The U.S. should substantially increase Nuclear energy. No What if arguements please.

I use to live in Alabama and every time we have heard tropical, we thought tropical storm. This topic has a lot to do with nuclear energy, but before we begin we need to unravel that just because you hear the word nuclear, doesn't mean nuclear bomb. Like with tropical, tropical by itself sounds like paradise, but when you add storm it turns into a Chinese fire drill. So remember when you hear nuclear, don't think bomb, think energy, two totally different things that happen to share the same word at the beginning. So now onto the resolution The United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy. What the topic is asking of the affirmative side to prove is why we should have more nuclear energy. First lets take a look at the history of nuclear energy and the effects of pollution. Then we will see how increasing energy means more jobs in a shaky economy and finally see why the future needs to be Nuclear energy. Contention 1 Environment Nuclear energy was first generated for the first time in 1951 at an experimental facility in Arco, Idaho. Since then there have been about 100 nuclear reactors created in the U.S., with the last one made operational in 1996. Why this is even important to today's debate is that the reason, why we have stopped making more plants is because of environmental pressure groups who as I stated above confuse nuclear energy with nuclear bomb. This kind of thinking has to stop, because nuclear energy is one of the safest energy sources at our disposal. Out of the 143 nuclear power plants made 39 were closed for environmental reasons. As the nuclear plants have decreased we have leaned on fossil fuels to be our main energy source. Burning coal is one of the worst energy sources to use on the environment because it is a leading contributor to acid rain and air pollution. According to Neil M. Cabreza Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, "A typical 1000-megawatt coal-burning plant emits 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5000 tons of fly ash into the environment per year while a typical 1000-megawatt oil-burning plant emits about 16,000 tons of sulphur dioxide and 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. These emissions account for damaging human lungs, the formation of acid precipitation that defaces monuments and buildings and kills the life in countless lakes. However, the problems don't stop here. These type of plants also emit great quantities of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide tends to trap heat on the earth's surface and thus in sufficient concentrations, could create the dreaded greenhouse effect. High enough concentrations could also increase global temperatures which could affect the distribution of rainfall and could create deserts of much of the Northern Hemisphere, causing irreversible catastrophes of unparalleled magnitude, affecting all of mankind. ", This sums it up right there, we need to get off coal now rather than later and at least start the process, by significantly increasing it. Contention 2 Economics According to Neil M. Cabreza again, "Because the fuel used in nuclear power plants exist in abundant supply, the price is very cheap, unlike for fossil fuels where the supply is finite and slowly diminishing. A typical fuel pellet cost about $7. This one fuel pellet has an equivalent energy of three barrels of oil, which cost $84, or one ton of coal, which cost $29. In 1993, the fossil fuels displaced by nuclear energy totaled: 470 million tons of coal and 96 million barrels of oil which translated to about $17 billion. By using nuclear energy at $7 per pellet, a savings of about $13 billion was generated in just one year. ", This simply means it is cheaper for the masses. Decreasing energy costs will also have an effect of helping the economy by having the citizens paying less for energy. This can help stimulate the economy in a variety of ways. Also the opening of new plants or old can give individuals jobs in an economy that has been shaken to its roots. So we need to increase to help our citizens survive a little easier now and of course in the future. Contention 3 Energy security According to the Department of Energy, "an over reliance on a single fuel source, like natural gas, is a potential vulnerability to the long-term security of our Nation's energy supply and new nuclear plants must be built in the next decade to address increasing concerns over air quality and to ease the pressures on natural gas supply. ", It is pretty simple if you depend a lot on a single energy than you will have problems. A perfect example was in the south in the 1900's, the south's major crop at the time was cotton. At that time a very smart individual named George Washington Carver warned them that they need to grow peanuts, because of a bug called the cotton weevil. The farmers who listened were fine, while the others felt the effect of all their crops being destroyed by this bug. Same thing if you invest a lot in only one area you are going to have a risk you cannot take and even though it is a what if, it is the idea of readiness. We must diversify our energy and substantially increasing it is diversifying it. We are still going to have coal and wind and solar, but we need to increase and start the increase in order to have a prosperous energy future.