The Instigator
IshaLLwIN
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RedDebater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Nuclear energy is a good source of energy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,275 times Debate No: 33500
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

IshaLLwIN

Pro

Nuclear energy is a good source of energy, if not the best. It creates jobs, more power, than many types of energy, and has some of te lowest impact on the environment. I'm going to start small this first round. I wish luck to my opponent, and i'd like to tell everyone this is my first debate.
RedDebater

Con

I accept my opponent's challenge and wish him the best of luck on his first debate!
Debate Round No. 1
IshaLLwIN

Pro

1.Nuclear energy is a good source of energy, if not the best. It creates jobs, more power than many other sources, and has some of the lowest impacts on the environment. Nuclear waste will soon not be an issue due to the rapidly advancing "space elevator"

http://spaceref.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
rt.com/news/lunar-space-elevator-2020-646/

Sources support it. Getting rid of nuclear waste could be a great way to use this new, great idea.

This source of energy creates a low impact on the environment anyway. After refilling a nuclear reactor with more Uranium, the refill can last for years, even decades.

Not to mention that Fusion reactions are rapidly coming to a commercial scale for nuclear power plants and with more investment this could make nuclear energy the dominant source of power

2. Nuclear energy requires little space for a large amount of electricity.

rt.com/news/lunar-space-elevator-2020-646/

I realize this is the U.K. and not the U.S., but the U.K. doesn't need near as much energy as the U.S. and therefore can cope to the fact that they have less land.

3. Building a nuclear power plant creates jobs

I realize that building a power plant requires time, but time means jobs, which we need. So this also benefits the economy.

Thx for reading and good luck to my opponent
RedDebater

Con

I'll try and rebuttal my opponent's arguments as best I can.

1) My opponent claims that nuclear energy more jobs than other sources. I believe this to be very incorrect. For starters, nuclear power plants require professional scientists over blue collar workers, meaning that it's availability for jobs is significantly decreased. As a result, the average plant only employs 400-700 people, with maybe 3500 temporary jobs for constructing the plant itself (http://www.nei.org...). This is pretty low compared to other renewable sources such as solar power plants that offer jobs in the 1000s.

2) My opponent uses the proposed space elevator as a solution to nuclear waste (a thing that he apparently blows off as not a big problem as well). First off, nuclear waste is a huge problem with power plants since they require highly radioactive elements (such as Plutonium) to operate. The subsequent radioactive waste produced often has a high half-life (time it takes to decay to half its self), with the average element taking at least 1000 years (and that's being generous). Storing it is a huge political and environmental problem as even with places such as Yucca Mountain, there is still more waste (and more continuing to be produced) than places to store it.

My opponent states that space elevator will solve this dilemma. Let me just say that while the space elevator is a decent solution to the problem, we are still decades away from constructing it. The space elevator is literally an elevator into space. Financing it would be a huge problem in the UN, not to mention the fact that technology to construct it is still out of bounds. The links my opponent provided only clarify that scientists have all the materials, but what is an ingredient w/o a recipe? There is also the fact that this elevator has many problems of its own such as withstanding the conditions of space (I believe metal can only be in space for 10 years before having to be replaced b/c of the cold, but don't quote me on that), adjusting to the Earth's constant rotation, adapting to the sun's heat when close by, and collisions with other space materials among others. Right now, we can't just wait until all these problems are solved. Nuclear waste needs to be dealt with in another, more viable manner.

3) I will concede to my opponent the point on space required. However, the costs of building a nuclear power plant are very expensive as it costs about $8.5 billion to construct (and that's not even taking into account decommising costs) compared to say a solar power plant that costs about $1.65 billion.

I eagerly await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
IshaLLwIN

Pro

1. those 3500 workers are employed for 20-30 years. which takes up half a work-life. Therefore, although they are temporary, that is jobs created until they are halfway to retirement. My opponent states solar plants, which is a good source of energy, but he has forgotten that this is a debate about whether or not other forms are good, but instead that nuclear power is good.

2. nuclear waste is the biggest con in the nuclear energy. This is going to be readily solved in 2 ways

a. The space elevator is only 2-4 decades away(http://news.yahoo.com...) when a half life is 1 thousand years, that is acceptable.

b. fusion reactors are rapidly approaching, this doesn't just get rid of nuclear waste, but also creates more power.

3. The cost of a nuclear power benefits the economy that much more, and once again forgets the point of this argument. Also not to mention that solar plants create about 10 times less power in their life https://www.debate.org...

thx for reading, and id ask my opponent not to make any more new arguments in the 5th round.

good luck
RedDebater

Con

RedDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
IshaLLwIN

Pro

i dont know how to forfeit, so i forfeit
RedDebater

Con

RedDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
IshaLLwIN

Pro

IshaLLwIN forfeited this round.
RedDebater

Con

RedDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by IshaLLwIN 4 years ago
IshaLLwIN
I screwed up on a link, heres the actual link

http://theenergycollective.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.