Nuclear Energy is Safer then Fossil Fuels
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I'll take the PRO position, that nuclear energy is safer then fossil fuels. CON will have to show that fossil fuels are safer then nuclear energy.
safe = not likely to cause harm or lost.
fossil fuels = a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms. (especially when used in a power plant)
nuclear energy = the energy released during nuclear fission or fusion, especially when used to generate electricity.
If someone wants use different definitions, then they have to make it clear before the debate, and I have to agree with them.
- Nuclear energy causes less deaths
- Nuclear energy produces less waste
However, nuclear power plants of the world are vulnerable to the terrorist attack. So, they are not safer from the national security point of view
the challenge that concerns me the most is the cybersecurity vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure and democratic institutions from external state and nongovernmental actors
if a nuclear weapon exploded in a major city, the blast center would be hotter than the surface of the sun, tornado-strength winds would spread the flames; and a million or more people could die.
the policy which was introduced to prevent the spread of Coronavirus-19 pandemic in Italycontributed to reducing the air pollution.
Therefore, I believe that after the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic fossil fuels create less waste than before.
“ with the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, new way of thinking toward life and society has emerged.Look-down of big cities, tell-work and restriction of the movement of people on a global scale have taught many people of the world that the life and society which are less-dependent on fossil fuels contributes to mitigating global warming. the important thing is that reasonable and efficient use of fossil fuels are not harmful not only on the environment but on the health of human beings. “
“ global scale contributes to shifting our attention to the importance and urgency of using less fossil energy. This is penetrating not only into the general public but into business world very deeply. “
“ The important thing is that we are experiencing an emerging new normal that may not look much like the pre-pandemic world. “
“I always prepare for unprecedented heavy rain and unusual typhoon threatening our life. Central and local government are urgently required to introduce measures to reduce the effects of natural disasters which take place so often in many parts of the world these days. Renovating the aging road and buildings is the urgent task which they must tackle to eliminate the effects of natural disaster.”
"a broad theme is to press corporations across sectors, from oil and transport to food and drink, to detailhow they plan to reduce their carbon footprints in coming years, in line with government pledges to cut emissions to net zero by 2050."
"another approach for reducing emissions from fossil fuels is to capture the carbon dioxide and store it underground in deep geological formation, a technique known as carbon capture and sequestration."
"The important thing is that stop using fossil fuels may lead to deprive of the vitality and the path to stable growth of world economy"
vote bump
thank you for the sources, I'll check them out
And this one,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.
Don't forget about THROIUM REACTORS and specifically MODULAR THORIUM REACTORS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofGtxEgpI8
Good argument! We can definitely see the positive effects of nuclear power when comparing France and Germany, with France having one-tenth the carbon emissions per kWh than Germany due to how 70% of France's power is from nuclear energy while Germany has many coal-burning plants. These plants in Germany have also spread pollution via wind, with a small portion of pollution in France being from the wind blowing pollution from Germany. Furthermore, Germany's burning of fossil fuels for energy is linked to over 2,500 deaths abroad each year.
Definitely, as we see innovations in modern nuclear power plant designs being safer, smaller, and more efficient, it would be good to see the US move towards more nuclear sources too in order to cut down on fossil fuels and burning coal.
What a lopsided debate. Just going by the metric of human casualties, More people died manufacturing and installing solar panels this year than all deaths combined from Nuclear power ever.
I think the government would pay the homeowners who have to move in the event of a meltdown, as that is precedent with Flint Michigan, so if they move, it's not a big deal. Such people are very rare given that not many people live close to a nuclear power plant. Granted, I'm not worried about power plants melting down again anytime soon. The most feasible alternative to nuclear is coal power, which isn't clean.
Yeah that's what I mean, those living close, regardless of where their power comes from, would have to move.
You can choose whether or not you are powered with nuclear. If you don't like nuclear energy, don't buy energy from nuclear power plants. Half of my state is nuclear powered. If there is a meltdown (which almost never occur), I won't have to move. Some people living really close to the plant would have to move, but most people who rely on the plant for power won't have to move. A nuclear power plant powers more than just a small town. 2 plants power a small state, and 4 power plants can power an entire average sized state. Meltdowns are almost non existent, so I wouldn't worry about them.
Not really a choice if the town is nuclear powered, cause if it melts down, even if you chose solar panels, you're gonna have to move
I think people should decide for themselves what energy source to get. If you like solar, buy from solar producers or make your own. If you like fossil fuels, buy from fossil fuel producers or make your own. If you like cheap energy, buy from cheap providers or make your own. Let people make their own decisions.
The-Meliorist, I am looking forward to be a good debate.
Thank you for accepting the debate, I will have my first round argument in by Monday
He likes the green of the smog
Aren't you advocating for the opposite of whatever your username would say?
War is ugly in general. It's best used when the alternative is uglier.
Yeah for sure. You can be justified in your war on paper but fuck it up with awful conduct
The lines get blurry in cases like the Battle of Grozny (1994). Chechnia politically seceded from russia after the USSR fell bc they hated the purges stalin had committed (literally loading them up into cattle cars for mass deportation).
In response, the Russian government sent some 40,000 conscripts to retake the city of Grozny. They underestimated the chechin's will to fight and suffered incredible losses. But the insurgent forced did not give a fook about the moral high ground and freely boobytrapped everything, piked the heads of the Russians on the roads, and hung captured Russians upside down in their fighting positions so Russians had to shoot at their comrades in order to even fight. They would order their snipers to shoot the legs, and freely shoot at the rescue parties. Or even or shoot the groin, to attack the morale of the Russians who would suffer a slow painful, humiliating death.
But the Russians were mostly teenage conscripts that, from hunger, stress, and a lack of discipline, were taking their frustrations out on the populace.
Yeah. I think WWII was a prime example of that.
Yeah I think I agree with that.
Definitely not in every case. If we truly value human life, we must also be willing to fight to protect it from being devalued. But of course, you can commit war crimes that cross that line into becoming murder.
Oh that's a good one lol. Do You think that war is always murder? Also Josh powell killed his kids with gasoline, is where my mind went
Guess in response to that you could make a meta-arg about nuclear subs and nuclear aircraft carriers lmao. But yeah, a little gas + match = fun times in California.
Yeah 1 came to my mind aswell. But the rate of nuclear meltdowns are pretty low so I haven't accepted. And gas Is volatile and freely accessible, used in murder a lot for that reason.
The main points I thought of for CON have to do with the following:
1. Nuclear disasters (Chernobyl much)
&
2. Nuclear waste (This shit won't turn you into the hulk, it'll just kill you)
&
3. Higher energy costs killing the poor (Self-explanatory)
But each point has their own refutations, and outweighing is so much easier on the PRO side
Yeah that's almost exactly what I was thinking. Still can't decide tho...
There's a good debate to be had here, but the literature favors PRO enough to where I'll pass I think.
I think that's the same thing.
You should be proposing, that nuclear fuel is safer than fossil fuel.