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
Debate: Nuclear energy
From Debatepedia
(List of links)
< Debate: Nuclear energyThe following pages link to Debate: Nuclear energy:
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).- Welcome to Debatepedia!
- Portal:The future of energy
- Debate:Nuclear power, building new plants (redirect page)
- Debate:Nuclear power (redirect page)
- Argument: "Recycling" nuclear waste is not a viable environmental solution
- Debate: Solar energy
- Debate: Wind energy
- Debate: Hydroelectric dams
- Debate: "Clean coal"
- Global climate change debate portal
- Debate: Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
- Past featured editors
- Debate: Nuclear energy in France
- Debate:Nuclear energy (redirect page)
- Argument: Nuclear power dramatically cuts emissions and fights global warming
- Argument: Nuclear energy "waste" can be recycled
- Argument: A 1986 Chernobyl accident would not occur today
- Argument: Nuclear waste is not very dangerous
- 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: Nuclear reactors won't keep the lights; they take too long to build
- 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
- Past Debate Digest topics
- Debate: Geothermal energy
- Debate: Tidal energy
- Debate: Natural gas
- Argument: Entire nuclear cycle emits substantial greenhouse gases
- Argument: Nuclear energy detracts resources from superior renewable energy
- User talk:Spacemath
- Debatepedia top 10 pro/con articles
- Debatepedia top 25 pro/con articles
- User:Renergy
- User talk:Dabatewhiz18
- 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
