Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels

I apologize for not posting the link to the chart and it is as follows. http://nextbigfuture.com... The quote of "To be both usable and economical a (geothermal) site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate. " was directly taken from a website link I provided and was not of my opinion even though I agree to it. My opponent has yet to provide the real cost of digging a hole a couple miles deep and releasing many toxic materials as I have previously mentioned. My opponent is suggesting that we just transport thousands of gallons of water to our desired 2 to 3 mile hole and allow it to turn into steam. After that, we could just use this steam to generate our geothermal energy, or so he claims. While this is technically possible, the actions of this would make geothermal energy even less viable than it is currently. While I know that many people think of nuclear energy as very dangerous and radiation related, this is not true. Nuclear has been safe for more 20 years. There is a reason governments don't just dig holes in random places and dump water into it. While I am not part of any government, I suppose it to be because it is simply just way to expensive to do. As for my "lack" of evidence for mining uranium. I offer this link. http://www.world-nuclear.org... I previously believed that I had posted that link but now after checking I did neglect to add it. For the claim of the lack of deaths, I got that information from a book but also found it at the following link. http://www.washingtonpost.com... I agree with my opponent that radiation is very dangerous. However, studies have been made which have found that radiation beside nuclear plants is actually less than radiation around some places without nuclear plants. I offer this link http://www.scientificamerican.com... and http://www-formal.stanford.edu... As to my opponents second rebuttal, I am quite offended. I ask him to do his research first before making any rash statements. I have never said that many countries have the ability to make nuclear weapons nor any promise that they would not use them. There is A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVILIAN NUCLEAR PLANT AND A NUCLEAR BOMB. A huge difference actually. That is the reason why countries are having their nuclear plants made by foreign countries even if they don't possess the secret of the nuclear bomb. I believe there is a reason that countries do not use geothermal energy because it is neither cost effective nor can it produce energy en mass and enough to supply demand. Nuclear can. http://www.wisegeek.com... Towards the end of the article, one can see that many countries that have nuclear power plants are not currently holders of nuclear weapons. I wonder why that is?? My point on the fact that very few countries that use geothermal energy use it to produce very little amounts because there simply aren't that many places to make it en mass and still cost efficient. I ask my opponent not to twist my words. I specified for a country that uses geothermal energy over 40% not just use. There is a reason that countries do not use a lot of geothermal energy because it simply isn't that cost efficient and there aren't enough places where is economically viable. For nuclear however, there are numerous countries that use it over 40% as I have in my previous argument stated. I am rather confused by his statement of "And if we can easily share our technology with other countries without needing to worry about WMDs, our environment can benefit at a much accelerated rate than nuclear energy ever would, simply because the US would not allow it." especially the last statement and I would ask him to explain it. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to provide valid reasons on why geothermal would be a viable replacement economically and the amount of energy it can produce. They have instead offered a highly idealistic and extremely expensive way of how geothermal energy could in theory be produced en mass. Nuclear however, does not even need theories to produce energy that can supply the world. One just needs sufficient nuclear plants. I however, have offered reasons including nuclear can be done anywhere in the world and that nuclear is one of the cheapest energies that can supply our world. My opponent has failed to refute these two points and has instead sidetracked them while I have met his points head on. For these reasons, I strongly urge a pro vote.