Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.

In order, I will address: framework and then my opponent's case. I. Framework:1. Extend my framework where I reserve the power of fiat for the negative.2. While I agree that my opponent must show net benefits, I would argue that specific examples (such as Three Mile Island) should be utilized for two reasons:Reason One: The resolution calls for potential risks. By definition, a risk indicates a “possibility of loss or injury.” While obviously not every single nuclear power plant will meltdown at some point its lifetime, it's possible that some will. As such, the impacts of such possibilities must be weighed.Reason Two: In order to ensure a fair debate. My opponent is trying to nullify some of the Con's warrants by stealthily framing the debate to give the Pro an unfair advantage – please do not be fooled. II. Affirmative Case:AC1: Nuclear Energy is the Best Way to Reduce Carbon EmissionsNR1: Nuclear Energy Emits More Carbon Than Viable AlternativesTURN – a meta analysis of nuclear plant life done by Benjamin K. Sovacool, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore, found that “nuclear power (at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions) emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh.” My opponent asserts that nuclear energy is the best way to reduce carbon emissions but according to Sovacool, “Things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms.” At the point where alternatives are viable and offer less harms, it's clear that nuclear power's risks don't outweigh – an assertion that will expanded upon throughout this round. NR2. Nuclear Energy Doesn't Solve Excessive Carbon EmissionsEven if you don't buy my first response, understand that according to the Wall Street Journal, “Nuclear power isn't a solution to global warming. Rather, global warming is just a convenient rationale for an obsolete energy source that makes no sense when compared to the alternatives.” The WSJ furthers, “The sheer number of nuclear plants needed to make a major dent in greenhouse emissions means the industry hasn't a prayer of turning nuclear power into the solution to global warming. One study from last year determined that to make a significant contribution toward stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide, about 21 new 1,000-megawatt plants would have to be built each year for the next 50 years, including those needed to replace existing reactors, all of which are expected to be retired by 2050. That's considerably more than the most ambitious industry growth projections.” NR3. Nuclear Energy Is Not RenewableMy opponent asserts that nuclear energy is “the best renewable energy option for the United States.” However, Nathan Shedroff of the California College of Arts explains, “Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal, natural gas, etc.” Furthermore, NGO CSEF found that “Nuclear energy is not a renewable because [it] uses Uranium as fuel, which is a scarce resource and is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years.” AC2: Nuclear Energy Reduces TerrorismNR1: Nuclear Power Doesn't Solve U.S. Oil DependenceThis is true for two reasons.Reason One: Oil Is a Fungible Commodity With A Single Global MarketExtend my WSJ evidence where I tell you nuclear power plants take years, if not decades, to build. Understand that my opponent's terrorist impact hinges on the fact that nuclear power will replace oil quickly and efficiently enough to hold tangible significance. Given nuclear power's negative economic impacts, the thriving oil market, and said construction times, it's improbable that nuclear energy will replace oil as the U.S.' staple means of generating power – to the extent where not switching to nuclear energy will have minimal impact of state sponsors of terrorism.Reason Two: Energy Independence Isn't Feasible Nor DesirableTURN: Pundit Shikha Dalmia explains that the notion of “replacing oil with alternative fuels will create "millions of jobs" and, once again, put America on the road to riches” is a common misconception. In fact, Dalmia states “Trying to fight this reality won't create jobs or restore America's economy, it'll do the opposite.” She points to Nixon's crusade for energy independence, noting that oil importing actually increased by 27%. Let us also understand that Third World countries in Latin America and Asia also tried to achieve energy independence by adopting a policy known as “import-substitution,” where – through massive subsidies, these nations attempted to bolster domestic production by discouraging the importation of key industrial products. In the end, import-substitution “raised production costs, making Third World goods uncompetitive in the global markets and prohibitively expensive at home, consigning these countries to decades and decades of economic stagnation that has not yet been fully reversed. Delinking America from global energy markets will wreak similar economic havoc.”Understand that in order to extend my opponent's terrorism impact, he must first show that nuclear power does solve U.S. oil dependence because otherwise – there would be no reason for the United States to turn to nuclear power instead of following the status quo. Given these two reasons, we can see that Pro's terrorist impact can't actually be extended. However, even if you don't buy any of my evidence or logic, look to my second response (NR2) where I turn his terrorist impact. NR2: Energy Independence Would Aid TerrorismThis is true for two reasons.Reason One: Discourage Middle Eastern Aid in Counter-terrorismAccording to the Reason Foundation, “But will energy independence make America more secure by depriving terrorist nations of petro dollars? Not really. Indeed, insofar as America, the single biggest oil consumer, spurns Middle Eastern oil, it will only make it that much cheaper—and therefore more attractive than the alternatives—for everyone else, including India, China and other energy-hungry emerging markets. The result might well be a new geo-political alignment with countries dependent on Middle Eastern oil in one camp—and "energy-independent" America in the other. This is not a recipe for defunding terrorism. Rather, it is a way of giving Middle Eastern countries even less of a stake in our well being and making them less interested in helping our struggle against terrorism.” Given the utmost importance of Middle Eastern support in counter-terrorism, we have to understand that turning to nuclear power wouldn't reduce terrorism – as my opponent suggests, but would actually increase it as counter-terrorism would be hampered.Reason Two: Incentivize Further Support of TerrorismIf the U.S. stopped importing oil from states such as Russia, two incentives would be created in order to further said terrorism. First, these states would be losing a significant amount of revenue. Russia, for example, relies on crude oil as one of its main exports. With this in mind, it would benefit Russia to increase arms sales to terrorists – in order to: 1. make up for lost revenue on oil sales 2. harm the United States. States that seek to challenge the status quo, such as Russia, have an added incentive to do so – as knocking down the U.S. from its hegemonic status would be a bonus. States such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq share similar goals. NR3: Most of the U.S.' Top Oil Import Locations Do Not Sponsor TerrorismEven if you don't buy NR2, understand that out of the U.S.' top oil import locations, none are on the U.S. state sponsor of terrorism list, and only 3 (Saudia Arabia, Russia, and Iraq) are alleged supporters of terrorism. Due to character limitations, I will focus on defending my case in the next round – whilst extending my rebuttals.