CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
1
For the use of nuclear power Against nuclear power
Debate Score:5
Arguments:3
Total Votes:5
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For the use of nuclear power (2)
 
 Against nuclear power (1)

Debate Creator

Debater888(12) pic



Nuclear Power

Should nuclear power plants replace coal power plants as the primary energy source for the world (or your home country)?

 

 

My opinion:

 

Nuclear power is indeed better than coal power.  In addition to being over 10 million times more powerful, being better for the environment and more cost efficient, nuclear power is; here's the catch; actually safer/healthier than coal power.

 

Coal power, according to some estimates, causes up to 100,000 deaths per year.

The most major nuclear reaction in history caused about 4000 deaths.

 

Coal waste is also 100 times more radioactive (albeit less concentrated, but nuclear waste is shielded) and thousands of times more abundant than nuclear waste.

For the use of nuclear power

Side Score: 4
VS.

Against nuclear power

Side Score: 1
2 points

Sorry, accidentally put the other one in the wrong category.

My opinion:

Nuclear power is indeed better than coal power. In addition to being over 10 million times more powerful, being better for the environment and more cost efficient, nuclear power is; here's the catch; actually safer/healthier than coal power.

Coal power, according to some estimates, causes up to 100,000 deaths per year.

The most major nuclear reaction in history caused about 4000 deaths.

Coal waste is also 100 times more radioactive (albeit less concentrated, but nuclear waste is shielded) and thousands of times more abundant than nuclear waste.

Side: For the use of nuclear power
2 points

Nuclear power is definitely beneficial to the progress of a developing and developed nation. Moreover, with the rapid depletion of our natural resources such as coal and oil and we have no choice but to look for an alternative to pursue our exponential energy demands in the world we are in today. Nuclear energy is the solution.

Quite easily because nuclear power provides large amounts of energy with small amounts of nuclear reactants - something many power sources we have today fail to achieve. We build thousands of windmills, use up large spaces of land to tap on solar power, but they are not as efficient as nuclear power.

Yes, there lies the risk of radioactive radiation and radioactive substances polluting and damaging over already damaged lands. But, with proper and astute government intervention, we can ensure that these radioactive substances are disposed of properly and not damage the environment beyond repair.

Also, another concerned to be addressed when usage of nuclear power is the possible exploitation of use of nuclear power as a facade, a cover-up to fuel the country's nuclear weaponry ambitions. However, what we could do to prevent this would be to make it mandatory for countries adopting nuclear power to have to declare themselves as having nuclear substances. Only by this can we regulate use of nuclear power appropriately and aptly. Regulations should also be strict and without bias - best by a non-nuclear power organization or country, lest we fall into the situation the world is in today, political disputes over nuclear power.

Side: For the use of nuclear power
1 point

I'm the OP of the thread, and as I stated in the OP:

My opinion:

Nuclear power is indeed better than coal power. In addition to being over 10 million times more powerful, being better for the environment and more cost efficient, nuclear power is; here's the catch; actually safer/healthier than coal power.

Coal power, according to some estimates, causes up to 100,000 deaths per year.

The most major nuclear reaction in history caused about 4000 deaths.

Coal waste is also 100 times more radioactive (albeit less concentrated, but nuclear waste is shielded) and thousands of times more abundant than nuclear waste.

Side: Against nuclear power