Nuclear energy boon or bane????
Debate Rounds (3)
The generation of electricity through nuclear energy reduces the amount of energy generated from fossil fuels (coal and oil). Less use of fossil fuels means lowering greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and others).
Currently, fossil fuels are consumed faster than they are produced, so in the next future these resources may be reduced or the price may increase becoming inaccessible for most of the population.
Another advantage is the required amount of fuel: less fuel offers more energy. It represents a significant save on raw materials but also in transport, handling and extraction of nuclear fuel. The cost of nuclear fuel (overall uranium) is 20% of the cost of energy generated.
The production of electric energy is continuous. A nuclear power plant is generating electricity for almost 90% of annual time. It reduces the price volatility of other fuels such as petrol.
This continuity benefits the electrical planning. Nuclear power does not depends on natural aspects. It's a solutions for the main disadvantage of renewable energy, like solar energy or eolic energy, because the hours of sun or wind does not always coincide with the hours with more energy demand.
It's an alternative to fossil fuels, so the consumption of fuels such as coal or oil is reduced. This reduction of coal and oil consumption benefits the situation of global warming and global climate change. By reducing the consumption of fossil fuels we also improve the quality of the air affecting the disease and quality of life.
Nuclear energy is source of energy which has many benefits. Nuclear energy is less expensive because it is based on uranium. With a little amount of uranium a great an amount of energy can be produced. It is a reliable source to rely on as there is a significant amount of them in the Earth"s crust.
One important advantage is that producing energy using nuclear energy does not give out greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are gases like carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide which are gases contributing to greenhouse effect or global warming. I am once really sorry on what I did.
Every one of my opponent's arguments is a bare assertion. He offers no evidence whatsoever to support his claims. With this in mind, I know he'll understand when the voters reject them as the baseless claims that they are. 
A1: Nuclear energy can result in a nuclear accident.
No other form of energy poses such a specific threat since they don't involve nuclear energy. One such example is the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
The Chernobyl nuclear accident happened on April 26, 1986 at the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It has been referred to by authorities
in this manner: "The Chernobyl disaster was the worst nuclear power
plant accident in history in terms of cost and casualties." 
The devastation of Chernobyl was catastrophic:
"The resulting radioactive release, (Russian nuclear engineer) Medvedev estimates, was equivalent to ten Hiroshimas. In fact, since the Hiroshima bomb was an airburst--no part of the fireball touching the ground--the Chernobyl release polluted the countryside much more than ten Hiroshimas would have done." 
Again, no other energy source could bring about such dangerous radiation poisoning. This is the main reason nuclear power is less appealing than other energy sources.
A2: Nuclear waste is difficult to dispose of properly, and is more expensive than many other energy alternatives.
Unlike other forms of energy waste, it takes years to dispose of properly, thereby rising the cost of nuclear power. It's also more expensive to use than several alternative energy sources. "A 2011 UCS analysis of new nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia shows that the power provided by the new plants would be more expensive per kilowatt than several alternatives, including energy efficiency measures, renewable energy sources such as biomass and wind, and new natural gas plants." 
Another thing you said is that nuclear waste are difficult to dispose. Nuclear power generates very little waste. the radioactive waste resulting from the production of a lifetime of a electricity for one person can be contained in a glass ball the size of our hand.
Once AGAIN, everything my opponent said this round has been a bare
assertion with no supporting evidence whatsoever. As Christopher
Hitchens is famous for saying, "That which can be asserted without
evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."  In other words, in a debate like this, anything offered without evidence is simply not a sound argument. With this in mind, I ask the voters to reject the entirety of my opponent's claims as they were either plagiarized or baseless.
A3: Nuclear power has inherent dangers other energy sources do not.
Another more recent nuclear power disaster took place in Fukushima, Japan in 2011 where three nuclear reactors melted down. . Not only did the meltdown release dangerous nuclear poison, but the cleanup will take a long time, and will be costly:
"In August 2013, it was stated that the significant amount of
radioactive water was among the most pressing problems affecting the
cleanup process, which is expected to take decades."
Again, this specific kind of disaster is not possible from other energy sources, since they don't involve nuclear power. This is why nuclear power is a bane.
A4: Nuclear power is more costly than other forms of energy.
"Before the meltdowns and explosions at Fukushima spewed radiation into the air and ocean, again reminding the world of the inherent dangers of nuclear power, the so-called nuclear renaissance was already dead upon arrival in the U.S. But it wasn't the risk of a nuclear accident, the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, or the intractable problem of radioactive waste that doomed the plans of the nuclear industry; it was the atomic economics.
Nuclear power is prohibitively expensive, and the fiasco at Fukushima will only make it more so. When Progress Energy first proposed a new nuclear plant in Florida, the price tag was $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion dollars. The cost has since ballooned to as much as $22.5 billion, and Progress just negotiated a settlement that would allow it to kill the construction contract. Several other corporations that applied for new reactors have already asked government regulators to suspend their reviews.
When Warren Buffett's corporation MidAmerican looked into building a new nuclear reactor, it determined that it did not make "economic sense." Rather than risk billions of dollars on a new nuclear reactor, Buffett's corporation just made headlines by investing in renewable energy. Americans, President Obama, and the Congress have a choice. We can heed the caution of the "world's greatest investor" or we can we pursue new nuclear plants that Wall Street has called a "bet the farm" risk.
Rather than expand the use of this dangerous and stupidly expensive technology, our government should stop subsidizing nuclear corporations' bad investments and instead develop plans to phase out nuclear power and better secure the deadly radioactive wastes. As former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kansaid at the World Economic Forum in Davos, "We should aim for a society that can function without nuclear energy." 
SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE:
I deserve six points from every voter.
1. I deserve conduct points due to my opponent's plagiarism in round one.
2. I deserve argument points since all of my opponent's "arguments" were either plagiarized or bare assertions without any supporting evidence.
3. I deserve source points since I was the only one who had sources to support my arguments.
Please vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro plagiarized as stated by Con. More Convincing arguments: Con gets this because he didn't make assertions without backing it up with evidence, unlike Pro. Pro could have easily made up everything he said, since he used so few sources. Therefore, Con wins better arguments. Sources: Con wins this since he used plenty more than Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.