Nuclear power should be banned

~Refutation to the Pros case~It seems as though my opponent seems to worry about the nuclear power being weaponized, and its byproducts. He implies weaponized as he diverges into nuclear weapons, and as I stated in the definitions this debate is about electricity. R1: Weaponization We are not arguing whether or not it is justified to have nuclear weapons, so I assume you mean they may be weaponized therefore need to be banned. This argument is fairly faulty. The technology to actually make uranium enriched enough to be used in weapons is a process that has nothing to do with nuclear power. [1] Further more the plants use techniques with the uranium basically rendering it useless for weaponize techniques. Nuclear fuel it enriched from 3-5%. [2] You need 90% enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. [3] Linking Nuclear weapons to nuclear power is absurd. [1] Also you claim their defense is less at risk. New Zealand is not like the US, they are peaceful and out of the way. [4] Their peace may not be their nuclear abolishment, rather they do not patrol the middle east. R2: WasteMy opponents main case is the waste. He claims the waste is unstoppable and radioactive. Lets refute first his views on the storage. Many plants store them in huge metal vaults (under security big time) filled with water, this keeps the radiation inside. [5] The waste actually overtime becomes non hazardous. [6] The EPA and the NRC constantly regulate and check the disposal to make sure the storage is safe, unlike you claim. [6] Further more my opponent claims a byproduct so "large". This is actually false. The Nuclear industry actually emits less byproducts then other industries. [7] The only waste problem that you cite that makes any sense is what the waste is. Also the nuclear industry takes FULL responsibility for their waste is any problem occurs. (like they have to pay for it). [8] Why does this matter? Because they now have a financial reason to keep the storage system safe. Nuclear actually emits less waste then coal. [8, 9] (this ties in next). Methods for Safer underground storage sites are being researched. [8]Then my opponent claims the byproducts from nuclear are the most hazardous. Before we do this, let me cite things about our buddy coal. Well our buddy coal has more radioactive waste then Nuclear. [10] Who would have though that? Well sorry coal, we are not buddies anymore. Now, as I have proven Nuclear waste is stored with great regulation hindering it safe. Now, what about the byproducts from, lets say solar? Some solar cells have many nasty byproducts as well. They use many toxic materials. [11] Now, how is this worse then nuclear? Nuclear Stores the waste in safe facilities, whereas solar cannot store the waste. So in a comparison your argument is false as coal is already more radioactive, and solar has toxic byproducts that are not even stored. Further more (economically speaking) solar has a terrible type of problem: China. China imports most of the solar cells in the US. [12]Also objections to the nuclear power/weapon see above.Defense of my case~ Jobs ~My opponent claims this is false. As I stated the nuclear industry woudl make 3,000 jobs or more per plant. The Solar industry can only make 10,000 new jobs total. [13] In this case Nuclear is better then this green energy. For wind, 11% of the jobs are building the turbine, 5% for maintenance. [14] Why is this significant? Because this means 15% of the jobs wind creates are temporary jobs. The Nuclear business has 56,000 people working for it. banning this energy means 50,000 people lose jobs. [15]~ Cost of nuclear Power ~My opponent claims it costs 109$ per killowatt hour. I disagree:"Since 1987 the cost of producing electricity from has decreased from 3.63 cents per KWHr to 1.68 cents per KWHr in 2004 and plant availability has increased from 67% to over 90%." [16] 2$ is far off from what you claim! Nuclear Power is cheaper then all of the fossil fuel types, and competes with coal, a very cheap Fossil Fuel. [17] Also this:"The nation’s 103 nuclear reactors were the lowest cost electricity producers of any source of expandable, baseload electricity in 2002." [18]~ Safety ~"I agree completely that nuclear is just as safe as other energy. "~ My opponentHe basically conceded, and is only saying he is worried of a melt down. The NRC has many rules and regulations so it would be harder for melt-down situations to occur. [19] "the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to minimise the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences when they occur. " [20]My opponent forgets the only accident recently is fukishima, which could be easily prevented with newer reactors. Chernobyl for example was due to a flawed design. Newer designs and regulations prevent these instances. As these accidents are rare, and when the happen are easily controlled (3 mile island) [21], and therefore your argument is mainly a consesion as these instances are rare and are easily controllable. The workers in these plants have rigorous training and can prevent and be able to stop the incident occurs, and control it if prevention measures fail. [22] ~Green energies~My opponent first goes after the emissions. My opponent concedes they Emmit's less emissions than solar. His counter is the construction. If It emits less then it will eventually even out and bet solar. There are actually methods that make nuclear powers uranium last forever by getting uranium from the sea. [23] So your worry is over... Also as I stated last round, these reactors work on thorium too, therefore will last longer there too. Worry on your part over. *Low on room*ConclusionMy opponent has not fulfilled his BOP (he has it all, 1st round) and in my opinion has no reasons to do with the energy forever. http://www.nei.org... [1]http://www.nei.org... [2]http://nuclearfiles.org... [3]http://www.washingtontimes.com... [4]http://www.nei.org... [5]http://www.nrc.gov... [6]http://www.nrc.gov... [7]http://world-nuclear.org... [8]http://www.iaea.org... [9]http://www.scientificamerican.com... [10]http://en.wikipedia.org... [11]http://en.wikipedia.org... [12]http://grist.org... [13]http://www.bls.gov... [14]http://www.bls.gov... [15]http://nuclearinfo.net... [16]http://web.mit.edu... [17]http://www.nei.org... [18]http://www.nrc.gov... [19]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [20]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [21]http://www.nei.org... [22]http://en.wikipedia.org... [23]