Nuclear Energy

Resolved: The United States federal government should increase investment in nuclear power sources. I am representing the affirmative position of the resolution. I will be claming that the USFG does need to increase investment in nuclear energy. Definitions:1) Investment--a contribution of something such as time, energy, or effort to an activity, project, or undertaking, in the expectation of a benefit (source: MicrosoftWorks dictionary)2) Nuclear power--the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work, most of the time with the goal of producing commercially servicable electricity. Contentions: 1) Nuclear energy is a more environmentally friendly alternative to other, more conventional means of producing electricity.2) Increased investment into nuclear energy would alleviate the United States' dependence on imported, environmentally unfriendly, petroleum-based energy sources. 3) Nuclear energy is a scientifically proven, known energy source that is "ready for market". Explanation of Contentions: 1) Nuclear energy is a more environmentally friendly alternative to other, more conventional means of producing electricity.Nuclear energy is among one of the world's cleanest energy sources. It produces very low levels of CO2 emissions and, during its lifetime, is comparable to so called "green" energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro emissions [1]. The most up-to-date study, conducted at the Forsmark nuclear power facility in Sweden during 2005, shows that the plant was producing only 3.10 grams of CO2 per kilowatt per hour [1]. In contrast, information gathered from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency shows that the average coal power plant in the United States during the year 2000 produced 2.095 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt per hour [2]. A simple mathematical calculation revels that nuclear power, on average, produces almost 97.8 percent less carbon dioxide emissions than coal power. Thus, nuclear power would be beneficial because it would lower carbon emissions consequently increasing air quality and curtailing this nation's contribution to global climate change. 2) Increased investment into nuclear energy would alleviate the United States' dependence on imported, environmentally unfriendly, petroleum-based energy sources. Currently, oil is the lifeblood of the American economy. Oil supplies 40 percent of the United States' total energy demands [3]. Today, nearly 60 percent of the oil utilized and consumed in the United States is imported from foreign countries [4]. Using middle school math, we can concur that 24 percent (nearly one-fourth) of our energy is supplied by oil drilled, refined, or otherwise produced in foreign countries. Noting the current geopolitical situation and the worldwide increase in oil demand, relying on foreign oil does not seem like a viable long-term economic strategy for the United States. Thus, the United States should be investing in other sources that can supply our nation with the energy its needs for continued global economic dominance. Nuclear power is the energy source that is best positioned to take that role as it has become one of the leading energy sources in the world. For example, nearly 75% of all energy consumed in France is produced by nuclear sources [5]. Not only has nuclear energy provided the French people with energy security, it has lead France to become a net energy exporter as it gains over 3 billion Euros (4,312,800,000 USD) from exporting nuclear power and nuclear power technology [5]. As it is clear to see in the precedent set by the French government, nuclear energy is a sustainable long-term energy source that can lessen a nation's dependence on unreliable, foreign-energy sources. 3) Nuclear energy is a scientifically proven, known energy source that is "ready for market". Unlike wind and solar energy, nuclear energy is a proven energy source that has been in use since 1942 [6]. Thus, the wide-scale adoption of nuclear energy in the United States would require very little additional research and development as most of the technologies to be used have already been formulated. Furthermore, the more widespread adoption of nuclear power in the United States would require no changes be made to the national power grid as it was constructed with nuclear energy in mind. In contrast, there are some questions about the practicality of wind, solar, and geothermal energy sources. I thank whoever shall accept this debate challenge in advance. Happy debating!Sources: [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org...[2] http://www.eia.gov...[3] http://www.energy.gov...[4] http://www.quoteoil.com...[5] http://www.world-nuclear.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...