Personal tools

Argument: Nuclear energy is highly efficient

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • Mark Brandly. "The Case for Nuclear Power". Virginia Viewpoint. October, 2001 - "The main benefit of generating power in this method is that fissionable uranium is abundant and a very small amount of uranium generates a tremendous amount of energy. One uranium fuel pellet, 0.3-inch diameter by 0.5-inch long, produces the equivalent energy of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil. Since relatively little fuel is needed to power nuclear plants, nuclear energy is safer than the other alternatives for generating large amounts of electricity."
  • Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006 - "The beauty of nuclear fission is its ability to derive so much from so little. The energy density of nuclear fuel far exceeds that of any other energy source. As my Manhattan Institute colleague Peter Huber has noted, “A bundle of ­enriched-­uranium ­fuel ­rods that could fit into a ­two-­bedroom apartment in Hell’s Kitchen would power [New York City] for a year: furnaces, espresso machines, subways, streetlights, stock tickers, Times Square, ­everything—­even our cars and taxis, if we could conveniently plug them into the grid.”
Pound for pound, coal stores twice as much energy as wood. Oil packs the same amount of energy that coal does into half the weight and space. But a gram of uranium 235 contains as much energy as four tons of coal. This is why splitting the atom was key to inventing the new type of bomb that could win World War II. And it is why President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an early proponent of commercial nuclear power, could argue that atomic energy might transform medicine, agriculture, and, in particular, electricity generation. It succeeded on all ­counts."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits