The Internet

Log In or Register

Is nuclear energy a viable solution to combat climate change?

Debates with AI

Play Debate an AI Browse Arguments by Debate Topic

These arguments were made as part of the game on The Internet, Debate an AI.

The human arguments are from users on The Internet, and the AI arguments are produced using OpenAI's large language models.

Debate History
Human's Argument:

Argument by ava

AI's Argument:

Argument by text-davinci-003

AI Judge's Decision:
Winner: Undecided

Human's Argument:

In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird. De-extinction makes it possible to bring an extinct species back to life through the DNAL cloning process. The team that wants to bring back the wooly mammoth, which includes George Church of Harvard University, will use DNA taken from the bodies of the animals trapped in permafrost or ice for up to 10,000 years. Then they plan to mix that genetic information with that of the ancient animal’s closest relative, the Asian elephant. Why de-extinction should happen? Many of the animals that have gone extinct on our planet passed away before modern science developed. That means we are left with illustrations and observations from those who were alive at the time. Using the de-extinction process to bring them back would allow us to gain more insights into how our world works. This work could help us to discover how the processes of evolution work, what natural resources were once available, and additional information that is not currently available to us. There are several damaged and threatened ecosystems throughout the world that struggle because of plant or animal extinction. If we follow this process, then the advantage to consider includes restoration. By creating the balance in the biome once again that nature needs, we could see several environmental benefits begin to develop. It could help to reduce or eliminate some of the issues that we are encountering in the world today when there are too many predators or too much prey. For Generation X’ers, Baby Boomers and even some Millennials, the only experience they have with the past are pictures that are in textbooks. Everyone knows what a wooly mammoth is and when they lived, but that is a different experience than contemplating the idea of creating a new one. There is a definite advantage to consider when getting to hang out with the species that have been gone for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. To see them alive and kicking again would be a tremendous accomplishment for humanity. There are several species that have encountered extinction because of human activities, including poaching. If we are the ones that have pushed specific animals and plants past the brink of destruction, then proponents suggest that there is an equal responsibility to fix the problem. We might owe it to those that have passed on to bring them back as a way to provide a sense of justice for our behaviors. The techniques that we use to bring back extinct animals can apply to our threatened and endangered species as well. It would be a way to help us bring back genetics to a plant or animal gene line so that the risk of a bottleneck is severely reduced. Although there are certainly some risks to consider with this practice, we could apply the technology to various improvements in animal health too. Imagine birds that can’t catch the flu or animals that could provide anti-cancer genes.

Argument by dylan7

Sunday October 29th, 2023

AI's Argument:

Nuclear energy has been touted as a potential solution to climate change for many years. Proponents of nuclear energy argue that it is a clean and sustainable energy source that could help combat climate change. They argue that nuclear energy is a reliable and efficient source of energy, and that it doesn’t produce any harmful emissions. Critics of nuclear energy argue that it is not a viable solution to climate change, and that it could create serious safety concerns. They argue that nuclear energy is a dangerous and expensive option that wouldn’t be able to replace other sources of energy.

Argument by text-curie-001 (GPT-3)

Sunday October 29th, 2023

AI Judge's Decision:
Winner: AI

The AI's argument addresses the given topic of whether nuclear energy is a viable solution to combat climate change directly and concisely. They list both pros and cons, presenting a balanced viewpoint. The human, on the other hand, delivered an argument about de-extinction which, while interesting, is not relevant to the debate topic. Therefore, by default, the AI wins as they are the only one who actually addressed the given debate topic.

Human's Argument:

A Low-carbon energy Nuclear power is one of the world's energy sources that emits the least greenhouse gas Its very low CO2 emission rate - four times less than solar for example - makes it an essential energy for the low-carbon transition. Chiffres clés - Neutralité carbone Orano Without nuclear power we would emit a lot more CO2 Nuclear power prevents the release of 2 billion tonnes of CO2 each year across the world, equivalent to the production of 400 million cars. Did you know? The fact that France has a large share of nuclear power makes its electricity mix one of the most carbon-free mixes in Europe Thanks to nuclear power in large part, but also to renewables including hydroelectricity, France has over 90% continuous, low-carbon electricity picto 5 #2 Constant and controllable energy In addition to being a climate-friendly energy, nuclear power provides continuous electricity thanks to its robust production system, able to adapt to variations in electricity demand. Through the stability of its associated grid and its controllable nature, nuclear power contributes significantly to securing the electricity supply in hospitals, in businesses and in every home. Another major asset is that nuclear power makes France independent for 56% of its overall energy needs. picto-eco #3 Competitive energy Nuclear power is one of the least expensive sources of electrical power generation, enabling France to have one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe. +70% : this is how much more a German household pays for their electricity compared with a French household Electricity prices for French manufacturers are 25% less than the European average Key statistics : 0,30€/kWh price incl. VAT of electricity in Germany 0,17€/kWh price incl. VAT of of electricity in France picto 2 #4 Energy that is essential to the electricity mix In all the energy transition scenarios studied by the IPCC* and the IEA* for the production of low-carbon electricity, a significant development of renewable energies can only be envisaged along with nuclear power to avoid the use of fossil fuels. Renewable energies (solar, wind) are by nature intermittent and cannot meet the existing and future energy needs of 8 billion people on their own. As a result, nuclear and renewables must combine together to sustain the low-carbon energy transition and meet France's commitments to combat global warming. *Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - International Energy Agency (IEA) picto 7 #5 Energy that is vital for tomorrow’s world The equation to be solved is a fact: in 2050, due to global demographic growth, the deployment of electric mobility and the economic development of emerging countries, we will need twice as much electricity. At the same time, we will have to achieve carbon neutrality. As electricity production is now the No. 1 source of CO2 emissions in the world due to the use of fossil fuels (coal and gas), it is imperative to initiate the decarbonization of electricity production to drastically reduce GHG emissions. Climate scientists recommend increasing the share of low-carbon energies for power generation from 30% to over 80% by 2050. Here, France has shown the way. Defi-2050 « Coal was the energy of the 19th century. Oil that of the 20th. Carbon-free electricity will be that of the 21st century » picto 6 #6 Energy that is sparing in its demand for raw materials In addition, Orano recycles used nuclear fuels to produce new fuels, and thus contributes to the saving of precious natural resources. In France, one in 10 light bulbs is powered by nuclear power generated with recycled materials. By recycling uranium and used MOX fuel, 30% savings in raw materials could be achieved. 96% of spent fuel is recyclable (95% uranium and 1% plutonium). 100 g of uranium produces as much energy as one tonne of oil. picto 1 #7 Energy that preserves health Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power emits no fine particles, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrates or phosphates into the atmosphere. Air pollution, in addition to the climate emergency, is also a major public health issue.

Argument by clayton

AI's Argument:

Nuclear energy is indeed a viable solution to combat climate change. Fundamentally, nuclear energy represents one of the cleanest energy sources we currently have, generating power through nuclear reactions that produce no greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike fossil fuels, such as coal, gas, and oil, nuclear energy does not contribute to the concentration of atmospheric CO2, a major instigator for global warming. Moreover, nuclear power plants boast a significantly high energy density, being capable of generating far more energy from a smaller amount of fuel compared to renewable sources such as wind or solar. This could be particularly valuable in areas where space is a constraint. Despite leftovers of nuclear waste, innovations and strategic plans are underway to minimize and manage these effectively. Thus, considering these points, nuclear energy, with adequate safety measures, offers a promising approach in our fight against climate change.

Argument by gpt-4 (Easy Mode)

AI Judge's Decision:
Winner: Human

The human used a broad spectrum of points to support the use of nuclear energy including, the low carbon emissions, stability, minimization of CO2 release, cost-efficiency, the feasibility of combining with renewable energy for energy transition, increased electricity need by 2050, and preservation of health. The human also backed their arguments with figures and future projections. Although the AI made accurate and relevant points, they were fewer and less elaborated. The wider range of well-supported arguments offered by the human indicated a deeper understanding and better reasoning to support the subject topic.

Human's Argument:

Argument by zubs

AI's Argument:

Argument by text-davinci-003

AI Judge's Decision:
Winner: Undecided

Comment Section