Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy

Map: rebuttal then con's case. Clarifications: Nuclear energy: energy derived from nuclear power-plants Primary source: significantly increase of use. Alternative Energy: any energy sources except for coal and oil. 1a) Energy from the wind only cost .2c cents/kWh. This is cheaper than nuclear cost 2 cents per kWh. Therefore, overtime wind turbines are cheaper than nuclear power plants. "Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average. NB these are the external costs only."(http://www.world-nuclear.org...) 1b) The cost to clean up an accident is tremendous on the taxpayers. And if we are to use nuclear more we are increasing the risk of an accident. "A serious nuclear accident could cost more than $600 billion in 2004 dollars[2] - taxpayers would be responsible for covering the vast majority of that sum." 2) Nuclear power-plant must be built near a large source of water to cool the system. This not only disrupts the ecosystem by changing water temperature but also there is a chance of a radiation leakage into the water, thus contaminating the source and the consumers. "High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world."-(TimeForChange.org) 3) Nuclear is not a green energy. Over time of extensive use of nuclear will produce steam (energy), steam will then steady increase global warming. Recyclable nuclear byproducts are currently under experiments, not only that but it is cheaper to buy new sources than to recycle nuclear waste. Nuclear mining and enrichment is dangerous to the environment through mutation. Nuclear reactors do not use only a few grams of uranium, they use by the ton. If reactors were to use only a few grams, we would not be fussing over waste disposal. 4) The US has excess unused land, especially in the desert. Solar panels and wind turbines would be perfect here. a) Wind turbines: cheapest, more reliable, very efficient, low maintenance rate, low accidental rate, and low maintenance cost. http://www.greenleft.org.au... b) Solar panels: cheaper, low maintenance rate, and low accidental rate. http://www.inhabitat.com... c) Hydro electric power is crucial to the ecosystem and to humans in energy, drinking water, and recreational. "There are many dams along the Colorado River, but not all of them produce electricity. In fact, the main reason the Hoover Dam was built and is operating today is not for its electricity production. The Hoover Dam and the other 50+ dams help control the Colorado River. That is, they control floods, irrigate crops, supply drinking water, make places for recreation, create habitat for wildlife, and generate electricity. Lake Mead, located behind the wall at Hoover Dam is the most important part of the Dam. It is the biggest man-made lake in the United States and provides drinking water to Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix. Las Vegas gets almost all of its water from Lake Mead. While the electricity that Hoover Dam generates is important, living out here in the desert would be impossible without the flowing water of the Colorado River."-(http://www.eia.doe.gov...) Con's case: 1) Nuclear waste is costly and harmful. It take at least 10,000 years for uranium to be a bit safe. Maintaining these waste disposal is costly. Over 10,000 years? Overtime the cost will outweigh its benefits. 2) Dismantling a nuclear plant is very costly, more than solar panels and wind turbines. 3) Nuclear terrorism involving the waste are high and risky. Increasing usage would produce more waste and thus increasing the chances of nuclear waste being stolen and use as weapons known as the dirty bomb. "A direct hit by a penetrating 1,000-pound explosive (or equivalent) would likely inflict damage that would disperse tons of radioactive material. "Destruction of the main feed pump or steam lines," says David Rossin, a nuclear expert at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, "could create problems of decay heat and produce the release of fission products." Perhaps the most vulnerable nuclear material is in the spent fuel storage pool, according to Rossin, where unloaded core material does not have the same degree of protection as does the reactor core" 4) Uranium is not renewable. Within 30-50 years at this rate we would run out of uranium from mines. Not to mention all the nuclear waste produced. For the reasons above nuclear energy should not be the primary alternative energy.