Choose a Resolution Debate

Resolved: Nuclear power should not replace coal as the primary source of electricity generation in the United States of America. I would first like to stress that I agree wholeheartedly with my opponent on his contentions. I agree that Nuclear Power is more environmentally friendly AND safer in general. However, there are aspects of Nuclear power that remain to be considered, and will found my contentions, which are as follows: 1. ) Nuclear power simply replaces the crutch that coal based electricity generation has become. Electricity generation as it stands is a very flawed and highly inefficient process. It comes from using a source of energy to boil water and use the resultant steam in order to do mechanical work, turning a turbine to produce electricity. The many different steps of the process hold it back this form of electrical generation back in and of itself. Looking into the future, we also see that though coal is plentiful, it is bound to run out at some period in time. This is the same for the sources of energy behind nuclear fission; though the resources are plentiful (by some standards. There are those who, like I, debate whether or not you can even consider nuclear power a renewable energy source [2]), they are also bound to run out at sometime, be it even 1,000's of years from now. [1] 2. ) Nuclear power has certain flaws that prevent it from being a long lasting energy source for the future Nuclear power may not pump carbon into the air, but it has byproducts that need to be dealt with; I'm speaking of nuclear waste, of course. We just simply have nothing to do with it, other than essentially sticking it in different places [3]. I mean, this is a huge flaw in and of itself. The primary pollutants of coal are indeed dangerous, but not as hazardous as nuclear waste. And once we run out of space to store it, or enough of it collects to emanate harmful radiation through sure to come shoddy management practice, we'll run into some real problems. ________ To close, I'd just like to say that I agree with my opponent in his obvious sentiment that coal is obsolete and harmful to the human condition. However, I don't think nuclear power (fusion, maybe. definitely not fission) is the way ahead. We're just going to run out of space to store our waste, or materials to generate heat. And then, we're left to scrounge around for the next viable energy source. What we should instead do is develop technology to redefine our energy production and consumption, not simply supplant faulty techniques with duplicate faulty techniques. I truly feel that the way of the future in energy production for the world is solar power [4]. Even with the solar panels of today, it would take less land usage than the area of Spain to power the entire world [5]. The problem with solar power simply lies in our inability to effectively and economically harness the power of the sun to positive ends (I read somewhere that if we could get solar panels to optimum efficiency, the United States would need only 10% of the area of Montana to power the entire nation). We need to continue to work on efficiency of photo-voltaic cells and improve battery life and size in order to really send our society into the future of energy production. I thank my opponent and look forward to his coming argument. 1. ) . http://www.world-nuclear.org... 2. . http://www.renewableenergyworld.com... 3. ) . http://www.guardian.co.uk... 4. ) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... 5. ) . http://gizmodo.com...