Позакласний захід "За чи проти ядерної енергії?" побудований в форматі дебатів з використанням електронних засобів. В обговоренні теми брали участь 2 команди учнів. Діти виконували ролі спікерів PRO and CONS в доведенні своєї точки зору. Використовували науковий матеріал про користь і негативний влив використання ядерної енергії як в масштабах України так і світу. Переглянули короткий відеофільм, висловили своє відношення до наукових висловлювань. Judge підвів підсумок прослуханому. Дана форма роботи була цікава для учнів.
Позакласний захід. Дебати. 11 клас
Theme: "Does the World Need Nuclear Еnergy?"
- Освітня: вчити знаходити переваги та недоліки кожної з думок опонентів, вміти їх логічно пояснювати, використовувати наукову інформацію і приклади з досвіту різних країн світу і України, приміняти різноманітні стратегії для досягнення своєї мети, вміти логічно, а не емоційно доводити свою думку;
- Розвивальна: розвивати інтелектуальне і критичне мислення, пізнавальні і мовні здібності, навички ефективного спілкування.
- Виховна: виховувати розуміння,що можна одержати достатньо енергії при економічно маленьких витратах, виховувати культуру спілкування, прийняту в сучасному цивілізованому світі.
- Обладнання: Проектор, екран, компютер, презентація Power Point, cards, posters, badges, slogan, motto proverbs, sayings.
Nuclear power is not a miracle key for the future.
Nuclear power is an important part of our domestic fuel.
Presentation the topic.
Teacher: We will have debates. Debate is a proposition «What the world need now nuclear energy or not? True or False?»
Before taking debates I would like you to raise your hands if you are for or against of using nuclear energy. Who thinks yes or for raise your hands (hands down).
(Against raise your hands.)
Teacher: Two teams will take part in the debates PRO and CONS. We will see whose arguments will be more convincing clear reasonable. The representatives of the team PRO...The representatives of the team CONS....
SPEAKER1: I don't believe а new nuclear is the next step, that has to be greater energy efficiencies. This means retro fitting existing buildings, rigorous standards for new buildings and localised renewable production. It also means greater planning and regulation of the manufacture of electronic goods and energy efficiency standards for those goods being raised and regionalisation of the production and distribution of food.
Technologies including nuclear and some of the more ambitious ideas about massive solar farms in deserts are not ready to be implemented yet. Nuclear is currently too costly, unsafe (especially considering the issue of long term storage of waste), it takes too long to build a plant and there seems to be uncertainty about the CO2 saving of the whole life cycle of a nuclear plant and the availability of fuel.
Why do you think it is unsafe?
Cons...SPEAKER1: Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. Nuclear energy is both expensive and dangerous, and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's clean. Renewable energy is better for the environment, the economy, and doesn't come with the risk of a nuclear meltdown.
1. IT’S SAFE
The technology is safe, and it’s getting safer. Fukushima was an old plant, and the latest generation of nuclear reactor designs are much less likely to meltdown. In adddition, earthquakes and tsunamis of the sort that caused the Fukushima disaster are much less common in Europe
2. CLIMATE CHANGE
We need to use all of the energy sources we have, because renewables aren’t yet able to take over from nuclear power. The alternatives to nuclear are coal and natural gas – including unconventional gas resources – and these would be (over the long-run) much more polluting and damaging than nuclear.
Nuclear fusion would, potentially, solve all of our energy needs. It’s a valuable area of research that could guarantee abundant clean energy, so it’s worth investing in the technology, continuing to use it and not abandoning it.
We need to use all of the energy sources we have, because renewable aren’t yet able to take over from nuclear power. The alternatives to nuclear are coal and natural gas – including unconventional gas resources – and these would be (over the long-run) much more polluting and damaging than nuclear.
Cons..,SPEAKER3: I have doubts about that. Nuclear energy is risky and toxic. It killed many people in accidents and wars. It pollutes the Earth harmful wastes. Don't you think it will lead us to the disaster?
PROPER...SPEAKER1: Coal plants are factories of death. The danger is that the minority of vehement anti-nuclear «environmentalists» could cause development of advanced safe nuclear power to be slowed such that utilities are forced to continue coal burning in order to keep the lights on.
CONS...SPEAKER2: Absolutely not! There is also the potential for a nuclear reactor disaster, such as the explosion and meltdown that occurred at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in 1986 or the partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979. Similar future catastrophes could be the result of an accident, sabotage by disgruntled employees or a terrorist attack. Nuclear power plants are generally operated better than they were 20 or 30 years ago, but you can never rule out the possibility, however remote, of a very serious accident. And there is always the risk of nuclear proliferation, where nuclear power plants are diverted to help make weapons for countries or terrorist groups. That's more of a risk associated with overseas reactors, but if the U.S. signals that it will build a whole new generation of plants, that greatly increases the odds that the rest of the world will want to do that as well.
Proper...SPEAKER1: How dependent should the EU be on nuclear power?
Cons...SPEAKER2: Europeans have a love-hate relationship with nuclear power. Despite several Europeans countries decidе to freeze or close their nuclear power.
I'd like to point out that nuclear power today:
- provides almost 20% of world's electricity;
-69 of U.S. non-carbon electricity generation;
-more than 100 plants in U.S.;
-while nuclear energy produces less waste than fossil fuels, its radioactive waste must be stored in special containers and buried beneath the earth's surface;
-аccording to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there were 436 nuclear power plants in operation in 2008;
-five countries most reliant on nuclear energy are France, Lithuania, Belgium, Slovakia and Ukraine.
Let's take electricity
Fossil fuels(coal, gas)
CONS..SPEAKER1: Do you want to say nuclear power is not a threat to global warming, air pollution, energy security?
PROPER...SPEAKER2: Yes, but I really mean we'll get mass energy production. Wind energу , solar, hydroelectricity cannot scale enough to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world's needs.
CONS...SPEAKER2: What I'm trying to say is the radioactive wastes take years to be longer hazardous. Wastes must be stored very carefully for a long time. Storing is a huge problem. The wastes are very dangerous. They re radioactive. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build. Uranium is not renewable and can lead to environmental problems through mining and processing.
JUDGE: Two teams were convincing and persuading. Let's appload each other! From one point all nuclear stations should be shut down without delay. From the other one nuclear energy is clean, renewable source of energy. Thank you very much all of you! The best speakers are...
Teacher: More often than not , the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to nuclear energy. It has very low operating costs producing sufficient energy.
We simply don't have any better options for long term mass energy production.
New exciting technology continues to come out on a day-to-day basis.