Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels

I apologize for leaving this to the last minute, but I will finish this debate. My opponent starts off by making the following statements. 1) Digging holes can't possibly be economical. My opponent asks me how digging holes can possibly be economical. Well, I thought it was obvious, but I will explain why "digging holes" is a very enlightened choice when trying to save money or even decrease our country's deficit. The reason why geothermal energy will be so economical is because EVERYONE WILL WANT IT. It will cost a lot less because you do not have a limited amount of it, as we do oil and plutonium. Creating geothermal energy could even be economic boom our economy needs right now. Weening off of our dependence on oil in the middle east. Now on to the science evidence your presented 2) "To be both usable and economical a (geothermal) site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate. " My opponent here is assuming that we need to find areas that have water in them at high temperatures, and admits that it only takes a few miles of digging from anywhere for adequate heat, which as proven above is easily obtainable and economical. So the only real problem here is, we need bodies of water. OR the third option, which is supplying water ourselves. In the evidence I sited in my last speech, "Enhanced Geothermal Systems" are capable of such things. Hot rock reservoirs are given water and the steam from the heated rocks + water is harnessed as energy, thus also eliminating our need for perfect water bodies at our desired locations. It can be anywhere. Now onto my opponents refutations of my attacks. 1) My opponent offers a chart of deaths. First of all, I would like to see the link for this please. And since I cannot see the link, or a description of this chart, I assume that his survey was done in one week or month. There is no timeline. This evidence is incomplete. In opposition you also claim that mining uranium is like mining anything else, but offer no evidence on the validity of this. I offer the following articles as evidence to the contrary (1) (2) . My numbered one article specifically talks about the mining risks, but the rejection of the fact that retrieving nuclear energy IS dangerous because is puts off radiation is not productive in this debate. It is a FACT that radiation is created by particles traveling at almost the speed of light and can be very dangerous going through the human body. It can be the cause of cancer and sexual deficiencies. If even there has never been a death in the U.S., which by the way only claimed with no link to this source, it creates diseases to be passed down in their children, and becomes very serious. 2) A lot of countries have the ability to produce nuclear weapons, but they promised they wouldn't. But that's alright we trust them. We are giving countries the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Countries that hate democracy, countries that deny the Holocaust ever happened, countries that want to see the U.S. in flames. There is no way to turn geothermal energy into a weapon of mass destruction, exception maybe in a squirt gun fight. Giving other countries the ability to use geothermal energy and giving them the technology to accomplish this does not put the U.S. in a bad position to where we have to choose between environmental safety or preventing nuclear winter. In the world of the con, we have both pretty easily. 3) Nuclear energy is very cheap. So is geothermal energy, what's your point? Geothermal energy doesn't damage humans or our environment. 4) My opponent wants me to name a country that uses geothermal energy. A lot. What kind of an argument is this? Because it is not popular and funded as much as nuclear energy, it isn't as good? Well if I was thinking the same way as you then Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga are the best musicians because they are the most popular and richest. Or that the best race is Asian, because there are a lot more Asians in the world then any other race. That makes absolutely no sense and judges should just ignore this argument. In conclusion, geothermal energy is better because it is cheap and easy to obtain just like nuclear energy is, but we do not need to worry about nuclear proliferation and radiation if we share this information to the world. And if we can easily share our technology with other countries without needing to worry about WMDs, our environment can benefit at a much accelerated rate than nuclear energy ever would, simply because the US would not allow it. http://www.wagingpeace.org... http://www.physics.isu.edu...