The U.S. should substantially increase Nuclear energy. No What if arguements please.

While I am grateful to my opponent for providing such a rapid response, I am rather nonplussed to see that if he understood my arguments, he completely disregarded them and attempted to confuse other debaters following along with our debate. I shall endeavor to re-explain my arguments in a simpler fashion so my opponent might follow along. 1. My opponent's source, this "Neil Cabreza", is not a verifiable source. Upon searching Berkley's nuclear department website, his name cannot be found anywhere. In addition, there is no date of publication on this report, nor are the sources cited correctly, leaving me unable to look them up, despite my numerous attempts. If this source is, in fact, a creditable source, Mr. Cabreza has made several errors, and is at the least very outdated. In 2006 alone, the price for a pound of uranium doubled from $36.25 to $72(1). This price is that of normal uranium, which has yet to be enriched. For every one pound of enriched uranium achieved, four pounds of depleted uranium result(2), which has to be contained as radioactive waste. In addition, with the recent technological advancement of improving solar technology(3)(4), Mr. Cabreza's argument is outdated and inaccurate. Also, documentation of prices of nuclear energy can be found here, (5), as my opponent would have found should he googled the issue. 2. Here, my opponent deliberately misunderstands the data. Let me put the issue of infrastructure into perspective: A wind farm requires turbines and electrical grids(6). A solar energy plant requires solar panels, solar cells, and an electrical grid. A nuclear reactor requires (7): Nuclear fuel Nuclear reactor core Neutron moderator Neutron poison Coolant Control rods Reactor vessel Boiler feedwater pump Steam generators Steam turbine Electrical generator Condenser Cooling tower Radwaste System Refueling Floor Spent fuel pool Reactor Protective System (RPS) Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) Standby Liquid Control System (emergency boron injection, in BWRs only) Containment building Control room Emergency Operations Facility And just under 1000 employees. As a comparison of the infrastructure necessary and the costs the creation of such infrastructure would produce... Clearly, wind and solar are the winners here. 3. People will not pay for expensive energy. Cheap energy is the basis of our society. Our economy is in a recession right now because of the rising energy costs. Having more jobs as nuclear plant workers means the cost of energy will rise even more, hurting the economy far more than it helps. Should we switch to purely wind and solar power, the price of energy will plummet. This will drastically slash costs for companies, allowing them to greatly expand production, resulting in the hiring of new workers. These workers will then have more disposable income to spend on goods and services, which results in higher production, which leads to the hiring of more workers, and the cycle continues. In comparison, nuclear power costs millions to billions of dollars to set up and keep running for higher energy prices. Solar power would cost a fraction of the price to set up and would expand the GDP. Clearly, solar power would not hurt our economy. 4. "so duh, your [sic] telling me they haven't found anything to be safer in 30 years of research." Yes. Yes, I am. This means for expensive energy that's going to damage our economy. radioactive waste will need to be contained for millions of years, said waste will be filtering into our groundwater, cancer rates will triple, and the possibility of meltdown will be a constant threat over day-to-day life. 5. My opponent's 3% figure is insignificant and irrelevant to this debate as we are discussing increasing energy through investment and the like. Current figures do not matter, only production costs and possible expansion fees and repercussions. I agree with my opponent, however, on the necessity of using more than one source of energy. Wind and solar together will do the job nicely. As can the remaining oil and natural gas we have, along with the nuclear power plants already established. We simply shouldn't make any more. In conclusion, I have re-explained my arguments in a way so even my opponent must realize his arguments and responses are null and void. I have shown nuclear energy is incredibly expensive, dangerous, and damaging to the economy. Furthermore, I have addressed all my opponents claims attacking solar energy and re-established it as a viable alternative. I extend my other previous arguments as well, and eagerly anticipate my opponent's response in Round 3. Sources: 1) http://www.nei.org... 2) http://web.ead.anl.gov... 3) http://www.sciencecentric.com... 4) http://web.mit.edu... 5) http://www.americanprogress.org... 6) http://www.gwec.net... 7) http://www.nucleartourist.com...