Therefore this is not a safety issue inherent to nuclear power, rather it is a safety issue inherent with STEAM. We have several hundred years of experience with steam boiler explosions to attest to this.
The danger lies in surrounding the fuel which produces massive amounts of heat, with a substance with a low boiling point and high vapor pressure. I would argue this is is probably the least safe reactor design possible. In particular the soviet RBMK reactor design had some traits that made water especially dangerous as coolant.
Many other designs exists such as gas-cooled, molten sodium cooled, or molten salt reactors that would not create a violent increase in pressures in event of a fuel meltdown.
Also note that both the TMI and Fukushima accidents produced zero deaths since in both cases basic evacuation protocols and safety protocols were followed.
Typically there are thousands of deaths associated with coal mining every year, worldwide.
EDIT: the claim that we only have 60 years worth of uranium reverse is misleading for several reasons. That may refer to existing uranium stockpiles. Like mining gold, the ability to mine uranium depends mostly on it's market price (rather low ATM.) As the price of uranium goes up, new, lower grade deposits become more cost-effective to mine. Considering the cost of uranium fuel typically accounts for only 10% or less of the cost per kilowatt of nuclear fuel, there is a great deal of room for growth. Secondly most reactors in the US use a "once-through" fuel cycle with only burns a fraction of the fissionable material in it. Fuel reprocessing/recycling could extend the life of existing fuel several times.
Our current technology of solid core uranium 235 fuel rods are inherently dangerous as uranium oxide does not dissipate heat well and the water most be pressurized and the technology was developed at a time of war for the production of weapons grade plutonium. Uranium 235 is very rare and must be isotope refined, if all of our energy were from conventional reactors, we would only have about 60 years of uranium 235 reserves left. However, it's not the only nuclear technology. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors were successfully tested for the Air Force but after the atomic plane was dropped ( pun intended ), the military pulled funding. Such a reactor would not leak, would not explode, would not melt down, would shutdown safely if all power was cut and would consume our existing nuclear wastes.
Chernobyl and indeed our existing nuclear technology probably should not have been pursued after the successful liquid core reactor was tested in 1965 - 1969 but it's difficult to change the minds on people convinced that solid core fuel boiling water reactors were the way to go.
Chernobyl isn't an indication that nuclear should be dropped but it is an indication that nuclear which requires active safety precautions should be dropped and nuclear technologies requiring only passive safety precautions should be pursued. To date, the only licensed passively safe nuclear reactor is the Canadian SLOWPOKE reactor.
There are many different types of nuclear reactors, Chernobyl and others were chosen because governments wanted plutonium for nuclear weapons,
the energy produced via nuclear is huge and enormous. Lots of energy are produced which can take any other energies to a side existing today.
Because its long lasting, mostly safe and could provide huge amounts of energy (especially if we can fuse it) for the world and vastly decrease the risk posed by the prospect off fossil fuels running out.
I am debating the use of Nuclear energy this week. I am on the affirmative side (I want nuclear power). I know that the person I am debating with is going to use Chernobyl as there argument on why we shouldn't have nuclear power.
I already decided to state that Chernobyl was due to inadequately trained operators and a flawed designed. How can I make my argument stronger against Chernobyl? This is my first debate so I am quite nervous :/
