Official Winter Tournament: This House believes that the EU should abandon nuclear energy

Thanks to King for this debate and to Proph for hosting.PRO's CASEPro's entire case is built on the notion that the EU should reject nuclear power because nuclear power is unsafe. Pro uses death toll numbers from Fukushima to prove this. If this thesis is rejected, then, or sufficiently mitigated to the point where the risks are not outweighed by the benefits, I would urge you to vote Con.R1. Turn - Nuclear Energy Saves LivesNuclear energy actually produces the fewest deaths per terawatt hour of energy when compared to a variety of other common fuel sources, including coal (the highest), oil, natural gas, peat, wind, and solar. [1] This means that nuclear energy is actually, statistically-speaking, the safest form of energy production available. In fact, there have only been three serious disasters in nuclear powers history, two of which were in or before 1986. [2] As safety technology improves and as countries develop more robust, well-trained programs, safety increases, and the risk of catastrophe decreases. There are currently 437 operable plants, and more have likely existed throughout history [3]; with only 3 plants melting down, only 0.69% of plants have ever experienced the kinds of disasters Pro talks about. Also, the very fact that Pro can only name 1 example of a serious melt down (Fukushima) underscores how truly aberrant and rare these meltdowns are.Moreover, nuclear energy is cleaner than other forms of energy, thus reducing negative climate-related impacts, which can kill, injure, or displace humans. In fact, nuclear energy emits no air pollution whatsoever, and can produce massive quantities of energy. [4]This turn's Pro's argument because (a) nuclear power plants are statistically the most safe, and (b) nuclear power plants do not contribute to unsafe air pollution, thus saving/improving lives by reducing dependence on coal, oil, etc.R2. Nuclear Safety Should be Improved, not AbandonedEven if Pro convinces you that nuclear power has dubious safety, there are ways to improve that safety rather than simply scrapping nuclear power altogether. Updating safety mechanisms at old plants is a good way to improve the safety of the reactors: "Simple things like sealing backup diesel engines and burying fuel tanks or using passive safety systems are well known and should be implemented where appropriate." [1] Other commonsense steps that should be codified into law are rules about where to put plants: "If an operator proposes a site that is too close to an earthquake fault, or too close to oceanfront that is vulnerable to a tsunami or hurricane storm surge, or downriver from a huge dam that could burst, then the NRC should reject the bid. Similarly, if the utility could not protect spent fuel pools or casks from being breached during a severe accident, which happened in Japan, the NRC should not license it." [5] Plants should also be put in areas that have the lowest population density possible. Were these regulations in place, nuclear safety would be even better than it already is.CON's CASEI will now offer, briefly, an advantage to negating, besides the turn of saving lives and helping the environment in the process.P1. The EU is Significantly Dependent on Russian OilThere are at least 9 countries who are "insecure" with regard to Russian oil, meaning that they are "either already very dependent on Russian gas supplies (more than 80 percent of their total annual consumption) or are expected to become more dependent on Russian gas." [6] There are also 9 countries who are simply "secure." Some of these countries are rated secure because they have solid global strategic petroleum reserves--essentially, stockpiles of oil that can be used in an emergency--but, places like the Netherlands have GSPRs of 90 days or less, hardly a significant number. [6, 7] Furthermore, the "secure" countries also often have a sizable share of their imports from Russia, and any loss in that oil trade would undoubtedly hurt their economies. [6]P2. The EU should seek Independence from Russian OilIt is clear from recent global events that Russian and the EU are at odds, given the current sanctions on Russia, Russian planes violating EU and NATO airspace, and the conflict in Ukraine. This puts the EU in an untenable position: they pay billions in Euros to a country that is their geopolitical foe, thereby helping their foe's own economy. Plus, by relying so much on Russian oil, the EU puts itself at risk. If Russia ever chose to cut off the oil, the consequences for Europe could be devastating, and the mere threat of cutting off the oil places undue coercive pressure on the EU. It is therefore not in the EU's interests to rely on oil.P3. Nuclear Power Increases EU IndependenceNuclear power plants can produce huge quantities of energy. In the U.S., for example, our smallest reactor generates 502 megawatts, and our largest generates nearly 4,000 MW. By comparison, wind energy, another clean fuel source, is much less effective. A single turbine provides between 2-3 MW of energy; so, if there were a field of 165 turbines producing 3 MW, the field of turbines would still produce less than the smallest reactor. To produce as much as the largest reactor, you would need 1,313 turbines working at 3 MW. [8, 9] Really, no other clean energy source can compete in the volume of energy it produces to nuclear reactors. This makes nuclear reactors a key component of any energy diversification plan designed to meet the needs of energy-guzzling Europe. Building power plants restores EU energy independence, which is in the EU's best interests.SOURCES1 - http://nextbigfuture.com...2 - http://www.world-nuclear.org...3 - http://www.world-nuclear.org...4 - http://www.nei.org...5 - http://www.scientificamerican.com...6 - http://www.ecfr.eu...7 - https://en.wikipedia.org...8 - https://www.eia.gov...9 - https://www.wind-watch.org...