Nuclear power presents the only viable option for reducing CO2 output

Ok, so you've decided to utilize both traditional uranium fuel supplies, then you moved onto thorium nuclear energy, and now fusion energy... cool. Firstly, i would like to point out that ITER does not solve, it would take another 30 years to develop safe and affordable fusion energy, might i mention that Global warming needs to reversed now in order to end the negative effects of climate change. You have cited economic statistics on the negative impacts of climate change which i agree with. The fact is, ITER is not even functioning, merely it is a concept. Fusion energy has yet to create a net positive creation of electricity. Even if ITER works within the next couple years, it would take another decade to refine the theoretic concept and make it safer and more efficient for the public, then take another couple years to make these plants that would cost millions of dollars. Fusion energy has not even opened a single power plant that works and puts energy into our system. By 2050, which is when Fusion energy should be up and ready, Global warming would most likely have taken nasty destructive effects. Fission energy cannot solve either since Countries like the US don't want other countries to use nuclear energy(ie Iran, North Korea) therefore it cannot solve in those regions. Fusion energy will also not be trusted in other non-nuclear proliferation countries due to it's potential bomb making qualities. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Btw in your evidence for thorium reactors, it stated: Current international research and development efforts are led by China, where a $350 million MSR programme has recently been launched, with a 2MW test MSR scheduled for completion by around 2020. So essentially this technology has potential , i won't deny that. But i want to point out that the first test for this new technology will not occur until 2020. Based upon the assumptions of the time it takes for these nuclear plants to be constructed and refined, this will not be a viable source of fuel until around 2050, we cannot implement this undeveloped technology simply due to the fact that we cannot wait that long period of time and let Global warming continue to destroy our environment. India wants to do this plan and supply 30% of it's energy by 2050 but in order to solve global warming, we need a global effort and radioactive substances can't be trusted to some nations/ http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org... On climate change, i can't agree with you more. We need to take action now to prevent the destruction of the environment. This destruction is destroying aspects of our economy and the global economy. The fact is current nuclear energy can last a decade or so. By the 2030's nuclear fuels will run out and nuclear energy cannot solve until the new technological changes can power the rest which will be around 2050-2070's. The fact is, we need to act now or we will face the economic and climate catastrophes that await us since nuclear can't solve completely in this century. Therefore i propose the following plan: The World should substantially increase Solar, Wind, and other renewable energy sources to power our future. You agree that fission material will be everywhere and will cost money. net benefit - no radioactive fuel or environmental catastrophes from nuclear failures or breakdowns which bear environmental and economic costs. plus you don't have to spend millions of dollars storing all this nuclear waste, and you solve faster. Wind and solar technologies are tested. In the UK, offshore wind is set to take about 15% of the energy markets of the UK by 2020, which is only 5 years and a substantial portion of their energy. Onshore wind is now powering 4% of the US's electricity, like right now. Wind power can supply US energy by 20% by 2030 with current tax credits. The international energy agency(IEA) in 2014 estimated that solar energy can power 27% of global energy by 2050. Wind will supply another 18% of global energy. Hydro electric power will continue to be a large resource for energy producing around 15% of the worlds energy in the status quo. Here's the fact, if you don't support solar, wind, and hydro electricity, our energy future looks bleak. Sustainable nuclear energy cannot be created for another 40 years or so and until then, we need to find alternative fuel sources. Nuclear energy is not the only viable resource because it is not feasible at it's current state. Pro is arguing that in the future, Nuclear will BECOME A VIABLE source of energy. He is not arguing that it IS a viable source of energy. Vote con for solar and Wind, it will solve for around 45% of energy by 2050 and is currently solving in the UK, US, and other countries like China. The debate topic is that nuclear energy is the only option, i am arguing that alternate energy sources can solve as well. http://www.businessgreen.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.iea.org... http://www.iea.org... http://large.stanford.edu...