Nuclear restrictions should be dropped to allow for faster development
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Another a short debate from me. I'm not sure if this topic could be expanded to perhaps 5 or 7.5 thousand characters, so the purpose of this debate is to just get a sense of what the context will be. If this debate turns out to be interesting, then I'll definitely make a longer one.
So should all restrictions limiting the development of nuclear weapons be dropped to allow for faster development?
Hello RationalMadman and thanks for accepting. Let's begin...
What are some of the nuclear restrictions?
In America, 14 states have placed restrictions on new nuclear power plant development. Countries are also phasing out nuclear power due to many regulations. Italy for example has phased out present and planned nuclear plants.
Expanding the bubble to technological research, there have been a few treaties which ban nuclear testing and development, like the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
In addition, there are many factors that could limit or delay nuclear development that aren't related to laws and policies. Big companies like the NIRS have petitioned to phase out plants as soon as possible. There's also many anti-nuclear movements run by ordinary people - an example would be the 170,000 people protesting after the Three Mile Island event.
With all these factors taken into account, it is safe to assume that nuclear development is not at it's highest.
What are the benefits to nuclear technology?
We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice
Many countries have the same problem. They are running out of coal, oil, and gas, and have to rely on other countries for support.
Take Japan for example. Before 2011, a third of Japan's energy came from nuclear power plants. Then disaster struck. And since Japan wasn't abundant in non-renewable resources, they had to rely on other nations for energy resources. That caused Japan's first trade deficit in decades!
Nuclear has the highest capacity factor by far!
- Nuclear - 92.3%
- Coal - 53.6%
- Hydroelectricity - 38.2%
- Wind turbines - 34.5%
- Solar power - 25.1%
That means nuclear power is practically a constant source of energy. It doesn't matter if the sun if shining or if the wind is blowing, nuclear will almost always generate power - carbon free.
Nuclear also has the highest EROEI!
Next round, I will focus on the technological benefits of nuclear.
I await my opponent's arguments.
Sorry to hear that you fortified the previous round. Hopefully you can make this one. To make it fair, I'll just keep this round short and sweet.
Technological benefits of nuclear
- Consumer products - smoke alarms
- Industrial uses - desalination
- And more!
As you can see, nuclear technology impacts many of our lives. However, with more and advance testing and improvements, we can significantly change for the better these produces.
Thank you and I wish you the best RationalMadman.
It's utterly insane to remove restrictions it will explode the world and leave permanent radiation.
I concede this debate though, it is too boring for me and I thought I would be more into it but my emotions have failed me.
I think nuclear power should be legal but regulated. Even nuclear advocates say it should be regulated, and heavily. It is something that requires a lot of permits to make sure it´s done in a safe way, but it works in giving about 20% of the US electricity. Compared to coal, it´s a very safe place to work, with 99.9% less deaths. The experts take care of everything that could go wrong with the plant.