America should expand nuclear energy production.

Rebuttal "My opponent never really attacks...still stands." Unlike France, the United States had once experienced the nuclear disaster in the past (Three Mile Island incident). Unlike France, Americans have abundant natural reserves. Pro"s contention is strong only if the two countries are alike, but Pro has yet included the relevant evidence to prove it so. "My opponent cites hurricane sandy and natural disasters...and no nuclear damage from Sandy is proof" Pro"s argument inevitably conveyed a false impression that the Fukushima disasters should be solely attributed to the design flaw, and since the United States would build new reactors with no pre-mentioned flaw, it is plausible to assume that the Fukushima disasters would not be repeated in the U.S. Pro, however, ignored the alternative explanation of the Fukushima disasters: human incapability of defending natural disasters. Japanese government well realized the design flaw and there was huge redundancy to cover the safety issue. But even so, the Japanese government still failed to secure the reactor during the Tsunami. [1] The reactors that failed in Japan are Mark 1 boiling water reactors designed by General Electric in the 1960s. Th Achilles heel in a boiling water reactor has to do with its cooling system. The main coolant in the nuclear reactor is water which is circulated through the electric pumps system. If the electric pumps lose power, the water inside the nuclear reactor would continue boil off. If enough water boils off, the nuclear core would get melted. In the worst case, the molten fuel, along with highly toxic substance, get released into the surrounding environment. [1] Because of this known vulnerability, there is huge redundancy around the pumps and their supply of electricity. In summary, there are three layers of extra-protections: Power can come from the power grid if the main reactor is shutdown. If that fails, there are additional backup diesel generators. If that fails as well, there is a backup batter system. Even with all this redundancy, the electric pump system still failed. During the incoming natural disasters, the nuclear power plants were immediately shut down. After the primary source of electricity was gone, rectors switched to power grid mode. However, the power grid was also disconnected because of the perennial earthquake. The secondary source of electricity was therefore gone. Then when the tsunami hit, the unexpected water levels from the tsunami causes the diesel generators to fail. The third defense was gone as well. Then it left the last layer of redundancy - batteries. But batteries were sized to last for only a few hours, and when the last defense was breached, water in the nuclear reactor continued boiling off. Hydrogen gas was quickly generated and accumulated, and it eventually exploded inside the reactor building. [1] Fukushima incident is not an atypical case. The nuclear power plant that near the NY city is identical to one in Fukushima Dai-ichi. Therefore, both nuclear reactors are subjected to the same safety concerns. Citied by Exelon"s statement, if the water level rose over 7 feet, there is a potential for the core to overheat. The water levels eventually reached a peak of 7.4 feet, but fortunately did not persist before it was down to 5.8 feet. If Sandy were stronger, it is not unreasonable to assume that another disaster would ensue. Given the continuation of global warming and climate change, human may face more Sandy type storms in the near future. [2] Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster had sent a resounding message to all Americans: a well designed nuclear reactor can still fail catastrophically. A good advise is: Do not play the game unless you afford to lose. "If several stations are commissioned at once...a sort of bulk discount." Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom does not hold in the case of nuclear reactors. The more nuclear reactors that government attempts to build, the more it costs. The increased costs are largely due to a fierce worldwide competition for the resources, commodities and manufacturing capacity needed in the design and construction of new power plants. There are no compelling reasons for the government to pursue such an unsustainable energy policy, especially when there are better alternatives available. [3] "My opponent says that the exuberant cost...what he stated." I urge Pro to present more evidence regarding the cost of nuclear reactors. It is a known fact that cost of nuclear reactors always exceed the estimated budgets, sometimes by a margin of 200% ~300%. There are many things that work great on paper, but eventually fail miserably in reality. [3] "He states that there is a very large safety issue with nuclear energy" Two points: First, the numbers are at best misleading, and at worst devious. Coal industry, for example, is labor intense industry. Due to the high number of people employed in coal industry and relatively low efficiency in coal process, it is not surprised that its mortality rate is much higher than the rest of industry. Instead of measuring the relative safety by deaths per trillion KWhr, the paper should use percentage of deaths calculated by number of deaths over total number of employees. [4][5] Second, the safety concerns should not be measured by number of death alone. As what had happened in Chemobyl nuclear disaster: the number of death resulted from the explosion was no more than 40 people, but the incident was rated the worst nuclear disaster in human history. During a radioactive fire that burn for 10 days, 190 tons of highly toxic materials were expelled into the atmosphere. At the time of the accident, about 7 million people lived in contaminated territories, including 3 million children. Today, millions of people continue to exposed to high doses of radiation that would result in tumors, genetic mutations, and sever damage to the immune system. [5][6] In terms of long-term health impact, thyroid cancer in children has increased in the contaminated area since the disaster. The World Health Organization predicts that over 50,000 children will develop the disease because of the incidents. Moreover, incidence of leukemia has increased 50% in children and adults. In addition to thyroid cancer and leukemia, UNICEF reports that between 1990 and 1994, nervous system disorders increased by 43%; cardiovascular diseases by 43%; bone and muscle disorders by 62%; and diabetes by 28%. Number of birth defects and genetic mutations were also reported increased dramatically follow the incidents. Besides the long term health concerns, after the Chernobyl accident, almost 400,000 were forced leave their home for their own safety. The long term health social concerns cannot be captured by by mortality rate alone. [5][6] Therefore it is irrational to measure the safety issue merely on the basis of mortality rate. In the case of nuclear safety, the aforementioned mortality rate is next to meaningless. "My opponent never says anything that...and the option is nuclear" Nuclear is not the only option anymore. There is a range of cost-effective and more secured clean energy available: Solar power, wind power, and geothermal power. Natural gas is probably the best choice in the future. I also ask Pro to address Waste issue. It is one of the biggest issue that people stress frequently. Thank you. [1]. http://science.howstuffworks.com... [2]. http://www.reuters.com... [3]. http://www.synapse-energy.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com... [5]. http://thyroid.about.com... [6]. http://www.chernobyl-international.org...