Nuclear power is a reasonable approach to generating electricity

Defense of my arguments: 1) Environmental. Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as fossil fuel waste. There are different types of radioactive wastes, most forms are low level waste produce that decay in a matter of hours or days.[1] The waste that can't be recycled is sealed in special containers that are sent deep underground in loads when enough waste has been gathered. The waste gradually decays out of reach of any part of the ecosystem. But note: It decays. The same cannot be said of fossil fuel waste that will never decay. It will always remain deadly. Think of nuclear waste like a favour to nature. We dig it out of the ecosystem where it was doing harm to nature, then we turn it into a lesser isotope that is sealed away to become stable and safe. If you have any fears, let the Australian government dispel them here: http://www.ret.gov.au... 2) Sustainability. Uranium is not sustainable. If we keep digging it up and using it inefficiently and wasting it, it may last us only 60 years. But with the best of 21st Century technology, we can now extend that to 30,000 years. The same cannot be said of fossil fuels. We will burn them out much faster and then finally concede that we need a more reasonable approach to the creation of electricity. 3) Economy. "because of the amount of money that needs to be spent on the maintenance of the safety gear that must go along with the plant, it doesn't cost as much as coal or oil or gas."~quote from a very misguided opponent. The costs associated with Nuclear power plants can be broken down into four areas where money is needed to be spent in large amounts:[2] >The construction cost of building the plant. >The operating cost of running the plant and generating energy. >The cost of waste disposal from the plant. >The cost of decommissioning the plant. Construction costs are always the biggest cost for a nuclear power plant. It costs more to build it than to maintain its safety features however much my opponent may disagree. He mainly overlooks the fact that construction costs are about to drop dramatically during the USA development of its next phase of Nuclear plants[2]. The USA have been studying the French, and have used their knowledge and experience to make a new design of reactors. This means that nuclear plants will be cheaper to build than Coal plants and will be able to build much faster. As for the running of Nuclear plants, 0.2 cents per KW-Hr[2]. That's lower than coal plants,[3] which are not much different to run. But the mining and transport costs have not been considered. So nuclear is cheaper to build, and cheaper to run, which is the main costs associated with the running of it. Mantianance is just cleaners and safety checks that don't even rank as a noticeable cost. 4) Efficiency. Has not been refuted. Extend argument. 5) Safety. Has not been refuted. Extend argument. 6) Technological advancement. Has not been refuted. Extend argument. Rebuttals: 1) Nuclear is not safe Nuclear power has been given a very bad light by the media. There were a couple dozen deaths at Chernobyl, a nuclear power accident that will never happen again, and so far there have been no fatalities at fukishima, where people there have got a decent understanding of safety. My opponent is rather hypocritical here. He acknowledges that the pollution of fossil burning kills 850,000 people every year,[4] but gets really angry when one of the first prototype reactors goes bang due to some really bad handling that was easily avoided but is now managed. Out of all the accidents that have happened at coal plants, I think its the media to thank that we never hear of them and that nuclear plants have been given so much scrutiny. They are safe due to all this attention we give them, now we need to give equal scrutiny to fossil fuel plants. 2) Poses a risk of nuclear war Nonsense. He says that the temptation of having fissile material will be too much for most countries. What he might as well say is: These countries will take the Uranium they have and build giant underground bunkers dedicated to the creation of nuclear missiles hidden from sight. Now, to make a nuclear missile, you need permission from the countries that already have nukes. As it stands, all of them are saying NO. Should your country choose to disregard that, that will not end in a nuclear war, but it will make a lot of powerful people angry. Which causes dissension and non-nuclear war. But keep in mind this isn't because of nuclear power plants, as the Uranium used in plants are not high enough quality for nuke use and the enrichment centres are illegal to be built and cannot be done so without provoking retaliation. So it isn't the power plants, its the want for weapons of mass-destruction. Uranium used in power stations is useless as weaponry. 3) Nuclear waste I feel that I have given this point enough attention for one day, refer up to my defense of argument #1 for info. My opponent proposes the use of wind turbines or solar power as an alternative to nuclear. They wont work. They don't produce enough electricity, its not always windy or sunny, you cant run a country on sunlight and wind. The solar panels required would cover an expanse that would make the world look like an ant. There aren't enough places where you can put wind turbines, etc, etc... There are just so many reasons why the government has not already turned to this type of primitive energy. Nuclear is the only reasonable approach to generating electricity in this day and age. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://nuclearinfo.net... [3]http://www.skepticalscience.com... [4]http://suzukielders.wordpress.com...