This House would Invest More in Nuclear Energy
Motion Confirmed : 4-3 IN FAVOR
This was a more technical and complex debate than we have had previously, and that made it educational and interesting. The group went into the meeting fairly ambivalent and unsure of whether or not they supported nuclear energy
James kicked off the discussion framing the debate, and proposing that we should not only invest more in nuclear energy, but also overturn a 30yr ban on construction of new power plants in California. His arguments in favor of nuclear energy lay along these lines :
Remi countered the argument with many good points on the dangers of nuclear waste and highlighting the other alternative sources of energy that are safer and more environmentally friendly
The went on to discuss the safety record of nuclear power plants, and in particular the three-mile-island affair and Chernobyl. We also discussed Yucca Mountain, terrorist threats on nuclear power stations, and how buildings could be designed to conserve energy. At one point the group was leaning heavily if favor of conservation and sustainable sources of power
James's summed up for the motion by arguing that a vote for nuclear energy is not a vote against the environment. It is a clean fuel. In an ideal world, sustainable sources of energy would be more efficient and more reliable, but they're not enough to provide the basic energy needs of society. There have been no signs that we can conserve our way out of our energy needs, and indeed, every year people demand more and more energy than before. So the group should be voting in favor of nuclear energy, or in favor of the status quo where most power comes from fossil fuels.
The group voted 4:3 In favor of the motion. - Many of those voting for the motion wanted to see the investment go into more research on nuclear power, alongside other forms of energy