Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.

FrameworkI agreed with my opponent's framework that the burden of Pro is to prove that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. That is, after all, what the resolution states. But the main phrase that should help voters frame the debate is "on balance," where the concept of nuclear power as a whole must be taken into account. I went into great detail in the previous round explaining why Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are not representative of nuclear power today.There is a possibility (a risk) of my computer exploding in my face. Such a risk is very impactful, but it only outweighs the benefits of computer ownership (increased productivity, etc.) if it is likely to occur. If the possibility of harm is extremely small, as is the likelihood of a nuclear meltdown, and the probability of benefits are almost certain (economic growth, energy security, etc.), then the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks, and Pro has upheld the affirmative burden of proof.Carbon EmissionsI would like to point out to voters that Con's many arguments to the Pro case do not necessarily have much substance behind them. In many cases, Con's quotations are simply reiterations of his claim without defending the reasoning behind the claim. In a couple cases, Con's citations have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll point these out along the way.Con then claims nuclear power actually results in more carbon emissions. This is really interesting, because Independent Online explains:"Over the full life cycle - from mining of the uranium, iron ore and other minerals, manufacture of the components and construction of the power station, operation and maintenance of the power station through to decommissioning of the station and the management and disposal of waste - nuclear power emits less than 11 grams of carbon equivalent per kilowatt hour. " [(10) http://www.iol.co.za...]The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates carbon output as even lower:"For example, during its whole life cycle, nuclear power releases three to six grams of carbonper kiloWatthour (GC kWh) of electricity produced" [9].Clearly, we have conflicting evidence. Here's why Pro is still prefered:Unlike solar and wind power, nuclear energy is not susceptable to weather fluctuations. For example, wind farms must keep conventional power generators running at all times, making wind extremely unprofitable [(11)http://online.wsj.com...]. Nuclear energy is able to thrive in limited spaces and operate independently from global weather patterns. So even with both sides' carbon emissions evidence dropped, nuclear power is still more efficient than wind and solar.Is nuclear power alone enough to mitigate total carbon output? No, and I never claimed it was. It is, however, the best and most sustainable among current energy sources.Con then claims that nuclear energy is not renewable, because uranium exists only in finite quantities. While the earth's supply of uranium, if used and discarded, will only last for about 50-60 years, Con ignores my evidence explaining that used uranium (95% in fact) is often recycled over and over again to meet future needs [6]. Nuclear energy is indeed renewable.TerrorismWhen it comes to energy security, one must look to the long term effects of enacting a policy. Con's only responses to the fact that nuclear energy will reduce oil dependence is citing costruction times and negative economic impacts, all of which I refuted in the previous round. When looking long term, the fact that a nuclear reactor takes 5 years to build is paltry compared with the resulting economic output and productivity. Even construction times are beginning to decrease, with pre-assembled parts increasing in use in recent years [(12) http://www.technologyreview.com...]. Furthermore, just as transportation transitioned coal power to petroleum power in the 20th century, current modes of transportation will likewise adapt to nuclear power as the technology expands [(13) http://www.ncpa.org...].This should alleviate any of Con's concerns that nuclear power would not reduce oil dependence.My opponent then claims that if the U.S. attempts energy independence, that we will follow the fates of Third World Countries that attempted import-substitution economic policies. Understand that the concept of "import substitution" is that of replacing imports with domestic products, and my opponent's comparison of the United Statse to Latin American nations is ridiculous. The reason this policy did not work in these nations is that governments, by implementing elaborate command economies, tried to force their destitute citizens to consume products they couldn't afford. Market economies with greater citizen purchasing power, such as Brazil and Chile, have experienced enormous success by turning to domestic energy sources [(14) Blouet, Olwyn; Olwyn Blouet and Brian W. Blouet (2002). Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic and Regional Survey. New York: John Wiley.]. The U.S. will be wise to follow this model.Con then tries to turn my terrorism point, claiming that ceasing oil imports from the Middle East will cause those nations not to like us, and will therefore cause them to increase terrorist support. There are two problems with this assertion. First, one of the main reasons there is jihadist resentment against the United States in the first place is because our oil ties with Middle Eastern governments, namely Saudi Arabia [(15) http://www.brookings.edu...]. The United States is literally seen as an imperialist aggressor hell-bent on exploiting Middle Eastern resources. Secondly, the concept of peak oil ensures that oil prices won't decrease in the long term, and the fact that demand for oil in India in China is increasing at a faster rate than demand in the United States ensures that prices will remain high in the short term [(16) http://www.nytimes.com...].To conclude this point, my opponent continues to operate under "what-if" scenarios to substantiate his points. Con claims that Middle Eastern nations might turn hostile if the United States were to phase out oil dependence, but never cites any intent by these governments. The likelihood of a risk becoming reality must be given more weight than mere theoretical possibility.ConclusionThis is essentially what this debate comes down to: possibility versus probability. Con tries to extend the fears of the past to today's very different nuclear climate. Meltdowns, terrorist attacks and health crises are possibilities with an extremely slim chance of actually taking place. On the other hand, the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear energy are well documented and supported by reality. Don't let the scare tactics fool you. The resolution is affirmed.