The Instigator
Superboy777
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
dkb2012
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Nuclear power is beneficial for society

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,220 times Debate No: 13655
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Superboy777

Pro

It is in my strong belief that nuclear power is beneficial to society. I will present to you four points are why nuclear power is good for society. First, nuclear power has basically no carbon dioxide emissions that are released into the atmosphere. Global warming has been proven to be a huge problem and the world is struggling to come up with a clearn alternativie energy. Solar and wind just don't have that kind of capacity to produce enough energy for a nation to use. Nuclear does. Take France for example more than 78% of its total energy is produced by nuclear and the country's carbon dioxide levels have lowered over the last 30 years, something very few countries can say. Nuclear is just one very clean source of energy. Radiation levels near nuclear power plants are about as much as someone sitting in their house for a year contrary to popular belief. I will now proceed to allow my opponent to attempt to point out flaws in nuclear energy.
dkb2012

Con

First, I thank my opponent for this topic. I would like to first point out that my opponent only gives one point for why nuclear power is good for society, thus I only need respond to that argument.

So first, in refutation of my opponent's argument, I would like to point out that even if solar and wind energy doesn't have enough power to power a nation, hydro power certainly has that potential. Even more, hydropower combined with solar and wind power would definitely be enough to power a country such as the United States. Hydro power has been shown to work through the Hoover Dam, which has been constantly been giving power to the west coast since it was built.
http://www.enviro-news.com...

Secondly, my plan to use hydro, solar and wind energy allows for the minimal changing of the environment and also uses energy that is MOST naturally found in nature today. Also, there is no chance that these types of energy could in any way have the potential of hurting citizens. Even though my opponent says that there is no radiation risk, it can be seen that there is a chance that there could be a radiation leak because of how much we still have to research about nuclear energy. Even a slight radiation leak could cause catastrophic casualties to citizens. Thus, with the use of hydro, solar and wind energy, there is minimal change to the environment, no chance of hurting citizens and these energies are the easiest to use, which leads me to my third argument.

Thirdly, since hydro, solar and wind energy are the easiest to "capture" and transform into usable energy, meaning that most countries, instead of nuclear capable countries, would be able to use this energy for the wellbeing of their citizens.

Lastly, my opponent does not give any reasons why such nuclear technology could not be stolen and turned into a potential nuclear weapon. This might seem like a stretch but the same technology used to generate power could also be used to make weapons of destruction. This technology could either by stolen by countries or terrorists; or could be potentially given into enemies who use the technology to destroy each other. This is just an extrapolation of nuclear energy use, but is very viable when we look to Iran or North Korea.

I now stand ready for further refutation.
Debate Round No. 1
Superboy777

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. In each argument I plan to only post one point. Now to refute my opponents idea that hydro power combined with wind and solar could in theory power the US, I would first like to point our that that hydro power causes huge habitat destruction and involves the flooding of an area in order to build the dams necessary. The main problem with hydro power is simply that it requires water in order to build and usually involves damming up a river. However, in many states and in US and places all over the world, there are places where water is not abundant enough to be dammed up as opposed to being used.
Now, in order to refute his second point that energy that is most easily found is the supposed "best" energy. Following my opponent's logic, then fossil fuels should be the best alternative because there is a large amount of it. I beg to differ. Furthermore, his point on how there has been "catastrophic" disasters in nuclear, there has not been a single casualty or even injury in all of the year's that the US has used nuclear reactors and nuclear energy. Now, I can nearly guarantee that my opponent will at some point bring up the Chernobyl incident as why nuclear energy is unsafe. However, one must understand that the Chernobyl nuclear plant had NO CONTAINMENT dome for some reason over the plant. Also, the plant was made using soviet style nuclear plants, which have improved tremendously in terms of safety. Nowadays, all of the plants in the US are build using the western style and no casualties have happened in the US as a result of a nuclear plant malfunction. Furthermore, my opponents point about how there is no chance of hydro, solar or wind of hurting citizens is rather unfounded.
The following is a table obtained from http://nextbigfuture.com...
It is the deaths per TWh produced by each energy.

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (Europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

My opponent's point that nuclear technology can be stolen and turn into potential nuclear weapons is rather amusing. Every single country in the world that currently has nuclear bombs first made the bombs as a result of military use and AFTER that began to develop civilian use nuclear factories. N. Korea already has nuclear bomb but has never actually used the on another country, and as you claim, if a country is so dangerous then there is a very high chance they will use nuclear bombs. However, N. Korea has not currently done so. Finally, if the technology of nuclear is as easy to steal as you claim it is, why don't terrorists just steal the thousands of nuclear bombs that the US already has?

Now, back to my second point. Nuclear power can actually produce enough power to replace fossil fuels. It is actually viable. If solar were to replace the power that nuclear is producing CURRENTLY, it would have to cover New Jersey. If wind were to replace the nuclear energy currently produced, it would have to cover West Virginia. Hydro power can only be made on a river or lake and thus has very limited areas where it can actually produce energy. Nuclear power plants can be built anywhere and the energy produced by a single nuclear atom is 10 million times that of a coal atom. France is currently the world leader in nuclear energy and it has never had any casualties as a result of nuclear power. France has also reduced its CO2 levels compared to other countries. Essentially, my second point is that nuclear power can actually replace fossil fuels at a low cost and can easily generate enough power to power the US. Hydro, wind, solar etc. do not.
dkb2012

Con

dkb2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Superboy777

Pro

I am rather surprised that my opponent has forfeited this round whether on purpose or by accident. My third point to support nuclear power is that nuclear power can be used the provide power everywhere. Hydro only works for places that are near water and most alternative energies often require the country to be resource rich. However, in the world, many places are not resource rich and so must spend money on fossil fuels that are burned releasing C02 into the atmosphere. Nuclear power only requires the purchase of uranium which is rather cheap and the money needed to build a plant. After the plant has been made, power can be generated from the plant at a very low cost. Developing nations need this type of energy to support their growing economies and higher population while trying very hard not to release too much CO2 into the environment. Nuclear is the answer.

I hope my opponent posts a third and fourth round, or this debate would feel like a real waste. The reason being that I am very comfortable with this topic and wanted a really good debate. But alas, this seems not to be so.
dkb2012

Con

dkb2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Superboy777

Pro

My last point of this debate is that the nuclear waste nuclear energy produces can be reused and the remaining material would become non radioactive in only around 100 years. The Yucca mountain proposal of the US could also work but I personally support extracting the uranium and neptunium of the nuclear waste and essentially reusing the energy. Nuclear energy is beneficial for society and should and can be implemented.
dkb2012

Con

dkb2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago
Superboy777
k, as one can see, I think my opponent has given up?/
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago
Superboy777
pretty tense
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MTGandP 6 years ago
MTGandP
Superboy777dkb2012Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Superboy777dkb2012Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Superboy777dkb2012Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10