CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
23
Not safe safe
Debate Score:37
Arguments:21
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Not safe (9)
 
 safe (12)

Debate Creator

alstars(736) pic



Nuclear power plants....

Not safe

Side Score: 14
VS.

safe

Side Score: 23

Ugh, nuclear power is frightening. I don't know much about it, but it seems unpredictable and dangerous, especially when it comes to getting rid of waste materials. There are better solutions.

Side: Not safe
Republican2(349) Disputed
3 points

There is validity in the issue of disposing of nuclear waste, but you kinda killed your argument by saying you don't know much about it. There may be better solutions but for the time being, nuclear power has gotten by without any catastrophic meltdowns (in the U.S. anyway). There is no need to stop it for safety concerns.

Side: safe
Debater888(12) Disputed
2 points

With all due respect, this is a completely unsupported argument. You're arguing against it because it's "frightening" and then admit that you "don't know much about it" and that it "seems" a certain way.

Side: safe
2 points

They may be safe, but they aren't as effective as other forms of power. It cause 3 times as much to maintain and make power in a nuclear power plant that it is to use solar power (and there is a 0% chance of a solar power plant blowing up, might not happen often but when it does it is totally not worth it [think Chernobyl])

Side: Not safe
anhviet2612(8) Disputed
2 points

I see your point but you must remember that we can't get solar power or wind power all the time, even we can how many percent that these kinds of energy are able to meet our demands. Technology has been developed a lot and nuclear-power-related secures are highly focused. Thus, i believe that in the near future (may be next 2or 3 years ^^) we do not have to concern much about nuclear power safety. Additionally, nuclear power plans may now cost us a little more than other kinds of energy but advantages of them are immerse in long time.

Side: safe
2 points

i agree, but nuclear power even if only a tiny thing goes wrong, thats a very very bad thing. It takes 3 times as much to build a nuclear plant than it does to build enough solar panels to get that much power. We could spend the only on building 2 times the solar panels and have a lot of extra power and we would be able to absorb more power. Also there are 1000's of other altun power that works all years around. Example would be building a giant 'solar' elevator into space and use a giant array of solar panels to gain power (because in space the sun is always bright an clear) and we would have a limitless supply of power.

Side: Somewhat
MisterGuy(1) Disputed
1 point

"I see your point but you must remember that we can't get solar power or wind power all the time"

LOL...I just LOVE this argument from those that champion "more of the same" (coal, oil, nuclear, etc.) when it comes to America's future energy needs. The FACT is that the USA is basically the Saudi Arabia of wind power, and that there are such things as batteries to store power for times when the wind isn't blowing or the Sun isn't shining.

Now imagine a day when the wind isn't blowing anywhere in the USA, the Sun isn't out at all, the Earth isn't being heated from below by molten magma, the tides are not going in or coming out along any of the USA's coastlines, there are no waves along any of the USA's coastlines, and there is no water flowing across the land via river & streams. Got that?? I didn't think so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Wind_Resources_and_Transmission_Lines_map.jpg

"even we can how many percent that these kinds of energy are able to meet our demands."

Well, if the necessary resources are dedicated to it...wind power can easily generate 10-20% of the USA's power, hydro power can easily generate 20-30% of the USA's power, geothermal can easily generate 10-20% of the USA's power, and wave & tidal can easily generate up to maybe 4-5% of the USA's power...with the basically unlimited potential of solar power & whatever small amounts of fossil fuels (at much reduced usage levels) taking up the rest of the slack. In fact, the USA could easily cut it's usage of power by 10-20% through conservation if more resources were dedicated to that effort.

"nuclear power plans may now cost us a little more than other kinds of energy but advantages of them are immerse in long time."

In the USA, the federal govt. has paid $74 billion for energy subsidies to support nuclear power & fossil fuels from 1973-2003. Nuclear power alone accounted for nearly $50 billion of this expenditure. During this same time frame, renewable energy technologies & energy efficiency only received a total of $26 billion.

Side: Not safe
1 point

its can cause radiation thats really bad. nuclear power plants can kill you if your close by it youll dye fast if not youll die slowy which way do you wanna die??

Side: Not safe
Debater888(12) Disputed
2 points

Coal waste is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste, so this argument is null.

Side: safe
1 point

nuclare power plants should not be used because so many pepole died and we would not wont that to happen agin.

Side: Not safe
1 point

I think current nuclear power plants are not safe. They don't just poison us now, but they will scar the earth as its everlasting stench of life-threatening radiation scours though the ground. People should really look into things like, my favorite, laser inertial systems and such.

Side: Somewhat

I frown upon nuclear power plants because of possible explosions.

Side: Not safe
2 points

Simply put, nuclear power is the use of nuclear fission to create heat. That heat is then transferred to steam which turns huge turbines that produce electricity. Wow, a steam engine is born. Now, the process does require natural elements from the earth: uranium. Yes, virginia, it is natural. Let's talk about waste...From a nucluear power plant, two types of waste are produced. 1. Warm water. In modern reactors, this warm water is cooled and used as a coolant for the reactors (recyclying). 2. Steam: what a terrible world we would live in if our power producers produced super heated water...obviously I'm joking. Steam is nothing more than water. 3: Depleted rods (of radioactive material). Once the fission process has run its course on a supply of uranium it has run its course. The material is still radioactive. However, a multi-billion dollar holding site was built many years ago. It is safe. It is the natural repository for all depleted rods of our nuclear plants sourses.

So. What is the question? As is, our nuclear power plant infrastructure is safer than anything anyone could offer to compare.

Nuclear equals the new clear...

Side: safe
2 points

As our most dependent fuel oil is running out within possibly this century. Humanity is facing risk of using one of the most potentially dangerous energy ,nuclear. Cases of nuclear failure such as chernobyle and pennsylvenia have proved that it is disruptive force capable of ruinning our enviroment but they also proved that the nature is very much capable of recovering in quite short time. Leading developed nations like that of France and UK is now working on a fail prove method to insure safety while at the same time already making use of it. With progress of nuclear developments across the Atlantic it is time America, China and other industrial nations to ditch chernobyle's nigtmare and take positive views on one of the greenest energy man has ever discovered.

Side: safe
2 points

Nuclear power is actually safer than coal plants. Coal plants kill in total 100,000 people per year. Nuclear plants kill 0 people per year, occasionally with a 4000 people per year spike, which is still miniscule compared to the amount of people that coal plants kill.

Side: safe
2 points

Methods such as those used in pebble-bed reactors greatly reduce the risks associated with nuclear energy.

Side: safe
0 points

It really all depends on the care taken to maintain the nuclear facilities and set appropriate safety standards. The nuclear reactors in the U.S. are extremely well maintained and have many fail-safe and safety systems in place should something go wrong. I think the main source of fear with nuclear reactors comes from dilapidated and unsafe facilities in other countries like with the Chernobyl disaster. It was easily preventable and never would have happened in the U.S. because of the high safety standards placed on such facilities.

Side: safe
MisterGuy(1) Disputed
2 points

Every nuclear power plant in the USA (past, present, or future) is a permanent nuclear waste dump. Moderate to high level nuclear waste can be radioactive for around 100,000 years! That doesn't sound very "safe" to me!

Also, just look at some of the horrible safety & security issues that some nuclear plants have had...namely the VT Yankee plant. That plant has one of the worst records in the industry.

Finally, every, single nuclear power plant in the world is a potential deadly terrorist attack site.

Side: Not safe
-2 points