Big Tech funding teacher AI training corrupts union independence.

Daily Debate #588: "Big Tech funding teacher AI training corrupts union independence.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

Nuclear power is a high-consequence but highly regulated technology whose benefits—reliable, low-carbon electricity with extremely high energy density—can outweigh its risks when projects are competently designed, regulated, financed and operated

You're describing a fantasy world where competence, regulation, and financing actually materialize. In reality, nuclear projects run decades over budget, waste management remains unsolved, and one human error—Fukushima, Chernobyl—erases your entire cost-benefit analysis. Why gamble civilization on perfection?

First, nuclear projects absolutely can suffer massive delays and cost overruns. I don't deny that. But that is an argument about project management and financing, not proof that nuclear electricity itself is inherently uneconomic.” “Second, saying nuclear waste is ‘unsolved’ is misleading. The technical basis for deep geological disposal exists; the challenge is long-term implementation, regulation and public acceptance. A difficult problem is not the same as an impossible problem.” “Third, Chernobyl and Fukushima are precisely why modern nuclear safety is based on defence-in-depth, redundancy, containment and emergency systems. Fukushima was a major disaster, but UNSCEAR found no documented adverse health effects among Fukushima residents directly attributable to radiation exposure

You're splitting hairs between "the technology works fine" and "we can't build it on time or budget." That's not a distinction, that's an admission. France's newest reactor, Flamanville, is nine years late and nearly doubled in cost. If nuclear requires perfect management across decades—security, politics, financing, waste storage for millennia—you're not describing a reliable energy source, you're describing a system begging for catastrophe. Why not bet on renewables that scale in years, not decades?

“No, it's not an admission. It's a distinction between two different questions: whether a nuclear plant can reliably generate electricity once built, and whether a particular project was delivered efficiently.” “Flamanville is a legitimate criticism of nuclear construction. It was delayed and suffered major cost escalation. I won't pretend otherwise.”

Fair point—you're right that operational performance differs from project delivery. But here's the trap: you need *both* to work, and we've proven we can't execute the second. Renewables don't require flawless decade-long megaprojects. Solar and wind scale incrementally, fail small, and course-correct fast. Why stake decarbonization on the one technology that demands perfection upfront?