The US should increase its use of nuclear energy

Argument 1: The current system, with a majority of energy being produced by coal and natural gas (41.9, 24.8) is harmful to the United States -the major polluter are cars not coal energy producing stations 1a)Generating energy with coal plants has many harmful side effects -generating with nuclear is harmful since the end products cannot be stored safely -i think its better for us to invest in making coal stations more efficient than building nuclear -nuclear is also costly to maintan -When environmental and hidden costs are factored in, nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity. Argument 2:There are many benefits of nuclear energy -the supposed benefits of nuclear energy are outweighed by the possible effects of 1. nuclear proliferation will increase the threat of nuclear weapons since its easy to turn nuclear reactors into nuclear weapons 2. The whole idea behind preventing global warming is to protect the Earth"s ecosystems, collectively known as the biosphere. You can"t save the biosphere if it"s irradiated by a nuclear fallout 3. Why is it worth potentially losing a region of a country, or even a whole country, just to generate electricity? 4. Besides the painful facts of ongoing meltdowns, nuclear power plants don"t need to be built because truly renewable, or perhaps more descriptively, fuelless electricity technologies, like wind, are far superior to nuclear energy. One reason we don"t need nuclear energy is because uranium is also a limited nonrenewable resource. And its mining, refining, construction, operation, and disposal all require substantial amounts of petroleum fuels, and are all accomplished by devices and processes which are largely ill-suited to electric power. And of course the disposal problem is nowhere near a solution. New nuclear power stations will not be built in the UK, or anywhere else, unless substantial subsidies are provided. That several such subsidies are already in place is a flagrant breach of the principle of fair competition. Subsidies may be justified for new industries and new technologies but they are not justified for nuclear power which is long-established and has had more than its fair share of support. Cost It appears that, where claims are made that nuclear power is cheap, the evidence has come, directly or indirectly, from the nuclear industry itself. It appears that such claims can only be made with some or all of the following optimistic assumptions: no overruns in the times or costs of building nuclear plants, ignoring all the subsidies for nuclear power and assuming that capital costs have been paid off. When all the overt and hidden subsidies are taken into account, nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity. To be competitive with other sources of power, nuclear power requires permanent support from tax payers or permanent support by means of market mechanisms or hidden subsidies. By contrast, most renewable forms of energy need temporary support until costs are reduced by economies of scales and refinement of technologies, and no further support after that. In conclusion my whole argument is based on the potential devastating effects of nuclear fallout that can destroy the whole world. Why do we need such a risk. Lets focus on improving the efficiency of renewable energy than building nuclear or coal. "What exactly is nuclear power? It is a very expensive, sophisticated, and dangerous way to boil water." Helen Caldicott