The United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy.

Onto my points. 1. As I've shown, nuclear energy is able to get more 'bang for our buck' in an environmental sense, in that it is able to create a substantial energy output, at a very low environmental impact. The potential for a serious nuclear waste leak, while always existing, is extremely low, because of the extensive security procedure and establishment that accompanies all nuclear power plants in the United States. We can look back to the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, where there was an accident in an American nuclear power plant. Because of stringent safety laws, no one died, and no one became sick from any radiation released. 2. The fact is that the other sources, such as geothermal, hydro, and wind only work in certain areas, and even then, there are other issues involved, including one that my opponent pointed out, the fact that the technology doesn't yet exist on a broad enough scale for the United States. My opponent goes on to list various incidents that have occurred in history relating to nuclear energy. Only 8.5% of those that have been recorded occurred since 1990, a testament to the advances in nuclear safety the United States is promoting. Electricity costs are going up and up as fossil fuels become more and more scarce, nuclear is the way to go to help the US' economy. 3. What my opponent doesn't want to tell us about this unfortunate nuclear incident is the fact that the event itself took place in the 1940's, when nuclear energy was literally in its infancy. My previous point about how the past 18 years have held only 8.5% of the US' nuclear incidents is proof of the safety that now exists with nuclear power in the US. Furthermore, only 3% of those incidents have occurred in the last 8 years, none of them occurring more recently than 5 years ago. This basically segues into my opponent's argument, which is a listing of various minor nuclear incidents. One thing that I would like to respond to specifically is with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. First off, the Chernobyl disaster was the product of Soviet incompetence and lack of safety regulation. Three Mile Island on the other hand could be classified as a "major incident" instead of any type of disaster, mainly because of the strong safety requirements that go into place when building nuclear power plants in the United States. Basically, even when something goes wrong, little to nothing happens. Its important to be reminded that everything on earth carries with it a risk, and that somethings in life are inherently risky to a degree. When the risk can be reduced to an extreme amount, as with nuclear energy, then it should be deemed safe. My opponent ends his case with a fallacious statement on probability. There is no indication that something is required by the laws of nature to happen. Lets think and ask ourselves what would happen if the United States' didn't increase its use of nuclear energy? Well, then this country would still be addicted to foreign oil and coal, which effectively kill our planet, and are bad for the already struggling economy of this nation. We can't let an absurdly unlikely occurrence stop us from ensuring the prosperity and well-being of generations to come in the United States. Summary: So far I've shown that nuclear energy can give the United States the most bang for her buck in an economic and environmental sense. I've also shown how the United States is working to ensure the safety of nuclear energy facilities, and how it will continue with the expansion of more in future years. All my opponent can do is try to scare us with events of the past.