- Debates Home >
- Policy Debates >
- Is nuclear energy justified and should it be expanded?
Is nuclear energy justified and should it be expanded?
- Topic:
- Science Debates
20 Contributors
in this discussion.
Nuclear energy should be expanded, because of its ability to provide an alternative source of fuel, so we can be less dependent on fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy has the ability to give us a virtually limitless source of energy. Yes, the science is still in developmental stages and requires energy put in to get any out. But, in time, we should be able to master it. There is no doubt that oil is going to eventually run out and, when that time comes, we are going to need an alternative fuel source.
Yes AbackOmer93Nuclear energy has consequences and problems but it is a legitimate source of energy that could provide benefits with limited consequence.
Nuclear reactors do not need to be unsafe, they can be maintained in such a way to be quite clean. Nuclear waste is a problem and so nuclear energy is not a totally clean source of energy, but that waste could also be mitigated by further research. That kind of research isn't going to happen if the potential of nuclear energy isn't invested in as a viable primary energy source.
Yes NikiM5nYes, nuclear energy is justified and should be expanded because it is a clean energy and would reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
Yes, nuclear energy is justified and should be expanded because it is a very clean energy, which does not pollute the air. It would also reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The only problem with nuclear energy is complicated disposal of the old fuel rods. We should build more nuclear power plants, because accidents are few and far between.
Yes MycCra2iiNuclear energy is justified in the United States and should be expanded within our barren areas.
Nuclear energy is justified in the US because there is growing demand for energy and this option provides a clean domestic source. However the plants should only be located in barren, unpopulated areas and should be protected by military and law enforcement teams. In addition the engineers and managers of these plants should be military personnel from the US Navy. Energy security requires secure personnel.
Yes 54mP5KryPtoI think nuclear energy is justified and should be expanded.
Nuclear energy provide a complementary source of energy that would reduce our dependence from foreign oil and benefit national security. Furthermore, modern nuclear technologies have very little environmental impact, and do not contribute significantly to the emission of green house gases, thereby contributing to a solution of the climate change problem.
Yes jabularNuclear energy is a reliable source of energy that does not contribute to global warming.
France uses nuclear energy to provide a large portion of their electricity grid. They standardize their design for each unit so that the procedures for each one is exactly the same. The United States should do the same. Nuclear energy produces electricity with no carbon released to the atmosphere. The main problem is public relations after the problem that Three Mile Island had 30 years ago but the industry has learned the lesson to avoid future problems.
Yes ddeathnoteNuclear energy is the only currently feasible source of enough energy to run the planet.
Nuclear energy is not ideal. Nuclear fission produces radiation, and produces radioactive waste. There is the possibility of a nuclear meltdown or explosion, and the waste can remain active for millions of years. All of that being said, nuclear fission is a miracle! We can produce amazing amounts of energy with very little fuel, and practically no carbon footprint. The tradeoffs are real, but justified, and nuclear should definitely be expanded.
Yes Iuk45GrinderI believe nuclear energy is justified.
The government should use nuclear energy. They also should expand it. During this recession we need any break possible. The government should use anything that will benefit us, as long as it will not damage us even more. I believe they should at least keep using it if they will not expand it.
Yes barbiegirllNuclear energy will be justified in the future so long as the public continue to refuse to adapt their energy consumption habits.
People need to understand the concept of peak oil. Energy needs to be expended to get to the oil. Once the easy to get oil runs out, it becomes a cost-effective analysis to determine if the harder to reach sources of oil justifies the energy required to extract it. It obviously doesn't pay to spend more energy to get the energy. Crude oil has a finite supply, which means the days of cheap oil will soon be over with our current modern rate of increasing consumption. As no sustainable alternative energy systems have been developed to face this emerging crisis, eventually, there will be no choice but to build more nuclear plants or face a disruptive lifestyle like continual rolling blackouts. Nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind energy all currently have their inadequacies whether it's in portability, storage, or transmission. In the future, they will all have to be put into play despite their shortcomings because all of them together probably will not be enough to satiate the global demand.
Yes WarmOsbe
We should not expand nuclear energy, due to the obvious risks involved.
If we haven't learned anything from our mistakes, so far, by using nuclear energy, then we never will. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to expand nuclear energy needs to revisit meltdowns. And, those who think that the problem went away are highly wrong. There is plenty of information for those who seek it, and it proves that, no matter how much times passes, there are still aftershocks of the consequences of using nuclear energy in the first place.
No PointlessElbert47Nuclear energy is not justified in any way, especially after seeing what happened in Japan.
I don't believe that nuclear energy has any justification in our world today. There are too many alternative energy sources that are completely harmless to humans and the environment. The alternatives are better for humanity.
No AboardTodNo, because nuclear energy is no good for anyone.
Nuclear energy plants create nuclear waste. Water becomes so highly toxic that it can not be anywhere near anyone. This remains radioactive, effectively, forever. The only thing to do with this waste is bury it and hope for the best. There are far more effective forms of alternative energy, such as solar and wind, that should be explored.
No MarriedKelvin72Nuclear energy is not justified, because the risk for disaster is too great.
Nuclear energy is something every nation now wants to have or get involved in. Look at the disaster in Russia, and now with Japan. We know the consequences of a nuclear disaster, so why even mess with it? What we need to do is concentrate on getting food to famine-struck nations, and doing everything we can to stop global warming.
No StripperMorThere is always room for human error or something to go wrong nothing is completely fail-safe.
I think the reason a lot of the public finds nuclear so unappealing is because it's such an unknown danger, you could be standing right next to a highly dangerous source of radiation and be complete unaware of it until years down the track when you develop cancer. It can't be simply switched off like most things, if you mess up like those in Chernobyl you just have to leave the danger behind and let it take thousands of years to return to safe levels.
No AnonymousNo, nuclear energy has risk of widespread damage to the surrounding area, and radioactive waste.
Until the technology improves, or they find a way to deal with the resulting waste product from nuclear power, it is not a viable power source. It is also unfair to force the surrounding area to live under the threat of a nuclear accident. Nuclear power plants should remain in isolated areas, if they are used at all.
No H_BairdNuclear energy is not justified: it causes many problems with the health and environment.
Nuclear energy is not justified because it is not healthy for the environment and for human beings in general. Nuclear energy has been proven to cause cancer and other sicknesses that cause death. People who live near nuclear plants get very sick due to these plants. Also there is the fact that nuclear plants cause pollution issues with nature and can kill wildlife and plants.
No B3rkIffyNuclear energy cannot be not a long term solution because there is no way to safely dispose of the waste.
Nuclear energy is great in the short term, but the radioactive waste that is left over is terrible in the long term. Scientists have yet to figure out a safe way and a safe place to store this material for the required several hundred years, so therefore creating more of it will just make the problem worse. This is a cop out solution to our energy problems.
No Fr4GigaI oppose the expansion and use of nuclear energy because its unsafe, and we don't have a reliable way to dispose of the waste it generates.
I oppose the use of nuclear energy. While nuclear energy is clean and most often used safely, in the case of an accident at a nuclear facility, the danger involved and the amounts of casualties and illness that could be generated are not an acceptable risk. In addition to the risk a nuclear facility could pose, we currently do not have a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. Our current solution is to put it into a container and bury it. It doesn't ever go away...it's just hidden underfoot. For these reasons, I'm not in favor of expanding nuclear energy.
No WackyDelNuclear energy should not be expanded because we have not a good way to dispose of nuclear waste.
The use of nuclear energy is not justified and should not be expanded because we as a global community have yet to discover a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. Growing demands for energy should be approached with an eye toward clean and renewable energy sources that are economically viable and safe from an environmental standpoint.
No ThegaXenNuclear energy causes pollution and should be kept at a minimum.
I believe that nuclear energy has been known to cause bad benefits to the air and can be hazardous to health. It contributes to pollution building up in the atmosphere and can be harmful if inhaled. It may be effective for energetic uses but it still has a lot of flaws and it isn't natural to be using for everyday usage among civilizations around the world. In the future they could cut down on it and work around it using other ideas. That would be more of a thought process than using nuclear energy for human consumption
No waffletime
Related Debates
- Do school uniforms cause more harm than good?
- Is there a social obligation for tax-payer funded meals at school for low income families?
- Are demons real?
- Is torture ever justified?
- Should all children receive free nursery education provided by the State?
- Is physical force a justifiable method of punishing children?
- Is space exploration worth the money?
- In order to prevent more attacks, should the government have the authority to spy on Americans?
Debate Topics
- Education Debates (130)
- Health Debates (141)
- Law Debates (310)
- Society Debates (501)
- Policy Debates (535)
- Science Debates (198)
- Sports Debates (20)
- Debates Home >
- Policy Debates >
- Is nuclear energy justified and should it be expanded?
Is nuclear energy justified and should it be expanded?
Top of Page © 2010 Juggle, LLCAll Rights Reserved