Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts

From Debatepedia

Parent debate

• Debate:Nuclear energy

Supporting evidence

Mark Hertsgaard. "The True Costs of Nuclear Power". Mother Earth News. April/May 2006 - "[Nuclear power] only produces electricity, and electricity amounts to only a third of the United States total energy use (and less of the worlds). Nuclear power thus addresses only a small fraction of the global warming problem having no effect whatsoever on two of the largest sources of carbon emissions: driving vehicles and heating buildings."

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it’s a similar case for oil as it’s virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can’t take its place.

Indeed, 86% of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant."

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "Even if Britain built ten new reactors, nuclear power can only deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. Even the Government admits this (Sustainable Development Commission figure). It’s too little too late at too high a price."

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "More is used for industrial processes, leaving under a third that is used for electricity generation. Much of that third is used to generate electricity at peak times because gas turbines can be easily switched on and off to meet short term spikes in demand. Nuclear power stations must be run continuously. This considerably limits the role nuclear electricity can play in reducing our dependence on gas, from wherever it is imported."