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

Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 459 times Debate No: 85214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I think that because it is renewable it is better just want opinions and facts please


Fossil Fuel is better because of its easy transportation and many more uses. You can't have a car run on nuclear power, unless it is from the electrical by-product, which still isn't portable since we have no way to charge a car off of the electrical by-product without an outlet. On the contrary, you can have spare gasoline and a 5 gallon container can fuel a car for 100 miles, even if it is a truck that has horrible mpg.

On the area of economic efficiency, a South Carolina estimate showed that the cost to build 2 nuclear reactors would be $9.8 million dollars, as seen in this link, A 2003 estimate, states that an oil rig would cost $650,000,000. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $838,400,000. If we made 2 of these off shore oil rigs, the price would be $1,676,800,000, that is nearly 1/6 of the price.
Debate Round No. 1


iBecka forfeited this round.


I don't know if it would be fair to give an argument this round since he/she didn't, so I will make it brief since I want to be fair yet not be handicapped because of his/her lack of readiness.

If we were to rely on nuclear power alone, we would need to increase energy output by 10% of it's current output each year from 2010 to 2050 to reach 2050 energy output needs.

There are many problems.

A. Mining of Plutonium would need to increase which would lead to more accidents because of a need of resources and, as seen throughout history, needs trump safety.

B. A nuclear reactor would require $4.85 billion, which is a lot, considering their are 437, and to raise the energy outputs by 10 percent yearly would mean building roughly 45 plants yearly.

C. It takes 5 to 7 years to build a plant.

D. There are only 67 nuclear power plants under construction.

E. If we were to do the math, and assumed that 1/5 of these plants will be build yearly, only 13 plants would be built every year. Also, we would have needed to start building an extra 32 plants yearly starting in 2010, to have been on track.
Debate Round No. 2


iBecka forfeited this round.


So last argument, fossil fuels do have there negative effects, i.e. carbon emissions and oil spills, but so do nuclear power plants.

A. Nuclear waste takes over 20,000 years to decompose, and it can't be avoided since it is the natural byproduct.

B. Oil spills can be avoided and since we aren't attempting to greatly raise our level of fossil fuels, as well as not having a hard time producing our current requirements, the needs versus safety factor is not a factor.

C. Carbon emissions are a gradual effect that is focused mostly in highly populated areas, but have less affects on areas where little to no oil/gasoline/natural gas is used.

D. Where use is high, native animals aren't greatly affected, where as nuclear waste areas can't be inhabited within some area and it destroys most wild life in the immediate area.

E. Fossil fuels are easier to acquire whereas nuclear elements such as Plutonium and Uranium need high levels of care and can't be relied on to drastically increase output without a sharp rise in death in those mining areas.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 1 year ago
Are you for or against nuclear energy? You say you're con but your statement makes it appear like you support nuclear energy.
Posted by PointyDelta 1 year ago
Is this homework?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FlammableX 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made no argument and forfeited. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Cobalt 1 year ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. Point to Pro.