leaning more towards not supporting this source
of energy is because of the huge affects when an accident occurs. No matter how
smart the person is that is controlling and operating the nuclear power source,
accidents can still happen. When these accidents occur they affect generations.
-What arguments and pieces of evidence do you find to be strongest for each side of
the motion?
There are strong arguments for both sides of the argument. One strong argument for
nuclear power is that nuclear energy creates is really efficient. Renewables will not
be able to answer all of our energy needs as we need them to do so. Nuclear energy
will create the energy demand in the next decades. Another strong argument is that
our climate is changing and we need to use all of the energy sources available to us
because renewables are not able to take over from nuclear power. Other
alternatives such as coal and natural gas are more polluting and damaging to our
environment than nuclear. Lastly, another strong argument is that nuclear fusion
will eventually solve all of our energy needs.
One strong argument against nuclear power is that it is unsafe and expensive. There
have been three major accidents out of a total of 99 accidents in the past 65 years of
nuclear power. The three major accidents leaked a lot of radiation, which killed
thousands of people, caused birth defeats, and resulted in cancer from radiation.
People are still struggling from the affects of these accidents and the radiation
released in those areas will affect generations after generations. Another strong
argument is that renewables are ready to take over from nuclear. By 2050 we could
be producing 100% of our energy from renewables. It is important that we take this
first step in the right direction or we may never make this life-changing switch.
Lastly, another argument for nuclear power is that no matter how smart of a person
we put in charge of a nuclear power plant accidents can still occur and when they do
it is a huge problem.
- What question(s) would you like to research further to have better understanding
of energy issues? They can be related to the motion but do not need to be.
- If you argued for the side of the motion you take, describe how it was to
intellectually engage with someone who disagreed with you.
Or
-If you argued for the side of the motion opposite of what you believe, describe how
it was for you to argue a perspective you disagree with.
Some questions I would like to research further on to have a better understanding of
energy issues are:
How efficient is solar and wind energy? Is the cost worth it in the long run
with how much energy they produce?
Would the United States be able to only use solar and wind energy with the
amount of energy used if we were to ban nuclear power?
Since I agree with the side that was arguing for nuclear power it was really engaging
to hear my opponents argue against me because I strongly disagreed with them. I
felt as if I would take in their arguments and facts with curiosity, however, I still had
a bias and do not agree that the efficient energy source is worth it based off of
accidents that have happened in the past. I think that if I did not agree with the side I
was arguing for it would be harder for me to stay in character and make my
arguments believable.
-How does the personal environmental ethic and sense of place you developed in
Humanities inform and affect the position you took on the motion?
My environmental ethic that I expressed in my humanities project is that I desire
preserving and promoting natural habitat. My fear is that mankind has let this
opportunity pass. Without wilderness our lives might be comfortable, convenient,
and materially rich, but our souls will be in poverty. This goes along with my
position against the motion that nuclear power is a clean energy source because the
affects from the three major accidents that have happened in that past have severely
affected the surrounding areas and killed thousands of people as well. If I were to
try and preserve this area I would not want to put my place at risk.
-Watch your debate and assess your performance in the debate. What aspects went
well? What aspects did not go as well as you would have liked? If you had a chance
to do it again what would you do differently? Consider the arguments you used, how
you responded to your opponents questions and how you presented yourself.
After watching my debate I noticed that I was talking way to fast, which could get
confusing and unclear to the audience. In the debate I was worried about how much
time I had during the debate and did not want to get cut off by my moderator. If I
were to do this again I would speak slowly in order to emphasize my points. My
conclusion was supposed to be the strongest part of my argument in my opening
statement and since I was talking really fast it was not. I had the same problem that I
had in my opening statement in my closing statement. I need to slow down while
making a speech in order to let my audience process what I am saying. I also noticed
that I clapped for my opponents, which would not be realistic in an actual debate
because I do not agree with them.
I felt well prepared for this debate and noticed my evidence that I provided in my
opening and closing statements. One thing I did really well was providing a lot of
evidence specifically using pathos. In my closing statement I showed the audience
disturbing photos that were as a result of the Chernobyl disaster that occurred.
-Perform a fact check on two statements made by yourself, your opponents or your
teammates during the debate. Clearly indicate the statements you are checking and
what you discovered.

My partner Avra Saslow said: I think that we could pursue renewable energy more
such as wind power, solar power, and geothermal heat. I understand that this isnt
the way to support our world with the amount of energy that we need to consume
on a daily basis, but I think this motion is asking if nuclear energy is a clean energy
source and I dont think it is.

I checked to see if we could pursue renewable energy using only wind and solar
power or geothermal heat. I am wondering if this is possible. We now have the
technology to access wind on a significant scale for electricity. What I found based
off of further research was that because of the nature of wind and solar occurrence,
they are unreliable. These aspects offer a technological challenge of some
magnitude, given that electricity cannot be stored on any large scale. For instance,
solar-sourced electricity requires collecting energy at a peak density of about 1
kilowatt (kW) per square metre when the sun is shining to satisfy a quite different
kind of electricity demand one which mostly requires a relatively continuous
supply. I also found that wind is the fastest-growing source of electricities in many
other countries. On that note, we do have room for further expansion to more in the
direction of clean energy with wind and solar, but as for the moment we need to
focus on another source of energy before we can support our demand of energy
with just wind and solar. My partner was correct with her statement that she made
during the open debate.

Natalie Youssef (Me): In my debate I mentioned that soon solar roadways will be put
into place and will provide much more energy. In addition this innovation will
preserve land because we will be using our roads, which already take up large
amounts of spaces. This is what I found based off of my research:
Sun power offers a 230 Watt solar panel rated at 18.5% efficiency. Its surface area
is 13.4 square feet. If we covered the entire 31,250.86 square miles of impervious
surfaces with solar collection panels, we'd get: ((31,250.86 mi) x (5280 ft. /
mi)) / (13.4ft/230W) = ((31,250.86 mi) x (27,878,400 ft / mi)) /
(13.4ft/230W) = (871,223,975,424 ft) / (13.4ft/230W) = 14,953,844,354,292
Watts or over 14.95 Billion Kilowatts
If we average only 4 hours of peak daylight hours (1460 hours per year), this gives
us: 14.95 Billion Kilowatts x 1460 hours = 21,827 Billion Kilowatt-hours of
electricity.
Citation:
"The Numbers." Solar Roadways -. Web. 19 May 2014.