The US Should Subsidize Nuclear Power

I had to rush this argument, so if it seems rushed I apologize in advance. Framework: In this debate I need to prove that the US should provide subsidies to nuclear power. This means if I can show any source of nuclear power should be subsidized, I win. Essentially, if I can show the Pros outweigh the Cons and that it should be provided financial assistance from the government. This does not mean that only nuclear power should be subsidized, but simply that nuclear power should be among the electricity sources subsidized (if there are others). C1-Environmental Concerns: While producing electricity nuclear power produces no greenhouse gas emissions. (1) This is because all nuclear energy is, is simply mass which has been converted to energy, explained by the formula: E=mc^2 Where “E” is energy, “m” is mass, and “c” is the speed of light. (2) This is extremely important due to the Greenhouse Effect (3): The downsides of having more heat in the world are that it leads to coral reefs dying, dangerous weather patterns, extinction of certain species of animals and plants, among other things. (4) With these problems it is clear that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced, especially in the US which releases 15.6% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the world (despite having only 4.43% of the world’s population). (5, 6) Examining where the US releases much of its emissions we can see that electricity is one of the largest sources at 31%: (7) For this reason it is clear that any form of energy which doesn’t emit any greenhouse emissions must be prioritized or else the whole planet is in huge trouble, so therefore it is absolutely critical nuclear power is subsidized. C2-Large Electricity Source: Nuclear Power can produce a huge amount of energy, to help power the country, which will greatly lower the need for coal, natural gas, and oil based electricity. Also, it will bring a lot of money into the country. In fact, nuclear power itself is much more efficient than using fossil fuels for electricity. (8) This is why France, which generates over 75% of its electricity from nuclear power is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity. This also helps France gain over €3B (about $3.3B) a year. (9, 10) What also makes nuclear power provide so much electricity is that nuclear fuel can be recycled, presuming it has more fissile materials. This helps France generate about 17% of its total electricity. (9) For this reason, nuclear power is a very strong option for electricity, as it would generate a huge amount of electricity and eventually bring in some money, and therefore should be subsidized. C3-Cost: Although it is a large upfront cost (hence the subsidies) nuclear power is overall a cheap energy source. Uranium is cheap and since that is the main component in nuclear fissions reactions, it lets electricity be generated cheaply. (11) For this reason, the French pay very low amounts for electricity. (9) Due to cheapness electricity can be generated, nuclear power should be subsidized. C4-Thorium Reactors & Nuclear Fusion Reactors: Currently nuclear energy is primarily generated through nuclear fission of uranium, but in the future it may be done through thorium reactors and/or nuclear fusion which are both even better options. Nuclear fusion would be a greatly powerful energy source (more powerful than fission), but would have no nuclear waste (which is a problem with many present nuclear fission reactors) & would be much safer. This would make nuclear fusion reactors an almost perfect energy source, as there are no significant downsides, but it would be the most powerful energy source ever. In fact, with funding by 6 countries (including the US) and the European Union, a fusion reactor is currently being produced in France. (12) Seeing how close we may actually be to generated electricity by fusion on a large scale, the US really should begin to subsidize the industry. Another alternative nuclear reactor could be a thorium reactor. It would generate less nuclear waste than current uranium based nuclear fission reactors, would be cheaper, and potentially safer. (13) It will require more research (so subsidies are needed), but currently both Canada & China are producing a modified CANDU style nuclear reactor which will use thorium as fuel. (13) This is all great, but without funding it will have a lot of problem taking off the ground, so the US would be wise to fund it. Conclusion: Current nuclear reactors are better for the environment and generate much more electricity for less money (after construction) than current fossil fuel reactors, and therefore should be subsidized. Also, with the potential for thorium based reactors and nuclear fusion reactors which will be even better than current fission reactors, their research and production should also be subsidized. Sources 1-http://www.nei.org...2-http://edugreen.teri.res.in...3-http://www.ecy.wa.gov...4-http://www.kidzworld.com...5-https://en.wikipedia.org...6-https://en.wikipedia.org...7-http://www.epa.gov...8-https://www.iop.org...9-http://www.world-nuclear.org...10-https://www.google.ca...11-http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...12-http://www.theguardian.com...13-http://www.davidsuzuki.org...