Is it justified to develop nuclear energy for commercial use? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Is it justified to develop nuclear energy for commercial use?

Debate Information

Position: For
February 2018 Tournament | Round 1 - Debate 3
joecavalryale5
  1. Live Poll

    ?

    7 votes
    1. Yes
      71.43%
    2. No
      28.57%
A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 





Debra AI Prediction

Tie
Predicted
50%
Likely
50%
Unlikely

Details +


For:

49% (37 Points)


Against:

51% (38 Points)



Votes: 5


Debate Type: Traditional Debate



Voting Format: Casual Voting

Opponent: Eyes2See

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 24 Hours Per Round


Voting Period: 24 Hours


Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Voting



Post Argument Now Debate Details +



    Arguments


  • Round 1 | Position: For
    WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Hello, and welcome to DI Tournaments. My name is WilliamSchulz, and I will be arguing that nuclear energy is safe and effective to use for commercial usage.  When arguing the position, one has to ask, is nuclear energy safe for commercial usage, does it have potentiality to cause some lasting harm on individuals? The answer is a resounding no in its capacity to be unsafe, and yes for safety for commercial use.. First and foremost, nuclear energy is extremely safe to use, In its 50 year history, there has only been one large scale accident that has occurred, and the cause of that was not the fault of the nuclear gas, but of a man-made cause. Here is an image to solidify this idea.

    Thus, compared to other main stream energy sources, nuclear energy is one of the most safe types of energy we can use.
    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-safe-to-develop-nuclear-energy-for-commercial-use ;

    Argument 2: 

    Additionally, one might ask, is it efficient to use, in a coal dominated world, how does it hold up? Extremely well. According to https://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/env/prize/file_52570.pdf, there are no greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere from nuclear power, which has potential to strengthen the ozone layer in our atmosphere and to decrease pollution rates in America. Additionally, "The main benefits of nuclear power are that is it more efficient than burning fossil fuels as the amount of energy released from uranium per gram is much more than that of fuels such as oil or coal; approximately 8,000 times more efficient in fact." If the world could use an energy 8000 times more than that of coal, then it should be allowed for commercial use for the simple fact alone that it will improve the lives of many Americans by providing long lasting and high quality energy. One complaint is that there are not as many uranium reserves in the world compared to fossil fuel reserves, but this is not a question of amount, this is a question of benefaction, and in those terms, uranium edges out by a large portion. 
    Image result for nuclear fission process for energy images
    In this image, which shows how uranium is extracted and turned into energy, there is no release of greenhouse gas, and by targeting the element and not its exterior characteristics, it works both chemically and economically to remain stable.

    Argument 3: 

    Compared to other energy sources, nuclear power generates more energy than other forms of energy. While research is being done on hydrogen, the most common element on the planet, there is inconclusive research that it can be efficiently put to use to make energy, whereas nuclear power has 50 years of research put into it, with extreme caution taken to promote safety. Additionally, 
    "Also it is not economical as hydrogen is expensive to retrieve as electrolysis of sea water requires a lot of electricity to split the water into oxygen anions and hydrogen cations."

    Argument 4:

    Fourth, according to https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/28/nuclear-power-yes-please-for-cc/, nuclear power can last long enough to supply the world with power that refutes opponents claims of short-lived power. According to the site, "Opponents claim that if the world ran on nuclear energy, uranium supplies would run out in at most a few decades and nuclear power plants would then have to shut down. This is false. The nuclear fuels, uranium and thorium, are both more abundant than tin, and with the new generation of fast spectrum breeders and thorium reactors, we would have abundant nuclear energy for millions of years. Yet even if it lasted a mere 1000 years, we would have ample time to develop exotic new future energy sources." From this quote, an important truth can be pulled, in that while nuclear power may not last in the long run, 1000 years is enough time to develop new energy resources, whereas coal could run out in the next 200 years. 

    Argument 5: 

    One common remark that opponents will make is that if nuclear power is under commercial use, than the substance will spread and harm human beings as a radioactive substance. This is not the case. Such plants and bases are overseen by the government, which means that the government has jurisdiction over the plant. If a problem was to occur, than the government would take action to promote the safety of a plant mentioned earlier. Similarly, leftovers of nuclear power go into making bombs and weapons, encouraging the use of excess even after the completion of the process.
    Image result for nuclear power images
    Any leftovers are used appropriately by the company.

    That is it for now, I will begin refutations soon, thank you for your time, and I urge you to support the commercial use of nuclear power.


    islander507Pogue
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Round 2 | Position: For
    Eyes2SeeEyes2See 17 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Hello DebateIsland!

    I am very excited for this opportunity to come before you and present my argument
    for AGAINST on the topic, “Is it justified to develop nuclear energy for commercial
    use?” Unfortunately, two people voted for FOR before I ever had a chance to
    submit my opening arguments, so it seems as if I have a bit of an uphill battle
    to climb, however I am excited for the challenge nonetheless.

    Opening 
    Arguments

    There are many pros when it comes to the topic of Nuclear Energy. It is traditionally
    low on pollution, low on operation costs, and a reliable source of energy. For
    these reasons Nuclear Energy has been a popular source of energy for many
    countries in the past, particularly for countries needing a high volume of
    energy, at low operation costs.  

    The cons for Nuclear Energy however far out way the pros in our modern day:

    Mining Uranium has a heavy impact on our environment - According
    to research done by the National Research Council in 2012, “Uranium mining,
    processing, and reclamation has the potential to affect surface water quality
    and quantity groundwater quality and quantity, soils, air quality, and biota (National
    Research Council, 2012, P. 178).”

    Radioactive Waste Disposal – The operational nuclear power plans on Earth generate on average 2,000-3,000 metric
    tons of used fuel per year. Over the past four decades, 76,430 metric tons of
    used nuclear fuel has been generated (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2018). Nuclear
    waste transmits radiation. For the hazardous effects on radiation to the environment,
    and lifeforms, please visit the CDC’s website on Ration (CDC, 2014). Because of
    the hazardous effects of radiation, nuclear waste needs to be governed with
    great care. It takes years for nuclear waste to cool to a level where it can
    then be buried. It is buried and guarded in armed and controlled facilities.

    Nuclear Accidents – With all the percussion and safety measures put in place by the governments controlling
    Nuclear Power Plants, catastrophic accidents still happen. In Chernobyl Ukraine
    a Nuclear Power Plan had a meltdown that caused the entire city to have to
    evacuate. Most residents were never able to return home. Not too long ago in
    Fukushima Japan another Nuclear Power Plant had a meltdown caused by
    complication in the weather.

    Transportation of Uranium –Finally it is important to consider that the transportation of uranium is
    handled very cautiously, and under heavy guard. Uranium can be used to make
    dangerous weapons and so the care and placement of Uranium is something that
    needs to handle with the utmost security and responsibility.

    With the CONS for Nuclear Energy being so heavy, there is very little wonder as to
    why many civilized countries are looking to alternative energy sources such as clean,
    renewable energy for the future. But this is not a debate as to whether or not
    countries should use Nuclear Energy, it is a debate as to whether or not
    Nuclear Energy is justified for commercial use. For the hazardous reasons
    listed above, the answer is simple, absolutely not. Companies should look to safer,
    and more up-to-date energy sources than Nuclear Energy and leave the hazardous
    responsibilities and processes to the Governments that still utilize this technology.

    Resources:

    National Research Council. 2012. Uranium Mining in
                 Virginia: Scientific, Technical, Environmental, Human Health and Safety, and
                 Regulatory Aspects of Uranium Mining and Processing in Virginia. Washington,
                 DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13266.
     
    Nuclear Energy Institute. On-Site Storage of Nuclear Waste.
                 (2018). Retrieved February 20, 2018, from
                 https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste
     
    CDC. Emergency Preparedness and Response. 
                 (2014, October10). Retrieved February 20, 2018, from
                 https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/contamination.asp
    islander507
  • Round 2 | Position: For
    WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Hello @Eyes2See

    Thank you for submitting your arguments. First off, I would like to commend you for conceding the pro's of my arguments and for organizing your information well. In Round 2 of this debate, I will foremost rebut Eyes2See's points up to now and follow up with more arguments concerning the pro's of nuclear energy in Round 3.

    Rebut for Mining Uranium Has a heavy Impact on the Environment:

    "According
    to research done by the National Research Council in 2012, “Uranium mining,
    processing, and reclamation has the potential to affect surface water quality
    and quantity groundwater quality and quantity, soils, air quality, and biota (National
    Research Council, 2012, P. 178).”

    The key word in this argument is the word potential. Let's face it, any sort of non-renewable resource, such as coal, oil, and natural gas all have the "potential" to harm the water quality and the other categories mentioned. However, nuclear energy doesn't affect most of these areas. I will acquiesce that water can be a problem, especially when disposing of leftover uranium, but in every other category, uranium comes out on top. For instance, an extremely reputable source named http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx states, "Nature has already proven that geological isolation is possible through several natural examples (or 'analogues'). The most significant case occurred almost 2 billion years ago at Oklo, in what is now Gabon in West Africa, where several spontaneous nuclear reactors operated within a rich vein of uranium ore. (At that time the concentration of U-235 in all natural uranium was about 3%.) These natural nuclear reactors continued for about 500,000 years before dying away. They produced all the radionuclides found in HLW, including over 5 tonnes of fission products and 1.5 tonnes of plutonium, all of which remained at the site and eventually decayed into non-radioactive elements.4

    An important idea to pull from this is that nature by itself can handle radioactive substances, and nuclear plants are far enough away from mainline water that no people are at risk from contaminated water. Additionally, "
    • Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that geological disposal is the best option."
    From the internationally based site that deals with the science and manufacturing of nuclear energy, it is safe to presume that the "potential" in the first argument is negated. However, there are some more categories. Quality and quantity and soils have been dealt with, now onto air quality. As mentioned in Round 1, nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases and is therefore not responsible for environmental pollution, thus negating the "potentiality" of the second premise. Granted, there may be a possibility, but it is minimized from the efforts that the government and the company do to reduce emissions. 

    CO2 emissions avoided through the use of nuclear power (Lesser is better)

     

    Lifecycle emissions
    (gCO2eq/kWh)6,a

    Estimated emissions to produce 2417 TWh electricity
    (million tonnes CO2)

    Potential emissions avoided through use of nuclear power
    (million tonnes CO2)

    Potential emissions avoided through use of nuclear
    (million cars equivalent)7b

    Nuclear power12

    29

    NANA
    Gas (CCS)49011841155c. 250
    Coal82019811952c. 400


    Second Rebuttal: Radioactive Waste Disposal:

    "The operational nuclear power plans on Earth generate on average 2,000-3,000 metric
    tons of used fuel per year. Over the past four decades, 76,430 metric tons of
    used nuclear fuel has been generated (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2018). Nuclear
    waste transmits radiation. For the hazardous effects on radiation to the environment,
    and lifeforms, please visit the CDC’s website on Ration (CDC, 2014). Because of
    the hazardous effects of radiation, nuclear waste needs to be governed with
    great care. It takes years for nuclear waste to cool to a level where it can
    then be buried. It is buried and guarded in armed and controlled facilities."

    Everything that is mentioned here is 100% correct. However, the main point of the argument is that the government isn't getting as involved as it should be, as visible in the last 3 sentences. In Round 1, I discussed how nuclear energy is treated safely, but escusing that, here is a quote from the same source, different info: World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx, states that "
    • The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided."
    From this, we can validly infer that the 33 countries who are using this energy are doing so responsibly, as only 3 accidents have occurred in its 50 year history! Onto that...

    Rebuttal 3: Nuclear Accidents:
    "With all the percussion and safety measures put in place by the governments controlling
    Nuclear Power Plants, catastrophic accidents still happen. In Chernobyl Ukraine
    a Nuclear Power Plan had a meltdown that caused the entire city to have to
    evacuate. Most residents were never able to return home. Not too long ago in
    Fukushima Japan another Nuclear Power Plant had a meltdown caused by
    complication in the weather."

    While all of this information is true, the causes of the nuclear happenings is misconstrued. Let me go through each one in detail, keeping in mind that "With nuclear power, the high energy density makes the potential hazard obvious, and this has always been factored into the design of nuclear power plants. The few accidents have been spectacular and newsworthy, but of little consequence in terms of human fatalities. The novelty value and hence newsworthiness of nuclear power accidents remains high in contrast with other industrial accidents, which receive comparatively little news coverage." (World Nuclear Association)

    Chernobyl:

    This is perhaps the most convincing of the three accidents. However, keep in mind that "The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources."

    What does this mean? The Chernobyl accident was a result of Man-Made Causes, not the nuclear plant failing on itself. Nevertheless, this was the most noteworthy of the three and it is the one that I will concede that a problem occurred that could have been avoided.

    3 Mile Island:

    In this accident, although there was some damage, the nuclear center was so well built and designed according to code that no radiation escaped, no person was harmed, and any radiation that did escape was confined to the building, a small scale accident that occurred in 1979, almost 40 years ago, imagine what safety they had then compared to now, and see how there was no deaths or issues otherwise.

    Fukushima:

    This one has to be immediately dis-considered because man did nothing to cause this, in fact, because of its location on Japan, the result of failure was when a tsunami his in 2011, killing 19000 people and damaging the plant. Nevertheless, there were no deaths or injuries from the radioactivity, thus again displaying the nature of the accidents. 

    Here is an image just to show how death rates in nuclear plants stack up to coal and other non-renewable energy sources.

    Image result for accident rates in coal energy plants images

    Final Rebuttal: Transportation of Uranium:

    Because the argument is longer, I will paraphrase it. Eyes2See argues that uranium is used to make dangerous weapons, and in the wrong hands, could cause a problem. The catch here is that the US Government and 32 other governments oversee the operations of these plants. If the dangerous weapons are being made, it is a result of the government using the leftover energy or part of the energy created to use for military purposes. There is nothing wrong with this, if a company is going to make energy for profit, than the government can tax this and remain perfectly in the right, it is a matter of a contract, so this point is null and void. 

    Finally, Eyes2See mentions the possibility of other alternative sources and the dangers of nuclear energy. However, as mentioned in Round 1, nuclear energy is safer than all other sources of additional energy and is 8000 times more effective than other forms of energy, thus any accidents that occur are simply accidents that could occur in any location, and since there have only been 3 in the entire history of nuclear energy, it is safe to assume that this is an expenditure viable for the future.

    In Conclusion: All arguments regarding hazards of nuclear energy have been rebutted with the World Nuclear Association Program, and all pro's outweigh the cons because of the safety measures that are taken each day. Thank you for your time, and I urge viewers to support nuclear energy's use commercially.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Round 2 | Position: Against
    Eyes2SeeEyes2See 17 Pts   -  

    Round Two – Against

     

    Hello DebateIsland,

     

    I wanted to take a minute to sum up what we have discussed thus far for the convenience of the readers.

     

    From what I am seeing, the debate so far can be summed up into two main arguments:

     

    For – For is arguing that Nuclear Energy is ‘safe enough’ with environmental hazards being ‘potential,’ and catastrophic accidents being ‘rare.’

     

    Against – I have shown through my explanations, and scholarly sources cited in my opening argument that there is risk involved with Nuclear Energy.

     

    I don’t think anybody can disagree that FOR would be correct that Nuclear Energy is ‘safe enough’ in the capacity we are using it currently, with the regulations we have in place currently, and with the governments controlling the energy, safety, and security.

     

    I also don’t think anybody can disagree that Nuclear Energy has a certain level of risk associated with it, and MUST be handled with the utmost consideration, utmost care, and utmost governmental supervision. That is why currently a business can purchase a solar panel with zero issues, however a business cannot start up a small nuclear power plant.

     

    As I explained in my opening arguments, this is NOT a debate on whether or not Nuclear Energy is acceptable for governmental use as we see it in today’s world, this is not even a debate as to whether or not Nuclear Energy is safe. This is a debate as to whether or not Nuclear Energy can be justified for commercial use. With that being said, I have shown that with the risk involved, and with cleaner, safer alternative energy options available, there is no justification for Nuclear Energy in the commercial sector. There is no reason to increase the potential risk associated with the mining of additional Uranium. There is no justification to increase the risk of Uranium transportation. There is no justification to increase the risk of catastrophic nuclear accidents, and there is no justification to increase the amount of radioactive nuclear waste we would have to dispose.

     

    With cleaner, safer, and more easily accessible energy options available for commercial use today, there is no justification to decrease regulations, increase the risk involved, and allow Nuclear Energy for commercial use. 

  • Round 3 | Position: For
    WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Hey, 

    Sorry for the late response, I have been busy with schoolwork, but I am back to conclude this debate for the affirmative side. In this argument, I will be closing by restating my main points and refuting any points brought against me. 

    The Summary of Eyes2See:

    For – For is arguing that Nuclear Energy is ‘safe enough’ with environmental hazards being ‘potential,’ and catastrophic accidents being ‘rare.’

     

    Against – I have shown through my explanations, and scholarly sources cited in my opening argument that there is risk involved with Nuclear Energy.


    Overall, I think that this is a justifiable response, but this exposes the main idea behind your argument. You state that there is rick involved with nuclear energy, but that is already, without a doubt, true. However, you fail to mention the incoherent risk of other forms of energy. You mention that alternate fuel would be better, but this is not the point of the debate. We are arguing over the commercial use of nuclear energy, and as I have shown in my arguments, nuclear energy is safer than virtually every other source of energy. For instance, according to https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-climate-change/, the Chernobyl event, one of only three accidents, still had less deaths than coal plants. "The World Health Organization estimates the disaster will claim 4,000 lives, a figure that includes everything from direct victims to people born with genetic mutations well after the meltdown in 1986. By comparison, particulate matter from coal power plants kills about 7,500 people in the US every year."

    The reason that nuclear energy gets a bad reputation is because of newspapers with hooks that "lead with flair" or articles that discuss novelty. Since we don't usually hear about nuclear plants, we become engrossed in one accident that we make a stereotypical claim about the entire chain. According to the same site, "Since Three Mile Island in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the rate of shut-down-the-reactor-level problems has dropped from 2.5 per plant per year to around 0.1.

    Nuclear Power Plant Safety Dukovany Czech Republic

    One point that Eyes2See brought up that I haven't yet discussed is the disposal of nuclear waste. In fact, according to http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/talking-nuclear/top-10-myths-about-nuclear-energy, "All of the used nuclear fuel generated in every nuclear plant in the past 50 years would fill a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards, and 96 % of this “waste” can be recycled [5].  Used fuel is currently being safely stored.  The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the equivalent scientific advisory panels in every major country support geological disposal of such wastes as the preferred safe method for their ultimate disposal[6]."

    This quote accurately shows that waste from nuclear energy is very minuscule and while perhaps an issue if an unwary person falls in, won't necessarily harm the life around the area.

    Another point that I would like to mention is that electrical power is necessary for the United States and the World. As stated in Round 1, nuclear energy is 8000 times more efficient than coal, a statement refuted by Eyes2See. Additionally, according to https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/going-long-term-us-nuclear-power-plants-could-extend-operating-life-to-80-years, run by an organization that investigates and licences nuclear plants, "Nuclear provides 20 percent of the United States’ electricity supply and more than 60 percent of the country’s CO2 emissions-free generation. Electricity demand is expected to rise by more than 30 percent by 2035."

    With higher demand and usage comes an operation that can fulfill its duty while remaining safe and efficient.

    Rebutting:

    "As I explained in my opening arguments, this is NOT a debate on whether or not Nuclear Energy is acceptable for governmental use as we see it in today’s world, this is not even a debate as to whether or not Nuclear Energy is safe. This is a debate as to whether or not Nuclear Energy can be justified for commercial use." 

    This is correct, but one of the key elements to its justification come from safety, if nuclear plants can be proven safe, as I have done, than they are justified for commercial usage. You have mentioned that there is a risk, but you have not provided any numbers, only three accidents that I have quickly glossed over. We as a nation should not be held back by minor setbacks, the overall benefaction of nuclear energy far outweighs most risks.

    "There is no reason to increase the potential risk associated with the mining of additional Uranium. There is no justification to increase the risk of Uranium transportation. There is no justification to increase the risk of catastrophic nuclear accidents, and there is no justification to increase the amount of radioactive nuclear waste we would have to dispose."

    Don't bring up new topics! Mining for uranium and its conversion from uranium to energy are two separate arguments. In fact, I would agree that the mining is dangerous, but not the conversion process, as my opponent has not refuted. Uranium transportation is safe, as the transportation carriers are run by the government, and therefore, the government takes proper steps to ensure safety. There have been NO confirmed accidents as a result of transportation, only from inside the plants themselves.


    Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope that I have persuaded you that nuclear energy is safe and necessary for usage commercially. For the purposes of this debate, please vote on whether Eyes2See or me had better arguments, not off of personal opinion. Thank you for your time, and thank you for reading!

    CuriousGeorge
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Round 3 | Position: Against
    Eyes2SeeEyes2See 17 Pts   -  

    Closing Arguments – Against

    Hello Debateisland,

    I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. I also appreciate the time and energy WilliamSchulz has placed in creating and posting his arguments.

    In conclusion, I would like to sum up my argument that has been presented and leave you with a final thought.

    My Argument

    My argument throughout this debate has really been very simple, Nuclear Energy comes with certain levels of safety risks that need to be carefully considered, observed, and responsibly managed. The potentially harmful risks in Nuclear Energy can be summed up into the four main categories I listed in my opening arguments: Mining Uranium, radioactive waste disposal, nuclear accidents, and the transportation of Uranium.

    70 years ago, Nuclear Energy was a very strong and exciting technology that provided large amounts of energy, with risk levels that can be reasonably contained for governmental use only. Today we have alternative energy options that provide much less risk, require much less resources, and require much less government intervention and control. With alternative energy options available such as solar power, natural gas, or hydrogen cells, there is no justification to now allow Nuclear Energy for commercial use.  

    The prime example for this is the Chernobyl disaster. FOR claims that the disaster only killed  4,000 people according to www.wired.com. Low numbers like this are cited when sources don’t understand the total effects of radiation poisoning, or only look at the short-term deaths. In actuality, radiation poising claims most of its victims over extended periods of time. The actual death toll from the Chernobyl disaster ranges from 16,000, to 93,000 from sources such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the International Medical Researches from Ukraine, Russia (Diesendorf, 2017).

    How many people have died in solar panel accidents?


    From FOR I would have liked to have seen the benefits Nuclear Energy could have provided for commercial use that other clean energy options cannot that would justify the increased potential risk to the environment, I would have also liked to have seen the future of Nuclear Energy with the clean alternatives to Uranium that have been developed, however we failed to see those arguments.

    From what we have seen from the arguments presented, there is absolutely no justification for the governments of this world to open up Nuclear Energy for commercial use.

    I would just like to leave you with one final thought:

    Final Thought

    If Nuclear Energy is justified for commercial use, why in the 70 years since its invention and use in the government sector, have all governments forbid it from being made available to the commercial sector?  


    Good luck and may the best argument win!


    References

    Diesendorf, A. M. (2017, November 07). Renewable energy versus nuclear: dispelling the myths. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://energypost.eu/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispelling-myths/

    someone234CuriousGeorge
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch