What are your opinions on nuclear power?

i think nuclear power is really dangerous... i dont know, i mean it's good and everything, but the fact that it's so dangerous is baaaad.

Yay! I finally have someone to debate this topic with

Well.. you seem to contradict yourself, you say its good, then its bad.. take a side, do the benefits of nuclear power outwiegh the potential harms? why?

hmmm well see, i have mixed feelings, my opinion is this: if it is gaurunteed to be safe, i'd be for it. but since it isn't, basically i'm against it.

haha yeah, i saw this topic had 0 replies so i thought i'd give it a head start-- plus, this topic interests me

hehe well i'm just glad someone responded since we talked about this in chem today.. anyways.. moving on..

Alright, so you're concerned about safety.. see, the thing is.. the accidents with nuclear powerplants have been so overpublicized, no one realizes how safe current conditions actually are.. and these power plants provide so much more power than do alternate fuel sources or fossil fuels..

From the American Nuclear Society, Feb. 2003:
"Over the past 20 years, the average capacity factor
has increased from about 60 percent to over 90 percent. This increased
capacity translates into an additional 23 000 megawatts
of power on the grid—the equivalent of building 23 new plants.
Nuclear safety has been excellent and there have been substantial
reductions in operating and maintenance costs, worker exposures
to radiation, and quantities of radioactive waste generated. Since
the mid-1970s, nuclear energy has enabled the United States to
avoid emitting over 80 million tons of sulfur dioxide and about 40
million tons of nitrogen oxides.
Nuclear-generated electricity is among the cheapest available
today. The production costs (fuel, operations, and maintenance)
of most nuclear plants are less than 2¢/kWh and the best plants
generate electricity for only about 1¢/kWh."

Therefore, because nuclear power does not pollute like fossil fuels, is far cheaper and far more effcient than other fuels, and as the report states, has been excellent safetywise, why shouldnt we use it?

well there still is the possibility for a huge disaster, and i dont think it's worth the risk you know?

Well, there's always a possibility for a huge disaster, there's a possibility that a volcano might erupt, but people still live near them, there's a possibility of earthquakes in California, but I dont see it empty, there's a possibility of tidal waves in hawaii, but ppl live there..

We cant guarantee 100% safety with anything, there's always that random chance, but we can minimize it as much as possible,
Like the article I brought up stated, "Nuclear safety has been excellent and there have been substantial reductions in operating and maintenance costs, worker exposures to radiation, and quantities of radioactive waste generated"

I mean.. what would you rather have, few nuclear power plants producing a lot of power cheaply, with minute risk of disaster, or lots of conventional (fossil fuel) power plants producing power slightly more expensively, with a slightly less risk of disaster, but polluting the environment

I say nuclear power only if we recycle and properly dispose of it. otherwise, awesome.

wait.. i'm confused by the otherwise part..

well anyways, we do dispose of it well.. we bury them in these deep underground chambers where they're safe and dont pose a threat to ppl

well, there are only so many times you can use a core.

Yes, then we dispose of it underground where it slowly deteriorates, simply as that

some countries store them rather sloppily, and its leaking all of the place. i don't believe russia does a very good job of it, but the documentary i saw was rather old.

well.. russia...communism.. how about we specifically talk about the United States, should the United States focus more on nuclear power, why or why not, that'll be the debate topic

well... im against it... i mean dude nuclear bomb O_O;;... lil kids might end up touching that...and we all die...hahahahahaha... whoa...heh... newais... but im reallie against it.. i wish it's put to stop...it's reallie dangerous to stay in this earth... having a nuclear power can kill someone... anytime and any day... i mean... we dont knoe wat they are up to these days...and i bet...right after i submit this... someone mess up with the nuclear power and we all die...hah....gez

Well the nuclear bomb is far different than nuclear power plants because the nuclear bomb is an uncontrolled reaction that releases a lot of energy and radiation.. modern nuclear power plants are controlled and the energy is harnessed and the radiation contrained..

well.. someone can be killed anytime and any day by regular power plants too, they're called freak accidents..

if you read my evidence I presented above, it stated that

Therefore, nuclear power is very safe, pollution efficient, cost efficient, and energy efficient, so why not use them?

The common misconception is that a nuclear power plant may explode like a nuclear bomb if things go wrong - this is not true. The mass of Uranium 235 is not critical enough in a nuclear power plant for this to happen.

Yeah, but something like Chernobyl(sp?) can happen.


- Chinkieeyedpnoi

the question is whether the benefit of nuclear power outweighs the risk of incidents like the one at Chernobyl and all the radioactive material it produces. One must also remember that some of the radioisotopes produced in nuclear reactors have significant medical uses as well.

Im all for Nuclear power it is a great source of power and everyday it becomes safer to use....

What happened at Chernobyl [sp.?] had to do with the control rods... the control rods stabilize the reaction by receiving the neutrons given off from the reaction... so they lifted the control rods all the way and predicted it will take ten minutes for them to come back down... they were wrong... it took twenty minutes which led to a meltdown... So, anyway... that was their mistake... At Three Mile Island... a puff of steam from the rods was released... it wasn't known if it was radioactive or not.. but the steam was because something had gone wrong with the water that goes through to cool down the rods... Which was honestly nothing to worry about... So, yeah... Another thing is that nuclear power plants do not contain enough of the Uranium isotope or any other isotope that can set off a reaction if something went wrong... Meaning the Power Plant will not blow up or make a 'nuclear bomb' or anything because of the insufficient amount to set off the reaction...
Nuclear Power Plants are safe. That's where I stand on this.

Dont' they create alot of waste that doesn't break down for years?

They're much like fossil fuels, a quick fix with undesirable leftovers.

The waste is usually stored underground.

They still haven't found a way to store the stuff (high-level redioactive waste)away for 10,000 years. Underground is a relativley short-term solution believe it or not. Nuclear plants just create problems that our great great great whatevers will have to deal with.

Anywho, Nuclear power is so 50 years ago, most plants' licenses are close to expiring.

They're actually building more nuclear power plants.

Nevermind, my argument has gone to pure sh*t. Turns out that nuclear power plants release less radioactive material into the enviroment then coal-powered ones (wtf). When improperly run though, they're dangerous as hell to both the enviroment and people. (Chernobyl)

Steven... I'm laughing at you.

When IMPROPERLY run, but the maintenance is quite good in the US, after Chernobyl, ppl started realli paying attention to nuclear safety and it has paid off

Hey,we all have off days.

I just have a couple more...

And a couple less "on" days.

Stfu.

Once they can get a nuclear fusion powerplant going, then there'll be no complaints

A nuclear fusion power plant would be incredible.

Yes nuclear fusion would be awesome, but we simply dont have the technology to generate the temperatures needed for fusion right now..

So sticking with nuclear fission, would you guys consider that as a better source of energy than other power plants, all factors considered? (trying to revive debate..)

YOU CAN'T HUG YOUR CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS.

WTH??!!! We're debating nuclear power, not nuclear weapons

Hmm...let's see nucleaur power has many negative effects to it that I know of. Well, atomic bomb for example (nuclear bomb) that was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they contained the potent substances of uranium and plutonium. Look at the negative effects that happened. Over 500,000 people died and some still suffered from radiation. Since I'm a very undecisive person (that's why I'm terrible at debating *tear*), I want to state that this is only true with nuclear weapons, but I'm okay with nuclear plants I guess. As long as they produce the risk of harming anybody, I'm okay with it. Ok, I will stand back now *afraid of what Emeraldknight will say*

LOL I dont bite.. much


Doesnt this defy the whole point of the sentences prior? the topic is nuclear power, not nuclear weapons


Haha who says I'm decisive? I just let other ppl post and I argue the side that no one argues

Slightly going against my own case here, they do produce the risk of harming ppl, every source of power does, the question at hand is whether the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks

Well, if it does produce risks then I see that nuclear powers shouldn't be used. Nothing is worth harming something in my opinion. If there are risks, it just shouldn't be done. I mean, there must be other ways to serve the same purpose without producing these risks...

Other ways? Go back to the first page and read my evidence on nuclear power.. conventional fossil fuel burning power plants produce LESS energy AND they POLLUTE the environment whereas alternate fuel sources produce LESS energy and are a lot more EXPENSIVE; the risks arent that great in nuclear power plants, nothing comes without risk, realize that

We can generate the temperatures, but we can't contain it... well that's what I thought

Nope, we can't generate it to begin with.. the temperature required is in the billions of degrees.. although some individuals claim to have generated it in a small container in room temperature, the whole idea behind cold fusion, but no one has been able to reproduce the same results yet

I don't really caer about Nuclear Power, the way I see it every power company should make that decision themselves.

But seeing a policy debater argue about nuclear stuff, I can't resist but say:

If we have nuclear powerplants, then terrorists will seize the facilities and cause NUCLEAR WAR!
But w/o powerplants, the stuff will be easier to access, and thus we wil lhave NUCLEAR WAR!

What the heck does that mean?
And seriously.. you know as well as I do that the possibility of that happening is extremely slim

WHAT!? You're a policy debater and you haven't run an irrelevant nuclear war case yet!? Shame... After you have a year or two of experience you'll know what I mean. Ask the other policy debaters on your team about Nuclear War, okay?

Haha well consider that I've onli done policy at one tourney, and that was the last novice tourney; i jumped in with about 2 days or preparation, so cut me some slack, alright?