Nuclear Energies

My opponents main case on nuclear power is it is efficient, there is no doubting that. But this can be refuted if I show that the negatives outweigh the positive[s].My opponent then says helium 3 can be used in nuclear power plants, so we have a lot of supply, yet he forgets the large costs it takes to get to the moon, as well as the costs of nuclear power (discussed later) in general. It costs 100 million dollars to get to the moon. (just for tourism) [1] As that was a source for tourism, we can assume the cost is higher for the nuclear power industry as they would have to base there with equipment and such, so going to the moon would raise prices and make nuclear power a poor option due to cost issues. Like, expensive energy? No thanks. So your argument fails, we must look into how much supply we have HERE ON EARTH. At current rates, we have 200 years before we hit no uranium. [2] Not only is that limited, but we can expect that increased production would lower the time, so lets assume 100-150 years. That is a limited supply, hence your argunemnt fails. Now, my case (one point my opponent conceded) relies on a few things:(1) Nuclear power is not clean(2) Nuclear Power is not safe(3) High costs of nuclear power(4) Nuclear power = more chances of nuclear weapon problems. I will argue these in order. (1) Nuclear power is not cleanA common misconception is that "nuclear power is clean". The NEI and the world nuclear association use this all the time. The nuclear power plants are not non-green in itself, the generation emits no emissions, but the mining and building of the supplies/reactor are huge amounts of carbon. The actual mining process is energy extensive. This is the mining process: http://www.world-nuclear.org...; />http://www.world-nuclear.org...The whole process is energy intensive, and therefore lets out a large amount of emisions, therefore not "green". [3]"In a case study in Germany, the Oko-Institute determined that 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kilowatt (kWh). Other international research studies show much higher figures (up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh). In comparison to renewable energy, energy generated from nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced, taking into account the entire nuclear fuel cycle." [4](2) Nuclear power is unsafeThe problem with nuclear power as opposed to other sources of energy is the possible problems that go wrong with nuclear power. No other source (except coal) has this type of radiation, ad radiation that does not get stored well. So with radiation, it already has more potential problems then the average power. Also, there have been many accidents with nucelar power, one killed many. And in the future, chances of a nuclear power accident are high. [5]Now my opponent may try to claim it is fairly safe, but this would ignore the main fact: When a nuclear power plant goes boom, it is worse then if a solar panel collapses. So the potential risks out weigh many beenfits. (3) CostsThe energy itself is not expensive, around the same price as coal, but the large invesements needed are huge. And the problem is like above, unsafe. “This is yet another example of how a multi-billion dollar investment can turn into a multi-billion dollar liability within minutes. The only way that new reactors will be built in the United States is if the economic risk is put upon the taxpayer through federal loan guarantees and/or upon ratepayers through advanced cost recovery,”[6](4) NukesMy opponent conceded this:". The benefits of nuclear fission can be applied to several technologies, like weapons, transportation, ect."So, as my opponent conceded this I will be short and sweet. "The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs. " [7]CONCLUSION:VOTE CON[1] http://money.cnn.com... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com...[3] http://www.citizen.org... [4] http://www.nuclearfiles.org... [5] http://archive.greenpeace.org... [6] http://www.foe.org... [7] http://www.neis.org...