Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy

Same format as above: 1a) Obviously wind farms take up much land, but the U.S has excessive land that we do not use mostly in the desert where there are plenty of wind. http://hubpages.com... Solar power plants work 24/7 even in cloudy conditions. http://www.grist.org... Building a nuclear power plant cost at least $4 billion, it is more costly to the 130 million for wind turbines that can be decommissioned or moved around. At least there methods do not deplete any resources, unlike nuclear. 1b) A serious nuclear accident would involved deaths and a major change in the surrounding enviroment. There is a 16% chance of a nuclear disaster within the next 40 years. (http://docs.google.com...) Space shuttles like Discovery were expected to have an accident every 76 flights. Instead, in less than 24 flights there were 2 accidents. Considering the fact nuclear power plants are built near cities, chances are nuclear accidents will cause devastating damage to the city. The majority of the cost of the accident will come from taxpayers. Other accidents:(http://www.lutins.org...) 2) Pro agrees because there were no arguments there. 3) Recycling is more expensive than obtaining newly mined uranium. So obviously nuclear companies would mine new sources and enrich nuclear. Metal is recycled more efficiently and economically cheaper than uranium. Not only that but wind turbines can be moved, unlike nuclear power plants. "Reprocessing doesn't make any sense – economically, it's more expensive" than mining uranium and just discarding the waste, claims Steve Caldwell, Policy Coordinator for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. http://news.cnet.com... 4) Dave ignored the fact that the U.S has excess deserted land that can be filled with wind turbines, solar panels, and solar power plants. Con's case: 1) Over $96 billion per site. Considering we have many that also has to be maintained over tens of thousands of years and with inflation, so that's over $96 billion. http://www.usatoday.com... 2) Decommissioning a power plant just stripping the nuclear substance cost $320 million per unit. Compare this cost to simply moving solar panels or wind turbines by flatbed trucks. 3) Read my R2 and R3 sources. There were smuggling attempts while transporting uranium. In Russia in 1999 plant workers tried to sell 5 grams of radioactive material to the open market. Several years before some others were caught selling 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium. http://www.atomicarchive.com... 4) One, "The European Commission said in 2001 that at the current level of uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42 years. When added to military and secondary sources, the resources could be stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that nuclear power continues to provide only a fraction of the world's energy supply. If electric capacity were increased six-fold, then the 72-year supply would last just 12 years." Two, recycling is currently under experiments and very expensive. Plutonium 239 is a highly unstable byproduct of recycling and also increases the risk of an accident. I'm surprised that none had sunk yet; if one did it will contaminate the ocean, like oil. Actually, there was a solution about sinking waste but any rupture, even from one canister, would cause serious major environmental damage. So with that said nuclear energy should not be the primary alternative energy. Voting issues: 1) Davewerty dropped my 2nd rebuttal on his case about high security standards not being able to protect the environment. 2) Davewerty did not have valid sources backing is arguments. Note to Davewerty: always post sources. 3) Nuclear accidents are likely to happen/increase if we increase our use, proven above. 4) In the long run nuclear energy are more expensive than any other alternative sources. 5) U.S has excess desert land that no one live on and are promising to solar and wind power, we should invest more in those instead, basically went in a circle about how alternative energy takes up land and money. 6) Nuclear recycling is currently unstable and expensive so it is not as economical and eco-friendly as other alternatives. 7) Nuclear waste is still a major issue, recycling is not a reliable option. 8) Increase in nuclear energy would increase the chances of smuggling nuclear for "other purposes." Thank you and please comment and/or vote. I enjoyed this debate Davewerty.