The US should increase its use of nuclear energy

There will be 4 rounds. 1st round, both teams just post their arguments, no rebuttals. 2nd round, pro refutes neg's round 1arguments, neg then refutes pro's round 1 arguments and pro's round 2 rebuttal. 3rd round, pro will refute neg's round 2, neg will refute aff's round 3. 4th round, both teams give closings.Nuclear energy is the future of powering the United States’ massive and ever-growing infrastructure. It is intuitively and statistically the safest, most reliable, and most efficient method of producing electricity, which is why I support the topic that the US should increase its use of Nuclear EnergyMy arguments will be tiered, with smaller arguments as a part of the bigger ones. 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 1a)Generating energy with coal plants has many harmful side effectsAccording to the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) in Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution “Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2. Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution.”1b)The acquisition of Natural Gas has many harmful side effectsFrom The week staff, in an article titled “Natural gas: As bad for the environment as coal?” published April 13th, 2011 “Natural gas has been widely hailed as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, but a new study by Cornell University researchers suggests it's not as green as many people think.” Because I’ve already shown that coal is bad, this evidence proves that natural gas is no viable alternative either.Argument 2:There are many benefits of nuclear energy 2a)Nuclear energy is much cheaper to produce then its counterparts According to the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) in an article titled “How Competitive is Nuclear Energy?” published in 2010 “Nuclear Energy is much cheaper to produce then its counter parts, within the USA Nuclear energy only costs 4.9 cents per Kilowatt hour as opposed to 7.2-7.5 for coal, 6.8 for coal with CCS, 7.7 for Gas CCGT (Combined cycle gas technology), and only being marginally beat by wind with 4.8 cents per Kilowatt hour.” This is significant, because although nuclear plants may cost a fair amount to build up front, in the long run they are much cheaper and profitable to run. 2b) Nuclear energy helps lead to the decommissioning of nuclear warheads According to Clay Dillow in Old Soviet Warheads Fuel America's Nuclear Power Industry published Nov. 11, 2009 “Decommissioned nuclear warheads provide much of the fuel powering America's 104 nuclear reactors. But here's the real kicker: nearly half of that low-enriched uranium comes from recycled Soviet nukes. Over the past 20 years, nuclear disarmament has become a huge part of the electricity industry, making President Obama's talks with Russia on a new arms treaty poignant to utilities. But if those talks don't extend the current program for dismantling Soviet nuke cores beyond its 2013 expiration date, there could be a supply gap for nuclear fuel.” This point is remarkably significant because the reduction of nukes around the world leads to a less threatening environment but it also helps boost the benefits of nuclear energy by providing a fuel source for it without much hassle. 2c) Thorium can decrease our dependance on foreign oil According to Colin Daileda from Mashable in an article titled “This Radioactive Element Could Power the Planet” published Nov. 7th, 2013 “If your car was powered by thorium, you would never need to refuel it.” The article concludes “One car, eight grams of Thorium, and a century of driving.” This is significant because if the US switches to Thorium technologies we can stop our dependence on foreign oil and also US consumers can save money which could be better spent elsewhere.2d) Commercial use of nuclear power for space is expanding According to a SpaceX dossier from January of 2010 titled SpaceX Propulsion Space exploration technologies the company has in the works plans to use a nuclear thermal rocket to power future space flight. The article says the “Technology has been verified with over 17 Hours of hot-@257;re tests, including restarts. No additional developmental, terrestrial tests (with nuclear) fuel are required” this future of spaceflight would allow us to streamline space travel and leverage the positive impacts of nuclear energy as we move forward.Argument 3:There are multiple ways to acquire the benefits of nuclear energy 3a) Thorium based reactors are clean, safe, and waste freeAccording to Sebastian Anthony’s article for ExtremeTech “Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy” written Jul 1, 2013 “Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant (more so than uranium), doesn’t contain enough fissile material (thorium-231) to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. By mixing thorium oxide with 10% plutonium oxide, however, criticality is achieved. This fuel, which is called thorium-MOX (mixed-oxide), can then be formed into rods and used in conventional nuclear reactors. Furthermore, the thorium-MOX fuel cycle produces no new plutonium; it actually reduces the world’s stock of plutonium. Oh, thorium-MOX makes for safer nuclear reactors, too, due to a higher melting point and thermal conductivity.” This is significant because we can reap the tremendous benefits of Nuclear Energy without any of the drawbacks, and also it extends upon the impacts made earlier about increasing safety by decreasing warhead proliferation.3b) Nuclear fusion is safe, uses relatively little fuel, and produces extreme amounts of energyThe Way to New Energy." ITER. (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) Jan. 2013. “Fusion fuels are abundantly available and inherently safe. […] In fact, a fusion reaction is about four million times more energetic than a chemical reaction such as the burning of coal, oil or gas. While a 1,000 MW coal-fired power plant requires 2.7 million tons of coal per year, a fusion plant of the kind envisioned for the second half of this century will only require 250 kilos of fuel per year, half of it deuterium, half of it tritium. In addition, fusion emits no pollution or greenhouse gases. Its major by-product is helium: an inert, non-toxic gas. There is no possibility of a "runaway" reaction because the conditions for fusion are precise—any alteration in these conditions and the plasma cools within seconds and the reaction stops. Fusion has the capacity to furnish large-scale quantities of energy, with a low burden of waste for future generations” This just furthers the fact that we can have extremely high amount of energy with little to no drawbacks.3c) Fission reactors are safe, effective, and have high yieldsAccording to Teri Ehreesman from the Idaho National Laboratory “Just one uranium fuel pellet – roughly the size of the tip of an adult’s little finger – contains the same amount of energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil”For the reducing the impacts of current energy technologies, providing economic benefits, subduing international conflicts, and having a multitude of options with very good results I urge a Pro vote.