system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
"Nuclear power is bad", CMV

**My view has been changed, I am also sorry for abandoning the threat, I completely forgot about it. The two users who contributed to changing my view the most were awarded deltas accordingly.**

I believe that we should not use nuclear power and instead focus on renewable resources.

With rising population and advancing technology, the power demand of humanity is increasing. And we must meet that demand and provide sufficient power to cover all our needs. There are various ways of doing so. Today, the most of our power is suppiled by fossil-fuel-burning power plants. However, they present serious threat to the enviroment, so we need to look for our power sources elsewhere. The other options are renewable resources, scuch as water, sunlight, and wind; or nuclear power. I do NOT believe that nuclear power is the right way of progress, and I believe so for these reasons:

1) The price. Nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive to build and maintain. The building costs a small fortune, since all the reactors, shielding, and other protective structures are exteptionally hard and costly to build. Then there is the nuclear fuel, the mos common being U235. It is quite hard to get. The mining alone is quite tedious , moreover, it damages the surroundings a lot, and it's expencive to restore to the previous state. What's more, some of the damages to nature, the common heritage of mankind, are irreparable whatsoever. The fuel is also hard to process and transport, both of which are not only expensive, but also present a serious threat to the enviroment, which is, as I have explained before, not exactly a thing we want. And the same goes to the costs and risks of nuclear waste transport, reprocessing or disposal. 
In conclusion, nuclear power is costly in both economical and enviromental aspects.

2) safety. I have to concede, that modern nuclear powerplants are quite safe and a major safety failure is just a rare occurence. However, the damage these potential failures can bring upon mankind and the enviroment is immense. In case of major breach of the reactor shielding huge anmounts of radiation and/or fallout escape the power plant. These horribly affect global enviroment and severely damage human health. although it is true that the failure is quite improbable, if it occurs, the aftermath will be disastrous.
Another safety hazard is the risk of the power plant being damaged in the instance of war or terrorist attack. Power plants are important military targets, so in the case of war are likely to be attacked. The possibility of a disaster following the destruction of a nuclaer power plant also makes it an extcellent target for terrosrists, who just want to cause maximal damage.
To sum this up, there is possibility of a safety failure, and despite its low pobability it is still not worth the possible outcome.

3) Alternative sources. As I mentioned at the very beginning, there are other means of getting power. The alterantive resources, such as water, air and sloar power are cheaper to harness and present barely any threat to our planet. I believe that instead of focusing on nuclear power, inovations should be ecnouraged in this area

I believe that nuclear power is simply too dangerous to utilize. We should therefore focus on alternative resources, as they are more enviroment friendly, safer, cheaper and do not present a major threat to mankind.

Wow, a bit longer than I expected. Mostly, the thing is that in my country, they are planning on expanding one of our power plants, and the Austirans think it's wrong, and I basicaly second this attitude. so, please, CMV

**EDIT: Thanks for the great comments! I'll try to respond to some of them, but I've had a long day and am totally exhausted, so I'll reply more tomorrow.**
gpt
1. Currently, the most expensive aspect of constructing a new nuclear plant is litigation from opposition groups. The reactors themselves, along with their containment, are fairly straightforward and no more expensive than similar industrial projects.

2. You are greatly overstating the danger of nuclear power. To date, the most catastrophic power plant failure, in terms of casualties and damage, was from a hydroelectric dam. Also, there are many potential terrorist targets that would cause far more damage if attacked than a nuclear power facility.

3. The alternative sources you list have problems of their own. Hydro is limited and environmentally destructive. Solar and wind require the mining of rare earths, which is just as destructive as mining Uranium. And except for hydro, the alternatives are incapable of providing base load power, making them unsuitable for large scale power generation.