The US should encourage more nuclear energy use over current widely used energy forms.

Thanks to my opponent for hosting and starting this debate. I wish him the best of luck. As I will be negating the resolution today, I believe that the United States should not increase more nuclear energy over current widely used forms. To start, I would like to offer the following definitions to ensure a fair and proper debate: Nuclear Energy: The energy released by a nuclear reaction, especially by fission or fusion, regarded as a source of power. "Current Widely Used Energy Forms": Since my opponent has only addressed coal as a widely used energy form, I will assume that this term applies to other forms of widespread used energy such as wind, solar, hydrogen, and tidal energies. Contention 1: The increase of nuclear energy will proportionally increase the amount of nuclear waste, while other forms of energy produce little to no waste (non-radioactive). According to a July 2010 study performed by the Nuclear Energy Information Service, nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays. The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years. This dangerously radioactive nuclear waste has not been dealt with, and, historically (Yucca Mountain, EM program), cannot be solved in any form, presenting large amounts of radiation that has powerfully and negatively impacted much of our vital ecosystem, such as soil and water supply and marine and human life. Other forms of energy (excluding coal), however, have been proven to leave behind virtually no waste, greatly preserving vital sectors of our ecosystem. Contention 2: The increase of nuclear energy will give rise to threatening proliferation risks, as other forms of energy cannot. Plutonium is a man-made waste product of nuclear fission, which can be used for bombs. In the year 2000, an estimated 310 tons (620,000 pounds) of weapons-usable plutonium had been produced. Less than 8 kilograms (about 18 pounds) of plutonium is enough for one Nagasaki-type bomb. Thus, in the year 2000 alone, enough plutonium was created to make more than 34,000 nuclear weapons. The technology for producing nuclear energy that is shared among nations, particularly the process that turns raw uranium into lowly-enriched uranium, can also be used to produce highly-enriched, weapons-grade uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for monitoring the world's nuclear facilities and for preventing weapons proliferation, but their safeguards have serious shortcomings. Though the IAEA is promoting additional safeguards agreements to increase the effectiveness of their inspections, the agency acknowledges that, due to measurement uncertainties, it cannot detect all possible diversions of nuclear material. My conclusion will be another sort of contention, but it didn't nominally fit as a contention. Nuclear energy, as my opponent stated, does provide jobs & revenue. However, alternative energy provides the same, if not greater, economic stimulus without the risks of proliferation and hazardous nuclear waste that are brought on by nuclear energy. According to a 2007 study performed by the American Energy Society, in 2006, alternative energy development industries/efforts generated 8.5 million new jobs and grossed nearly $1.22 trillion dollars overall. Nuclear energy may seem like the best way to go, but it is merely a wolf in sheep's clothing. The furthering of nuclear energy usage would be a very detrimental choice. Coal is not, as my opponent has insinuated,the only choice to contemplate other than nuclear energy. Alternative energy use will complete all of the benefits my opponent mentioned of nuclear energy without posing any risk to our ecosystem, human life, or proliferation-resultant attacks. If someone is presented with an obtainable reward, but given the choice to either walk to recieve it with no threats, or to take risks of any sort to recieve the reward, the choice would and should be obvious. For all of the aforementioned reasons in this debate, I strongly urge a vote for CON. Thanks.