The US should encourage more nuclear energy use over current widely used energy forms.

First off, let's look at the energy we use in the United States now, as I stated before coal burning makes up about 50% of our energy production. According to the same source (that's [1] in the above round) 15% is generated through natural gas, and 3% comes from petroleum. These basically have the same problems as coal, minus the mining issues. They contain harmful chemicals and they emit toxins when burned (again, [1] from above round). Now that makes up for 69% of our energy, but where does the rest comes from? Well, nuclear makes up about 20% of our energy [10], leaving about 11% or so for renewable sources. My opponent brings up wind, solar, hydrogen, and tidal energies. Now, I know a little about wind, solar, and hydrogen. But I am not that aware of tidal energy beyond the bare basics. I would love it if my opponent would provide backing that tidal energy is actually being used in America to generate energy, and how much energy it generates, percentage wise. As it isn't even listed on the Energy Information Administration's site, I would assume that it isn't a significant part of our energy make-up Now, let's look a little at wind energy, solar energy, and hydrogen energy. These types of energy, while they may be non-polluting, are simply not economical. When choosing the energy make-up of our country, it is important to choose a main form of energy that can provide what is known as a base load power. A form of energy that can actually be economical, so that companies will choose it, and can take a big portion of our energy. Nuclear is the only base load power that is clean. There is simply no other choice [11] available at the present time or in the foreseeable future. Now that we have seen that our present choice is basically between fossil fuels and nuclear power, let's look at why nuclear power is the superior choice: Response to Contention 1: The piece quoted excludes coal, precisely because the organization knows that coal does leave behind waste. As I have already shown, we only have two large-scale choices of energy at the present time. Coal, as I have already shown in the above round, produces 100 times the radiation of nuclear energy. So we see the harm from coal is greater than the harm from nuclear. Now, I'd like to just talk about nuclear radiation. How much is produced? What effects has it had? Well, nuclear waste produced by a plant is less than a golf ball, per person, per year. About 40,000 tonnes (~44,092.5 tons) of waste come from nuclear plants from all across the WORLD every year. The whole world produces about 44,000 tons of nuclear waste. Compare that to the billions of tons of more radioactive waste from coal plants, and the choice is clear. Nuclear is the way to go. But, let's look less at the theory and more at the record. What has happened. Well, there has never been a single death or health incident in the United States from nuclear power in our almost sixty years of using it [13]. This includes its use on ships in the Navy, where men and women live and work on basically, floating nuclear reactors, for months or years of their lives. Again, compare this to coal. Under normal operation, coal and other fossil fuels kill 25,000 people EVERY YEAR [14]! The choice for the good of the citizens of the United States is clear. Response to Contention 2: There is simply no link between nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power, anymore than there is a link between coal power and BBQ-caused house fires. The United States uses fuel from nuclear warheads. They are actually TAKING APART some of our weapons to use as fuel for nuclear reactors [15]. Using more nuclear power will, if anything, decrease weapons proliferation in the United States. In fact, it is far easier to make a nuclear weapon with plain uranium than with uranium fuel from a reactor [16]. No one is going to steal uranium fuel so they can have a tougher time making bombs. Now, up to this point, I've been summarizing the articles I cite, in my own words, however this article says it better than, I believe anyone really could. "The fissionable isotope of uranium must be enriched to 90% to create a weapon. In a reactor it is only 3%. You could not blow up a nuclear reactor if you tried. " [17] It is simply impossible to take uranium from a reactor and turn it into a weapon. Response to Conclusion: This argument actually includes nuclear energy, as it is a form of alternative energy. The study cited included nuclear, as that is an alternative. Source Comparison: My opponents has used three sources, an admission from the IAEA (this argument doesn't actually stand anymore), the AES (this that my opponent actually mis-interpreted) and a Illinoisan anti-nuclear organization. I have used sixteen to this point, including the Energy Information Administration, the Washington Post, the National center for Policy Analysis, the Wall Street Journal, doctors, scientists, nuclear technicians, even a senator. It is obvious my sources are superior in enforcing the Resolution in the round you are viewing. Apology: I would like to apologize to those who have to read this response as it is rather lengthy. I am very pro-nuclear and have a lot of information availably to me on the topic, that I could pack into here with almost no limit, so it rambles on a little. Thank you to those that persevered to the end of my response and to my opponent, who must slave through this lengthy read. Conclusion: Nuclear energy simply is our only option other than fossil fuels on a large-scale, and we can see its superiority to fossil fuels. Consider it this way. There is a door, this door leads to energy. There are three paths. The first, renewable energy stops in a dead end short of the door. The second, fossil fuel power kills some of the people that pass through it and injures others. The third is nuclear power. It has never killed anyone and it goes all the way to the door. It doesn't have the downsides of other forms of energy. It is simply, the logical choice, the best choice, the choice for a cleaner, healthier, and wealthier America. Thank you! [10]: . http://tonto.eia.doe.gov... [11]: . http://www.washingtonpost.com... I have many other sources saying the same thing, if the Con speaker or anyone else would like those URLs too. [12]: . http://www.energypulse.net... [13]: . http://www.ncpa.org... [14]: . http://www.inmotionmagazine.com... [15]: . http://www.heritage.org... [16]: . http://www.energypulse.net... [17]: . http://online.wsj.com...