I affirm resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power. 

Definitions
Nuclear power: power, esp electrical or motive, produced by a nuclear reactor. (The free dictionary)
Country: an area of land that is controlled by its own government. (Merriam Webster)
Prohibit: To forbid by authority of law. (Dictionary.com)
Ought: moral obligation

My Value is Morality because the word ought implies a moral obligation. Morality is the degree to which something is right or good. (Merriam Webster)

My criterion is protecting life

Protecting life is most consistent with government obligations. 

Professor Goodin writes in 1990:
Robert Goodin, Professor in philosophy, Australian National Defense University, THE UTILITARIAN RESPONSE,
1990, p. 141-2 (PDNSS1636)
“Public officials are obliged to make their choices under uncertainty and uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices - public and private alike - are made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, [They] are relatively poorly informed as to the effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people as a result of their various possible choices. But that is all. That is enough to allow public policy-makers to use the utilitarian calculus. - if they want to use it at all - to choose general rules of conduct. Knowing aggregates and averages, they can proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternative possible general rule.”

2. Protecting life best respects each individual’s moral equality. Professor Hare explains in 1984,

Richard M. Hare, Professor of Moral Philosophy of the University of Oxford, (1984), University of Minnesota Press, Utility and Rights, p. 106-107
“It is hard to see what this could mean, except, in Bentham’s words, to ‘count everybody for one and nobody for more than one’ But Mackie attacks the utilitarians for doing this. It is rather mysterious that critics of utilitarianism, some of whom lay great weight on the ‘right to equal concern and respect’ which all people have, should object when Utilitarians shows this equal concern by giving equal weight to the equal interests of everybody, a precept that leads straight to Bentham’s formula and to utilitarianism itself.”

The affirmative advocacy includes a phase out instead of an overnight prohibition. This means that yes, all countries will prohibit nuclear power. However, not all countries have the same resources and not all countries are in the same situation. Different countries will phase out nuclear power using different time frames and different systems. 

Contention 1: Nuclear power is detrimental to the environment.
The production of nuclear power requires uranium and
Uranium mining contaminates water.

 David Thorpe, Friday 5 December 2008, Extracting a disaster, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics

To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep [a] your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings {that} These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.
Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and [more] many other sites. To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would means generating 50 million[s of] tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year.

Uranium emissions kill through cancer. 

by Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of CCNR, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, 92, http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html

In addition, the Radon gas emissions from abandoned tailings can cause radioactive contamination on a continental and even on a global basis. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has estimated that Radon Emissions from uranium tailings in the Southwest U.S. can be expected to cause over 3,000 cancer deaths per century over the North American continent. Many Researchers believe that this death toll is underestimated by at least a factor of ten, even if we ignore the fallout of solid radon daughters on leafy vegetation as the radon gas passes overhead, and even if we assume that the tailings are not blown by the wind, washed by the rain, or spread through the food chain, thereby distributing the source of contamination over a much wider area.

Reducing uranium mining by prohibiting the production of nuclear power is the most moral action because it protects life. 

Contention 2: Nuclear power plant accidents are dangerous. 

Accidents occur because nuclear power plants lack safety checks and regulations. 

NRC’s Failure to Enforce Reactor Fire Regulations, UCS, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/ucs-nrc-fire-regulations-5-2-13.pdf

Fire poses significant risk to nuclear power plant safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) estimates that the risk of reactor meltdown from fire hazards is roughly equal to the meltdown risk from all other hazards combined—even assuming that plants comply with fire protection regulations, which many do not.1 Because of this risk, The NRC established a set of fire safety regulations for nuclear plants in 1980 and an alternate set in 2004. However, Today,—more than 30 years after those regulations went into effect—nearly half of U.S. operating nuclear reactors do not comply with either set of regulations. (See list at end of report.) Over those 30 years, The NRC has failed to enforce compliance with these regulations, and today continues its practice of giving plant owners extensions to come into compliance, despite the repeated failure of plants to do so in the past. Since 1995 there have been over 150 fires at U.S. nuclear plants. 2 Although the NRC has deemed almost all of them as minor, the poten Consequences of a reactor meltdown and release of radioactivity to the environment—the human health costs, economic costs, and evacuation of large areas around the reactor—are too high for such lack of enforcement to continue. 

Brown Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama does not comply with regulations and an accident occurred there. 

RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS AND HEALTH HAZARDS SURROUNDING BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN ALABAMA RADIATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROJECT JOSEPH MANGANO, MPH, MBA AND BEST/MATRR GRETEL JOHNSTON ET AL JUNE 4, 2013,
http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1329/ML13297A124.pdf

The Sandia figures are known as CRAC-2 (Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences). Casualties for a core meltdown per Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, or 3 are 60,000 cases of acute radiation poisoning (18,000 fatal) and 3,800 cancer deaths. Estimates would be much larger today, since the local population has grown since 1982 when the calculations were made, and people beyond a 20 mile radius from the plant will also suffer adverse health consequences. Estimated costs from a meltdown after each unit ($67.3 billion, $69.1 billion, and $73.0 billion in 1980 dollars) would also be far greater today due to inflation. In the seven north Alabama counties immediately downwind of Browns Ferry (DeKalb, Jackson, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, Marshall, and Morgan), the population grew 47.7%, from 534,059 to 788,777 from 1980 to 2010. 

Accidents happen very frequently. 

May 22, 2012 Source: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Daniel Kunkel, MPI for Chemistry, 2011, Severe nuclear reactor accidents likely every 10 to 20 years, European study suggests. 

Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors)  some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a[n] major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, an area is defined as being contaminated with radiation from this amount onwards. In view of their findings, the researchers call for an in-depth analysis and reassessment of the risks associated with nuclear power plants.

A prohibition is the answer, not regulations because we have been trying to enforce regulations for the past 40 years and it obviously hasn’t been working. 

Contention 3:Nuclear power poses a threat of terrorism.

A terrorist threat is very likely. 

ISIS Targets Nuclear Power Plants, Mar 31, 2016, Charles Faddis, http://www.epictimes.com/03/31/2016/terrorist-threat-nuclear-power-plants-real-immediate/

At least two former nuclear plant employees were recruited by ISIS. The current whereabouts of neither one is currently definitively known. The two bombers who attacked the Brussels airport had been surveilling a Belgian nuclear official, apparently in preparation for kidnapping him or stealing his security badge. Another employee of a different Belgian nuclear plant was recently murdered in broad daylight and his security badge taken. by unknown assailants. What exactly ISIS's plans were or are remains unclear but what is obvious, however, is that they intend to target European nuclear power plants.
Author: cfr.org editorial staff, Updated: January 1, 2006, Council on Foreign relations, DOA 8-10-16, http://www.cfr.org/homeland-security/targets-terrorism-nuclear-facilities/p10213  

U.S. forces “found Diagrams of American nuclear power plants [were found]” in al-Qaeda materials in Afghanistan. An al-Qaeda training manual list[ing] nuclear plants as among the best targets for spreading fear in the United States.

The impacts from targeting a nuclear power plant are far worse than any other terrorist targets because of radiation release. 

PSR, 2006 NUCLEAR POWER AND THE
TERRORIST THREAT, http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/assets/pdfs/nuclear-power-and-the-terrorist-threat.pdf 

If an airliner crashed into a nuclear reactor’s containment structure, the plane would penetrate the structure likely leading to an explosion and fire. Nuclear power plants are not well equipped to deal with severe fires, which could cause several safety systems to fail simultaneously. Such an explosion would result in a substantial release of radioactivity. Terrorists could [also] also target the spent fuel pools., which are large pools of water on-site where the used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors is stored. The Water in these pools absorbs radiation and keeps the fuel from overheating.Many spent fuel pools are aboveground and are protected by a ìsteel superstructure,which is actually a corrugated building unlikely to withstand an attack. A plane crash or even a large truck bomb could displace or evaporate enough water to leave the rods exposed. The resulting buildup of heat could trigger in a large release of radiation. It has been calculated, for instance, that a Fire in a spent fuel pool at the Millstone nuclear power plant [for example] in Connecticut could result in the release of cesium-137 [radiation] at doses larger than the estimated release from the 1986 Chernobyl accident. The explosion at Chernobyl led to 30 acute deaths from radiation sickness, over 1800 excess cases of childhood thyroid cancer, [and] the evacuation of 100,000 people. and the contamination of vast tracts of land.

An attack on a plant would not only kill the people there, it would result in millions of widespread deaths through cancer. 

By Geoffrey Lean Environment Editor, The Independent - UK, 2-16-03 [environmental journalist and editor, the Independent, has done studies at Newcastle University and University of Central Lancashire] , http://www.rense.com/general34/kills.htm  

He said 25 times as much radioactivity as was emitted by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 would be likely to be released, eventually killing 1.1 million people from cancer. In the worst case scenario, The number of [Total] deaths could reach 3.6 million. More than three and a half million people could be killed by a terrorist attack on a British nuclear plant, concludes a series of three reports so alarming that even [commissioned by] Greenpeace - which commissioned them - is unwilling to publish them.

Even if my opponent claims that the risk is low, the consequences are so severe that Any risk above 0 is a rate that we cannot accept. 

Contention 4: Renewable energy is a viable alternative.
We’ve made big advances in renewable technology over the last couple decades. We have many different ways to get electricity, so when the sun isn’t shining, the wind is blowing, and when the wind isn’t blowing, the tide is coming in, and so on. Renewables are much cheaper to build, produce more energy than ever before, and cost almost nothing once we turn them on. Finally, batteries are getting better at storing energy so we never have to worry about the grid going dark. All these advances mean renewables are ready to become our main energy source; the final step is to get nuclear power out of the way.
By Christina Nunez, National Geographic, PUBLISHED OCTOBER 2, 2015 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/10/151002-solar-energy-sees-eye-popping-price-drops/
The price of U.S. solar power has dropped a whopping 70 percent since 2009, even as panels get smarter. The figure, cited in a report this week from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, coincides with SolarCity’s debut Friday of what it calls the world's most efficient rooftop solar panel. The largest residential solar installer in the U.S. says its module can produce 38 percent more power than a standard one, yet costs less to produce. 

Switching to renewables is possible
Connolly et al. 16
D. Connolly (Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark), H. Lund (Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark), B.V. Math- iesen (Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark) “Smart Energy Europe: The technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 1634–1653.
This study presents one scenario for a 100% renewable energy system in Europe by the year 2050. The transition from a business-as-usual situation in 2050, to a 100% renewable energy Europe is analysed in a series of steps. Each step reflects one major technological change. For each step, the impact is presented in terms of energy (primary energy supply), environment (carbon dioxide emissions), and economy (total annual socio-economic cost). The steps are ordered in terms of their scientific and political certainty as follows: [1.]decommissioning nuclear power, [2.] implementing a large amount of heat savings, [3.] converting the private car fleet to electricity, [electric cars] [4.] providing heat in rural areas with heat pumps, [5.] providing heat in urban areas with district heating, [6.] converting fuel in heavy-duty vehicles to a renewable electrofuel, and [7.] replacing natural gas with methane. The results indicate that by using the Smart Energy System approach, A 100% renewable energy system in Europe is technically possible without consuming an unsustainable amount of bioenergy. This is due to the additional flexibility that is created by connecting the electricity, heating, cooling, and transport sectors together, which enables an intermittent renewable penetration of over 80% in the electricity sector. The cost of the Smart Energy Europe scenario is approximately 10–15% higher than a business-as-usual scenario, but since the final scenario is based on local investments instead of imported fuels, it will create approximately 10 million additional direct jobs within the EU.
Denmark uses renewables for all of it’s energy.
Arthur Neslen, Friday 10 July 2015 08.19 EDT
Wind power, Keep it in the ground, Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand

On an unusually windy day, Denmark found itself producing 116% of its national electricity needs from wind turbines yesterday evening. By 3am on Friday, When electricity demand dropped, that figure had risen to 140%.
Interconnectors allowed 80% of the power surplus to be shared equally between Germany and Norway, which can store it in hydropower systems for use later. Sweden took the remaining fifth of excess power.
“It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy,

Jerry WIlliams, 2016, Make Wealth History, https://makewealthhistory.org/about/(studied cultural studies, international relations and journalism,member of Transition Luton, a co-founder of the Post Growth Institute)
Iceland – Built as it is on a volcano, Iceland has tapped the earth’s natural warmth to supply 85% of the country’s housing with heat. Between geothermal and hydropower, the electricity supply is 100% renewable energy. Iceland has so much geothermal capacity that their ambassador to Britain is in discussions about whether or not they could build an interconnector into the UK grid.
Lesotho – The small mountainous African country of Lesotho also has practically 100% renewable electricity, thanks to the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. The network of dams exports water into South Africa, providing almost all of Lesotho’s power along the way. The project has its controversies, including serious corruption.
Albania – with large scale hydroelectric facilities, Albania used to be a net exporter of electricity. Unfortunately droughts have seriously reduced the capacity of its dams, and along with widespread corruption and the stealing of electricity, there are now power shortages. Nevertheless, the country runs on around 85% renewable electricity.
Paraguay – Itaipu dam, one of the world’s largest, provides 90% of Paraguay’s electricity and 19% of Brazil’s. It cost $20 billion, took 30 years to build, and displaces 67.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
Bhutan – Another small mountainous country that can boast electricity as one of its major exports, Bhutan wires 75% of its power to India.
Mozambique – Mozambique’s energy infrastructure tells a sad story, with the ambitious Cahora Bassa dam completed just in time for the outbreak of civil war. Underused throughout the 80s, it came back online recently and now exports electricity into South Africa and Zimbabwe.
Norway – Britain’s top three sources of electricity are gas, coal and nuclear. Norway’s ar[using] hydroelectric, geothermal and wind, but they’re an interesting case. Norway’s renewable energy sector has developed to serve the export market rather than domestic consumption. If you look at Norway’s generating capacity it would be around [is]98% renewable, but if you look at the country’s consumption, that falls to 24% because most of the clean energy Guarantees of Origin have been sold to neighbouring countries.
The harms of uranium, accidents, and a terrorist attack are harms of nuclear power that don’t exist with renewable energy. Thus, I affirm.