The Instigator
Prodigy_X
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MarquisX
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Nuclear power plants should be torn down forever

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 7 votes the winner is...
MarquisX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,928 times Debate No: 12889
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

Prodigy_X

Pro

hello, I am on a debate stating that power plants should be torn down because they are too dangerous to the world.

I will let my opponent start whoever you are.
We will begin as my opponent will say things good about nuclear power plants and I will say why they are bad.
So lets begin.
MarquisX

Con

I'd like to thank pro for this debate. I am not an expert in nuclear energy; however I did touch upon it once in school. First I would like to clarify some terms

Nuclear:–adjective
1.
pertaining to or involving atomic weapons: nuclear war.
2.
operated or powered by atomic energy: a nuclear submarine.
3.
(of a nation or group of nations) having atomic weapons.
4.
of, pertaining to, or forming a nucleus.
5.
of, pertaining to, or like the nuclear family: nuclear bonds.
–noun Informal .
6.
nuclear energy: switching to nuclear as a power source.

Since you say Nuclear power plants, I assume we will be using the 6th definition with nuclear as a noun. Correct me if I'm wrong in your argument.By tear down I assume you mean destroyed, demolished etc etc. Ok Good things about Nuclear power. Well without it we would be using 'fossil fuels' which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A nuclear power plant uses a controlled nuclear explosion to produce heat. When this is done its entirely enclosed and releases no exhaust fumes whatsoever.

Back to you Pro
Debate Round No. 1
Prodigy_X

Pro

I'd to thank MarquisX for stepping up to the challenge as I will try to say why Nuclear power Plants are bad.

1. Nuclear power plants use Uranium as fuel which is scarce and will run out in 50-60 years. Therefore Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy
2. The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).
3.High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature.
4. A meltdown in one of Russia's power plant had a MASSIVE leak of radiation in Chernobyl. the people there we're quarantined until all of the radiation could be removed. It would take 50 years maybe. That was roughly 20 years ago.
Thank you.
I wait for my opponents argument.
MarquisX

Con

Thank you Pro.
"1. Nuclear power plants use Uranium as fuel which is scarce and will run out in 50-60 years. Therefore Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy"

I don't know where you are getting your information but Uranium is effectively inexhaustible. As a matter of fact we can run for 80 years just on the Uranium we have now. Scientist do speculate that we will run out of fossil fuels in about 50-60 years though. Maybe you are confusing the two.

"2. The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards)."

In this case you are absolutely correct, but only when Nuclear fission happens. Nuclear fusion's reactions are much safer and generate much less waste than fission.

"3.High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature.
4. A meltdown in one of Russia's power plant had a MASSIVE leak of radiation in Chernobyl. the people there we're quarantined until all of the radiation could be removed. It would take 50 years maybe. That was roughly 20 years ago."

Again you are absolutely correct. There have been nine nuclear power plant related incidents and I believe there will be more. You can not make anything 100% safe. Lets look at automobiles. Just in the U.S alone 93 people die per day. Do we ban automobiles? No, because we don't have a better alternative, so we work at it till it gets safer and safer. And that's what should happen with Nuclear power stations.

Back to you pro
Debate Round No. 2
Prodigy_X

Pro

Well done Con but you see I still have a few tricks up my sleeves.
Let me rephrase the part of:
"Nuclear power plants use Uranium as fuel which is scarce and will run out in 50-60 years."
The 50-60 years was just a guess because it might change depending on the actual demand of uranium.

Let me rephrase point 4 from round 2. Automobiles and Nuclear meltdowns are two very different disasters. When cars crash and people die its a disaster yes? But the Chernobyl accident is much more disasterous. 93 people die everyday in the U.S but thousands died from the radiation leak and i dont know if its the right count but it may be in the 10,000's. would you be in a car accident or spend the rest of your life cut off from the rest of the world until you die from diseases like Cancer.
And now for some points

1. Cost is also one of the major disadvantages of nuclear energy. It costs between three and five billion dollars just to build a nuclear power plant. Maintenance and operating costs are also high because lots of money must be sent on safety systems in case something goes wrong.

2.One of the most feared disadvantages of nuclear energy is the potential for weapons. Each year, every nuclear reactor is capable of making enough plutonium to build over thirty nuclear bombs. Nuclear plants must be secured well enough to prevent this material from falling into the wrong hands.

And finally 3.Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years.

So,Con this is a question for you:
Would you live near a very dangerous nuclear power plant that might someday explode and leak with radiation leaving maybe millions people dying without and hope of surviving until their 60?
I look forward to your argument,Con
Add me!
MarquisX

Con

"Cost is also one of the major disadvantages of nuclear energy. It costs between three and five billion dollars just to build a nuclear power plant. Maintenance and operating costs are also high because lots of money must be sent on safety systems in case something goes wrong."

This is entirely wrong. Nuclear power generators are expected to cost $18 billion by 2013 However the coal and gas industry will cost $85 billion by the same time. Which would you rather pay taxes for?

"2.One of the most feared disadvantages of nuclear energy is the potential for weapons. Each year, every nuclear reactor is capable of making enough plutonium to build over thirty nuclear bombs. Nuclear plants must be secured well enough to prevent this material from falling into the wrong hands."

True but banning Nuclear plants won't take defeat the possibility of nuclear weapons. If anything it'll raise the potential for Iran or North Korea to make nuclear bombs. All that Uranium has to go somewhere.

"And finally 3.Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years."

The first nuclear power plant was created in 1954. It still stands to this day. You do the math.

So,Con this is a question for you:
Would you live near a very dangerous nuclear power plant that might someday explode and leak with radiation leaving maybe millions people dying without and hope of surviving until their 60?
I look forward to your argument,Con
Add me!

Uh yes. Again we don't have a better alternative. Look Nuclear power is not as dangerous as the hippies thought it was. Want proof? The U.S Navy developed nuclear power for the purpose of propelling submarines and aircraft carriers. To this day they have an unblemished record in nuclear safety.

So its cheaper, last longer and doesn't pollute the air that we breathe, yet you want to ban it because of one major incident more than 20 years ago? So what do we do then, when the world's supply of fossil fuels is exhausted. And that's in about 50 years. Nuclear power IS the future.

Good debate pro. And I wish you the best of luck in the voting period. I would also like to remind you that voting for yourself is bad conduct.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by minervx 6 years ago
minervx
first of all, there is enough uranium on the earth to last over a million years - not 50.

second, chernobyl is a severely outdated argument and is no longer relevant. there are much more safety procedures and regulation in nuclear power. the chance of a big meltdown happening again: 0%

isolated incidents should not put a stigma on something overall. there are many car crashes each year, but that doesn't mean all cars should be torn down forever. chernobyl, metaphorically, would be a car driven by an unlicensed driver who drank 8 bottles of gin before driving.
Posted by MarquisX 6 years ago
MarquisX
Eh maybe. but then again i dont really care
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
"But it might be in the 10,000's!"

Compare how many people have died due to nuclear power plants to car crashes.

Also, you guys both needed sources to back up your claims! At that rate, Pro could have said in Finland 36,000 people died in a nuclear power plant explosion and have been believed.
Posted by 20000miles 6 years ago
20000miles
Surely the Chernobyl argument is a huge red herring.
Posted by MarquisX 6 years ago
MarquisX
Eh maybe my argument did suck but I didn't have to argue. I just had to refute his arguments which I did. Again I know little about Nuclear power and everything i posted was just what I remembered from High School
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Nuclear fuel can be cycled in breeder reactors thereby providing a 5000 year supply. Nuclear waste is glassified to make it safe awaiting a plant that reprocesses into short-lived isotopes. DOE designed suc a plant. In Chernoble, the graphite caught fire spreading the radiation. Western reactors don't use graphite. The costs of nuclear are established and are much cheaper than wind or solar and competitive with fossil fuels. The obstacles to nuclear are purely political, fostered by superstition.

Pro had the burden of proof and did not provide a shred of reference support for false assertions.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
T show that both sides suck.
Posted by MarquisX 6 years ago
MarquisX
lmao why would someone vote all tied? what was the point of voting then?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
wait, the fact that a plant killed a bunch of commies 20 years ago is an argument against them????

^_^
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@Prodigy_X: the "tricks up your sleeves" weren't very good... at all. Just saying.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Prodigy_XMarquisXTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kinger 6 years ago
Kinger
Prodigy_XMarquisXTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Lamza61 6 years ago
Lamza61
Prodigy_XMarquisXTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Prodigy_XMarquisXTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Prodigy_XMarquisXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Vote Placed by hauki20 6 years ago
hauki20
Prodigy_XMarquisXTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 6 years ago
Lightkeeper
Prodigy_XMarquisXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00