The project in chemistry was a debate about one of three types of energy production, I was the moderator for one of the Nuclear debates. The topic of debate was where or not the US government should increase the amount of incentives for new nuclear power. At the beginning of this project my view on nuclear power was that nuclear power should not be better incentives.; however, after hearing the debate and after some research, my final position on this issue is that new nuclear power should be more incentives. My view on this motion changed over the course of this project; the argument that changed my mind was then that the there are 104 nuclear reactors in the US and those reactors produce 19% of the U.S.'s energy leading to the conclusion that nuclear fuel is very energy dense. The other Argument that changed my mind was that the a nuclear power plant produces 56 watts/square meter of land that the power plant and mining equipment take up (about 18.75 square miles).  Each side in this debate had good arguments. The strongest argument for me in the opposition to the motion was that nuclear power produces billions of pounds of nuclear waste every year. That is a lot of nuclear waste; considering that part of nuclear waste will irradiating objects around it for millions of years.  The debate team for the motion’s strongest argument was that nuclear power produces no pollutants compared to natural gas and coal ( which are the main power producers in the US). One question that I want to further research is why in an age of great innovation, resources and technology, do we as humans continue to rely on energy that is produced from massive polluting fuels? Sense I was a moderator I did not argue on ether side of the debate. My sense of place that I cultivated in the Humanities was that I think we need to protect nature, but also reap nature of valuable resources. This makes my position on the motion make more sense , because nuclear power has a low fuel to energy produce ratio and has no pollutants (saving nature), but they get the needed fuel for nuclear power mines have to be drilled into a mountain or land and extracted (reaping the land of resources).  I think what I did well in the debate. Aspects that I feel I did well in the debate where asking good questions and keeping the debate on time. An aspect of the debate I wish I could do over is not being so nervous and stubbing with my words in the beginning and of the debate. Fact check; Lacey: Chernobyl happened because the nuclear reactor was running at low compactly when a power surge hit and the reactor had a meltdown. During my fact checking I found that Lacey was right in her fact. She did however miss one part of the incident; reactor four in Chernobyl had it’s safety feature turned off and then the fuel elements in the reactor ruptured causing a sudden spike in heat that melted and set fire to the 1000 ton reactor.  Martina: Burring coal releases carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and methane.   After looking at a few websites I found that coal does not release methane into the air. I also found that burning of coal according the to EPA releases mercury compounds into the air. A quote from the EPA states, “Mercury and compounds containing mercury can accumulate in the environment and are highly toxic to humans and animals if inhaled or swallowed. Exposure can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and fetuses.”