The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Nuclear Power is the only way to provide sufficient energy for the future and must be invested in.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/3/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 74702
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




1st Round is acceptance round. Simply reply that you accept this debate and we will start in the second round.


I accept. Thanks for the debate! Sounds like an interesting topic.
Debate Round No. 1


Howdy. Before I get started, I'd like to say that this is my first debate on this website, so please forgive me for any oddities or broken unofficial rules. I'd really appreciate any tips anyone can leave in the comments; thanks!

First, Nuclear Energy is better than current energy sources. If we switch to nuclear power over traditional coal and natural gas power plants, the over 5 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions in the US alone (1) could be reduced to almost nothing, which creates a healthier environment and solves global warming (2). Contrary to popular belief, Nuclear power creates "zero harmful emissions" and fossil fuel emissions actually correlate much more strongly with cancer rates (3). The cost of nuclear is also comparative with that of conventional fuels (4), and prices are less likely to fluctuate due to foreign oil booms or downturns. By turning to nuclear, we can save the planet and keep our energy needs domestic, which makes us less reliant on other countries for energy.

Second, Nuclear Energy is better than renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. While all three energy producers have had technology available for decades, nuclear energy currently accounts for 20% of the nation's energy production while the heavily subsidized renewable energy sector accounts for only 2% (5). The world's energy demand is increasing rapidly, and there's no way renewables can keep up. While solar panels and wind farms take up massive fields (wind farms even slaughter birds and destroy migration patterns), nuclear energy is extremely space-efficient for the same amount of energy. With a constantly growing population, space is a valuable resource that we shouldn't be wasting on solar and wind power when there's a better option. In addition, nuclear material is in such great supply that it's virtually a renewable- we won't run out for centuries, and more efficient methods are constantly being developed (6). Nuclear is a nearly bottomless resource that is the only way we can sustainably keep up with rising demands for energy and space.



MissLenaElan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


bkoehler176 forfeited this round.


I am so so sorry. I hate to forfeit.


"Contrary to popular belief, Nuclear power creates 'zero harmful emissions'"

Though it may not cause harmful emissions, it can still be incredibly dangerous. The radioactive waste can possess a threat to the environment and is dangerous for humans[1]. A famous example is the Chernobyl accident, where the harmful effects of nuclear radiation on humans affected around 600,000 people. Estimates conclude that somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 people lost their lifes in the Chernobyl aftermath and more than 2.5 million Ukrainians are still struggling with health problems related to nuclear waste[1]. Just last year, on March 18, a major nuclear crisis happenend again in Japan, again causing major uproar and even restricting trade[3]. While the casualties were not as high as with the Chernobyl accident, the environmental effects were disastrous. History shows that we can never really be fully protected against these disasters, so nuclear power is not safe[1]. In contrast, solar power is 100% eco friendly and not harmful[4].

"Nuclear Energy is better than renewable energy sources like solar power." "There's no way renewables can keep up." "Nuclear is a nearly bottomless resource."

Renewable energy sources are much more safe, and also extremely plentiful as they're always available and always will be[4]. There are many, many more advantages to solar power over nuclear as well[5], including throwing away the need for a house to be hooked up to a power grid as it does using nuclear energy. In fact, nuclear power tied for last in a list created by Stanford University's published Mark Jacobson[6]. Also, the US has tons of solar power resources and the production of more provides jobs[4].

As you can tell, I firmly believe solar power is a better resource.

Debate Round No. 3


bkoehler176 forfeited this round.


To quickly conclude, nuclear power isn't the *only* way to provide sufficient energy. In fact, it could do more harm than good.

Voters - Both of us have forfeited, so I request you not take off points for that. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ChrisKay 1 year ago
the way the debate was formulated and ran was quite trivial.
there are different technologies that can be classified as "nuclear power" ... the ones based on fission are in commercial phase today and they are also heavily subsidized as the real cost of disposing safely the dangerous radioactive waste will probably be known after many decades1

fusion power which is another way of producing nuclear energy on the other hand is said to solve all energy problems in the future but developing the technology to build power stations seems to remain uncertain in the 30+year future (in fact remained unchanged for the past 50+ years)

renewable energy contains not only onshore wind and residential PV, but also biomass, wave and offshore wind. and to be fair, hydro-power is in fact also a form of renewable energy and that contributes significantly nowadays to balance the supply-demand

the answer is that no-one can accept a single solution is the "only" right solution...there will always be a pool of technologies to be used.
Posted by bkoehler176 2 years ago
I really apologize for not answering; I am a student and have had to study for finals and forgot about this debate. I'm not going to share my responses for the Con's arguments, as I know that would be unfair and it's entirely my fault that I forfeited my final round. I forfeited round 3 deliberately after the Con did so, as I didn't want to unfairly get ahead. Voters, I ask you to make your decision based on how developed our arguments were, not how well we refuted our opponents, as I didn't respond to the Con. If you choose not to do so, it's my fault. Go ahead.
To McHitler's comment: Teslas are awesome, and I support them fully. I don't oppose solar power, but I believe that nuclear is the only possible primary source of energy in the future. Guess where Teslas currently get over 20% of their electric power from? Nuclear.
Posted by McHitler 2 years ago
Pro obviously hasn't seen the new Tesla Battery system with solar integration.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by daem0n 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con asserts that nuclear power is not the *only* way to provide sufficient energy for the future because solar power can also do the job, and Pro has no response.