The Instigator
KingofEverything
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Official Winter Tournament: This House believes that the EU should abandon nuclear 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 2 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,509 times Debate No: 82981
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (2)

 

KingofEverything

Pro

Round 1-Acceptance.
bsh1

Con

I accept, and await my opponent's case. Thanks to him for participating, and to Proph for hosting.
Debate Round No. 1
KingofEverything

Pro

The EU's Power plants are far too dangerous for the citizens in Europe.

Such a tragedy as the Fukushima accident caused a lot of deaths due to the melting of 3 nuclear reactors, which caused a nuclear accident. What happened after this? 1,000 people died from the accident while people maintained the evacuation.

What happens when a tragedy strikes places in Europe? Reactors have a chance of going down and melting. Radiation is likely to occur when a power plant would melt. And what happens if a reactor goes down. People are very likely to die.

http://www.world-nuclear.org...

According to a idebate.org, there are more than 100,000 citizens that live in proximity (30 kilometers) of 111 nuclear reactors. 100,000 citizens tried to evacuate in the Fukushima accident, and 10,000 died. So as for Europe, 100,000 citizens for every 111 nuclear reactors would have to evacuate if a tragedy like an earthquake happened, which is possible. For the past 10 days, there have been several strong earthquakes in the past 18 days of Europe. One example shows how there was an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.5 in Greece, which also appears to have a lot of earthquakes. This shows that there is a chance that an earthquake could cause damage to a reactor, which is a building. Earthquakes within the range of 6-7 can cause damage to buildings, and it is a distinct possibility that the nuclear energy inside could blow up and emit radiation, which is capable of killing people.

http://idebate.org...


http://www.emsc-csem.org...


https://en.wikipedia.org...

Considering the high amount of reactors and the amount of citizens that live close to them, a tragedy such as an earthquake can cause at least a thousand deaths. If more earthquakes of such a high magnitude keep happening, a nuclear plant can be destroyed and release a ton of nuclear energy. Europe would then not be safe.

bsh1

Con

Thanks to King for this debate and to Proph for hosting.

PRO's CASE

Pro's entire case is built on the notion that the EU should reject nuclear power because nuclear power is unsafe. Pro uses death toll numbers from Fukushima to prove this. If this thesis is rejected, then, or sufficiently mitigated to the point where the risks are not outweighed by the benefits, I would urge you to vote Con.

R1. Turn - Nuclear Energy Saves Lives

Nuclear energy actually produces the fewest deaths per terawatt hour of energy when compared to a variety of other common fuel sources, including coal (the highest), oil, natural gas, peat, wind, and solar. [1] This means that nuclear energy is actually, statistically-speaking, the safest form of energy production available.

In fact, there have only been three serious disasters in nuclear powers history, two of which were in or before 1986. [2] As safety technology improves and as countries develop more robust, well-trained programs, safety increases, and the risk of catastrophe decreases. There are currently 437 operable plants, and more have likely existed throughout history [3]; with only 3 plants melting down, only 0.69% of plants have ever experienced the kinds of disasters Pro talks about. Also, the very fact that Pro can only name 1 example of a serious melt down (Fukushima) underscores how truly aberrant and rare these meltdowns are.

Moreover, nuclear energy is cleaner than other forms of energy, thus reducing negative climate-related impacts, which can kill, injure, or displace humans. In fact, nuclear energy emits no air pollution whatsoever, and can produce massive quantities of energy. [4]

This turn's Pro's argument because (a) nuclear power plants are statistically the most safe, and (b) nuclear power plants do not contribute to unsafe air pollution, thus saving/improving lives by reducing dependence on coal, oil, etc.

R2. Nuclear Safety Should be Improved, not Abandoned

Even if Pro convinces you that nuclear power has dubious safety, there are ways to improve that safety rather than simply scrapping nuclear power altogether. Updating safety mechanisms at old plants is a good way to improve the safety of the reactors: "Simple things like sealing backup diesel engines and burying fuel tanks or using passive safety systems are well known and should be implemented where appropriate." [1] Other commonsense steps that should be codified into law are rules about where to put plants: "If an operator proposes a site that is too close to an earthquake fault, or too close to oceanfront that is vulnerable to a tsunami or hurricane storm surge, or downriver from a huge dam that could burst, then the NRC should reject the bid. Similarly, if the utility could not protect spent fuel pools or casks from being breached during a severe accident, which happened in Japan, the NRC should not license it." [5] Plants should also be put in areas that have the lowest population density possible. Were these regulations in place, nuclear safety would be even better than it already is.

CON's CASE

I will now offer, briefly, an advantage to negating, besides the turn of saving lives and helping the environment in the process.

P1. The EU is Significantly Dependent on Russian Oil

There are at least 9 countries who are "insecure" with regard to Russian oil, meaning that they are "either already very dependent on Russian gas supplies (more than 80 percent of their total annual consumption) or are expected to become more dependent on Russian gas." [6] There are also 9 countries who are simply "secure." Some of these countries are rated secure because they have solid global strategic petroleum reserves--essentially, stockpiles of oil that can be used in an emergency--but, places like the Netherlands have GSPRs of 90 days or less, hardly a significant number. [6, 7] Furthermore, the "secure" countries also often have a sizable share of their imports from Russia, and any loss in that oil trade would undoubtedly hurt their economies. [6]

P2. The EU should seek Independence from Russian Oil

It is clear from recent global events that Russian and the EU are at odds, given the current sanctions on Russia, Russian planes violating EU and NATO airspace, and the conflict in Ukraine. This puts the EU in an untenable position: they pay billions in Euros to a country that is their geopolitical foe, thereby helping their foe's own economy. Plus, by relying so much on Russian oil, the EU puts itself at risk. If Russia ever chose to cut off the oil, the consequences for Europe could be devastating, and the mere threat of cutting off the oil places undue coercive pressure on the EU. It is therefore not in the EU's interests to rely on oil.

P3. Nuclear Power Increases EU Independence

Nuclear power plants can produce huge quantities of energy. In the U.S., for example, our smallest reactor generates 502 megawatts, and our largest generates nearly 4,000 MW. By comparison, wind energy, another clean fuel source, is much less effective. A single turbine provides between 2-3 MW of energy; so, if there were a field of 165 turbines producing 3 MW, the field of turbines would still produce less than the smallest reactor. To produce as much as the largest reactor, you would need 1,313 turbines working at 3 MW. [8, 9] Really, no other clean energy source can compete in the volume of energy it produces to nuclear reactors. This makes nuclear reactors a key component of any energy diversification plan designed to meet the needs of energy-guzzling Europe. Building power plants restores EU energy independence, which is in the EU's best interests.

SOURCES

1 - http://nextbigfuture.com...
2 - http://www.world-nuclear.org...
3 - http://www.world-nuclear.org...
4 - http://www.nei.org...
5 - http://www.scientificamerican.com...
6 - http://www.ecfr.eu...
7 - https://en.wikipedia.org...
8 - https://www.eia.gov...
9 - https://www.wind-watch.org...
Debate Round No. 2
KingofEverything

Pro

I forfeit this specific round and will attempt to argue next round.
bsh1

Con

I thank Pro for choosing to pass rather than forfeit, due to the glitch. However, any arguments he posts in the next round will be necessarily new, and I must have a chance to respond to them, so if he posts arguments, I will construe this as permitting me to post new arguments in response to his new arguments.

Moreover, as this is a 7-point debate, I ask voters to assess conduct for the forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3
bsh1

Con

My opponent has effectively conceded the debate. Extend my arguments and rebuttals. I'd like to thank him for not actually forfeiting, esp. due to the on-going glitch, and to participating in the debate.

Please Vote Con! Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Okay, I think that it will be like

TUF v.s. Bsh1

Bye: Tejretics v.s. Hayd.
Posted by TheShadeM 1 year ago
TheShadeM
Hey, how can I join tournaments? Never knew there was one :( Would have loved to join
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
forfeits aside, Con did an absolutely fantastic job in this debate. Good luck in future rounds bsh1
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
@ColeTrain. Were Pro's more convincing?
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
Talk to me later.....
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Why the ff?
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Lol. It's okay.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
Ok I didn't mean to copy that.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
My apologies. I thought you meant you would forfeit.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
My apologies. I thought you meant you would forfeit.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
KingofEverythingbsh1Tied
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: Forfeiture makes con win conduct. None of the attacks on pro's case were defended nor con's constructive attacked, so they get args.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
KingofEverythingbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunate concession/forfeiture. Pro's arguments were widely more convincing as well, showing that negating the resolution renders a more utilitarian society (nuclear energy saves lives, etc.). Con's arguments went unattacked, and were thoroughly sourced by more reputable organizations.