The Instigator
abard124
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
59 Points

Nuclear power is a good idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 12 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,197 times Debate No: 11212
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (12)

 

abard124

Con

Today, for the first time in his whole presidency, I was severely disappointed in President Obama. He announced over $8b in federal loan guarantees for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in nearly 3 decades, and promised that it was "only the beginning." [1]

He claimed that nuclear power would be beneficial to the environment and the economy. However, even in praising, he admitted that it had "serious drawbacks." He said that they would try to remedy that problem by having leaders find a safer and more secure way of storing nuclear waste. I'm going to tell you now. There is no way to permanently and securely store nuclear waste. Furthermore, the more we produce, the more we'll have to store. It doesn't go away. Even if we seem to not be having problems, eventually we will have a bunch of nuclear waste and nowhere to put it. That is horrible. How would you like another Chernobyl?

Finally, the president said, "And what I hope is that this announcement underscores both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge — and our willingness to look at this challenge not as a partisan issue, but as a matter far more important than politics." You are completely correct, Mr. President. This is just as bad for Republicans as it is for democrats. You are correct that the environment is far more important than politics (no political issue will matter once we're all dead). So, Mr. President, if you respect the environment, then why are you funding these horrible polluters?

I am looking forward to someone taking this debate!

1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and look forward to debating someone from my own area.

1) I would like to address the mentioning of Chernobyl, even though it is out of order, because it is the most misunderstood argument that is used against nuclear power. "The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel." [1] We also need to note that Chernobyl was a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion. And was caused by a combination of very poor decisions, from the lacking of basic safety, even for that era, to poor training, to management personnel that was more interested in not looking bad then real issues. The safety issues that happened at Chernobyl were already impossible in the US because of the mechanical safety features we had back in the 80's and our safety has only gotten better.

2) "There is no way to permanently and securely store nuclear waste." I have to disagree with this on two points, first, we don't have to "store" it. The most common nuclear material is U-235 (Uranium) and it is found naturally across the planet. [2] If we have to be completely safe, it is possible to de-rich uranium (though it is more costly then storing it is depleted and takes up much more space) so that it can be put back in the ground just as it came out, as safe to nature as it has always been. But even without going through that much effort, the storage of fuel is actually extremely safe. The Science behind the yucca mountain shows that it is a safe storage [3], and actually the main fear is that water will corrode the containers if it rains too heavily over enough decades. However, it is possible to upkeep the containers (since we upkeep all our roads and buildings and everything else from corrosion), and we can even design the containers to be extremely immune to corrosion [4] so that the life span goes from decades to centuries to possible millennia.

Nuclear power plants also don't produce that much waste, about 20 tons a year per plant. [5] That's the same amount of waste (by weight, not volume) as about 25 people, per year. [6] So when we stop and think about it, it really isn't that much.

Going back to safety. Nuclear waste containers have some of the best safety features of any engineered structure. [7] And to show the kind of tests these have to go through. [8] They test those buggers for everything! We have PBRs (Pebble Bed Reactors) that add a whole new level on safety. [9][10] A PBR is "a reactor whose safety is a matter of physics, not operator skill or reinforced concrete." We also have Fusion reactors which are starting to pick up steam (couldn't resist the old energy pun from the steam power days). And they too have their safety built in the laws of physics [11] in that if something happens that jeopardizes the power plant, the nuclear reaction will come to a stop on its own, rather then snowball out of control.

That is a simple look at the science of the safety, now lets look at the history of the safety, since this is the only aspect where nuclear power have blemishes, since certain nations choose to let their safety slide, they have become bad marks on the entire nuclear concept. But in the USA, not a single human being has EVER died from an incident related to a nuclear power plant or its waste. [12] The most famous incident in US history is the TMI incident, which actually should have been a beacon of hope and success. A most basic back story, in 1979, the TMI nuclear power plant had to be evacuated because a partial meltdown began to happen. The wonderful part about what really happened was that the plant managed to cool itself down on it's own. The built in mechanical safety features protected it from anything really bad from happening. While just over the vent stack, readings up to 1,200 millirems were recorded (indicating that radioactive material was making it out into the environment. The government maintained a registry for 18 years of the 30,000 people that lived in the vicinity and found that they did not experience ANY health fallout (no increased rate of cancer, no increased rate of birth defects, no increased rate of brain issues). [13][14][15]

Research has shown that nuclear workers will, on average, be subjected to about 1,000 millirem per year (compared to the average individual who gets about 360 per year), and that will, on average, lessen the workers life by about 50 days, compared to being 15 pounds overweight (lessens your life by about 2 years) or smoking a pack a day (6 years).[12]

It is also only fair to compare this energy source to other ones, such as coal or oil. Those industries can only wish for the environmental and safety history of US nuclear power plants. If my opponent wishes to challenge this argument, I'll provide sources then, but right now, it is getting late, so I'll end this round here.

[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.npr.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.nei.org...
[6] http://www.wisegeek.com...
[7] http://www.algor.com...
[8] The youtube video
[9] http://nextbigfuture.com...
[10] http://www.wired.com...
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[12] http://www.manhattan-institute.org...
[13] http://www.nrc.gov...
[14] http://www.world-nuclear.org...
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Con

Thank you for your very thoughtful response!

1. While you are correct that Chernobyl was a steam explosion, the reason that it was so catastrophic was because of all the nuclear material, not directly because of the explosion itself, so that is a moot point. What you have implied in this argument is that you have such a strong trust in the personnel and technology of nuclear reactors that you feel that accidents absolutely cannot happen. Ah, how I would love to live in your Utopian world. Even if the accidents that could happen only have a very slight chance of happening, and even if they aren't as catastrophic as Chernobyl, accidents still happen. Think about this: Would you have liked to have been in Hiroshima right after the US bombed them during WWII? There would be plenty of radiation, and you would very likely contract Cancer. Now imagine a nuclear power incident 1/400 the size of the Chernobyl incident. The amount of radioactive fallout in that would be the same amount of radioactive fallout in the Hiroshima bombing [1]. So it's not as if a much smaller explosion wouldn't be catastrophic. Even if there is only a tiny chance that a catastrophe could happen, that's still a chance, and there are so many other ways that wouldn't cause a catastrophe (I'd like to see a wind turbine blow up).

2. Nuclear waste doesn't just go away. Yes, it will decay by itself to a safe level eventually, but for high level nuclear waste, that could take many millennia, many radioactive isotopes decaying into other radioactive isotopes. Granted, most nuclear waste is low-level, but not all of it is. For example, Nuclear power plants usually produce U-234 [2], which has a half life of about 236,000 years [3], so it's not particularly radioactive, but it's radioactive enough that you wouldn't want to be spending long periods of time with a large quantity of it. Also, it produces Pu-238 [2], which has a half-life of about 87.7 years, in which it turns into our good friend U-234 [4], and it is so radioactive that it actually glows from its own heat that it produces. And a half life of 87.7 years doesn't mean that it will be gone in 87.7 years, it means that half of it will be gone in 87.7 years. Then half of what's left will be gone in another 87.7 years. It keeps going like that until there are only a few atoms left. Unfortunately, we'd be continuing to produce it at a faster rate than it was decaying, so we'd have it for quite a while.

"However, it is possible to upkeep the containers (since we upkeep all our roads and buildings and everything else from corrosion), and we can even design the containers to be extremely immune to corrosion...so that the life span goes from decades to centuries to possible millennia."
Well, assuming we don't put any more waste in a facility, it takes 87.7 years for half of the Pu-238 to go away. It takes 236,000 years for half of the U-234 to go away. Centuries certainly won't cut it. Millennia won't really either, especially if we keep producing more waste.

"Nuclear power plants also don't produce that much waste, about 20 tons a year per plant...That's the same amount of waste (by weight, not volume) as about 25 people, per year."
But the waste produced by humans isn't radioactive. And I'm all about "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," but that's completely different from Nuclear waste.

And I'm not going to directly quote you on your discussion of safer nuclear plants, but as I said, unless you can guarantee that absolutely nothing will go wrong, it's not safe enough.

"While just over the vent stack, readings up to 1,200 millirems were recorded (indicating that radioactive material was making it out into the environment. The government maintained a registry for 18 years of the 30,000 people that lived in the vicinity and found that they did not experience ANY health fallout (no increased rate of cancer, no increased rate of birth defects, no increased rate of brain issues)."
Still, radioactive matter does cause health issues. Perhaps they didn't find any in this particular instance, but it does happen. But even with that, the issue of waste kind of trumps that in the first place. Because that produces a lot of radiation and a lot of problems.

"Research has shown that nuclear workers will, on average, be subjected to about 1,000 millirem per year (compared to the average individual who gets about 360 per year), and that will, on average, lessen the workers life by about 50 days"
That's an average. If you don't get cancer, then your lifespan isn't affected. But it raises your chances of cancer by that much.

"It is also only fair to compare this energy source to other ones, such as coal or oil. Those industries can only wish for the environmental and safety history of US nuclear power plants."
I agree. But don't you think you're being selective there? You ignored wind power. And non-invasive hydropower. And solar power. That's just naming a few. Our nation is lucky enough to have a wonderful geography for harvesting these kinds of power. We have many rivers and an extensive coastline that we can put non-invasive hydroelectric turbines. We have Huge areas where there could be wind turbines. The city of Portland has pioneered in technologies such as wind farms on top of tall buildings. While that doesn't provide all the energy for the building, they hope to be able to make it more efficient on other buildings. Also, some cities require solar panels on all buildings. One thing I really strongly remember about Jerusalem is that every single building, be it a house, a store, a hotel, or anything, had solar panels on the roof. We could do that. Yes, coal and oil are dirty and yucky. That is why we have all these alternatives. We don't need nuclear power.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ore_Ele

Pro

I will first point out the arguments that "The transportation of nuclear material is safe" went uncontested and so I extend the argument.

1) Chernobyl again. My opponent has stated that the damage done from Chernobyl was horrible, yes. However, he has done nothing to show that it is possible. I have already shown that with PBRs and Fusion Reactors, that meltdowns are physically impossible. And, if they links were read, you would also see the with the PBRs, the actual pellets don't emit radiation unless at a high enough temperature, and so if there was a spill of the actual pebbles, there was no radiation released. [links from previous argument]

"I'd like to see a wind turbine blow up." - granted [see youtube video]

2) "Nuclear waste doesn't just go away." I will address this in several ways.
A) The nice thing is, that it actually does, just really slowly. But I see that my opponent did not mention anything about how all this radioactive material is found in the ground [my #2 link, last round and my opponent's #3 link this round], it is a part of nature. It physically can be diluted back to what nature had it as and put back in nature, zero sum.
B) The sunshine canyon landfill can hold 90 million tons of waste[1]. And a new land fill outside of LA will be taking 20,000 tons a day for the next hundred years (700 million tons of waste)[2]. First thing to point out is that I'm not advocating these particular locations, only pointing out that we have the space. Since the average nuclear site produces 20 tons of waste a year, 10,000 nuclear reactors (which is over 20 times our current world amount of 436[3]) would produce 200,000 tons a year, and would take 3,500 years to fill that one single location (and we could have more then one, easily).
C) Looking at the potential a 700 million ton land fill. We can also see that if the land fill was full of 700 million tons of nuclear waste, breaking down with a 1/2 life of 324,000 years, means that 350 million tons would break down after 324,000 years, or at a rate of 750 tons per year (1 - (.5)^(1/324000)), or enough for almost 36 nuclear reactors running full time with the amount of waste they produce actually breaking down, so no net volume is added. And remember that is for a single land fill site (we can have more then one and also remember that I am not suggesting that particular site but only the concept that it is physically possible).

Here I have presented 3 options as to why the nuclear waste is not a major problem, without going into futuristic methods (like ejecting it into space, which may become more feasible in upcoming decades).

"...unless you can guarantee that absolutely nothing will go wrong, it's not safe enough." So I take it you will never drive a car (can't guarantee that absolutely nothing will go wrong), or have a significant other (can't guarantee that absolutely nothing will go wrong), breath anything other then 100% filtered air (which doesn't exist, even in computer processing plants), or ever step out side (can't guarantee that absolutely nothing will go wrong). The argument that one must guarantee that absolutely nothing will go wrong is not realistic for anything, nuclear included. The only thing that needs to be done is that they are safe enough that the benefit out weighs the risk.

For people that live near nuclear power plants, they experience, on average 0.1 millirem per year more then other people [#12 from last round], where as a full set of dentist xrays gives about 40 millirems. There are also a lot of items in your homes that use radiation to work, like a smoke detector. [4]

"Still, radioactive matter does cause health issues. Perhaps they didn't find any in this particular instance, but it does happen." This was the worst nuclear incident in American history. If the worst incident in American history had no ill effects and we've made it so it is physically impossible for it to happen again, that indicates that they are, in fact, safe enough.

Other sources are great, however they do lack one fundamental thing. Consistency. While I support and encourage the use of solar and wind, they, at best, can provide secondary energy sources. Because they are not able to run 24/7 they cannot provide energy 24/7 and cannot be relied on as the primary source. Nuclear can.

[1] http://www.sunshinecanyonlandfill.com...
[2] http://articles.latimes.com...
[3] http://www.world-nuclear.org...
[4] http://home.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Con

Thank you for responding!

"I will first point out the arguments that 'The transportation of nuclear material is safe' went uncontested and so I extend the argument."
Please pardon me, but I can't seem to find said arguments even after looking many times (this quote was your first use of the word "transportation" in the whole debate). As such, I apologize that I will not be able to answer them. That being said, I don't feel like the transportation of nuclear material is the most important issue at hand, so please don't worry too much about it. Your time would be better spent talking about pollution and disasters anyway.

1. "I have already shown that with PBRs and Fusion Reactors, that meltdowns are physically impossible."
I was looking and I found a very interesting and in-depth article from Nuclear Engineering, Int'l (hardly a source that would normally support my point) that discussed why PBR's are not necessarily as previously assumed [1]. There were 2 PBR's in Germany, and both were taken out of use, one due to safety concerns, and the other due to technical difficulties which were compromising its efficiency, its cost, and its safety. If you would like more specific details, you may refer to the article, which goes very far into the details of both, but I thought the summation at the end of the article was very good at bringing to a level that we can all easily understand, and it is, "In summary, PBRs contain certain inherent safety features compared to conventional reactors, they are however to some extent compensated by inherent safety problems. Some of these inherent safety problems can be solved by adequate safety measures or by R&D, but it remains uncertain whether this is possible in an economic manner. With PBRs, there is a tradeoff between economy and safety." So you can have it be unsafe, and then that defeats your argument about them being safe, or we can have them be costly and inefficient, which would defeat the the most common argument for nuclear power which is that it is more economical than other methods. In reference to the fusion reactors, once again, that is much more expensive than the standard fission reactor, so that kind of defeats the ideas that it is more economical than other methods. The easiest and most promising fusion reactor cycle is the Deuterium-Tritium cycle. What that entails is slamming a Deuterium (Hydrogen-2) into a Tritium (Hydrogen-3) to produce a Helium atom and a neutron. However, this has many drawbacks. First of all, Tritium is very radioactive, having a half life of just 12.32 years. Since it is also a gas with an atomic mass of just 3 AMU, it is very difficult to contain. This will inevitably lead to Tritium leaks, which will mean that there will be radioactive material in the air. Tritium is a very dangerous radiation hazard when it enters the human body, and there will inevitably be leaks in any D-T cycle reactor. Also, in order to obtain Tritium, there has to be a fission cycle as well, as Tritium is in short supply naturally, so it has the various problems associated with fission as well. And it also produces about 100 times as many neutrons as fission cycles, which cause things to become radioactive. In fact, after testing the D-T cycle, the chamber in which it was performed had to be handled only remotely for a full year following the test. Yes, there are other cycles, but they are even less efficient, and they have problems of their own. It's just not worth it [2].

And about the wind turbine, I was mostly joking with that, but even as this one blew up, it didn't throw nuclear material throughout various countries, and it didn't cause the whole area to evacuate.

2. a. As I said, and you agreed, it goes away slowly. However, when we put it back, it's much more dangerous than the stuff we take out from nature. You're not going to find Pu-238 in nature, for example. And yes, it can be diluted, but as you conceded, it takes a considerable sum of money to do so, and thus that would make the whole process not worth it.
b. "Since the average nuclear site produces 20 tons of waste a year, 10,000 nuclear reactors (which is over 20 times our current world amount of 436[3]) would produce 200,000 tons a year, and would take 3,500 years to fill that one single location (and we could have more then one, easily)." This assumes that the number of Nuclear reactors won't grow exponentially in the next 3,500 years. My guess is that since Obama is doing it, other countries will follow suit, and we will continue to make nuclear power plants, but I could be wrong. But even if we do have enough room to store it for that long, it's still not a good idea. There is a very real possibility of pollution. Should something happen to either of these facilities, there would be a catastrophic impact on the environment.
c. "(1 - (.5)^(1/324000)), or enough for almost 36 nuclear reactors running full time with the amount of waste they produce actually breaking down, so no net volume is added."
I have an issue with your math. Yes, your calculations are correct, but you said previously that there are 436 nuclear reactors in the world. You then proceed to say calculate what would happen if there were 36 nuclear reactors. Which means that you've left 400 unaccounted for, and counting. 400 is a big number. Also, you say that no volume is added. That is not the case. The volume doesn't go away after a radioactive isotope breaks down. It just turns into a new, more stable element.

"The argument that one must guarantee that absolutely nothing will go wrong is not realistic for anything, nuclear included. The only thing that needs to be done is that they are safe enough that the benefit out weighs the risk."
I think there is a significant difference between getting in a car accident and having a giant explosion which spews radioactive material for miles. As such, the risk should be considered much more strongly, and since you really have not provided any benefits, and the only one I can think of is that it is more economical, but I think that the risk of pollution and radiation already outweigh that benefit, so there is already no room for the risk of a disaster. There you go, the risks outweigh the benefits.

"If the worst incident in American history had no ill effects and we've made it so it is physically impossible for it to happen again, that indicates that they are, in fact, safe enough."
We can't predict the future. Something like that could happen again, or something worse. Or maybe not, but I'm not willing to take that risk if we don't have to. You already conceded that it's not possible to make it physically impossible to have accidents, so you just contradicted yourself.

"Other sources are great, however they do lack one fundamental thing. Consistency."
Oh, come on. You could maybe use that argument on someone else, but come on? What is the number one source of energy in Oregon? Hydroelectric power, of course. While I am not a big fan of the dams, there are less invasive ways, and the rivers don't stop moving. I would say more and write a good conclusion, but, alas, I am running out of characters. So, I would just like to conclude by thanking my opponent for an excellent debate. Also, while the debate was excellent, my opponent did not give any reasons why we should use nuclear power, but I did just so I could refute them, and I did, so vote CON. Thank you.

1. http://www.neimagazine.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ore_Ele

Pro

As this is the last round, I do not want to bring in any more evidence on any cases unless it is brought up by you and I have to in order to defend myself. I am sorry, that is correct, I never did mention "transportation" only the safety of the containers that are primarily used in transportation.

1) My opponent brings up an interesting article about PBRs, however I don't really need to address it. This is because the very article he quotes has been disproven as outdated by one of my previous sources (#9 in round 1). http://nextbigfuture.com... directly targets the very source that my opponent lists (his #1 link in this round). I will just simply point back to that same article.

Yes, Fusion reactors are currently expensive (as is everything when it is new). That doesn't mean that they won't get cheaper, everything does, heck look at how expensive and inefficient the first solar panels are. Also with tritium, since my opponent brought up the "dangers" of tritium, it is actually not very dangerous at all. We use it as a light for gun sights and watch faces [1]. This is because tritium only emits beta particles, not gamma rays, and so the radiation has little penetrating power and is actually only harmful is consumed or inhaled. It's safe enough that you could hold it in your hand (if it wasn't a gas), or on your wrist.

2) Pu-238 is not gonna be found in nature, but U-235 and U-238 and U-234 are and Pu-238 depletes pretty quickly in comparison. I also used the number 10,000 reactors to over exemplify the real possibility. And also, please remember that the site that I mentioned is not the only one we could have. We could have more then one. And considering that site holds the waste of 0.06% (meaning 1 out of 1686) of the worlds population but could take care of 8.26% of the world's nuclear waste, that proves that there is plenty of room for it all. As for the waste that breaks down, yes it is still there, and it can be moved now. And its space can be replaced by new waste.

The "giant explosion which spews radioactive material for miles" is physically impossible. This has been said plenty of times and never disproven. The only "risk" is small leaks which kill a few plants and maybe a fish or two. As also shown (and not disputed) the worst incident in US history had no effects on any people. "We can't predict the future. Something like that could happen again, or something worse." Again, physically impossible with PBR and Fission designs. The only thing that can happen is minor leaks or a few dozen curries. The actual Pebbles (from the PBRs) are designed so that the nuclear reaction is unable to continue on it's own. So even if a terrorist group stole a ton of the pebbles and scattered them throughout a city, they wouldn't do anything to anyone. And tritium is beta radiation that is 1/250 the strength of uranium 235 (which we have been able to easily control since the 30's).

"You already conceded that it's not possible to make it physically impossible to have accidents." No, I said that it is not possible to guarantee that absolutely will never go wrong. It is possible to guarantee that an incident like Chernobyl or TMI are not physically possible with these style reactors.

"Oh, come on. You could maybe use that argument on someone else, but come on? What is the number one source of energy in Oregon? Hydroelectric power, of course." Hydro is currently supplies 2.6% of the US electricity demand [2] and there is only room to expand it by 50%, meaning it will top out at about 4%. I will leave it at that.

"while the debate was excellent, my opponent did not give any reasons why we should use nuclear power"

I do not need to, I only need to show that "Nuclear Power is a good idea" and I have shown that nuclear power is both safe and clean, and so is it's waste. That is why it is a good idea.

I would also like to thank my opponent for starting a wonderful and enjoyable debate and hope that we may debate more in the future.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.nirs.org...
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
But the US has rivers, huge windy plains, and other geographical features that would allow us to use the bounty of renewable resources that we have before we even worry about any sort of environmentally damaging power sources, be it nuclear, fossil fuels, or anything else.
Posted by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
Yes, Abard, but that doesn't mean that solar is an economic alternative for every other power usage. If a technologically-cutting-edge desert nation isn't doing it for most of thier power, that probably means something.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
@OreEle,

The bulk of the high level waste comes from refusing to reprocess the spend fuel into plutonium. That's well established technology. Jimmy Carter had a law passed to prevent it, on the grounds that if the US did it, it would set a bad example for non-nuclear nations. This is absurd. The extra fuel generated also helps the economics of nuclear power.

The design of the reprocessing plant for the rest is complete, so building it is not very speculative. Every other nuclear nation believes it feasible. Solar energy and and wind energy depend critically on non-existent energy storage technology to make them cost competitive. That hasn't stopped them.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
So be it. They're still not heating their water with fossil fuels or radioactive materials.
Posted by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
"One thing I really strongly remember about Jerusalem is that every single building, be it a house, a store, a hotel, or anything, had solar panels on the roof."

Call me a nitpicker, but despite being a leader in the development of the technology and having large desert areas, Israel actually has very little solar electricity production. What nearly every house in the country has is a solar water heater, not a solar panel.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
I think that is a great idea too, but I wanted to avoid futuristic methods for cleaning, since they are easily countered with "well when those methods are fully and properly developed, we can implement nuclear then. but not until then."
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
@ insert, I've had that thought too, but somehow Nuclear waste + rocket fuel miles above the earth doesn't sit too well with me.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
I always thought that the best solution, if nuclear power must be used would be to seal the waste into lead containers and blast them off into space. It would be super expensive though, but it would protect people and the environment from any potential leaks.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Yes, I know. I only put jokes as my profile picture.
Posted by mercedzdanz 7 years ago
mercedzdanz
I'm confused, Sarah Palin is "pro" nuclear.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 7 years ago
kristoffersayshi
abard124Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ErodingEthos 7 years ago
ErodingEthos
abard124Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by swingline 7 years ago
swingline
abard124Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
abard124Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
abard124Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
abard124Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by gbpacker 7 years ago
gbpacker
abard124Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
abard124Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
abard124Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
abard124Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07