Resolved: The United States should Significantly Increase its Use of Nuclear Energy

My opponent claims I did not address the issue of carbon emissions released in the aquisition, maintenance, and post-production stages of producing nuclear energy. I in fact have addressed this issue providing stats that indicate the release of those emissions is through the use of fossil fuel burning vehicles in mining, transport, and construction. I pointed out this part of the process is equal throughout the field of energy production. I also pointed out that nuclear was just one piece of the puzzle to cleaner energy and energy independence. By using clean energy like nuclear, we can free up natural gas reserves for use in these vehicles. THEN there will be little to no carbon emissions at any step in the production of nuclear energy. Until then, it is a reality with ANY type of energy production, including wind and solar. I addressed the Belarus issue by stating the US is not Belarus. Our methods of production, disposal, security, research- we are far superior on all fronts to all developed nations, let alone Belarus. In fact, the incident in Chernobyl occured in 1986, and scathing reviews have been written about the various inadequacies at the plant, including poorly trained personnel. My opponent claims we shouldn't use the US as an example, but at 104, we have almost double the amount of nuclear power plants in France and Japan (59 and 55 respectively). Only two major accidents in the history of civil nuclear power have ever occured, and the Three Mile Island icident was contained. Only TWO major accidents in over 12,700 cumulative years of use in 32 different countries. There is no argument against the fact that nuclear power is potentially hazardous, but safer methods are being developed, and even without those methods there have been only two major accidents in history. Only one can be pointed to having a major affect on the population, and that is because there were no fire prevention/containment methods in place at the poorly built, poorly managed facility at Chernobyl. If nuclear energy production in the US is raised by 20% of the total- as my opponent points out is the maximum possible with current manufacturing constraints to do so by 2050- and solar and wind were ramped up to represent 39% of total energy production, that would mean that 79% of US energy production would be clean by then. That would lead to a drop of 79% annual carbon emissions. I pointed this out in my last argument... My opponent argues that he doesn't see how it is an important piece of the pie. Well, rather than citing 1,000 sources that say it is a significant piece of the pie for the path to energy independence and clean energy I will ask readers to do a simple google search, and read the thousands of comments from educated sources. There are very few energy experts claiming nuclear shouldn't be a significant part, but even most of the detractors admit it should be. My opponent's argument on efficiency makes no sense. Efficient: (1): effective operation as measured by a comparison of production with cost (as in energy, time, and money) (2): the ratio of the useful energy delivered by a dynamic system to the energy supplied to it. An increase in production of nuclear energy would, in fact, result in an increase in it's share of total energy production in the US. His argument that demand increases is true for ANY type of energy, and therefore moot. His argument contradicts logistical reality and needs. If nuclear energy falls below 20% of total energy we are working backwards. We will be working LESS toward the goal of clean and independent energy, as even by his own estimates by 2050 solar and wind will go up to 39% of total energy. If nuclear is not ramped up, and demand goes up at a rate that would eliminate nuclear's 20% share, then any clean alternative would be meaningless because we would have to support the need with no-so-clean sources like coal and natural gas. That is counterproductive to the goal of cutting carbon emissions. My opponent opposes energy because methods for storage have not been put into place, and efficient recycling hasn't been developed. I am arguing that they MUST be developed, and this will result in a significant increase in nuclear energy production. The beautiful thing about science is that when something is not available, but needs to be, the research and development of the process alone creates jobs. The implementation creates more jobs, and the use of these methods will create even more. Research and development is already in place, and not too far off from success. My opponent seems to have given up in this debate. He has not offered any new arguments to my rebuttals, and has placed redundant arguments. Conventional logic is the belief that the US should significantly increase it's use of nuclear energy. http://www.world-nuclear.org... , http://www.euronuclear.org..., http://www.nei.org..., http://www.ne.doe.gov..., http://www.epa.gov...