Beginner's Tournament, Nuclear Power Plants

Before I conclude the debate, let's begin with a few rebuttals:1.Renewables: Our opponent has exaggerated the usefulness of energy storage.One of the most powerful energy storage projects today is projected to story 10.8MW of power[1], but this is just 0.05% of the world's total electricity consumption[2].So dear opponent, is your solution to the instability of renewable energy feasible?2.Radioactivity: Our opponent has stated that the spills of the nuclear fallout bring long term effect to the residents there. But did our opponent consider that coal-fired power plants ALSO gives out radioactivity that is higher than the nuclear fallout?Coal ash, which accounts for 18 millirems, is higher than nuclear's one, which is 3-6 milirems[3].These coal ash poisons the water, kill fish and wildlife[4] and affects anybody residing nearby.Does my opponent considered the people living near coal power plants?3.Safety: Our opponent has disregarded the good effects that nuclear power brings. As mentioned in the previous rounds, nuclear power improves our world by emitting no greenhouse gas and gas that are harmful to us.Should we disregard the good that nuclear brings by a single accident?Also, there are plans in USA, Finland, France, the UK to build more reactors and the proposed ones count for more than 300 reactors[5].These countries still build nuclear reactors after the accident you mentioned.These countries still build reactors because they know what these reactors will bring to their environment.Doesn't these counts?Also, according to the Nuclear Power Institute, nuclear power has met with one-third of the electricity consumption the world uses, but just produces the minimal waste compared to the fossil fuel powered generators. The total volume of nuclear waste produced since the nuclear power industry began is only enough to fill a football field to a depth of about 15 yards[6]. Thus, we can see that nuclear power is the best option.4.Cost: Also according to the research you rebuttal last turn[7], we can see that the trend of coal-power power plants rises quick, but the nuclear one remained. The trend offsets the $3.3 billion you have mentioned above.Also, there are a $500 billion subsidies for coal powered plants[8].So, after factoring on these resources, I firmly believe that nuclear power is cheaper than coal-powered plants.Nuclear energy is safe, stable and superior.To conclude the debate, nuclear energy is safe, stable and superior.Nuclear power plants do not release harmful gas into the atmosphere, as said in the first round, and also do not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Using nuclear energy will give a better environment for our descendants. Also, as said in the second round, fossil-fuel powered power plants gives out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and renewable energy is too unstable to be used. Does our opponent want to give a smoggy, uninhabitable planet to our descendant and gives the problem to them, or giving them a planet that is powered on sporadically?Our opponent has not answered us that there are feasible plans to replace nuclear energy. Since the opponent cannot give us any, we can see that my opponent had based his reasoning on imaginary grounds.We can also see that there is no other alternatives from nuclear one as my opponent have not given me any alternatives that are better than nuclear energy.Thus, nuclear energy is better than any of every alternative, that is, nuclear energy is good and this motion must stand.Nuclear energy is safe, stable and superior.This motion must stand.Thank you![1]:http://cleantechnica.com...[2]:http://www.iea.org...[3]:http://www.scientificamerican.com...[4]:http://earthjustice.org...[5]:http://www.world-nuclear.org...[6]:http://www.nuclearpowerinstitute.org...[7]:http://fas.org...[8]:http://www.odi.org...