Instigator / Pro
7
1516
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#2792
Nuclear Energy is Safer then Fossil Fuels
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
The_Meliorist
Tags
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
4
1468
rating
9
debates
38.89%
won
Description
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you green planet for accepting this debate
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels
There are two lines of evidence to show that nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels
- Nuclear energy causes less deaths
- Nuclear energy produces less waste
1. Nuclear energy causes less deaths
Air pollution causes more than 4.6 million deaths a year,[1] to compare this to deaths by nuclear accidents, the highest estimates for the deaths caused directly and indirectly from the Chernobyl and Fukusima are 60,573 deaths (some estimates say less than 5,000 died/will die). As you can see, air pollution (which is solely caused by fossil fuels) kills more in a year, then nuclear energy has in the entire history of its use, making nuclear energy clearly safer.
To explain this data in another way, if we had a town of 187,090 people, and we powered it solely with coal, 25 would die a year, on average (mostly because of low air quality caused by air pollution). If we powered this town with just oil, 18 people would die a year (from air pollution). If we were to power this town with nuclear power, only one person would die every 14 years on average, due to nuclear accidents. (0.07 people a year), and this might be an overestimate. [3]
The fact is, Nuclear energy results in 99.8% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.7% fewer than coal; 99.6% fewer than oil; and 97.5% fewer than gas. [3]
2.Nuclear energy produces less waste
One thing that scares people about nuclear energy is nuclear waste, however air pollution via fossil fuels is a far scarier reality.
In 2019, about 70 million tons of pollution were emitted into the atmosphere in the United States. [4]This is polluting our air, and we are breathing this in mind you.
The U.S. nuclear industry has produced roughly 64,000 metric tons (one metric ton equals 1.1 U.S. tons) of radioactive used fuel rods in its entire history of use. Or, enough to cover a football field about seven yards deep. (Of course, actually concentrating rods this way would set off a nuclear chain reaction.)[5] most of this waste is stored in pools on the nuclear sight, safe away from the vast majority of humans, and is kept there until it decays, and cannot harm anyone, after all the amount of space it takes to store it is incredibly small.
As you see, fossil fuels create millions more pollution per year then nuclear energy has ever produced. And, we are breathing in the air pollution, but are not even bothered by the small about of nuclear waste that has been produced.
[1]
[2]
[3] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=But%20to%20summarise%3A%20the%20death,deaths%20(largely%20from%20mining%20and
[4]
[5]
Con
#2
I believe that nuclear energy is not safer than fossil fuels. When we think about energy which is indispensable not only for our everyday life but for many industries, the most important thing is that the highest priority must be placed on the safety of human beings and the life of community where we live in.
I present two reasons why nuclear energy is not safer compared with the fossil fuels.
First is that nuclear energy is very dangerous and has higher risks. It is very vulnerable to natural disaster which is difficult to predict accurately. Natural disaster reminds us of the great earthquake and great wave which took place in Fukushima of Japan on March 11, 2011. The disaster destroyed nuclear energy facilities operating there for many years and many local people were compelled to leave their community. Furthermore, the soil covering the wide area of the nuclear power plants were vastly contaminated.
Agriculture was urged to refrain from continuing its activities. Moreover, a nuclear power accident creates a high risk of cancer rates within nearby communities.
The important thing is that if the serious accident like the disaster of Fukushima might happen, the safety and health of many people can be seriously damaged and disrupted.
Second reason is that too much cost and careful selection of the location are required to the storage of nuclear waste. I look at the case of the United States. ``The primary
proposal for long -term storage of nuclear waste is burial in very carefully selected deep geological repositories. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was once a promising candidate, though this option was shut down in 2011, due to strictly political reasons. There is now only one deep waste repository in the U.S: The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. However, this plant itself has faced some problems that highlight the need to research better alternatives for the Yucca Mountain repository.
Unfortunately, the same sentiments that inspired closure of the Yucca Mountain repository have also inspired reducing research funding and preventing investigations of other
potential geological locations.``( `Reconsidering the risks of nuclear power`, sitn.hms.harvard.edu. )
When I take above-mentioned arguments into consideration, fossil fuels are less dangerous and has lower risks than atomic energy.
Fossil fuels do not bring harmful and dreadful effects not only on our everyday life and health but on the survival of one of the leading industry like agriculture in a nation.
Therefore, judging from the arguments so far, I believe that nuclear energy is not safer than fossil fuels.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Nuclear energy is safer then fossil fuels
highest priority must be placed on the safety of human beings and the life of community where we live in.
I couldn't agree more, however, my round one argument established that fossil fuels kill millions, and nuclear energy only tens of thousands. An argument greenplanet has yet to refute.
There are two arguments greenplanet presents, one, nuclear energy is very dangerous and a high risk. And two, is the cost of careful selection to find a place to dump nuclear waste.
1.Unaddressed Arguments
Basically all of my arguments from round one went unaddressed. Also, as you will see, all of the problems greenplanet has with nuclear energy, fossil fuels have in a worse magnitude.
2.Rebuttal
CON brings up the Fukushima disaster, as an example of nuclear energy being dangerous. However, he ignores the fact that fossil fuels kill more people than nuclear energy(see my round one argument).
As for the issue of nuclear waste, there is hardly a problem at all. CON brings up the fact that there is only one nuclear waste dump sight in the US. However, this is not an issue. If you read my round one argument, you would see that most nuclear waste is stored on-site of the nuclear reactor, and even if that weren't the case, the entirety of all nuclear waste ever created by the US can fit into a football field, and cover it only 7 yards deep in material. The fact that there is only one nuclear dump site is not a problem.
Also, fossil fuels have this same exact problem, but on a worse magnitude. They create 70 million tons of pollution every year, far worse than nuclear energy has ever been able to do. (See my round one argument)
I read the article greenplanet put. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/reconsidering-risks-nuclear-power/.
I found that the article was actually kind of on my side of the debate.
To quote the article:
"There is no doubt that nuclear power has problems that can cost human lives, but such risks are borne by all major modes of energy production. Therefore, the question shouldn’t be, ‘is nuclear energy deadly?’ Instead, we should ask ‘is nuclear energy more dangerous than other energy sources?"
So the article knows that nuclear energy costs lives, but as you see in the next quote, it knows that fossil fuels cost even more lives:
"Fossil fuels have a host of problems themselves. The byproducts from burning fossil fuels are toxic pollutants that produce ozone, toxic organic aerosols, particulate matter, and heavy metals. The World Health Organization has stated the urban air pollution, which is a mixture of all of the chemicals just described, causes 7 million deaths annually or about 1 in 8 of total deaths."
To quote the article one last time:
"In fact, on a per kWh of energy produced basis, both the European Union and the Paul Scherrer Institute, the largest Swiss national research institute, found an interesting trend regarding the fatalities attributable to each energy source. Remarkably, nuclear power is the benchmark to beat, outranking coal, oil, gas, and even wind by a slight margin as the least deadly major energy resource in application (see Figure 3)."
So, this article greenplanet has put clearly states that nuclear energy is safer then oil, coal, gas, and even wind.
Here's a link to figure three:
So, the article that greenplanet quotes to support his views actually supports mine. Yes, the article knows that nuclear energy cost lives, and yes the article knows there's a waste problem however it also knows that fossil fuels have far worse problems that nuclear energy could never live up to.
3.Global Warming
I left out global warming in my frost round, however, I will bring it up here.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 414 parts per million in the last 150 years. there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.[1]
On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. [1]
Climate change has lead to extremes, such as droughts, floods and extreme temperatures, can lead to crop losses and threaten the livelihoods of agricultural producers and the food security of communities worldwide. Depending on the crop and ecosystem, weeds, pests, and fungi can also thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased CO2 levels, and climate change will likely increase weeds and pests.[1]
As you see climate change is a very bad effect of fossil fuels.
4.Questions For Greenplanet
Here are some questions I want greenplanet to answer next round:
If fossil fuels are safe, why does nuclear energy kill 98 percent less people than coal?
Do you think fossil fuels create less waste then nuclear energy?
Conclusion
Both of the problems that greenplanet brings up about nuclear energy fossil fuels have, and in a worse magnitude. He says nuclear energy costs lives, but fossil fuels cost more. He says nuclear energy creates waste, but fossil fuels create more waste.
Con
#4
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels
1. Rebuttal : Let me begin this round by presenting the rebuttal for Pro`s arguments in Round 1.
Pro thinks that waste produced by nuclear power plant is not dangerous compared with that of fossil fuels. However, I believe that we must pay much attention to the serious
damages caused by the nuclear waste. This triggers the harmful effects on the life of local people living in nearby nuclear power plant and on the local environment.
The important fact is that nuclear waste is very dangerous. Regarding to the nuclear waste, ``around 8910 tons of heavy metal nuclear waste are generated each year. This waste mainly comes from nuclear power stations. Three territories produce over 1000 tons a year: the United States, Canada and France`` 1)
Now, I proceed to the next rebuttal for Pro`s argument. Pro argues that nuclear energy causes less deaths in relation to the nuclear accidents. 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 main reason is that ``the plants are attractive targets for
terrorists.``2) And ``in case nuclear technology gets into the wrong hands, it poses a serious threat to the whole world in general. So, it`s also important to invest in heavy
security intelligence to protect nuclear materials and power plants.``3)
James Stavridis argues that ``the challenge that concerns me the most is the cybersecurity vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure and democratic institutions from external
state and nongovernmental actors.``4)
2. Answer to the question raised by Pro.
Regarding to the first question: Pro mentions that nuclear energy kill 98 percent less people than coal. I believe the important thing is that regional tensions in the Middle
East and serious economic and political tensions between the U.S. and China which are seeking for hegemonic power in a global stage pose and present nuclear threat to global security these days. Therefore, ``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.``5)
Regarding to the second question: We must pay much attention to the fact that the policy which was introduced to prevent the spread of Coronavirus-19 pandemic in Italy
contributed to reducing the air pollution. Italy introduced ``strict quarantine measures, satellite data over northern Italy have now shown a large drop in air pollution-specifically nitrogen dioxide, a gas mainly emitted by cars, trucks, power plants and some industrial plants.``6)
Other than Italy, many countries of the world introduced policies to overcome the pandemic such measures as Tele-work, lock-down of big cities, stay-at-home and restriction of foreign travel. As a result, the number of cars on the street, the users of public transportation and air plain have greatly decreased. This contributes to reducing air pollution and global warming on a global scale. This situation will continue for many years to come. The reason is that many people of the world have learned how awful, dreadful, and harmful the Covid-19 pandemic on their life and survival.
The important thing is that they are embracing new life style which is unthinkable in the days before the pandemic. Therefore, I believe that after the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic fossil fuels create less waste than before.
In Round 3, I am planning to present my arguments for fossil fuels.
Sources: 1)`` Nuclear Waste``, Social and Spatial Inequalities Group,2006
2),3) Examining nuclear energy Pros and Cons, https://www.energywarden.com.
4) Trump got his space force. Biden should get a cyber force. The Japan Times, February 6,2021
5) The Nuclear Threat, https://www.nti.org.
6) New evidence shows how Covid-19 has affected global air pollution, https://www. sciencealert.com.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels
Firstly, I would like to ask for greenplanet to use links for his sources, so that they may be easier to get to. (I could not find his first source) also I could not find the "Examining nuclear energy Pros and Cons" post in this link https://www.energywarden.com/
Also, it's unclear what source greenplanet is using for his second one, since there is no source listed, and I could not find "Examining nuclear energy Pros and Cons" in his third one.
1.Conceded Points
Since greenplanet has not refuted the fact that fossil fuels kill more people than nuclear energy, he has conceded that fossil fuels kill more, let the voters remember this.
2.Rebuttal
Con says that nuclear waste is dangerous. However, he neglects to remember that in my round one argument, I established that most nuclear waste isn't even around humans, yes there’s a lot of nuclear waste, but it’s stored away safely, unlike fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are in the air, our lungs, and the environment.
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
This is true, in 2009 U.S. forces found diagrams of American nuclear power plants in al-Qaeda materials in Afghanistan[1]. However, greenplanet is overplaying this threat. Dispute the fact that an attack could be worse than a reactor meltdown, this option remains a hypothetical, until an attack actually happens.
Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) chairman Richard Meserve has said: "Since September 11, there have been no specific credible threats of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant. ", "nonetheless, we and our licensees have maintained our highest security posture.” so it's very unlikely that any attack will ever happen.
Also, a "credible threat” that happened after September 11, was found false days afterward. Nevertheless, the NRC closed down two nearby airports for four hours, and military aircraft were sent to patrol the area. As you see, even if this was a threat It would be very hard for the terrorists to actually get to the plant.[1]
So the terrorist threat to nuclear power plants does not overcome the con of fossil fuels, which is millions dead per year(see round 1).
Again, I am debating that Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels, not that it's perfectly safe
the challenge that concerns me the most is the cybersecurity vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure and democratic institutions from external state and nongovernmental actors
This quite literally has nothing to do with nuclear energy. All this does is establish that Solar Wind has a hacker crisis. The article you gave didn't even contain the words "nuclear" or "energy".
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.
Nuclear weapons are not nuclear energy. A Nuke can be very deadly yes, however, a nuclear power plant is not a weapon at all. This point is completely irrelevant to the debate.
the policy which was introduced to prevent the spread of Coronavirus-19 pandemic in Italycontributed to reducing the air pollution.
This is only temporary, doctor Fauci has said that we will reach ‘normality’ by end of 2021[2], this means by 2022 and 2023, fossil fuels will continue to unleash their destructive power on our health, air, and climate. Also fossil fuels, will continue have us suffer terrible side effects, such as accelerated aging of the lungs, Loss of lung capacity and decreased lung function, development of diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and possibly cancer, and will even shortened our life spans, and that is just the tip of the iceberg [3].
It’s also important to note that the air pollution has decreased because they have stopped using fossil fuels, not because fossil fuels have become safer.
Therefore, I believe that after the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic fossil fuels create less waste than before.
This is just wishful thinking, you have no proof that fossil fuels will create less waste when we return to normalcy.
Also, even if fossil fuels do create less waste, this will be because we have stopped using them. The less we use fossil fuels, the less waste. This is why we need to phase out fossil fuels.
3.A question for greenplanet
Are you okay with the effects of climate change?
4.Conclusion
The terrorist threat of nuclear power is basically zero, since no one has even ever tried to attack a power plant, and even if they did they would probably be unsuccessful. Also, nuclear weapons are not nuclear energy, so their dangerousness is not relevant to the debate. Lastly, they decrease of carbon emissions due to fossil fuels are still more dangerous than nuclear waste, and CON has not proven otherwise.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Con
#6
In this round I mainly present my arguments relating to fossil fuels.
1.Argument
I understand that Pro`s main arguments so far is that fossil fuels have contributed to triggering the destruction of natural environment and global warming facing many people of the world these days. Therefore, as Pro points out, fossil fuels are not safer because they have been threatening the survival of human beings on a global scale for many years. However, 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.
From the different of perspective, people of the world have waken up for the Enlightenment movement of 21 century.
Enlightenment is ``a philosophical movement of the 1700s that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms.``1) Covid-19 has triggered this movement, which intends to ``bring about social and humanitarian reforms ``2)among the people of the world. I believe that the emergence of the Enlightenment movement on a 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.
We must admit that these newly emerging situation means that fossil fuels are becoming less harmful and less dangerous energy sources.
I present two examples. First is the ``shift to cycling, by the rise in e-bikes and bike sharing services, has important implications for sustainability. A Deloitte report forecast
a rise from 1percent to 2 percent in the proportion of people who bike to work from 2019 to 2022. While seemingly unimpressive, it notes that `tens of billions of additional bicycle rides per year means fewer car trips and lower emissions, with spillover benefits for traffic congestion and urban air quality.` ``3)
Next is energy firms. They are tackling for introducing new strategy which contributes to reducing the emission of carbon dioxide.
For example, `` Royal Dutch Shell and its European rivals are seeking new business models to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels and appeal to investors concerned about the long-term outlook for an industry under intense pressure to slash greenhouse gas emissions.``4) And Shell ``now aims to use its pole position to snare a large chunk of the fast-growing low-carbon power market.``5)
2. Conclusion
The important thing is that we are experiencing an emerging new normal that may not look much like the pre-pandemic world. Covid-19 pandemic and global warming propel people and firms to sharpen their focus on clean environment and new society which are less dependent on fossil fuels. I believe that this situation leads to erasing the image that fossil fuels are dirty, harmful and unsafe energy sources from among people widely.
3. Answer to the Question by Pro in Round 3.
In the 21st century human beings must prepare for eliminating the effects of climate change.
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.
Sources: 1),2) https://www.thefreedictionary.com.
3) Two -wheel transport is here to stay, by Phoebe Amoroso, The Japan Times, February 14, 2021
4), 5) Shell targets power trading and hydrogen in climate drive, The Japan Times, February 3, 2021
Round 4
Pro
#7
Nuclear Energy is Safer Than Fossil Fuels
I for some reason cannot find the articles “Two -wheel transport is here to stay, by Phoebe Amoroso” or “Shell targets power trading and hydrogen in climate drive”, so I will ask greenplanet to provide links to where these articles are, thank you.
1.Rebuttal
“ 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. “
Firstly, What are your definitions for “reasonable” and “effective”
There is no reason to believe what you are saying. As far as we know, people will continue to use fossil fuels at the same rate they have been when we are past this pandemic. Actually, we are to expect a return to normal fossil fuel usage in the following years. Fossil fuel emissions will increase in 2021 and 2022[1]. Also, the fall in fossil fuel emissions was “smaller than many climate researchers expected given the scale of the pandemic, and is not expected to last once the virus is brought under control.”[2] “The emissions decline is already less than what we expected,” says Zhu Liu, an Earth-system scientist at Tsinghua University in Beijing who co-leads the international Carbon Monitor programmer that provided the data. “I imagine that when the pandemic ends, we probably will see a very strong rebound.”[2] so greenplanet’s utopia where we use fossil fuels less after the pandemic will probably never happen.
Moreover, The United Nations Environment Programmer estimates that the world would need to cut carbon emissions by 7.6% per year for the next decade to prevent the globe from warming more than 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels — a goal set in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Reductions on this scale would be even larger than 2020’s drop in. so even if we have the same amount of carbon emissions the next decade as we have had throughout the pandemic, it would still not be enough to stop global warming.
.Furthermore, I have already refuted this argument as committing the wishful thinking fallacy.
“ 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. “
I agree that we are seeing a shift away from fossil fuels, and that we should continue this retreat. However, the fact that when we use less fossil fuels, they cause less damage is an argument against fossil fuels.
Greenplanet notes that some companies are moving away from fossil fuels. However, this does not mean fossil fuels are safe, it means that they are so dangerous, people must stop using them.
“ The important thing is that we are experiencing an emerging new normal that may not look much like the pre-pandemic world. “
In early April 2020, daily fossil fuel emissions worldwide were roughly 17 percent lower than they were in 2019, as governments ordered people to stay home, employees stopped driving to work, factories idled and airlines grounded their flights, according to a study published in May in Nature Climate Change. [3]. The study’s authors said they were surprised by how quickly emissions had rebounded Since then. But, they added, any drop in fossil fuel use related to the coronavirus was always likely to be temporary unless countries took concerted action to clean up their energy systems and vehicle fleets as they moved to rebuild their ailing economies. So this, again, is most likely a temporary change.
“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.”
So greenplanet’s response to increased hurricane intensity due to climate change factor[4], is to just prepare for these high intensity storms. Instead, we should just stop these storms from occurring since they cause more damage to infrastructure and cost more lives. (thus indirectly linking fossil fuels to even more deaths).
2.Conclusion
Greenplanet, who is supposed to be arguing that fossil fuels are safe (or at least safer than nuclear energy) seems to be for the idea of using less fossil fuels, which is odd to say the least.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Con
#8
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels
In this round, I present rebuttals for the arguments which were offered by Pro in Round 4.
1.Pro argues that ``greenplanet`s utopia where we use fossil fuels less after the pandemic will probably never happen.``
I believe that the movements of using less fossil fuels are going on these days on a global scale. In particular, shareholders are urging business companies for tackling seriously
for reducing the emission of carbon dioxide as much as possible. I look at the case of the United States. ``In the United States, shareholders have filed 79 climate-related
resolutions so far, compared with 72 for all of last year and 67 in 2019, according to data compiled by the Sustainable Investments Institute and shared with Reuters.
The Institute estimated the count could reach 90 this year.``1) And ``a broad theme is to press corporations across sectors, from oil and transport to food and drink, to detail
how they plan to reduce their carbon footprints in coming years, in line with government pledges to cut emissions to net zero by 2050.``2)
Furthermore, feasible and innovative techniques which contribute to reduce the harmful effects of fossil fuels are being challenged.
Let me point out one example. ``Beyond switching from coal to natural gas, 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.``3)
I proceed to second rebuttal. Pro argues that fossil fuels are so dangerous that ``people must stop using them.``
However, I believe that stop using fossil fuels are very difficult for many years to come. We must pay much attention to what is going on in world economy.
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. The reason is that three big powerhouse in world economy like the United States, China and India are playing very important role in promoting growth and development of global economy by using much fossil fuels.
Therefore, if those countries would stop using them, world economy may face serious recession.
Under these situation, China is tackling for reducing the emission of fossil fuels.
``With strong public demand to continue battling China`s choking air pollution, some green policies also are likely to be popular at home and reduce social pressure the
government sees as a threat. China sees ramping up green investment in thigs like renewable power, electric vehicles and battery storage as a chance to seize the lead in a
growing global industry.``4)
2. Conclusion
I think that it is difficult to abandon fossil fuels completely. The important thing is we must use them wisely by using our wisdom and introducing innovative technology.
This contributes to creating a new image among us that fossil fuels are not necessarily dangerous and harmful energies but safer energies.
Sources : 1),2) Investors push companies to come clean on climate, The Japan Times, February 27,2012
3) Future of energy: Cleaner fossil fuels, by Mark Shwaritz, https://news.stanford.edu/2017
4) China expected to favor green tech in five-year plan, by Laurie Goering, The Japan Times, March 4,2021
Round 5
Pro
#9
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels
1.Rebuttal
"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."
The problem with this argument is that it would already be too late to have zero bet emissions by 2050.
By 2050, the temperature difference twice what it is was 2018 [1]
And this temperature increase will have a terrible effect on the economy. [1]
How high will summer electricity bills be in Frederick, Maryland, when it gets as hot as Tulsa, Oklahoma, is today? What happens to New Hampshire’s tourism if there’s little snow for skiing? Where will Phoenix, Arizona, get its water when the Colorado River slows to a trickle? When will the threat of devastating hurricanes make it too risky to live on the Gulf Coast?[1]
For those who can’t afford to move to cool off from the heat, or for people who work when local agriculture dries up and fisheries die, these changes will be devastating.[1]
"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."
This technology is still new, and there's no guarantee that it will be universal in time to stop climate change, or clean up our air.
"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"
This is a said reality, it seems that today that we have to choose between our planet or our economy.
It's even more said that we have known that fossils fuels artificially warm the planet for over 150 years [2]
And it's been more than 50 years since the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology formally warned a U.S. president—Lyndon B. Johnson—that building up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would "almost certainly cause significant changes" and "could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings."[2]
But we have not acted on it. However, this is why it's so urgent to invest in things like nuclear energy, because they are a good way to create a lot of energy, enough to sustain a growing economy.
2.Final Conclusion
Fossil Fuels have destroyed our air and climate. We have already signed up for terrible things to happen to our climate by 2050.
I extend all points I made in previous rounds.
[1]
[2]
Con
#10
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels.
1. Rebuttal
I present rebuttals for the arguments which were offered by Pro in Round 5. First rebuttal is that Pro argues that ``it`s so urgent to invest in things like nuclear energy, because they are a good way to create a lot of energy, enough to sustain a growing economy.`` Pro insists the importance of nuclear energy and emphasizes that it will play
an important role as safer and reliable energy source for many years to come. However, I believe that we must pay much attention to the fact that nuclear power plants are
vulnerable to unusual weather caused mainly by global warming. So, stable and safety operation can not be guaranteed. I point out two cases of the United States.
In late July, 2012, ``power generation from the nation`s nuclear plants fell to 93 percent of capacity, the lowest level since 2003. Not all of the drop was due to weather-related issues, but some of it was: The Vermont Yankee plant near Brattleboro had to limit output four times in July because of low river flow and heat. At one point , production was reduced to 83 percent of capacity. FirstEnergy Corp`s Perry 1 reactor in Ohio dropped production in late July to 95 percent of capacity because of above-average temperatures.``1)
Furthermore, ``of the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S., over30, or about one-third, are located in the Southeast where they are especially vulnerable to heat waves.``2)
And ``climate change studies published in research journals such as Science and the Journal of Climate project longer and more intense heat waves over the next century
worldwide, adding constraints to water-intensive power system.``3)
It seems to me that after the disaster of nuclear power plants caused by the great earthquake and big wave which took place on March 11, 2011 in Japan, shift toward renewable energies has been going on till these days in many parts of the world. In Japan this movement has been gaining momentum since the disaster.
Second rebuttal is concerning the argument which was offered by Pro that ``we have to choose between our planet or our economy.``
The important thing is that we have to choose the path which help save our planet, mitigate global warming and thrive our economy.
Realizing these objectives, Green New Deal policy is urgently needed. ``Green New Deal was first used by Pulitzer Prize- winner Thomas Friedman in January 2007 in a
New York Times column.``4) The important thing is that ``Transitioning away from fossil fuels would require the government to raise prices on them, introduce higher energy standards, and undertake a massive industrial project to scale up green technology.``5)
Building facilities which can produce solar and wind energies requires much investments in workers, materials, machines and research for exploring new green technologies.
This contributes to mitigating global warming and to stimulating local economy. Moreover, stable and healthy life among local people are maintained.
The U.S. president ``Joe Biden wants to bring the United States to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to fight climate change through a shift to clean-energy technologies, while reducing pollution in low-income and minority neighborhoods near industrial facilities.``6)
2.Final conclusion
In the final conclusion. Pro argues that ``fossil fuels have destroyed our air and climate.`` However, we must admit that people, business firms , universities and governments of the world are seriously tackling for reducing the harmful effects of global warming by introducing renewable energies and innovative technologies.
This contributes to preventing our life and civilization from being destroyed. We should not be pessimistic for the future.
Steven Pinker argues that ``We have some practicable ways to prevent the harms and we have the means to learn more. problems are solvable. This does not mean that they will solve themselves, but it does mean that we can solve them if we sustain the benevolent forces of modernity that have allowed us to solve problems so far, including societal prosperity, wisely regulated markets, international governance, and investments in science and technology. ``7)
Sources: 1) Extreme heat, drought show vulnerability of nuclear power plants, https://insideclimatenews.org.
2),3) Heat waves putting pressure on nuclear power`s outmoded cooling technologies, https://insideclimatenews.org
4),5) The Green New Deal explained, https://www.investopedia.com
6) Philadelphia refinery cleanup highlights legacy of oil, The Japan Times, February 19,2021
7) Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now, Penguin Books, 2019. p.155
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
My first vote in a while. I hope this doesn't get reported by the mods. If the mods are reading this, I want to let them know that I'm trying to get a good vote in. I just don't trust myself with votes but I need more practice with them I guess.
1st argument by Pro: The nuclear energy causes less deaths.
His argument is, "Air pollution causes more than 4.6 million deaths a year,[1] to compare this to deaths by nuclear accidents, the highest estimates for the deaths caused directly and indirectly from the Chernobyl and Fukusima are 60,573 deaths (some estimates say less than 5,000 died/will die). As you can see, air pollution (which is solely caused by fossil fuels) kills more in a year, then nuclear energy has in the entire history of its use, making nuclear energy clearly safer.
To explain this data in another way, if we had a town of 187,090 people, and we powered it solely with coal, 25 would die a year, on average (mostly because of low air quality caused by air pollution). If we powered this town with just oil, 18 people would die a year (from air pollution). If we were to power this town with nuclear power, only one person would die every 14 years on average, due to nuclear accidents. (0.07 people a year), and this might be an overestimate. [3]
The fact is, Nuclear energy results in 99.8% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.7% fewer than coal; 99.6% fewer than oil; and 97.5% fewer than gas. [3]". I'm not the best reader, but I don't think Con ever addressed this.
Pro 2nd argument: That nuclear energy produces less waste:
His argument is that nuclear energy produces less volume of waste
The rest of the categories seemed like a tie to me.
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.