The Instigator
Kc1999
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
GodChoosesLife
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

In Defence of Nuclear Energy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
Kc1999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,108 times Debate No: 49545
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

Kc1999

Pro

First round acceptance.

RESOLUTION: This house believes that nuclear energy is the best source of energy

Good luck and have fun Marie. Because you said anything.
GodChoosesLife

Con

I accept. (No knowledge of this subject, but should be interesting).
Best wishes!
Debate Round No. 1
Kc1999

Pro

Nuclear energy; an inherently unsustainable power or the perfect form of energy? The question in itself and it's nature is subjective, but nuclear energy definitely comes with a plethora of benefits. Firstly, I would like to define several terms:

ENERGY: power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, esp. to provide light and heat or to work machines.


Nuclear energy has had a long and troublesome history; from Chernobyl, where the careless Reds proved that even 100 of them are unable to screw up a light bulb, to the most recent Fukushima-Daiichi, where a natural disaster (and to some degree, carelessness) caused a huge nuclear meltdown. The concept of nuclear energy was first theorized by Enrico Fermi in 1932; in 1938, German Scientists were already investigating the concept; these German physicists determined that by splitting the nucular atom into pieces, it would divide the nucular atom into two roughly equal pieces. However, the result of this experiment was surprising; the nucular atoms were divided into larger pieces; this process was called fission. After the results of these experiments were made open to the public, many supported government research into nuclear fission. After the two bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the public determined that uranium should be used for peace, and not war.

The first nuclear reactor was introduced in 1954 by the Soviet Union. Called the Obrinsk Nuclear Power Plant, this reactor produced 5 megawatts of energy; however, as nuclear technology developed, nuclear plants became larger and more efficient. By the 1980s, they were able to produce 300mh per year. Today, there are 435 operable nuclear powerplants, and 71 nuclear power plants that are still under construction.

And why are the governments of the world pursuing nuclear power as an alternative to conventional ways of producing energy?

1. It is more efficient

Nuclear Powerplants are costly to build, but there are some major benefits to it. US Nuclear powerplants can create upto 11.8 billion kW/h (769 billion kW per year), when compared to that of US oil-powered powerplant, which produces 3 billion kW/h. In France, 407tw/H of electricity was produced in 2004, and French Nuclear Powerplants have the ability of producing 60,000 mW. France has around 60 Nuclear Power Plants; this puts each powerplant of being able to produce 1,000mw of electricity per year! Compare this to the highly expensive solar panels, which are able to produce only 55mW per year. Ironically, nuclear energy also cost less than solar power; in France, where 75% of the energy produce comes from nuclear energy, a kW of energy costs only $0.23 per household; compare this to New England's $18.75 per household, where only 10% of the energy comes from Nuclear power (nation wide)

2. It is more eco-friendly

Apart from being more efficient, it is also more sustainable and eco-friendly. Nuclear energy releases 20grms. of Carbon Dioxide (the greenhouse gas that is commonly known to cause global warming) per tW/H; compare this to the 500grms. of Carbon Dioxide released when using oil sources. (In fact, the Co2 released by nuclear plants are indirect) This is because the process of fission creates the heat, as apart from burning something to create the neccesary steam to turn the power generator. In France, nuclear power has contributed highly to the low Co2 emissions from power sources; France has low (when compared to the US and China) CO2 emissions per capita.

3. It is safer

Ironically, nuclear energy is (when compared with coal and other materials) much more safer than many other sources of energy. Nuclear energy produces 5.9% of the world's energy, but it experiences only 0.04 deaths per tW produced. Compare this with the 100 from Coal created energy, which produces 26% of the world's energy and 36 of oil, which produces 36% of the world's energy. We can therefore clearly see that nuclear power is safe for the environment, the people, and is much more efficient than many other energy sources. But the question then arises; why oppose nuclear power?

The opponent will provide an answer to that question. I wish Con the best of luck with her next case.

Citations:
http://nextbigfuture.com...
http://www.cpsenergy.com...
http://www.hitachi.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.eia.gov...

GodChoosesLife

Con

GodChoosesLife forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GodChoosesLife

Con

(Krit, I'm sorry time is very restraining right now so I'm sorry if this is like a short response I don't wanna ff another round).

Although I don't know much about this topic, reading through your argument. I don't think I disagree because well everything we use today requires nuclear energy. So I pretty much am saying I'm not gonna refute something I would agree with.
Debate Round No. 3
Kc1999

Pro

I'm unsure. What should I do now since I have, more or less, convinced the opponent?
GodChoosesLife

Con

Continue until it is done. You obviously win! ;)
Debate Round No. 4
Kc1999

Pro

VOTE PRO EVERYONE

Thanks
KC1999
GodChoosesLife

Con

Thanks for the debate Krit! :)
But sorry it probably did not turn out as you expected. Ha!

Maybe we could find something we actually do disagree on that I am familiar with and debate on it.
Not now though, gots to much going on. Bye! :)
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
@Ore_Ele, the number of mW/h produced measures the efficiency of the energy source, not how popular it is.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
looks like its fixed now.. ? Sorry that I FF though Krit! :/
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
Cmon ppl. She has the internet at the tips of her hands.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
Uhhhh no tiene to both of your comments???
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Ha. Just yolo it.
Posted by CloudKylion 2 years ago
CloudKylion
Easy. Fukashima > Loss of human life > Eradication of species. It is statistically significant to opt out of nuclear energy. Think of it this way. If there is a 1/10000 change that the plant will go nuclear, in it's entire life cycle, it is statistically unsafe. You can do it! Good luck!
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
Yes?
Posted by tylerriggs999 2 years ago
tylerriggs999
Gcl
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
AHA!

Good luck Marie; I wanna get pwned!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: FF/Concession and Pro had sources.
Vote Placed by sewook123 2 years ago
sewook123
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded. Points go to Pro.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded the debate. Pro had a number of good arguments in line for nuclear energy, however, his sources style made it extremely difficult to see what each source was backing up. I would also state that there is some concern that he provided some statistics that actually don't matter. The number of MWh or GWh produced are not a logical indicator of how good something is, only how popular it is.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 2 years ago
FREEDO
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, conceded.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded, which means points for arguments automatically goes to Pro, who also provided sources.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Graceful concession. Forfeited out of respect and refusing to play devil's advocate. Pro made arguments on Costs,eco friendliness and its safety measures, all the while backed with adequate sources enough to substantiate his case. All 5 points to pro.