Позакласний захід. Дебати "За чи проти ядерної енергії?".

        Позакласний захід. Дебати. 11 клас

   Theme: "Does the World Need Nuclear Еnergy?"

Мета:

- 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.

             SEQUENCE

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.

Proper...SPEAKER3:

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.

Proper...SPEAKER1:

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.

Pro...SPEAKER2:

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

• Nuclear wastes 20 ton
• Coal wastes 8000000ton

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.