[TeleproCROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

You mentioned that nuclear energy is a reliable and consistent source of

power, but isn’t it true that it comes with significant risks, including the
potential for catastrophic accidents and challenges related to long-term waste
management? ctive Speech – Extended]

Is it financially sustainable in the long term to invest in nuclear energy, given

the high costs of construction, maintenance, and waste management?

[good afternoon,
“As Greenpeace states, ‘renewable energy sources avoid the issues of radioactive
contamination and storage challenges that make nuclear energy costly and
dangerous.’
Today, we stand against the idea that the U.S. should invest in expanding nuclear
energy as its main clean power source. We need solutions that are safe, affordable,
and reliable, like solar and wind, which don’t come with these serious risks.”

“We acknowledge the importance of clean energy and transitioning away from fossil
fuels, but we challenge the assumption that nuclear power is the most feasible or
efficient solution for this shift. Instead, we advocate for stronger investments in
proven, safer, and more economically viable renewable energy sources such as
solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. These renewable sources present fewer risks
and greater benefits for both the economy and the environment.”

[Disadvantage I: High Cost of Expanding Nuclear Power]

Currently, U.S. energy costs remain stable due to the significant expansion and
affordability of renewables like solar and wind. These energy sources continue to
increase, providing the largest share of new energy capacity, in fact, According to
recent reports, solar and wind power have shown significant growth in the U.S.
and even outperformed nuclear energy. Now, let’s delve into the core reasons. To
make nuclear energy the primary source of clean power, the U.S. would require
massive public and private funding, not to mention substantial state subsidies to
cover the high upfront capital costs associated with new plant construction. This
move would inevitably remove resources from current, more cost-effective
renewable projects.

Let’s look at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, an example of financial mismanagement.

Originally projected at a much lower budget, this nuclear expansion project has
more than doubled its costs, exceeding $30 billion and causing significant financial
 strain for consumers. The Union of Concerned Scientists highlights that such
instances are not uncommon, emphasizing the economic risks tied to nuclear
investments.
This shift in funding would mean fewer resources for solar and wind projects—
technologies that, according to Ember and Solar Power World (2024), have shown
substantial growth, surpassing nuclear power in energy output. In the first half of
2024 alone, solar and wind combined produced 401.4 TWh of electricity,
outperforming the 390.5 TWh generated by nuclear plants.

This achievement highlights the rapid expansion and capacity growth of

renewables, making them more effective and sustainable energy sources
compared to nuclear power. They are not only faster but also cheaper to deploy
than nuclear power. In the words of the Union of Concerned Scientists,
investments in renewables have successfully lowered emissions while enhancing
energy security, all without the prohibitive costs that nuclear expansion demands
(Union of Concerned Scientists, 2024).
“To make nuclear energy the primary clean energy source, the U.S. would need to
secure massive public and private funding, as well as substantial state subsidies to
cover the high upfront capital costs associated with building new plants. This
funding would inevitably divert resources from existing, more cost-effective
renewable projects. This could lead to significant cost overruns and financial
mismanagement, as demonstrated by projects such as Plant Vogtle in Georgia.”
“The result of this shift would be higher energy costs due to the slow deployment of
nuclear power compared to more rapid renewable installations. Public budgets
would be stretched thin, impacting funding for other essential social services,
while households—especially those with lower incomes—would face higher
utility bills.”
“This would exacerbate energy poverty, making electricity less affordable for many
Americans and widening socioeconomic disparities. The delayed progress in
emissions reductions would have long-term effects, worsening climate change and
slowing down the national shift toward a fully renewable energy grid. This
transition is crucial to meeting climate goals, reducing the carbon footprint, and
ensuring a sustainable future (Greenpeace USA, 2023).”
Let’s dive into the significant environmental and safety risks associated with nuclear
energy expansion.

The current U.S. energy mix rightly prioritizes renewables like wind and solar.
Unlike nuclear, these energy sources come with minimal environmental and health
risks. The Union of Concerned Scientists notes that ‘renewable energy sources pose
fewer risks to public health and the environment than nuclear power’ (2024).
Greenpeace also points out that renewables avoid the severe challenges of
radioactive contamination and the burdensome waste storage inherent to nuclear
energy.”

“Now, consider the implications of expanding nuclear power: more plants built
across the country. This development increases the likelihood of accidents and
exposure to radioactive materials. Although nuclear facilities rely on sophisticated
safety systems, history has proven that these systems can fail. Disasters like
Chernobyl and Fukushima are powerful, tragic reminders of just how devastating
these failures can be.”

“More nuclear facilities mean a greater chance of accidents, radiation leaks, or

mishandling of nuclear waste. Even smaller incidents can trigger serious long-term
health effects for nearby communities and contaminate essential resources like
water and soil. The repercussions are not just environmental—they’re personal.”

“Think back to the 2011 Fukushima disaster. It didn’t just have immediate
environmental and health consequences. The estimated cost for cleanup,
decommissioning, and compensations exceeded $200 billion (World Nuclear
Association, 2024). This staggering financial burden underscores why expanding
nuclear energy is a risk we cannot afford to take. If we go down this path, we are
choosing to accept the possibility of more catastrophic events that could endanger
lives and lead to irreversible environmental damage.”

Now, we must remember that, unfortunately, our country has faced terrorist attacks
in the past. Having an increased number of nuclear plants would make our nation a
larger target, potentially putting many more lives at risk with severe consequences
in the event of an attack. We hope that such an event never happens again, but we
cannot be blind to this very real threat that has shaken our history before. Choosing
this path means accepting the possibility of more catastrophic events that could
endanger lives and result in irreversible environmental damage.”

“Let’s prioritize safer, cleaner, and more sustainable options over risks that
could haunt our future.”

NEGATIVE REBUTTAL / VOTER \

we acknowledge the intention behind the affirmative’s argument: a cleaner, more

sustainable energy future. However, we must challenge the belief that nuclear
energy is the right path forward. The affirmative has painted a picture of nuclear as
a reliable and long-term solution, but this ignores several critical realities that
should concern us all.

Let’s begin with the economic argument. The cost of nuclear energy is astronomical.
We’ve already seen the financial mismanagement in projects like Plant Vogtle, which
has doubled its projected cost to more than $30 billion. And this is not an isolated
case. The International Energy Agency has stated that nuclear power is one of the
most expensive ways to generate electricity. Every dollar invested in nuclear energy
is a dollar diverted away from proven, more cost-effective, and rapidly deployable
renewable energy sources like wind and solar. These are the energy sources that are
already transforming our energy landscape.

Now, let’s turn to the scalability of nuclear energy. To make nuclear energy the
cornerstone of U.S. clean power, the U.S. would need to build many more nuclear
plants—an effort that will take decades and face significant logistical, financial, and
regulatory barriers. Nuclear plants take an average of 10 to 15 years to build, and
the costs associated with them are consistently underestimated. Compare that to
wind and solar, which are being deployed at a much faster rate. According to Ember
and Solar Power World, wind and solar combined generated 401.4 TWh in the first
half of 2024, outperforming nuclear’s 390.5 TWh. These renewable sources are not
just growing; they are doing so at a pace that nuclear simply cannot match.

While nuclear may generate power without direct carbon emissions, it comes at a
very high financial and environmental cost. The risks associated with nuclear energy
are not just theoretical—they are a matter of history. The Fukushima disaster,
which resulted in the displacement of thousands of people, cost over $200 billion in
cleanup and recovery. That’s $200 billion that could have been spent on more
effective and immediate solutions like solar or wind. These disasters are not
hypothetical—they have happened before, and they can happen again.

Expanding nuclear energy would also put communities at an increased risk of

radioactive contamination. While nuclear plants have safety systems in place,
history has shown us that these systems can fail, with catastrophic results.
Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the Three Mile Island incident stand as stark reminders
of the dangers that come with nuclear power. More plants mean more opportunities
for these risks to manifest, potentially threatening entire regions with the long-term
health and environmental consequences of radiation exposure.

But the risks are not only environmental. With an increased number of nuclear
plants, we make ourselves more vulnerable to terrorism. The potential for targeted
attacks on nuclear facilities is real, and with more plants spread across the country,
the risk increases. A single successful attack on a nuclear facility could lead to
unprecedented loss of life and environmental devastation. This is not an alarmist
view—it is a very real threat, given the history of terrorism and the nature of
nuclear power.

Let’s not forget that nuclear energy is a far less flexible option than renewables. The
cost and time involved in building new nuclear plants, coupled with the risks, means
that it is simply not a practical option for rapidly addressing the climate crisis.
Instead of sinking trillions of dollars into nuclear expansion, we should focus on
scaling up solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, which are safer, faster, and more
affordable.

Furthermore, nuclear energy requires vast amounts of water for cooling, putting
additional pressure on already stressed water resources, especially in regions facing
droughts. This is another layer of environmental concern that renewable sources
like solar and wind do not share. By prioritizing nuclear, we are locking ourselves
into an energy system that is not only costly but also increasingly unsustainable in
the face of climate change.
Now, let’s address the idea of energy security. The affirmative argues that nuclear
power provides a stable and dependable energy supply. However, renewables offer
an even more secure and decentralized solution. With solar panels and wind
turbines, we can distribute energy production across the country, reducing the risks
associated with centralized power plants, including nuclear plants. A decentralized
energy system is more resilient to both natural disasters and human threats,
offering a far greater level of security.

At this point, the evidence is clear. Nuclear energy is not the most efficient, cost-
effective, or safe option for our future. The energy transition we need is one that
accelerates the deployment of renewable energy sources—wind, solar,
hydroelectric—technologies that are not only cleaner but also economically viable
and increasingly abundant. We need to invest in solutions that can deliver
immediate results in terms of carbon reduction, job creation, and energy
independence.

VOTER!!
we are not opposed to the idea of a clean energy future. What we are opposed to is
investing in a technology that is outdated, inefficient, and laden with risks. We urge
you to consider the future we are creating—a future powered by clean, renewable
energy, not by a costly and dangerous nuclear expansion. We cannot afford to repeat
the mistakes of the past; we must focus on the solutions that are available to us now.
For a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable energy future, the answer is clear: invest
in renewables, not nuclear.”

This extended rebuttal emphasizes the economic, environmental, and safety

concerns about nuclear energy while reinforcing the case for renewable
sources, creating a strong closing argument.
[End of script] [Constructive Statement Conclusion]
“In summary, the expansion of nuclear power would be exceedingly costly, straining
public budgets, raising energy costs, and slowing down advancements in renewable
energy. Moreover, the significant environmental and safety risks—including
potential accidents and radioactive contamination—pose serious threats to
communities and ecosystems.”

[Definitive Final Statement]

“It is clear that nuclear energy is not the path to a sustainable and secure energy
future. Investing in nuclear power as the primary source of clean energy would
burden consumers, redirect critical resources from safer and more affordable
renewable options, and expose communities to unacceptable environmental and
safety risks. To secure a brighter, safer, and more equitable future, we must
prioritize clean energy solutions that truly align with the well-being of all
Americans.”