Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power

My opponent didn't lay down any argument rules, so I hope it doesn't bother anyone if I start off with some rebuttals. My opponent argues that an "independent" research company, Nuclear Matters, has found nuclear energy to be the most efficient energy source. I'd like to call into question the "independence" of said company, and point out that even the name is a red flag. I have taken a look at thier website, and I really think it's more of a special interest group. Beyond that, their claim that nuclear is most efficient, I feel is not only a stretch, but is outright false. Energy points(EP) an energy analysis company that studies all energy sources, and takes into consideration the cost of the fuel, the cost to produce it, and the cost of the environmental litigation. EP, consider the nuclear efficiency turnover rate 7th on a list of 9. It was behind coal, natural gas, and wind as far as true efficiency goes. When you consider cost per megawatt hour, nuclear fails to be the most cost-effective as well, ranking below wind, coal, hydro, natural gas and others. If we consider the cost of making, producing, and the energy needed for conversion into electricity (yes, it takes energy to convert nuclear energy into electricity), nuclear is almost at the bottom of the efficiency list!!! My opponent argues that nuclear energy is good for the economy, and claims, renewables seem cheap because they're subsidized with government money because they have not been built to scale. I don't dispute that claim, but I would like to point out that the nuclear industry is swimming in government subsidies as well, and IS built to scale. Physicians for Social Responsibility(PSR)points out that subsidies, loan guarantees, and extended liability insurance result in taxpayers being responsible for 60 to 90% of the levelized cost of power from a reactor, which can be up to 13 billion for a single reactor. Givin that line of thought, if there are 99 working reactors in America (I got that number from my opponent, I don't know if it's true) at so many billions in cost for each reactor, and taxpayers covering 60 to 90% of each reactors levelized cost, how good can it truly be for the economy? Government subsidies in renewables are an investment in a new, promising technology, who's costs are continuously falling and the debt to the taxpayers can be paid back in the savings on energy costs. Government subsidies in nuclear energy, boils down to a BAILOUT, to keep failing companies out of bankruptcy, and for environmental litigation, and health costs. That's not economically sound!!!! My opponent argues nuclear power pollutes less than fossil fuels. I disagree. If we stopped burning fossil fuels today, we would see global temperatures begin to normalize within a decade, both in the air and in the sea. If we stop using nuclear energy today, we will still be dealing with its highly radioactive byproduct for hundreds of thousands of years to come. These spent fuel rods need to be buried behind steel walls (usually in abandoned mines), they have to be monitored for leakage, and guarded because of its appeal to terrorists. The mining and processing of the uranium needed for nuclear energy isn't very pretty either. Just like coal mining, uranium mining requires huge amounts of water, which can and has polluted local water supplies and river systems. The waste rock left over from the mining is radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years and needs special treatment like the spent fuel rods. Furthermore, nuclear reactors emit thermal energy, which has a powerful greenhouse effect. That's not my idea of environmentally friendly. In my opinion, along with many in the scientific community(not to say I'm a scientist, cause I'm not), nuclear energy is the MOST harmful to the environment out of all the energy sources. The nuclear industry has no plan on how to deal with the pollutants, choosing only to continually kick the problem down the road for future generations to deal with, hoping someday, someone will figure out what to do with it. Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactors(WAMSRs). Promise of a new age, or threat from the nuclear industry? WAMSRs, are supposed to be the next-generation reactors. They do yield far less radioactive waste(still have the disruptive mining and enriching process), and I don't dispute that they are far more safe, and "virtually" meltdown proof. They have the ability to use up 90% of the spent radioactive waste made from older reactors, but when you run a fine tooth comb through all the "promise" of this new technology, I think you'll find a few gnats. First off, it sounds more like a threat by the nuclear industry, as if to say, we must use this new technology, OR ELSE!!! Or else, we can't clean up the radioactive mess we made with the old reactors. I have questions about the effectiveness of WAMSRs to clean up the nuclear waste. True, it can use up 90% of the spent fuel rods, but think of the massive steel cages that the waste was stored in, do they go away? What happens to all that steel, or all the water needed for additional cooling for fire prevention, or even all the radioactive air inside those cages, does that go away? No matter how much, or how little radioactive waste is inside those cages, the cages will remain, for the same hundreds of thousands of years the spent fuel rods need to remain. The true damage has already been done by the nuclear industry, and in my opinion their "fix" for that problem is too little too late. I'd like to thank my opponent for letting make my case in a topic I find fascinating. I'm actually undecided about how I feel about nuclear energy. I look forward to a thought provoking debate. I wish my opponent good luck!!!!