CreateDebate


Debate Info

37
21
Nuclear power should be used. Nuclear power is too harmful.
Debate Score:58
Arguments:31
Total Votes:76
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Nuclear power should be used. (19)
 
 Nuclear power is too harmful. (12)

Debate Creator

chantelwoo(21) pic



Nuclear power is the way forward.

State your opinion on nuclear power...is is good? Is it bad?

Nuclear power should be used.

Side Score: 37
VS.

Nuclear power is too harmful.

Side Score: 21
3 points

Nuclear is harmful but it is a future fuel. What energy would we use when everything is gone. Nuclear power is actually just a back up energy and resources, thats all, I don't see any other things that are bad except for the radiation.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
3 points

Nuclear power is a clean, reliable source of energy. The technology has improved a lot over the years, and will continue to become safer with time. We shouldn't let bad past experiences blind us to future possibilities.

Supporting Evidence: New Designs for the Nuclear Renaissance (physics.indiana.edu)
Side: Nuclear power should be used.
3 points

It will soon be possible for everyone to power their homes with small nuclear reactors that are self contained and can run for decades without refueling.

Supporting Evidence: Portable Backyard Nuclear Reactors Ready to be Installed by 2013 (www.treehugger.com)
Side: Nuclear power should be used.

Yes, Jess, it is that but where do we go with the waste from it. That's what concerns me. The only benefit I can see is that nuclear power can create more energy for far more people than a regular electric build. Is it worth the risk?

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
3 points

We need nuclear power! 11% of the worlds energy IS nuclear power without this we will be doomed!!!! Nuclear power dose NOT make acid rain ,smog OR carbon dioxide so it dose NOT help pollute mother earth.NUCLEAR POWER IS THE WAY TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
2 points

Nuclear power does not release carbon dioxide, which does not increase the problem of GLOBAL WARMING!!

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
chantelwoo(21) Disputed
1 point

Even though nuclear power itself does not release carbon dioxide, when it is being produced in the factory, carbon dioxide is THEN produced, which does cause global warming.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.

I believe that nuclear power is the way forward. I have several points.

1. Waste

A typical nuclear power generator produces 25-30 tonnes of nuclear waste annually.

A typical coal plant generates about 3.5 million Mwh per year. 2249 pounds of carbon dioxide are produced per Mwh. so, per year 78.715 billion pounds of co2 are produced in a year. Which is bigger?

2. Safety

The reason the plant in Chernobyl melted down, was because they failed to take into account the expansion of solid matter when heated. The fuel rods jammed and could not be cooled. A new chinese developement, whereby the fuel is encased in graphite spheres has eliminated any possibility of melt down. During testing, when they cut of the coolant (helium), nothing happened.

3. Working Examples

78% of Frances power is generated by nuclear fission. To date there have been no accidents or negative effects. France is the smallest producer of carbon dioxide in Europe.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
1 point

First thing chantel nuclear power plant is renewable and the nuclear waste is stored in very thick container.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
1 point

by working in nuclear power plants people can earn money and with this money they can send their children to school and with that the next generation can learn and make the world a better place......a place of hope, pureness, learner profiles and good will. AND....... we need to power our homes as the world population grows and only nuclear power can make enough energy for each and every house.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
1 point

Is there a single reusable energy source out there that actual is efficient, ecofriendly, and consistent? I think not. What are the negative environmental effects of nuclear energy? None. Why should we waste trillions of dollars on new energy sources when we have a perfectly good source already?

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
Fookbar(1) Disputed
1 point

Nuclear power has a carbon footprint, thus it is not true that there are no negative environmental effects of nuclear energy.

Supporting Evidence: Carbon Footprint of Nuclear Power (www.carbonneutralaustralia.com)
Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
1 point

Nuclear fission which is the stuff that Governments are investing in is WRONG. Nuclear fusion IS the way forward and is the answer to everything. the difference between the 2 is fission is the induced decay of plutonium uranium etc.. and creates nuclear waste which to be honest, scientists do not have a true clue what to do with it so they just put it in pools of water and hope the it reaches it's half life quickly. (the time that it takes for the radioactivity to half) whereas nuclear fusion is not perfect it does have a bi-product. That being completely harmless hydrogen! the only problem scientists have is that the fusion process is hot. Almost as hot as the sun I believe so they have to use magnets to suspend it. they are so close to getting it to work they just need governments to invest in them and not the quick, cheap, easy solution.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
1 point

Population is increasing rapidly leading to the increase of electricity demands by the people. Renewable energy and energy efficiency alone won't solve the energy crisis.So , the ultimate and one and only solution will be the Nuclear power. It is virtually unlimited and is a steady source of energy. It is highly reliable. It is pollution free. It gives high loads of potential . While there are myths where they say that it is not safe , that's not true scientifically , may it be the Transport or waste disposal or exposure it is taken care of . There are specially designed containers for transport and waste is not disposed of like garbage. Low levels of radiation comparable to those received naturally are not harmful . There is no evidence of any harm below about 100 mS/yr.

So I strongly believe that the nuclear power will strengthen global security and will give rise to new hope to great revolution of Nuclear Era :)

Side: Nuclear power should be used.

USE IT USE IT USE IT USE IT USE IT USE IT YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH

Side: Nuclear power should be used.

The problem I have with Nuclear Power is the waste from it. There is still no safe place to go with all of it and it worries me that we are all biting off more than we can chew! Alternate sources of energy are coming and I think it's best to wait until they are perfected before we taint our earth further.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
3 points

Just a tiny mistake in nuclear power plants can cause huge accidents. For example, the Chernobyl accident was caused by careless mistakes from the workers. The accident created 500 times more radioactivity than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
Alexei270(4) Disputed
2 points

You may mention Chernobyl. But what example is this in the Australian context. No one would build a soviet era nuclear plant such as Chernobyl, which was obsolete before it was even built. Any nuclear power stations would be gleaming examples of the most modern technology. Clean, safe, secure, foolproof. A perfect solution today for tomorrows energy and climate problems. And as for Chernobyl, it was poorly conceived, badly constructed and riddled with human error. Yet this nuclear dinosaur, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency and World Health Organisation, only claimed 56 lives directly from the disaster. The report also revealed that there may have been 9,000 extra cancer cases, cancer cases not deaths, among the 6 ½ million people living near by. As undesirable as this is, this should be seen as a minimal result of what is made out to be one of the world’s great catastrophes. Nature however deals out much more severe blows against human life, for

example the recent earthquakes in China which claimed 50,000 lives. Make no mistake, generating electricity using coal is a far greater killer than 20 Chernobyls. For example in just one year in America, 10,000 - 50,000 people die form to respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal, according to a study by Harvard University.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
kidinbed(9) Disputed
1 point

I think you need to check your history. The Chernobyl accident was caused by an ill-conceived experiment that went badly, not a tiny mistake. The scientist had too much faith in the reactor and disabled the security features.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
3 points

Nuclear power should not be used for two reasons. Firstly, because there are alternate sources of energy, which we have not fully taken advantage of but still can with more technological advancement. Secondly, nuclear power produces radioactive waste which we have not successfully disposed of without danger of radioactive contamination to the disposal region.

There is too large a risk in the long run to depend on nuclear power, especially when we have an energy source as great as the sun, not yet fully utilized by humans today.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
kidinbed(9) Disputed
3 points

"there are alternate sources of energy, which we have not fully taken advantage of but still can with more technological advancement."

who knows how long that will take? What about in the mean time? Nuclear power is already advanced enough to be safe and less harmful than current practices, why not use it while the better methods are developed

"nuclear power produces radioactive waste which we have not successfully disposed of without danger of radioactive contamination to the disposal region."

The amount of energy generated compared to the amount of waste is very small and there are ways to store it that don't harm anything. Plus, it's harmfulness and instability are usually greatly exaggerated. Besides, it' still not as harmful as the waste generated by current practices such as coal fire plants belching co2 into the atmosphere.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
0 points

"alternate sources of energy, which we have not fully taken advantage of but still can with more technological advancement" wat @fwc67(94) said

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
1 point

There is a lot of propaganda out there from the nuclear industry, so beware. The same kind of people who promise an insulting joke like "clean coal."

Solar power efficiency has begun to double every year. It will soon possibly replace all power sources.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
1 point

If only rich people can have nuclear power then the workers can't make as much money than you think they can.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
1 point

We began by burning wood, then coal, then fossil fuels. Next we move to splitting atoms? A technology we don't fully understand? Extremly hazardous waste that has no means of disposal?

Why would we want to try creating nuclear generating stations (either fission or fusion) and endanger lives, when we have a rather large one sitting above our heads day in and day out.

Solar, Wind and Hydro-electric power stations are the next step, as we don't fully understand the concepts begin nuclear fission, nor the implications it may have on future generations.

Solar is just harnassing power created by the largest nuclear generation plant we will probably ever know, anyways.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
1 point

"A technology we don't fully understand?"

A technology you do not fully understand.

As a keen scientist, I find this quite insulting. Try telling a nuclear physicist that he does not understand nuclear fission. If we did not understand the technology, then it would not work. It does. Around 4000 people died as a result of chernobyl. In Iraq, a war fought over oil, 100,000 civilians were killed. As to the sun, do you want to pay for the 205,882 solar power towers - like the ps20 in spain - required to support seven billion people? Each costs 1.2 billion euros. Thats 247 billion euros. That is simply not practical, given that each tower only produces 300 Mwh per year. Even a coal plant produces 3.5 million mwh per year.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.
jcampbe(23) Disputed
1 point

What does "a keen scientist" mean exactly?

Considering that I'm actually studying Physics at a University Level, does that constitute "a keen scientist"?

Your argument is quite flawed. A technology working does not imply complete and total understanding of a technology. Think about this logically for a moment: did we understand the effects of radiation before creating radio transmitters/receivers? No. Did we understand the effects of fossil fuel burning before running gas-powered cars? Again, no.

My argument isn't that Nuclear Power doesn't have the potential to be the way forward; but that it lacks a fundamental understanding in order to be a clean and safe alternative at this point in time.

The facts speak for themselves: we have no long term plan to deal with the waste generated by these facilities. It's pretty simple.

Also, running around telling people you are "a keen scientist" doesn't mean anything. "Finding this insulting" is just plain stupid.

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
1 point

NO NO NO NO!!!! THEY ARE NOT CLEAN OR HELPFUL THEY ARE BAD FOR US AND THE ENVIROMENT!!!!

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
1 point

don't you know about geothermal? it's the best solution to solve energy crisis than nuclear power because scientifically proven that geothermal not causing Pollution or any gas emition and do you know? it can produce 90% electricity

Side: Nuclear power is too harmful.
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
1 point

Geothermal power plants not only must be built upon hot spots, but upon suitable ground that is neither too difficult to drill through, nor too soft to support a foundation. It must also be a relatively large and flat location. Even if you manage to find a good location, due to the unpredictability of geothermic activity a productive plant may suddenly stop producing power for years at a time. Geothermal Power plants, while helpful cannot sufficiently replace nuclear power plants.

Side: Nuclear power should be used.