Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Nuclear energy
From Debatepedia
(List of links)
< Debate: Nuclear energyThe following pages link to Debate: Nuclear energy:
View (previous 250) (next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).- Portal:The future of energy
- Debate: Sovereign right to nuclear energy
- Argument: Nuclear power dramatically cuts emissions and fights global warming
- Argument: "Recycling" nuclear waste is not a viable environmental solution
- Argument: Nuclear energy "waste" can be recycled
- Argument: A 1986 Chernobyl accident would not occur today
- Argument: The risks of a catastrophic nuclear meltdown are very low
- Argument: Nuclear facilities are designed to withstand terrorists attacks
- Argument: Nuclear facilities are less vulnerable to terrorists than other targets
- Argument: Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to terrorist attack
- Argument: Terrorists can target spent nuclear fuel pools outside facilities
- Argument: Nuclear energy always carries risk of a major disaster
- Argument: Nuclear energy should not be banned on mere risk of weapons-use
- Argument: The benefits of nuclear energy are outweighed by weapons-use risks
- Argument: New nuclear energy systems reduce risks of weapons use
- Argument: Diplomacy and force should be used to counter proliferation risks of nuclear energy
- Argument: Nuclear power is relatively inexpensive
- Argument: Building nuclear power plants is highly costly
- Argument: Nuclear waste disposal is costly
- Argument: Building nuclear power plants takes too long
- Argument: Populations surrounding nuclear power plants approve of them
- Argument: Nuclear energy has caused far fewer deaths than coal
- Argument: Fears over nuclear energy are irrational
- Argument: If nuclear power is so risky, why aren't existing plants shut down?
- Argument: Nuclear energy is highly efficient
- Argument: Three Mile Island was actually a nuclear safety success
- Argument: Nuclear energy costs are unfairly increased by regulations and politics
- Argument: Nuclear energy can replace coal and cut emissions
- Argument: Nuclear energy economies of scale are improving
- Argument: Nuclear energy can help supply the poor world with needed electricity
- Argument: The nuclear energy industry depends on government subsidies
- Argument: A terrorist strike on a nuclear facility could be devastating
- Argument: Nuclear energy produces dangerous radioactive waste
- Argument: Transporting nuclear waste is a public safety concern
- Argument: Nuclear energy risks being diverted to nuclear weapons development
- Argument: Nuclear plants only produce electricity and can't replace oil and gas
- Argument: Energy efficiency is more important than nuclear power
- Argument: The cost of nuclear power causes cuts in safety measures
- Argument: Renewables can meet all future energy needs, nuclear unnecessary
- Argument: Nuclear power is often given favor at the expense of renewable power
- Argument: Nuclear plant construction runs over-time and over-budget
- Featured Debate Digest articles
- Debate: Geothermal energy
- Debate: Solar energy
- Debate: Wind energy
- Debate: Hydroelectric dams
- Debate: Tidal energy
- Debate: "Clean coal"
- Debate: Natural gas
- Climate change and clean energy portal
- Argument: Entire nuclear cycle emits substantial greenhouse gases
- Argument: Nuclear energy detracts resources from superior renewable energy
- Debate: Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
- Editorial news and tasks
- Debate: Nuclear energy in France
- Debatepedia top 10 pro/con articles
- Debatepedia top 25 pro/con articles
- User talk:Dabatewhiz18
- Competitive debate schedule and topics
- Argument: Nuclear energy is not applicable and accessible globally
- Argument: Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels
- Argument: Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits
- Argument: Uranium is abundant and will last for hundreds of years
- Argument: All carbon-free energy sources are needed, including nuclear
- Argument: General statements of support for nuclear energy
- Debate: Breeder reactors
- Debate: Fusion power
- Argument: Nuclear energy relies too heavily on subsidies/taxpayers
- Argument: Burying nuclear waste is an environmental and health risk
- Argument: Any risk of another Chernobyl or Mile High is intolerable
- Argument: Nuclear energy has an exceptionally good safety record
- Argument: Nuclear energy requires substantial water to cool the reactor
- Argument: Nuclear energy is needed to meet growing electricity demand
- Argument: Nuclear plants are made safer and safer by new technologies
- Debate: Thorium based nuclear energy
- Debate: Should India adopt a first use nuclear policy?
- Debate: Underground nuclear waste storage
- Argument: Taxpayers, not nuclear industry, assume risks of disaster
- Argument: A nuclear disaster would be very costly economically
- Argument: Uranium for nuclear energy is not a renewable resource
- Argument: Nuclear energy is too costly to be competitive
- Argument: Nuclear energy internationally demonstrates its viability
- Argument: Decommissioning nuclear power plants is expensive
- Argument: Nuclear energy needed to prevent future power outages
- Argument: Nuclear waste is minimal, solid, and manageable
- Argument: Waste heat from nuclear reactors can be used
- Argument: Nuclear-powered ships demonstrate safety of nuclear energy
- Argument: There are many novel sources of uranium
- Argument: Mining uranium is very dangerous for workers
- Argument: Nuclear waste radiation no worse than natural radiation
- Argument: Fear toward nuclear energy is fed by misinformation
- Argument: Nuclear energy pros outweigh cons
- Debates in the News
- User talk:Jaquline
