Nuclear Energy - the best source of Energy
Yes, I agree because...
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No, I disagree because...
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
At this point, absolutely. First, consider the alternatives. To match the output of one two-core nuclear reactor(2300MW), we would need to construct and place over 2300 3MW wind turbines, as wind turbines only operate at 30%. This would require 3 rows of turbines spanning the entire coast of South Carolina. To match the same output with solar, we would need a solid sheet of solar panel larger than Brooklyn. On top of that, nuclear is reliable. Wind and solar can spike and fall in production, and having a national grid based on a fluctuating production would lead to massive brownouts and blackouts. Additionally, nuclear creates more jobs than alternative sources. There are more than 10 times as many man-hours required for nuclear than the equivalent of wind-power, meaning more full-time jobs for our struggling economy. http://www.nuclearinnovation.com/pdf/ Side: Yes, I agree because...
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
The topic of energy never loses its relevance. North american power reviews turned out to be the perfect solution for me. I had been looking for a reliable energy provider for my home for a long time, and thanks to their reviews, I made the right choice. Switching to their services not only saved me money, but also provided reliable energy for my home. Side: Yes, I agree because...
At the moment, downloading videos from TikTok without a watermark is a violation of TikTok's usage policy. This is due to the fact that the content on TikTok belongs to the user who made it, and it is not permitted to be distributed or reused without the author's permission. run 3 Side: Yes, I agree because...
|
There are a few problems I have with nuclear energy. A) Chernobyl? Fukushima? Yeah, not exactly the best representations of a safe and reliable source of energy. You could put nuclear plants in areas that are very much risk free, such as the UK, some areas of the US (That don't get devastated by storms), and Germany, but not areas where there is a chance of an earthquake, or tsunami etc. B) There are plenty of other sources. We could easily use wind power, solar power, tidal power, wave power instead of this, and they would all give out much more put together than nuclear energy. C) It's not really renewable, is it? Once you run out of the radioactive materials needed, you can't gain anything more from it. We would just have the same problem that's been created by fossil fuels, but maybe not with the same impact on the environment. Granted, it is a good source of power, and can produce enough juice to turn the Sahara into a Garden of Eden, but the risks are too high, and it wouldn't last for long enough. Side: No, I disagree because...
|
