Looking to the future, we should fund Nuclear energy rather than Wind energy.

2nd Rebuttal Counter-argument #1: The amount of steel and concrete wind turbines useIncreasing the size of both the turbine and the rotor could prove to be a very successful idea. Increasing the turbine about 100 to 140 meters could increase the energy capacity of the wind turbine by 40-50%. This is due to the fact that the higher up the turbine is, the more steady and consistent the wind speeds are. Increasing the size of the turbine would also decrease the amount of bird deaths due to the fact that less birds fly that high. Also, the increased rotor size dramatically improves the turbines efficiency as shown is round 2. Also, increasing the height would result is using 15% less steel than the modern day turbine uses and 40% less bolted connections. This would be less harmful for the environment, less expensive, and make the turbine easier to maintain [1]. All of these statistics go against my opponents claim that increased rotor size would be overall detrimental. Counter-argument #2: The problems of offshore wind turbinesI would just like to make it clear that I did not drop the four impracticalities of offshore wind turbines as my opponent suggested because this is the very round were I am supposed to rebut his original rebuttal. Before I begin with the rebuttals of my opponents four impracticalities, it is important to know that offshore wind turbines are hardly a commercial product as of now. Currently offshore turbines are in the experimentation stage, and are about 15 years from being competitive with fossil fuels, according to a Danish energy company [2]. Therefore, while my opponents arguments are true that there are multiple problems with offshore wind turbines, they are currently being improved on. Counter-argument #1: Faulty FoundationsFaulty foundations would only be a problem for offshore turbines that are installed onto the ocean floor. However, I was arguing more for floating turbines, which quite literally float on the surface. However, in order to prevent corrosion, many companies have began using remote monitoring to detect whether the turbine requires repairs or not. This method has been proven to work as it is currently being used in the fossil fuels industry consistently [3].Counter-argument #2: They rot into the seaThis argument is similar to the first argument, and my rebuttal will be similar as well. Using remote monitoring, it can be detected if a turbine is corroding or not. If it is, then it can be easily repaired and there will be little to no environmental impact. Counter-argument #3: The change in sea currentsCurrent obstruction would only be a problem if the company installing the turbines did so illegally. Currently there are many guidelines such as the IEC 61400-3 and independent country regulations that require companies to report where they will install their turbines [4].Counter-argument #4: The damage done to natural carbon sinksAgain, this issue can be resolved if there were more regulations as of where turbines can be installed. Also, the usage of floating turbines gets another point due to the fact that it would not damage the carbon sinks because they are not installed into the sea floor. Counter-argument #3: Even considering bladeless wind turbines, nuclear is still more cost-efficient and in most cases even cheaper.Again, I must show to my opponent that my argument is not that bladeless turbines are currently superior to nuclear energy, because they are not. However I am arguing that bladeless turbines have massive potential. This is due to the fact that bladeless turbines haven't even had a commercial launch yet and they have already shown to have a energy capacity of around 80%. Once bladeless turbines begin to take hold, the price will inevitably drop as shown in the third round.Counter-argument #4: Advances in wind/nuclear energyContrary to what my opponent, I have provided several examples for how wind energy has improved over the past decade. Such as: Increased energy capacity due to: Increased rotor size. Increased turbine size. New ideas such as: Bladeless turbines Offshore turbines. Floating turbines. Decreased prices due to: increased usage of turbines. Overall superior turbine models. Increased safety due to: Taller turbines resulting in less bird deaths. Turbines only catching fire 0.0012% of the time. Also, my has not provided any examples as of how nuclear energy has improved over the past decade, only stating the current statistics about nuclear energy. This means that nuclear energy is not worthy of further funding because an increase in money would not increase efficiency of nuclear energy. However, wind energy has shown several advancements in the past decade therefore making it obvious that only more advancements would come with increased funding. Closing StatementMy opponent has consistently ignored my argument stating that wind energy has higher potential than nuclear energy. I have shown that wind energy has made several huge advancements in the past decade while nuclear energy has provided none. I have also shown that wind energy is far safer than nuclear energy, as the only detriment against wind energy is that it very rarely catches fire while nuclear energy has the potential of a massive disaster and overall increases cases of cancer and leukemia.Sources[1] http://www.worldsteel.org...[2] http://www.acsf.cornell.edu...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] https://www.astandis.at...