The US should increase its use of nuclear energy

I'd like to begin this round by pointing out two things. First, my opponent never used evidence to substantiate their claims.Second, my opponent never responded to my rebuttals of their case. Argument 1: The argument my opponent makes that "the major polluter are cars not coal energy producing stations." I refuted this earlier in the round, so I'll just restate my arguments: First, every reduction to CO2 is good and saying that cars are the issue just diverts attention away from the actual topic. Second, if you truly think this is the case then the renewables you proposed wouldn't be solving this problem either. 1a) - "generating with nuclear is harmful since the end products cannot be stored safely" once again I already refuted this with evidence during round 2, I will just restate my argument. You can use Thorium to recycle current waste and it only produces an extremely small of waste, you can take this already small amount and blow into glass, further reducing the size and locking it the dangers. -"i think its better for us to invest in making coal stations more efficient than building nuclear" even if you believe this we're projected to run out of coal in the next 10-20 years, investing in something that will run out would be fruitless. (http://grist.org...)- "nuclear is also costly to maintan" once again, I refuted this earlier. Look at the EIA evidence I gave during round 2, nuclear is cheaper then some alternatives and more expensive then some. But it's important to look at the overall capacity factor which is how much of the US those forms of energy can power. Nuclear outclasses all the alternatives my opponent suggested. Argument 2: First, "nuclear proliferation will increase the threat of nuclear weapons since its easy to turn nuclear reactors into nuclear weapons" you gave no evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, the evidence I gave about how nuclear power directly leads to eliminating warheads is much more valid then my opponent's.Second, what my opponent has said here is based on a false premise established in their previous point. So carry through that rebuttal. Also, "You can"t save the biosphere if it"s irradiated by a nuclear fallout" my opponent provides no evidence for this claim.Third, once again this based upon a false claim that I refuted and is also blatant fear mongering.Fourth, I didn't understand this point too clearly but I believe the gist of it is that alternatives are better. I've shown evidence in both my rounds and during this rebuttal about how that is not the case and that nuclear is superior."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." First, "uranium is also a limited nonrenewable resource" once again my opponent provides no evidence for this. Nonetheless, this can be alleviated with breeder reactors. According to research done by Bernard L. Cohen from the Department of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh 1983 "We thus conclude that all the world’s energy requirements for the remaining 5×10 yr of existence of life on Earth could be 9 provided by breeder reactors without the cost of electricity rising by as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This is consistent with the definition of a “renewable” energy source in the sense in which that term is generally used" What this shows is that breeder technologies can make nuclear just as sustainable as renewables. Also, cross apply the Thorium and Fusion evidence I gave during round 1 regarding nuclear energy. Second, "And its mining, refining, construction, operation, and disposal all require substantial amounts of petroleum fuels" This same problem occurs with renewables (on a much larger scale) as I had pointed out during my round 2 rebuttal.Third, "And of course the disposal problem is nowhere near a solution." this is just false, look to the Thorium and glass evidence I gave during round 2, and during this round as well. "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."First, "New nuclear power stations will not be built in the UK, or anywhere else" the topic states explicitly that we are debating the US.Second, to address your point on subsidies as whole. Subsidies are not innately bad as the Con team is implying, the government subsidizes certain technologies they view as a good investment. Nonetheless if we continue with my opponent's premise, coal which they argued in favor of earlier has received 12% of subsidies, hydroelectric has received 11%, renewables (solar and wind) have received 9%, and nuclear has received 9%. So unless my opponent can justify why all these other forms of energy are receiving subsidies their point is invalid and unfairly targeting nuclear. "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."First, "It appears that, where claims are made that nuclear power is cheap, the evidence has come, directly or indirectly, from the nuclear industry itself" this is just false. The evidence I gave came Energy Information Agency, which is a very reputable source especially in contrast to no evidence from my opponent.Second, "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" once again this is completely false. The evidence from the Energy Information Agency speaks about the total levelized system cost, which takes into account everything and calculates the cost per Megawatt hour to run any form of 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."One response, I've already refuted the point about subsidies so I won't do it again. But once again, like throughout the entire debate, you gave no evidence to substantiate such a significant claim: "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, I've shown that Nuclear is much better then it's alternatives using clear evidence and have successfully refuted all my points. Whereas my opponent dropped all of my rebuttals and never used any evidence to substantiate their claims.