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

Pros vs Cons of Nuclear Energy. Should Every Country use it?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Alex15757 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 100868
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The Cons side of Nuclear Energy my start off first.


No, every country can't use nuclear energy as not only many of them are in poverty and may end up buying unreliable tech to save money, some are also on geographically dangerous zones (ex. Indonesia, Japan) or very close to the ecological system (Antarctica). The resolution says all countries should use nuclear energy, and I argue that all countries can't use nuclear energy. It would result in lots of death, life and ecological loss. And high economic loss due to breakdowns as well.
That's why fossil fuels still thrive. At least their radiation won't remain for years.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok, before I start off, I realized the "Should every country use it?" is a stupid question after posting this debate, so I'll be ignoring the question and will be focusing on the Pros part of Nuclear Energy and the arguments you present"

" It would result in lots of death, life and ecological loss. And high economic loss due to breakdowns as well."

First of all, the part where you said "It would result in lots of death", are you hinting at nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima? These disasters had nothing to do with the actual energy source, it was human mistakes, ignorance of safety regulations and out dated technology that caused those disasters. Fossil Fuels kill FAR FAR more people than any nuclear disaster.

Second of all, the part with "ecological loss", have you even seen what the continued use of fossil fuels has brought us? Global Warming/Climate Change, Air Pollution, Water Pollution, Soil Contamination, and finally The pollution caused from extracting and mining fossil fuels. Mostly countries that use nuclear reactors dispose of their waste in sealed containers thousands of feet below the ground compared to fossil fuels that dispose of their waste into our atmosphere.

Lastly, the part with "And high economic loss due to breakdowns as well", hold it there for a minute, high "economic loss"?
are you saying that nuclear energy is less effective then a conventional coal power plant? Lets do some math for a minute.
A coal power plant burns 1.4 million tons of coal every year giving a massive 2.6 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. In addition the average coal power plant costs about $3.5 billion to build in 2017 as well as an additional $600 million-$1 billion in accidents and other expenses such as repairs, coal cost, hauling cost, etc so that brings us to a $4 billion price tag of a brand new coal power plant. Now lets look at a nuclear power plant. A standard Nuclear power plant in the US of A uses about 27 tons of plutonium/uranium every year which produces a MASSIVE 196 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.
The average Boiling Water Reactor costs about $12 billion dollars to build in 2017. In addition to the cost of fuel and repairs that brings us to $20 Billion dollars for a brand new Nuclear Power plant.

Now that we have that down lets see how effective a Nuclear Power plant really is. It will take approximately 75 Coal power plants to produce 196 Billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year, while ONE nuclear power plant can do all that. In addition, those 75 cola power plants will cost you a whopping $300 BILLION dollars to build and Maintain while a SINGLE nuclear power plant only costs you 20 Billion dollars to build and Maintain.

The Reason Nuclear Energy isn't being used everywhere is because simply governments stopped funding nuclear energy projects in the mid 1980s and the start of the 1990s. Projects like the thorium reactor only get funded by private companies/investors and only get $500,000 of funding. We still use nuclear reactors from 70 years ago, which are cheap, low quality, and very unstable, that is why we need the governments of the world to fund these projects. If you want to see more about thorium reactors go to this video:



Hey you can't change the resolution all of a sudden. I am pro for ideal nuclear energy generation. But the resolution helps show why many countries can't use it.

Thats what I was saying when I meant that many countries are in poverty. If they are poor their government won't have enough money for good nuclear power plants. As a result they will buy low quality cheap technologies, which have more chances of causing mishaps like the disasters you mentioned.
Ecological Loss
Obvious, if a disaster happens then radiation would leak and make that land unusable for a long time. All life nearby will flee or die. Also, uranium mining causes just as much pollution as fossil fuel mining. The only reason it isn't highlighted because nuclear power plants still remain small scale enterprises.
Furthermore your quote "Mostly countries that use nuclear reactors dispose of their waste in sealed containers thousands of feet below the ground compared to fossil fuels that dispose of their waste into our atmosphere" is appalling. If suppose I bury the radioactive waste in Indonesia, Japan or any other earthquake prone country, do you even know the damage that could happen? The containers would shatter, and radiation pollute the very soil we are trying to save. Farmers on that soil would be out of business, and land wastage shall occur again. Also, most of them use the oceans as far as I know. Burying it thousands of feet down shall be a mining wastage again.

High economic loss
What I meant here is that economic loss in the event of a mishap. The land would be wasted and the entire investment on the power plant would go down the drain, not to mention compensation to nearby residential areas in case of a vast radiation leak.
Of course ideal nuclear power plants are much more effective than fossil fuels, or else they wouldn't need to be invented at all. In addition to that, there is a minor problem of transportation. Transporting uranium for long-distances is complicated, and energy produced at the reactor would have to be transported by wires and batteries. Sure, it can be dealt with, but it is a small disadvantage. You can always carry a jerrycan of petrol easily.

Transportation sector?
Furthermore, nuclear energy currently can't feed the transportation sector, we don't have economically sustainable mini reactor engines for our cars. Transportation takes a hefty portion of the fossil fuel supply. So, even with nuclear reactors we would continue using fossil fuels which damage the environment.

If you want, we can keep this a no votes debate, since there were issues with your resolution. Otherwise I wouldn't even have accepted this, for its hard to find more disadvantages for nuclear energy.
Debate Round No. 2


Sorry about the wait, hadn't had time to respond cause of school work and other stuff.

Yeah I guess this debate's resolution was kind of dumb.
I hadn't really had my thoughts together, so I guess you should win


Lets keep this a no votes debate then. After all, even I have been the creator of bad resolutions. Takes the debate on a completely unanticipated track, that's what it does.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.