NUCLEAR

NUCLEAR HEALTH PRO

Nuclear energy is an energy source that has a lot of stigma around it, due to events such as
Chernobyl. In actuality, it is actually a very safe source of energy, compared to fossil fuels.
Deepwater Horizon, an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that exploded in 2010, killed 11
people and devastated the surrounding wildlife. In Mayflower, Arkansas in 2013, a crude oil
pipeline ruptured and and spilled 210,000 gallons of oil. There are so many of these cases, both
documented and undocumented. According to Think Progress, nearly 300 oil spills and 750 oil
field incidents had gone unreported to the public since January 2012. Nuclear disasters are
terrible, but they occur far less often than fossil fuel disasters. Additionally, a Stanford study
found a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and human deaths, so fossil fuels can be
linked to deaths. Nuclear energy is a far safer method of power.

NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT PRO

Additionally, nuclear energy produces no carbon emissions. People often worry about what
nuclear could do to our environment, but they mainly focus on the harm. But for 9 years nuclear
power prevented an average 76,000 deaths. Fossil fuels create an enormous amount of CO2,
which has been linked to climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions trap heat inside of the
Earths atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the planet. This has a negative effect
on ecosystems, as it melts ice caps and can cause weather abnormalities. If more energy was
produced with nuclear power, then our overall CO2 emissions would go down and these issues
would not be as much of a problem. Although renewables are also good for the planet, they are
often unpredictable and unreliable. Overall, nuclear energy is much cleaner and stable.

NUCLEAR HEALTH CON

Nuclear power is a dangerous power that can cause harm to many people when they are not
dealt with correctly. Chernobyl is a good example of a disaster of this. The disaster caused
deaths, but also had long-term effects, too. This is because some isotopes half-lives can be
thousands of years, so locations such as Chernobyl will not be safe for a long time. Radiation in
general is very dangerous. People exposed to radiation can suffer from extreme health
conditions, such as cancer and genetic defects in the children of exposed parents or mental
retardation in the children of mothers exposed during pregnancy. This radioactivity enters the
human body through breathing and the food chain, as gases and tiny metal particles, so it is
difficult to detect. Nuclear disasters can cause cities to become unlivable, and they can kill many
people. Why would we put our men, women, and children at risk with energy sources that are
associated with weapons? There are other sources of energy, such as renewables, that are far
safer, as they cannot create huge disasters like nuclear can.
NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT CON

Nuclear energy disasters also pose big risks to surrounding environments. In Chernobyl and
Fukushima, animals and plants were exposed to radiation, which caused genetic mutations.
Three decades later, we can still see these effects. Ecosystems are often very fragile, so
offsetting careful balances can be very detrimental to the environment. Again, since radiation
lasts so long in environments, these effects could be seen for decades or centuries. Is this really
a risk we are willing to take?

NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PRO

Nuclear energy is an energy source that is sustainable and economically sound. A prime
example of the centrality of nuclear energy to infrastructure is found in Connecticut, where the
Millstone Power Station provides nearly half of the states electricity. Additionally, nuclear
operating costs are relatively low. As power plants begin to generate electricity, they also
generate money, paying back the initial investment and eventually reaping a profit. This deters
the arguments that the costs of nuclear plants are too high; in actuality, they bring more money
back into the plant. The clean air benefit of avoided emissions from running a nuclear plant is
available to everyone.

NUCLEAR COST AND SUSTAINABILITY PRO

Nuclear energy could possibly be used to power entire states, or even countries. It is definitely a
competitor of fossil fuels, as it can provide power to large areas, as well as bring money back
into the economy. Nuclear energy is also very sustainable. The U.S. fleet of nuclear power
plants will likely run for another 50 or even 70 years before it is retired, so the power that is
available now will be available for many years to come. If this may seem low, also consider that
more nuclear plants can be built in many areas. We have not yet reached the full potential of
nuclear power in the US. Nuclear power is presently a sustainable energy source, but could
become completely renewable if the source of uranium changed from mined ore to seawater.
Also, if we are able to create successful fusion power in the future, we will harness a huge
amount of power that can be used by many people.

Nuclear is the energy of the future, as it is sustainable and widely available. We just need to
invest more time and money into it, as well as get rid of the stigma around it.

NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE CON

Nuclear power plants have really big impact the area around the explosion or accident. Large
infrastructure projects require long term planning, massive investments and reasonable
assurance that it will be paid back. Additionally, the implementation of nuclear plants would be a
very difficult feat to accomplish. We would have to entirely convert our energy grid to nuclear. Is
this really something that we want to do, for a power source that is potentially deadly. Also,
nuclear energy is not renewable because the materials are not infinite. Even if we develop
fusion, that would still take a lot of time and money to create.

NUCLEAR COST CON

Nuclear energy is very expensive. Between 2002 and 2008, cost estimates for new nuclear
plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit. In
comparison, a 10 kW wind turbine costs approximately $48,000 65,000 to install. Although
nuclear plants create more energy per kW, billions of dollars is a very large amount of money for
something that could potentially break down. A

RENEWABLES
RENEWABLES HEALTH PRO
Health: Renewable energy Doesnt produce harmful waste and produces less CO2 than fossil
fuels. Compared with natural gas, which emits between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide
equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2E/kWh), and coal, which emits between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of
CO2E/kWh, wind emits only 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of CO2E/kWh, solar 0.07 to 0.2, geothermal
0.1 to 0.2, and hydroelectric between 0.1 and 0.5. Compared to natural gas, renewable energy
is cleaner and safer, since it creates less carbon dioxide.

Environment:Renewable energies produce way less CO2 than fossil fuels. After all, they are called
green energy for a reason. Almost all of the renewable energy plans emphasize that they have a much
lower carbon footprint that any of the fossil fuel options available. Renewable energy sources make the
environment healthier as they do not pollute it with Co2 and other toxic gases that are produced by fossil
fuels. Apart from that, they are not going to reduce our natural resources which can be conserved for a
long time. Since renewables dont release CO2, they have less of a carbon footprint. Therefore, they are
more environmentally friendly.

RENEWABLES HEALTH CON

After the lifetime of solar panels, the panels cant be recycled because of the elements in the solar panels
Atcellstructurelevel,differentkindsofpanelsexist,suchasmonosilicon,polysiliconorthin-film.
Monosiliconcellsaremanufacturedfromasinglecrystal.Theirhigherproductioncostsleadstothem
beingmoreexpensivethanothertypes.Monosiliconcellsoftenhaveahigherefficiencyratingthan
othertechnologies.However,astheyarecutfromcylindricalingots,theydonotcompletelycovera
panelwithoutsubstantialwaste,lesseningtheefficiencyoftheoverallpanel.
Certain solar cells require materials that are expensive and rare in nature. This is especially
true for thin-film solar cells that are based on either cadmium telluride (CdTe) or copper
indium gallium selenide (CIGS).Since some of the materials used in solar panels are rare
and non-recyclable, they can create waste. Also, the processes to get the materials can be
bad for the environment.
Environment
Wind turbines can cause radiation.

Evidence: The wind industry requires an astounding amount of rare earth minerals, primarily neodymium
and dysprosium, which are key components of the magnets used in modern wind turbines. According to
the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of
neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind
turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.
In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9
million pounds (using MITs estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences
estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9
million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.
Americas nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each
year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our
entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel

RENEWABLES ECONOMICS PRO

Renewable energy is a quickly advancing field of electrical power. Some countries are adapting
to this new form of energy very fast; Denmark, for example, produces 43% of its energy from
renewables. That is almost half of the entire countrys total energy. Although renewables might
not be able to fully replace fossil fuels at the current time, mostly because of the deep
economical and cultural ties to the energy source, they are constantly being supported by
governments and private donors. With more time and effort focused on advancing green
energy, this source could become a widely accessible source to the whole world. After all, the
most efficient solar panels only utilize about 22.5% of the available energy they take in. Imagine
how much energy we could harness if we could have a 50% efficiency rate.

Additionally, renewables are renewable, after all. Fossil fuel deposits will run out someday, or
become inaccessible, but sources like the sun and wind will not expire. Since the world is so
dependent on fossil fuels, when they are no longer available, renewables will have to be used,
so why not begin implementing them now? With an unlimited supply of sunshine and wind, how
could the world say no to this sustainable power source? We must look forward to the future of
energy.

Globally, solar and wind energy are now able to compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost and
infrastructure. In some cases, they are even cheaper. Making energy with a fossil fuel power
plant costs 50 cents/kWh on average, while wind power can go as low as 2.5 cents/kWh. What
could this say about projected costs of the future? Renewables have the potential to cost way
less than fossil fuels.

Many oil supporters also claim that a switch to renewables will create a loss of jobs. This is not
true. However, renewable energy creates jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy.
Overall, renewables are a green source of energy, not only in terms of the environment, but also
with money.

RENEWABLES ECONOMICS CON

Our world is based around fossil fuels. They are a reliable source of energy that many people
before us have used effectively. In order for the world to convert to an entirely new system of
energy, tons of money and manpower must go into changing the electrical grid. Although
countries such as Denmark have shifted mostly to renewables, this power source would not
work on a larger scale. Additionally, many of our day-to-day activities would change drastically if
we switched to solely renewables. How would we power our cars? What would countries like
Saudi Arabia, who rely entirely on fossil fuels, do? With a new power source comes many
questions that cannot be answered in this day and age. How can we plan to rely entirely on
power sources that are not always sustainable or trustworthy?

FOSSIL FUELS
FOSSIL FUELS HEALTH PRO
Hello, Im Ashley and I will be speaking to you about the pros of fossil fuels on our environment.
You may have heard the claim that fossil fuels cause climate change, but that claim is wrong.
When you look at the real facts and evidence, fossil fuels barely contribute anything to climate
change. Those who say are against fossil fuel and say it is harmful to the environment have no
proof, only invalid climate models based on a false Premise that Man-Made CO2 is a huge
quantity and causing unlimited warming Greenhouse Gas and Man-Made CO2 is an Extremely
Trace quantity that does not significantly affect warming. While the Global Warming Alarmists
(GWA) demonize CO2 as a Pollutant and as a Molecule that must be eliminated and
sequestered, the GWA have posed an irrational argument. Such High-Levels of
CO2-concentrations can occur naturally, but are often artificially created for agricultural
applications to increase crop quality and yields, in submarines, space capsules and other
special environments.
Hello, Im Ale and I will be speaking to you about the pros of fossil fuels on our health. Those
who say fossil fuels are harmful to our health are incorrect. Electrification has ended the
scourge of indoor air pollution in the rich world, saving millions of lives. Rather, were very
concerned with climate change. Other energy types like nuclear energy has more harmful health
effects like radiation, that can kill someone on the spot. If you think about it, since fossil fuel
energy barely contributes to global warming, Therefore it does not affect our health
FOSSIL FUELS HEALTH CON
Hello, Im Ashley and I will be speaking to you about the cons of fossil fuels on the environment
Fossil fuels have been harming our earth and health since they made their debut in the
industrial revolution. The extraction of oil, coal, and natural gas poses many threats, such as,
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxidesome 34 times more effective at trapping heat over a 100-year timescale and
86 times more effective over a 20-year timescale. Oil drilling also produces methane. The World
Bank estimates that 5.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the equivalent of 25 percent of total US
consumption, is flared annually worldwide, generating some 400 million tons of unnecessary
carbon dioxide emissions.78 percent of US global warming emissions were energy-related
emissions of carbon dioxide. Of this, approximately 42 percent was from oil and other liquids, 32
percent from coal, and 27 percent from natural gas
Hello, Im Ale and I will be speaking about the cons of fossil fuels and the impact of them on our
health. Many coal miners are injured, sometimes fatally, on the job each year; according to the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, fatalities at underground coal mine sites in the United
States totaled 77 from 2010 to 2013, including a 2010 explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal
mine in West Virginia that killed 29 miners. They can contaminate the water and poison
innocent poeple, Particulate matter (soot) emissions produce haze and can cause chronic bronchitis,
aggravated asthma, and elevated occurrence of premature death. In 2010, it is estimated that fine particle
pollution from US coal plants resulted in 13,200 deaths, 9,700 hospitalizations, and 20,000 heart attacks.

FOSSIL FUELS ECONOMICS PRO

The technology that we have now can reduce the cost of fossil fuels, provide a high degree of
efficiency from the fuel we put in, and its sustainable. Its cheaper to keep using fossil fuels than
to find a flat piece of land with high speed winds that is probably already owned by someone, so
now you have to convince them to build wind turbines on their property then spend time placing
the wind turbines to get the most out of that area. Its just too much work for something that
doesnt work everywhere. But with fossil fuels, it works everywhere and we have been using it
since the industrial revolution and we still have more of it.

Now lets think infrastructure, if we switch to something like wind power or solar power, it doesnt
work everywhere and we cant store it or transport it, its too much money and it wont be
efficient. What if we dont have strong enough winds or its not a sunny day and we dont get
enough energy to power a city. Than we dont have energy to power the important things. The
sustainability for fossil fuel is that in 1997 the United States had just 32 billion barrels of proven
oil reserves and 207 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. Between 1977 and 2010,
the U.S. extracted 84 billion barrels of oil (2.6 times the 1977 reserve estimate) and 610 trillion
cubic feet of gas (2.9 times the reserve estimate). And, large reserves remain. In fact, in recent
years, the size of U.S. reserves has actually grown (by more than a third since 2011). Why
would we leave something that has been proven to work for years and years?

FOSSIL FUELS ECONOMICS CON

Some would argue that these fuel sources and dying industries, as people are starting to
become more involved with renewables. We are moving into a new energy revolution that is
more environmentally and economically sound. If we want to continue advancing in the future,
we cannot rely on fossil fuels. According to some sources, oil will run out in 53 years, natural
gas in 54, and coal in 110. The fact is that fossil fuels cannot be the energy of the future
because they will not be available in the future. We must look to different energy sources.

After all, renewables are renewable. Fossil fuel deposits will run out someday, or become
inaccessible, but sources like the sun and wind will not expire. Since the world is so dependent
on fossil fuels, when they are no longer available, renewables will have to be used, so why not
begin implementing them now? With an unlimited supply of sunshine and wind, how could the
world say no to this sustainable power source? We must look forward to the future of energy.

Globally, solar and wind energy are now able to compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost and
infrastructure. In some cases, they are even cheaper. Making energy with a fossil fuel power
plant costs 50 cents/kWh on average, while wind power can go as low as 2.5 cents/kWh. What
could this say about projected costs of the future? Renewables have the potential to cost way
less than fossil fuels.

Many oil supporters also claim that a switch to renewables will create a loss of jobs. This is not
true. However, renewable energy creates jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy.

Overall, fossil fuels are an energy source of the past and are not effective for the future.