Looking to the future, we should fund Nuclear energy rather than Wind energy.

Counter-argument #1: The amount of Steel and concrete Wind Turbines useA Canadian engineer who specializes in energy production has revealed that Wind Turbines use 5-7 times the amount of steel and concrete as a Nuclear Power Plant, on a per MegaWatt basis [1]. This is very significant if you want more efficient/safe Wind Turbines, as one of the flaws of Wind Turbines is their very tall and slender structure [2]. By increasing the height of Wind Turbines, you'd also have to increase the amount of steel and concrete used dramatically. This is a particularly bad problem as the Wind Turbines talked about in the first source have only a 25-30% capacity factor.My opponent then starts to talk about how you can build Wind Turbines in many places by increasing the size of the rotors, yet the rotors are actually the cause of many of the faults in Wind Turbines - the noise, their impact on housing, and the amount of birds that are killed each year by Wind Turbines, currently at 20,000-37,000 [3].Counter-argument #2: The problems of offshore Wind TurbinesGranted, offshore Wind Turbines sound like a brilliant idea, just like Solar Roadways or Powdered Alcohol. But then we look at the facts, and then they don't sound so much like a good idea after all.First Problem: Faulty foundationsIn May of last year, 52 of 140 offshore Wind Turbines in the Wind Farm GGOWL were found to have faulty foundations by engineering firm Fluor Ltd - that's 35% [4].Second Problem: They rot into the seaAll the steel that the Wind Turbines are made of will rot/rust [5], and do you know where that will go? Into the sea, which is polluting/littering it. This is bad for the environment.Third Problem: The change in Sea currentsAs described here: [6], offshore Wind Turbines (particularly farms) obstruct the sea currents and as a result, it causes one end of a beach to drown in heaps of sand, and the other end of a beach, the sand has been washed away, making those areas to be very unsafe and in need of massive repairs costing a lot of money.Fourth Problem: The damage done to Natural Carbon sinksOffshore Wind Turbines damage Natural carbon sinks [7], which means that more CO2 will be created than saved by Wind Turbines. This makes Nuclear a more viable alternative, as they do not produce Carbon Dioxide [8].Counter-argument #3: Even considering Bladeless Wind Turbines, Nuclear is still more cost-efficient and in most cases even cheaperMy opponent claims that bladeless turbines have an energy capacity of over 80%, but this is not the case. His source claims that it is nearly 80%, which means that even the bladeless turbines' energy capacities are inferior to that of Nuclear energy by 11% [Round 2, source 3]. Aouini states that his turbines cost "nearly half as much to make", implying that they cost slightly more than half of what ordinary turbines cost as if it were slightly under, he'd say "under half as much to make". Using Chris Heaton-Harris MP's statistics from the second round [Round 2, source 1], that means that even the cheapest kind of Wind Turbines (double the cost-efficiency of Nuclear), Wind Turbines with subsidies, would be significantly less cost-efficient than Nuclear energy.Counter-argument #4: Advances in Wind/Nuclear EnergyThe only advances that my opponent could name in Wind Energy that have increased the energy capacity of wind energy that isn't the bladeless Wind Turbines are making the Wind Turbines taller, which I have showed has problems and would not add to the cost-efficiency because either more materials would need to be used, there'd need to be added maintenance costs, or the Turbines would not last as long, all resulting in the same amount of cost-efficiency despite there being able to be more wind for the turbines to harness.Conclusion: Nuclear Energy is much more cost-efficient than Wind Energy, and so deserves more funding.Sources[1] http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com...[2] Lombardi, D. (2010). Long Term Performance of Mono-pile Supported Offshore Wind Turbines. Bristol: University of Bristol.[3] http://www.nap.edu...[4] http://www.businessgreen.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://grumpologist.blogspot.co.uk...[7] Ben Acheson, parliamentary assistant to Struan Stevenson MEP at the European Parliament, http://scef.org.uk...[8] http://www.nei.org...