Instigator / Pro
0
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3468
(Mini debate)We should fully embrace thorium nuclear energy
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...
Kritikal
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
28
1553
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Description
Pro:
* Has to defend the idea that thorium is the future nuclear energy.
Con:
* Has to state why thorium isn't the future of nuclear energy.
Round 1
Forfeited
Inherency: Nuclear energy is already safe
Out of any nuclear energy accident, only two (Chernobyl and Fukushima) ever exposed the population to radiation above natural levels. However, nobody actually died because of Fukushima making Chernobyl responsible for all nuclear energy deaths. When we consider that this plant was created a long time ago, and without western regulatory authorities it is easy to see how something like this could happen. In the modern day with greater regulatory authorities, and with a greater scientific understanding it is unlikely this would ever happen again. Most importantly, in the status quo nuclear energy is already by far the safest form of energy. Coal causes 120 deaths per terawatt year, while nuclear causes under 0.01. The next safest form of energy is solar which causes 0.245.[1]
What is actually meant by a thorium reactor
It is impossible to get nuclear power directly from thorium. Thorium can not start a nuclear chain reaction, which is why it is not used. Instead thorium is broken down into Uranium-233. This is far worse than traditional methods which use U-235 because U-233 produces byproducts when a reaction occurs such as U-232, protactinium, iodine-29, and more. U-232 has a half life of 160,000 years, but iodine-29 has a half life of over 15 million. These by products last longer and are more dangerous, in reality making thorium a much worse alternative to U-235. [2]
Round 2
Forfeited
Flow through my points because my opponent did not respond
Thorium reactors recycle their own waste, resulting in a significantly smaller volume of dangerous waste products that need to be stored.
https://youtu.be/3u44skO-nMo
don't worry kid.
Yeah, sorry I accepted the debate in the early hours of the morning not realising the time constraint until I had already accepted.
Hopefully in the future I am going to make a debate just like this but longer.
A number of thorium reactors have been built since 1960, starting with the thorium-based nuclear reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and a few research reactors are in operation today. Today, thorium is seen by some as a thousand year solution to energy and environmental problems, but one that is offset by high start-up costs and a number of technical hurdles.
Please do not vote for this, this was made for fun. I didn’t have time
I mean the one issue isn't for the one embracing it as much as enemies of that nation-state.