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

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,926 times Debate No: 34722
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)





Nuclear Energy for countries (not power) (not military)
(This round is just for info, so if someone wants to argue about this just accept the debate)
Main topics:
  1. Economical
  2. Environmental
  3. Risks
  4. Energy
Every argument must have these topics...

I wish my best lucks to my opponent



I accept the debate and I hope for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


In my opinion Nuclear Energy is necessary for countries.

Before we discuss on energy or environmental effects, we need to make sure that nuclear energy is possible to use for all the countries. Of course, that will happen with money. When we look closer, nuclear energy makes a lot of difference in our world of economy. But if we look generally, it will gain us what we lost. Because the energy which is made by thermal power plant is a lot lesser than the nuclear energy. So we can say that the centrals of nuclear power is cost a lot but the energy we gain with that will equal the difference.

Now for the environmental effects. Nuclear Energy isn't polluting the world as thermal power plants. Thermal energy causes the global warming which is the most important world discussion and the most dangerous natural disaster of our generation. There is not any carbon dioxide pollution with nuclear energy. So this energy do not emit harmful gases. Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source because it does not burn anything to produce electricity. It does not cause any ground-level ozone formation, smog, and acid rain like thermal power plants.(1) I think that if we can use an energy type which harms our environment a lot and which does not produce enough energy as nuclear power, why can't we use nuclear power?

Nuclear energy has a lot of risks, it is true and everybody knows it but in my opinion, mankind did a lot of dangerous things. We can't improve ourselves without taking risks. We are going to learn our mistakes for the future generations. We can look at Chernobyl disaster. The disaster really caused a lot of radioactive waste.
But noting will work perfectly with the first try. The main risk of the nuclear power is the nuclear weapons. So if we stop using them, there is not any fatal risks. You can ask that "if the reactor explodes..", but the technology we use in past and in present, there is a huge difference between them. We can know and control what our abilities to do with nuclear powers.

If we compare the energy made by thermal and nuclear, we will understand the difference. Of course there is renewable energy plants like solar or hydro but these are not making enough energy as nuclear power. A typical reactor of uranium convert 500.000mj/kg but for oil the number is just 45-46mj/kg(2). Also,we have to use 2 million grams of oil or 3 million grams of coal to equal the power contained in 1 gram of uranium fuel(3).

To sum up, Nuclear energy is necessary for all the countries and it is likely more useful then other types of power plants.
I wish my best lucks to my opponent




For me nuclear energy is not necessary for the following factors.

1.Economically:- Nuclear power plants normally have very high capital costs for building the plants and why to build these plants when conventional sources of energy such as electricity are available at very low cost,the cost of fuel is also rising day by day.The cost of uranium has also increased .In May 2009 an update of a heavily-referenced 2003 MIT study was published. This said that "since 2003 construction costs for all types of large-scale engineered projects have escalated dramatically. The estimated cost of constructing a nuclear power plant has increased at a rate of 15% per year heading into the current economic downturn. This is based both on the cost of actual builds in Japan and Korea and on the projected cost of new plants planned for in the United States. Capital costs for both coal and natural gas have increased as well, although not by as much. The cost of natural gas and coal that peaked sharply is now receding. Taken together, these escalating costs leave the situation [of relative costs] close to where it was in 2003." The overnight capital cost was given as $4000/kW, in 2007 dollars. Applying the same cost of capital to nuclear as to coal and gas, nuclear came out at 6.6 c/kWh, coal at 8.3 cents and gas at 7.4 cents, assuming a charge of $25/tonne CO2 on the latter.

Uranium: 8.9 kg U3O8 x $146 US$ 1300
Conversion: 7.5 kg U x $13 US$ 98
Enrichment: 7.3 SWU x $155 US$ 1132
Fuel fabrication: per kg US$ 240
Total, approx: US$ 2770

2. Environment:- If we see environmentally high level radioactive waste are being left open in the rivers,seas and other
water bodies because of which many rare species of fishes fishes are being killed at a faster rate ,the nuclear fleet
creates about 100,000 metric tons of solid waste yearly also these wastes are not being removed regularly because
of which the environmental conditions are depleting at a faster rate.

3.Risks:-The principal risks associated with nuclear power arise from health effects of radiation. This radiation consists of subatomic particles traveling at or near the velocity of light---186,000 miles per second. They can penetrate deep inside the human body where they can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer. If they strike sex cells, they can cause genetic diseases in progeny.Radiation occurs naturally in our environment; a typical person is, and always has been struck by 15,000 particles of radiation every second from natural sources, and an average medical X-ray involves being struck by 100 billion. While this may seem to be very dangerous, it is not, because the probability for a particle of radiation entering a human body to cause a cancer or a genetic disease is only one chance in 30 million billion (30 quintillion).
Debate Round No. 2


I'm in favour for nuclear energy.

For economical reasons, nuclear energy has strong benefits. Like my opponent said, nuclear power plants are expensive to build and we need to use energy for building it. But the main mistake that we make is we are looking too close to this subject. Nuclear power plant is an energy source which can give us highly more energy then others. If we compare a nuclear power plant with thermal power plant, we can clearly see that nuclear energy will gain us what we lost while we're building the centrals. And the ending of the fossil fuels are really close(1). We're dependent on thermal power and fuels so nuclear energy will be a useful hand of help.

For environmental reasons, nuclear energy has many radioactive wastes. But I think that we can agree on something: The worlds most important problem is Global Worming. It will destroy us slowly. And that's why we're our children to be careful and be aware of the effects of global warming. Now whit this fabulous energy type, we have a chance to and the global warming. For the effects of nuclear power plants, I need you to know that 95% of the energy generated by nuclear burn up is without any waste of CO2. So we should use nuclear energy to stop our biggest problem in the world.

For the risks, Nuclear radiation is risky but the radiation will leave the central only if there is a crack in the central. We had seen it in Chernobyl, but now, we have a better technology and better scientist. We need to trust on our people to make this energy useful. Secondly., radiation is an important factor but we can't prove that the cancer is caused by the nuclear radiation. Of course it will effect the human health but ,we, people experience a lot of technological devices in our daily lives, like phones or televisions. Are we going to get rid of them just because of radiation? And the cancers are highly caused because of portable telephones, especially(2). Radars, satellite stations and microwave ovens operate also high radio frequencies.



Nuclear power has too many problems.

Nuclear power plants can not be brought on line fast enough to prevent the rapid climate change disaster coming in less than 10 years (See Shootout: Do We Need To Restrict CO2 Emissions? ).
Greenhouse gases are emitted throughout the nuclear fuel chain, from mining the uranium, its enrichment, transportation and the construction of the plants.
Nuclear plants are too expensive. They cost at least $6 billion each.
They can potentially have catastrophic radiological releases in case of a serious accident or a terrorist attack from the piles of radioactive waste stored at each site.
Use of nuclear power by the U.S. will encourage nuclear proliferation by third-world countries and often leads to nuclear weapon development and the risk of nuclear war.
There are cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives available that can produce our electricity without using nuclear or fossil fuels.
All reactors release radiation into the air, water and soil. Our national standards are inadequate in protecting the workers or our most vulnerable citizens, our children.
Reactors, with the piles of nuclear materials, are prime terrorists targets. They are not protected nearly as well enough.
The entire nuclear fuel chain generates lots of long-lasting radioactive waste. This includes 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste from each of the current 103 nuclear reactors in the U.S. each year.
There is currently no acceptable solution for disposal of radioactive waste. Yucca Mountain, the site selected for the permanent storage, is not scientifically suitable.
Debate Round No. 3


doruk forfeited this round.


I have no point in the posting the argument since pro forfeited 4th round and i have clearly won this debate.
Debate Round No. 4


Sorry for the argument delay.

My final argument is more about risks.

Before talking about the risks, we can say that Nuclear power plants cost a lot for building them but it will recover energy and regain the money we lost. Nuclear power plants produce highly more energy then other energy plants.

For the risks, I want to quote from the subject which is "Nuclear Energy for COUNTRIES". In Europe there are 185 nuclear centrals (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Russian Federation, UK...)(1) And I would like to remind you that every thermal or nuclear power plant can explode or pollute the world. So If we are arguing about countries, and we are, we need to look to the subject from another point of view. Imagine that you are a president of a country which exists in Europe and which doesn't have any nuclear power plant. But the country still has risks because of the other countries nuclear centrals. So that country has the risks of nuclear damage but not from their nuclear centrals, from different countries nuclear centrals. So that country can build their own centrals and use them. We can't demand other countries to close their centrals because, like France, Nuclear energy is their biggest energy sources (France: 58nuclear reactors, 63,130 MWe)(2)

Moreover; Nuclear energy is a prove that science is still advancing. If we say no to this wonderful gift of science, we will stop the evolution of science. Don't stop the Nuclear Energy for future generations...

Again sorry for the argument 4, it was a good debate, I wish my all respects to my opponent, thank you for debating.



I leave it to the voters.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.