The US should increase its use of nuclear energy

So first I'd like to begin by stating that you gave no evidence for most of your points although some of it is implied. 1. For this point I have two responses. First, there has never been a terrorist attack against a plant and most arguments along this line are just plain fear mongering. Second, even if a nuclear fallout was to occur the consequences wouldn't be too great. Chernobyl is the only evidence of nuclear fallout deaths in history. Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, printed 2013 "However, empirical evidence indicates that the April 1986 Chernobyl accident was the world’s only source of fatalities from nuclear power plant radiation fallout. According to the latest assessment by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 43 deaths are conclusively attributable to radiation from Chernobyl as of 2006."2. My response to this is twofold.First, please do keep in mind the topic says "The US should increase its use of nuclear energy." It doesn't say the US shouldn't increase it's US of other sources of energy. So this gap could be bridged with renewables easily in that time. Second, you could replace the current reactor systems with Thorium based reactors and easily produce a much greater amount of energy.3. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, what makes nuclear not a "real climate change solution"?4. Construction cost isn't the only thing one should look at when building reactors. There's two things to look at. First is the overall levelized cost, which takes into account everything from construction and running the plant to taxes and paying employees. Which according to the EIA is 108.4 USD/MWh for nuclear. Although these costs may be more expensive then wind with 86.6, they are cheaper then other renewables such as solar which are at 144.3. Second is the capacity factor, which is how much of the power grid these forms of energy can even power. According to the same EIA source Nuclear sits at a whopping 90% opposed to 52, 34, and 25 for hydroelectric, wind, and solar, respectively. 5. A few things.First, you gave no source for this.Second, According to research done by the University Of Sheffield “Volume of nuclear waste could be reduced by 90 per cent says new research” November 6, 2013 “The researchers, from the University’s Faculty of Engineering, have shown that mixing plutonium-contaminated waste with blast furnace slag and turning it into glass reduces its volume by 85-95 per cent. It also effectively locks in the radioactive plutonium, creating a stable end product.” So you can easily just reduce most of the current waste and lock in all it's harmful side effects.Third, the Thorium reactors I proposed during my case can also easily eat through this waste solving this problem even further.6. This argument is dishonest, you have the same transportation costs associated with forms of energy such as solar or wind. Which may usually be even more because you have to transport enough material for an entire wind farm. 7. Evidence?8. Two responses.First, every reduction to CO2 is good and saying that cars are the issue just diverts attention away from the actual topic. Second, if you truly think this is the case then the renewables you proposed wouldn't be solving this problem either.