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

Before we look at my opponent's arguments that nuclear energy is a process that produces carbon emissions, let's first look at some key facts: 1. Nuclear power plants generate about 20 percent of U.S. electricity. They do not burn anything when producing electricity, so they do not produce any combustion byproducts. By substituting for other fuels in electricity production, nuclear energy has significantly reduced U.S. emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. 2. In 2006, U.S. nuclear power plants reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide—pollutants controlled under the Clean Air Act—by 1 million short tons and 3.1 million short tons, respectively. The amount of nitrogen oxide emissions that nuclear plants prevent an-nually is the equivalent of taking more than 51 million passenger cars off the road. 3. Also in 2006, U.S. nuclear plants prevented the discharge of 681 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is nearly as much carbon dioxide as is released from all U.S. passenger cars. As a matter of fact, between 1995-2007, U.S. nuclear plants prevented the discharge of at least 600 million metric tons of CO2 per year. 4. Generating 1 million killowatt hours produces 996 metric tons of carbon dioxide from a coal-fired plant, 809 metric tons of carbon dioxide from an oil-fired plant, 476 metric tons of carbon dioxide from a natural gas-fired plant, and none from a nuclear power plant. Now to address my opponent's argument: there is no method of producing electricity that in the manufacturing process, product aquisition process (mining, transporting, etc.), and maintenance process will not depend on fossile fuels. Nuclear energy is, again, only one component of energy independence in America, and it does not address fossil fuel burning vehicles. However, neither do the other methods of producing clean electricity. It is also important to point out that the processes you are speaking of are not continuous with nuclear energy. Uranium mining does not occur in the US at the frequency which, for example, coal mining does, nor do fuel rods get spent as often as coal is burned. For example, a University of Wisconsin study found that nuclear energy's life-cycle emissions are 17 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour. Only wind and geothermal sources ranked lower, at 14 and 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour, respectively. Now, it is important to note that clean energy accounts for only 27% of US energy, nuclear power accounting for 20% of that. Though nuclear energy cannot be the only alternative to fossil fuels, it is a very important piece of the pie, as I have mentioned before. In a transition from fossil fuels to clean energy- given the lack of solar, wind, and hydroelectric plants already in place (they account for a combined 7% of clean energy in America)- nuclear power would be a major pivot point. Regarding my opponent's argument on efficiency, let me first start by stating his argument does not contradict my own. If nuclear energy production takes up 20% more of America's energy needs by 2050, that will be a 100% increase from now, and nuclear energy would then account for 40% of America's electricity generation. In his own argument, full production of solar and wind would bring the "other" number up to 39% of America's electricity needs. That would mean that by 2050, 79% of America's electricity would be clean. That would mean that by 2050 we would be producing nearly 80% less carbon emissions. That's a great number, yet my opponent provides this info as if it would be a bad thing. My argument is not for competition between clean energy sources. Making a significant increase in nuclear energy production does not mean we cannot have a bigger increase in other clean energy sources. That is the idea. As for availability, Current usage is about 65,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years. Exploration has been at it's lowest levels between 1985-2005. With the recent increase in exploration and renewed world interest it is only a matter of time before supply and demand equal out. Even now with uranium at it's highest spot prices, nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 1.76 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel. Storage: It is obvious safe storage should be a primary objective in the development of nuclear energy. Significantly increasing the use of nuclear energy requires the develpment of sustainable storage and recycling technologies. The only proponent who denies this requirement is John McCain. Belarus not the US. Cases in the US? 8,000 limit next time