CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
6
Yes, it's needed. No, it's a reason of many prob
Debate Score:21
Arguments:13
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it's needed. (8)
 
 No, it's a reason of many prob (5)

Debate Creator

elgiza(79) pic



Nuclear Energy: is it nedded or not??

Nowadays there seems to be a lack of natural resources, especially of coal, gas and oil. As we all know, these resources are the sources of energy. The obvious solution is the nuclear energy: is it right or not?

Yes, it's needed.

Side Score: 15
VS.

No, it's a reason of many prob

Side Score: 6
2 points

Without nuclear energy, we literally have no hope of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) in the near future. Nuclear energy has been beaten by environmentalists as an unsafe, unsustainable, environment-destroying source of energy. In some ways, it has been vilified beyond even fossil fuels. However, what many environmentalists fail to realize is that nuclear technology has evolved beyond the traditional water-cooled, green rods, and huge smokestacks of earlier generations of nuclear technology. New nuclear technology like molten salt reactors (MSR), gas-cooled fast reactors (GSFR), and very-high-temperature reactors (VHTR) are more safe, more economical, have a higher efficiency, and are more stable among many other numerous advantages. Environmentalists tend to have this black-and-white view of "nuclear=bad" when all they know about it is the old stereotypes.

Were we to begin introducing these so-called "Generation IV" nuclear reactors, we could decrease our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, increase energy independence, and increase research on and access to green technologies.

Naturally, in light of recent tragedies (Fukushima) and potential tragedies (nuclear reactors along the San Andreas Fault in California), I would suggest a smarter regulation of the nuclear economy, with better planning for future plants, strengthening/reinforcing existing plants, or decommissioning older plants in favor of the newer ones in smarter locations.

Supporting Evidence: Generation IV Nuclear Plants (me1065.wikidot.com)
Side: Yes, it's needed.
1 point

Although the use of Nuclaer energy may seem a concern to only a small group of people

it should in fact concern anyone who cares about the lack of resources.

Ultimately what is at stake here is that nuclear energy is a part of renewable energy

Side: Yes, it's needed.

it is totally needed, bro. it is like, totally epic, bro.

Side: Yes, it's needed.
2 points

Nuclear energy may be evolved in the past years and it could be an option to sustitute fosil energy. However, nuclear energy is harmfull that the fosil energy, the waste obtain from the procces of nuclear energy is very hazarous and very rare to be easily disposed. In Finland is found Onkalo, a Waste Repository for nuclear wasted, that intead of theatment the nuclear wasted they will bury for thousand of years without having any precaution of natural disatres, of many other factors that could happend in a long periond of time. Likewise the Roman empire, the old Egypt, the mayas, and any ancient culture who left behing a legacy that have been with us for thousands of years, we have chosen the nuclear wasted as a legacy to left behind to future gererations.

Side: No, it's a reason of many prob
1 point

There isn't a shortage of coal, gas or even oil. (but I don't have a problem with nuclear either)

Side: No, it's a reason of many prob
elgiza(79) Disputed
3 points

But the coal, gas and oil will not exist forever! What about future? Shall we live without any electricity? Or may be nuclear energy will save us.

Side: Yes, it's needed.
Hellno(17753) Disputed
1 point

As I said, I have no problem with nuclear... in the meantime all we have to do is extract the coal, gas and oil that is abundant.

Side: No, it's a reason of many prob
Conro(767) Disputed
3 points

The shortage of coal, gas, or oil usually isn't the issue. The issue lies in the fundamental damage that burning fossil fuels does to air quality, oceans, ecosystems, and indeed the world. Shifting away from a dependence on this deadly source of energy would lead to an improvement of air quality, a decrease in damage to oceans and ecosystems, and (though it may be too late) the reversal or halting of global climate trends. I honestly don't understand why people would like to keep our old, inefficient, toxic energy dependence instead of transitioning to a cleaner, safer, and sustainable energy source (including but not limited to water, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydrogen, et. al). It's like wanting to keep the old radioactive cellphones that gave you tumors over the iPhone or Android.

Side: Yes, it's needed.

The radioactive waste nuclear power produces will be radioactive for a quarter of a million years or more.

That's about 250,000 years spent pouring dangerous radiation into our environment.

What do I say to that? Fuck it. That's what I say.

That is an UNACCEPTABLE cost to our environment. Carbon dioxide emissions are more healthy for the environment then nuclear waste! Put an end to it and do something more productive, like building wind turbines!

Jebus Krist.

Side: No, it's a reason of many prob
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Refinement of nuclear waste can cut down on the storage requirements, and the degree of radiation decreases with time so the radiation isn't dangerous for 250,000 years. New reactors can also cut down on the time and amount of nuclear waste as well.

It may also be possible to chemically alter nuclear waste so it loses its radioactivity.

In till these possibilities go into effect though, other forms of energy should be favored but people should keep in mind that nuclear energy isn't nearly as bad as its often made out to be.

Side: Yes, it's needed.