Resolved: The United States should Significantly Increase its Use of Nuclear Energy

I will try to research each point to the best of my ability, and hopefully the best choice for America will be exposed in this debate. First of all let me point out that nuclear power is only one peice of the puzzle for "new energy" sources. My arguments will look at the bigger picture, but specifically this very essential piece of the puzzle. Contention One: Nuclear power plants to not emit carbon dioxide. Because of this simple fact it is easy to speculate why nuclear energy use went up, but CO2 emissions did not go down. Second, it is important to note that my opponent's statistics are not coincidental. The biggest rise in carbon emissions in Japan have been from 1990-2008. Household carbon emissions posted the highest gains with a 40% increase. Officials attribute this rise to the fact that now more Japanese own household appliances, and more Japanese drive cars than they did between 1965-1990. Looking to more recent data, however, Japan has reduced emissions by 1.2million tons (2006-2007). A study was made of the Japanese energy system using the MARKAL model to determine what technologies are needed to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear energy can make the greatest reduction by the year 2010, and is essential to further reduce emissions below the 1990 level. Continued expansion of nuclear power after 2010, together with energy conservation, renew- ables, and especially greater use of natural gas, would continue to lower emissions. Even with a choice of the more than 200 energy technologies considered in the model, however, no drastic emission reduction can be achieved in Japan with the assumed growth in energy and the national economy. The case against nuclear reactors due to logistics will be addressed in contention 4. Comtention two: Sub A: I agree with the basic issue of safe nuclear waste and radioactivity. Methods must be (and are being) developed in order to safely store nuclear waste, and recycle spent rods. Even so, the problem will not be eliminated by eliminating nuclear energy and/or not expanding nuclear energy which now consists of 20% of American energy production. Most nuclear waste comes from nuclear non-proliferation treaties, research facilities, and excess military grade plutonium and uranium. All these issues must be addressed, but opposition to nuclear energy has only stalled progress for the past 30 years. Sub B: Nuclear power does cause air pollution. BUT when compared to pollution caused by the burning of fossile fuels, the pollution from nuclear energy then becomes negligable when considering an alternative to fossile fuels. 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel (WHO). In the U. S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year. A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. Most of the exposure to radiation in the US comes from normal background radiation and medical procedures. No studies have ever shown a higher percentage of radiation amongst residents living close to power plants than residents anywhere else in the US. Sub C: That estimate is not from "the State of New York". The estimated fish deaths are caused by the cooling systems, which use natural water sources to cool plants, and fish eggs and small fish are caught in the cooling system and overheated. Technology has long existed that might reduce the fish kill by 90 percent or more. Cooling towers allow a power plant to recycle the water rather than continuously pump it in. New power plants are required to use cooling towers. The Indian Point issue is currently being litigated, and that is an outdated plant. The Oyster Creek Reactor issue will be addressed in the same legislation. Contention 3: Cooling towers can resolve this issue. Sweden is not a leader in nuclear power, and I would urge you to address concerns and issues occuring in the US, as the debate is about nuclear energy in the US. Chernobyl is often cited as the dangers of nuclear energy, but that reactor was completely outdated and the technology behind it was far behind anything in the US at the time. Contention 4: The NRG and other agencies estimate that every new power plant will create 6,000 construction and 1,000 permanent operating jobs (more conservative estimates put construction at 2,400 jobs). I'm running out of room, so I will await my opponent's response and respond accordingly.