nuke power disad

8/14/2019 Nuke Power Disad

1/31

Nuke Power Da GeorgiaAff & Neg Novice Packet

Index

Index ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................11nc shell [1/2] ..............................................................................................................................................................................................21nc shell [2/2] ..............................................................................................................................................................................................3Uniq Nuke Power investment increasing ..................................................................................................................................................4

Uniq Increasing globally ...........................................................................................................................................................................5Uniq Renewables Low ............................................................................................................................................................................ ..6Uniq nuclear surpassing coal ........................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...7Link renewable energy ..............................................................................................................................................................................8Link decreasing energy demand ........................................................................................................................................... ...... ...... ...... ..9Link new renewable investment .......................................................................................................................................................... ...10Link RPS .................................................................................................................................................................................................11Link Wind ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ....12Link SPS .................................................................................................................................................................................................13Impact new construction key to nuclear leadership ................................................................................................................................14 Nuclear Leadership solves prolif .............................................................................................................................................. .................15 Nuclear Leadership solves prolif .............................................................................................................................................. .................16Nuke Leadership key to Nuke safety .........................................................................................................................................................17

A2 meltdowns ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ....18 Nuclear power solves warming ..................................................................................................................................................................19Nuclear power solves oil dependence ........................................................................................................................................................20A2 nuke power risks prolif .....................................................................................................................................................................21Non-Unique Global Nuke Power decreasing ..........................................................................................................................................22Non-Unique US nuclear power decreasing .............................................................................................................................................23Dont Trade Off ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ...24Subsidies mean nuke power inevitable ......................................................................................................................................................25 Nuke Leadership fails ................................................................................................................................................................................26Nuke Leadership alternate causes ...........................................................................................................................................................27 Nuke Power causes prolif ..........................................................................................................................................................................28Nuke Power Bad meltdowns shell ..........................................................................................................................................................29A2 nuke power solves warming ..............................................................................................................................................................30A2 nuke power solves oil dependence ....................................................................................................................................................31

Increases in alternative energy trade off with the development of nuclear power here in the United States. The disad claims thatnuclear power is growing now but the plan makes it weaker. Nuclear energy is good because it prevent global proliferation byallowing the United States to maintain the leader of the technology.

The affirmative has good uniqueness cards as well as a meltdown impact turn that claims nuclear energy will cause a meltdownthat will hurt humanities ability to reproduce.

There are answers to every major aspect of the disad.

Overall a fantastic little disad that links to every aff on the topic [except if someone reads nuclear power on the aff of course]

1


2/31


1nc shell [1/2]

UNIQUENESS- Nuclear power is inevitable globally the only question is whether the U.S. stays involved and

increases capacity. High oil prices are driving greater U.S. investmentRowley 08 (Anthony, The Business Times Singapore, US official sees global push towards nuke power, 5/23, lexis)

A MASSIVE global expansion of the role of nuclear power in generating electricity was forecast yesterday by US AssistantSecretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon during a visit to Tokyo. He was there for follow-up talks on the US-Japan jointnuclear energy action plan agreed last year between the two countries. He spoke as the price of oil touched new records,underlining the need for alternative energy sources. By the middle of this century, as many as 86 countries around the world couldbe using nuclear energy as a major power source compared with 31 at present, Mr Spurgeon suggested. This will require not onlymassive capital investment in new plants and expansion of the nuclear power industry but also a strong 'infrastructure' to preventproliferation of nuclear weapons, he said. He acknowledged that the US needed to 're-establish' its own nuclear manufacturingcapability, having allowed it to run down when nuclear power fell out of favour during a long period of low oil prices. Japanmaintained a 'healthy (nuclear) research and development programme even when the US programme was declining', he said.'Japan and the US will collaborate closely under the joint action plan, especially in the area of nuclear energy R&D,' he said,noting that Japan has achieved advanced technological capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle and in areas such as liquid metal-cooled fast reactors. Japanese capital will also be welcome in financing the crash programme of 34 reactors that the US envisagesbuilding, he said. Nuclear power currently supplies 16 per cent of totals US electricity generation needs and in order to raise this

to 30 per cent by the year 2030, the US will require 30 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity, Mr Spurgeon said. If the US decides toraise its nuclear generation to a level where it can meet 50 per cent of total electric power requirement by the year 2050, that willrequire another 300 gigawatts of nuclear capacity. Given current problems of energy prices and energy security as well as the needto reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions around the world, a global shift to nuclear power seems inevitable, he suggested.But it will be essential to build an infrastructure of nuclear fuel services in order to prevent a proliferation of nuclear weapons.

LINK- Increasing renewable investment decreases demand for nuclear power and makes it less competitive this

tradesoff with new nuclear investmentAsselstine, 08 Managing Director at Lehman Brothers (James, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH

Fifth, the companies and investors will require assurance that the price of power to be generated by a new nuclear plant will becompetitive with other alternatives, including coal and gas-fired generation, and renewable energy resources. This may pose a

special challenge for the initial group of new nuclear plants because it is likely that the industry will incur $300-$500 million infirst-of-a-kind engineering costs for each new nuclear plant design in order to develop the detailed engineering design informationrequired to satisfy the NRC's design certification process. Depending upon how these engineering design costs are allocated, thiscould significantly increase the cost of the initial new plants. Finally, as is the case with any new proposed generating project, thecompanies and investors will need confidence that the power from the new plant is needed , and that the company will be able torecover its capital investment in the plant and earn a fair return on that investment. In the case of a regulated electric utility, thisconfidence will depend upon the state rate-setting arrangements that are in place for the new plant. In the case of an unregulated, ormerchant, generation company, this confidence will depend upon any contractual arrangements to sell the output of the plant, andupon studies of power market conditions in the region in which the plant will be located.

2


3/31


1nc shell [2/2]Nuclear power is inevitable globally - expanding nuclear power construction is vital to U.S. nonproliferation

leadershipBENGELSDORF, 07 consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned withinternational nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S.

NONPROLIFERATION POLICY, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May,

http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH

The U.S. has and should continue to be able to influence the nonproliferation regime as a superpower in the years ahead. However, a policy that significantly strengthens the U.S.civil nuclear infrastructure will not only help the United States to build new nuclear power plants, but will also enhance its abilityto advance its nonproliferation agenda. The U.S. will need to actively pursue several key objectivesNew Nuclear Plant Orders

Consumer countries are likely to turn for support and assistance to those states possessing the most vigorous domestic nuclearpower programs that are placing new power plant orders, extending international fuel cycle services, and maintaining leadership roles in supporting innovative improvements inadvanced technologies. This suggests that the influence of the U nited States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able toachieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. Conversely, if the 2010 initiative falters, orif U.S.companies only are given subordinate roles in processing new plant orders, then this can only further weaken the U.S. nuclear infrastructure aswell as the stature of the U.S. in the international nuclear community. Experts believe that the U.S. nuclear infrastructure is capable of sustaining the goals of the 2010program, but this will require the resolution of a number of formidable problems, including arrangements for the acquisition of long lead time components and coping with anticipated shortages of experiencedpersonnel.Maintaining the U.S. as a Significant Global SupplierThe health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will also be crucial to the success of U.S. efforts to play a significant role as a nuclear supplier and to advance its nonproliferation objectives.

There is a clear and compelling upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world that is independent of U.S.policy and prerogatives . As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are mostconducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure . Perhaps moreimportantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so moreeffectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs.Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedentedin nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosures of the nuclearoperations of A.Q. Khan. These developments underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers. Theyalso underscore the importance of the U.S. maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is perceived as a major technologicalleader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology.As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market. However, if the U.S

nuclear infrastructure continues to erode, it will weaken the ability of the U.S. to participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S.becomes more dependent on foreign nuclearsuppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policywill diminish.

It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor, uranium enrichment, and spent fuel storage and disposalindustries that cannot only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote effective safeguards and othernonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation other countries. The U.S. should establish a high prioritygoal to rebuild an indigenous nuclear industry and support its growth in domestic and international markets. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influenceother states nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires . The U.S. has so-called consent rights over theenrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipmentthat the U.S. has supplied.The percentage of nuclear materials, including separated plutonium, that are subject to U.S. consent rights will diminish over time as new suppliers of nuclear materials and facilities take a larger share of theinternational nuclear market. Unless the U.S. is able to compete effectively in the international market as a supplier of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology, the quantity of the nuclear materials around the globethat the U.S. has control over will diminish significantly in the future. This may not immediately weaken the effectiveness of the nonproliferation regime since all the major suppliers have adopted the export

guidelines of the Nuclear Supplier Group. However, only the U.S., Australia and Canada have consent rights over enrichment and reprocessing of the nuclear materials subject to their agreements. Consequently, ifthere is a major decline in the U.S. share of the international nuclear market, the U.S. may not be as effective as it has been inhelping to ensure a rigorous system of export controls.

IMPACT- Proliferation leads to extinction.Victor A Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis, Summer 2002,Survival, p.87-90In sum, widespreadproliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclearweapons, and that such shoot outs willhave a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclearproliferation is stopped, we are headed towards a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, ifnot all, nations wearing nuclear six shooters on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but everyonce in a while we will all gather together on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations .

3
http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)%20//DHhttp://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)%20//DH


4/31


Uniq Nuke Power investment increasing

New demand is driving the expansion of nuclear powerPeterson 8 -Scott, Vice President-Communications of Nuclear Energy Institute (Speech given 41st Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Conference,4-15-08, Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction in theUnitedStates,http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/petersonspeech0415/ //VR)

But today, more than ever, nuclear energys clean air benefits are playing a significant role in OECD countries. And that carbon-free electric production is attractive to developing nations that are exploring nuclear power as part of their energy future. Carbonreduction. Energy security. The need for baseload electric supply. Energy diversity. Economic electricity production. These arejust some of the attributes that are prompting the global resurgence in nuclear energy.They also are many of the same attributes that drove the rapid expansion of nuclear energy in this country, in the United States andin other nations, like France, after the Middle East oil embargoes of the early 1070s. U.S. energy companies are again consideringconstruction of advanced nuclear power plants because the fundamentals of the electric power business demand it. The need fornew baseload generating capacity is unmistakable. In fact, four of the countries regions are dangerously below accepted reservemargins for electric capacity.Moreover, the U.S. electric sectors dependence on natural gas exposes our customers to unnecessary price volatility, and ourcompanies to unwelcome political stress and regulatory pressure. And uncertainty over future controls on carbon emissions willcast a cloud over coal-fired power generation for as long as we avoid our responsibility to address the climate change issuesquarely.

Nuclear energy investment is increasing now new license applicationsPopular Mechanics, 8 (Mark Wolverton, New Spin on Nuclear Power, May 2008. Vol. 185, Iss. 5; pg. 20, Proquest)/AK

Nuclear power, which already supplies 20 percent of the electricity in the United States, is a leading option for addressing thecountry's energy crunch. In 2007, operators filed license applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for seven newreactors; experts say double that number could be filed this year. But with more nuclear power plants would come the need formore enriched uranium.

Nuclear power is experiencing a renaissance high natural gas prices and increased federal subsidiesHOLT 7 -CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, (Mark, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: "AMERICAN NUCLEARENERGY IN A GLOBALIZED ECONOMY" SESSION II: WHAT IS THE INVESTMENT CLIMATE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY?; June 18, L/n rday

Now, you know, we've heard a lot of the talk about the plants that are not being ordered, but being discussed or that a lot of utilitiesand other entities have announced that they do plan to apply for the combined operating licenses that we discussed last night -- thenew license process. That, of course, is a big change. It's not like an order, but it is a big change. So CRS was asked to look into this and, you know,what is the likelihood of the viability of these plants that are being talked about and is there a new wave of orders possibly coming along.

So what has changed? Clearly, the number one change, as I mentioned, natural gas was the generation fuel of choice. Natural gas priceswent up quite a bit. That was probably the number one change. And of course, the apparent need for new base-load capacity. Thenatural gas plants, although they were built as potentially base-load plants -- and that was a new technology, the combined cycletechnology to allow natural gas to efficiently be used as a base-load generating technology. They actually were not necessarilybuild as base-load, because the capital costs are so low that they can be operated at a much lower level and still be economicallyviable. That gave them a lot of flexibility and that was part of their attraction.But it appears that there is now, after many, many decades, a need for a new base-load capacity, which is where nuclear comes in.They almost have to be run at base-load to even hope to be economically viable. And then changes in federal policy to beexplicitly, in many cases, pro-nuclear, have changed the scene a little bit. So CRS has done a number of cost -- a couple of cost estimates recentlyand we're trying to update. And I'll just discuss the one that I did with my colleague Larry Parker first.

NRC license applications are increasingWilliams, 8 Selina, of Dow Jones Newswire (UPDATE:US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too Small-NRC, March 10, 2008,http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm)/ AKJaczko = NRC regulator

To date, the NRC has received five complete applications and one partial application for licenses to operate and construct a nuclearpower plant, Jaczko said. He expects to receive 17 applications for 30 nuclear power reactors with around 45 GW of capacity overthe next two to three years. It's not yet clear how many licenses will be approved, Jaczko said.

4
http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm)/%20AKhttp://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm)/%20AK


5/31


Uniq Increasing globally

Expansion of nuclear energy and uranium mining worldwide nowFertel 8- Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute (Marvin, 03-05-08, speech to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/ferteltestimony_030508/)

The United States faces major demand for new base-load electricity generation. The Administration and Congress both haverecognized that nuclear power plants are critical to meeting electricity supply and for addressing climate change issues. The 104operating nuclear power plants represent about 11% of installed capacity; however, they provide nearly 20% of electricity demand. In response, the nuclearindustry is in an expansion mode. One of the strengths of the nuclear option relative to other energy sources is forward price stability. In the face of rising energycosts to consumers, ensuring a predictable, reliable nuclear fuel supply is essential to being able to continue to offer the benefits of nuclear energy to our electricity

consumers. Expansion of nuclear energy is also occurring throughout the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency isprotecting about a 15% increase in the number of operating reactors by 2020. This world wide expansion requires the expansion of the worldsuppliers of nuclear fuel cycle services. This is why it is important for U.S. utilities to have access to international suppliers.

In 2007 utilities submitted to the NRC combined license applications for 7 new nuclear power plants and additionalannouncements account for 24 more plants. This expansion is predicated on a reliable and economically competitive nuclear fuelsupply. Numerous mining and milling companies have reactivated or have submitted applications to states and/or the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) for uranium mines and mills. In 2007 Converdyn, working with Honeywell, increased the conversion capacity ofthe Metropolis, IL facility. USEC has licensed a new enrichment facility which is currently in the demonstration phase, LES has licensed and begun construction oa new enrichment facility, and AREVA and General Electric have both announced plans for new enrichment facil ities. The billion of dollars in financing for thesefacilities is proceeding under existing law. It is critical to the utilities, nuclear fuel suppliers, and the country that everyone succeeds. In this environment, the RSA

must be viewed in terms of the overall fuel supply market and how perturbations in one facet of the market can have ramifications across all sectors.

Global Nuclear power production rapidly increasing warming fears, and fossil fuel pricesPublic Utilities Fortnightly 8, (Nuke Revival: When It Rains, It Pours, January, L/n, )

Presently there are 435 operational reactors in 30 countries - 166 in Europe, 104 in the U.S. - providing roughly 15 percent of the world's energy. The proportionvaries from zero to marginal - 2 percent in China - to significant - 20 percent in the U.S. and the U.K. - to dominant - 78 percent in France, for example.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), some 32 nuclear power stations are currently under construction -16 of them in Asia, where growth prospects are the best. The IAEA says nuclear power's share of global energy is likely to grow to27 percent by 2030 because of environmental concerns and depletion and/or rising price of fossil fuels.The World's Nuclear Association (WNA), a trade group based in the U.K., counts 439 operating nuclear plants worldwide,claiming 94 more are planned for development with another 222 proposed.China plans to build 30 new reactors by 2020, increasing nuclear's share from 2.3 percent to 6 percent-roughly 40,000MW. By2050, the aim is to have at least 150,000MW of installed nuclear capacity, 22 percent of the electricity mix. India plans to expandits share of nuclear-generated energy eightfold to 10 percent by 2022.

Nuclear energy increasing worldwide and in the U.S.Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy Independence andGlobal Warming, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony)

At a global level, 439 nuclear plants produce 16 percent of the worlds electricity while avoiding the emission of 2.6 billion metrictons of CO2 each yearand a new build renaissance is underway.There are 34 nuclear units under construction worldwide including seven in Russian, six in India, and five in China. In the UnitedStates, we have one, the 5-year, $2.5 billion completion of TVAs Watts Bar 2 underway.In the United States, 17 companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors. Fivecomplete or partial applications for construction/operating licenses (COLs) were filed with the NRC in 2007. Another 11 to 15 areexpected in 2008.

5


6/31


Uniq Renewables Low

Other renewable are failing in the electricity sector restraints and oppositionBosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law

(Fred, THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICALADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER, 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)

Proposals for greater renewables dont translate to actionBosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law

(Fred, THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICALADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER, 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)

Few people would disagree with the idea that renewable energy research and development is desirable , and support for such workcontinues to come from both the public and private sectors. Virtually every day brings news of a new proposal somewhere in theworld to develop another system of producing electricity renewably, 115but few energy analysts believe that new systems oflarge-scale renewable generation are likely in the next few decades. 116

6
http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n105http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n106http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n107http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n108http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n109http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n110http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n111http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n115http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n116http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n105http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n106http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n107http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n108http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n109http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n110http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n111http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n115http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=49&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n116


7/31


Uniq nuclear surpassing coal

Nuclear power succeeding over clean coal in the status quo high coal prices, and environmental oppositionPublic Utilities Fortnightly 7, Next-gen technologies face to dominate the big build. PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY July,2007, L/n

Yet in the race to build the next fleet of base-load power plants, nuclear seems to be gaining ground on coal. The reasons arecomplex, but they come down to this: Coal is no longer cheap."The economics have changed dramatically," Christopher says. "Coal prices and rail costs have risen. That's the number-one driverfor new nuclear power in the United States."Environmental factors also are impeding coal's progress. Virtually every major pulverized-coal fired power project faces publicopposition on environmental grounds, and these concerns have driven some project sponsors--including FPL, TXU, Duke, andSempra--to scale back or cancel plans to build new pulverized-coal plants. Further, uncertainties about future carbon regulationhave increased risks and costs for new coal-fired projects."With the last 18 months of discussions around global warming, coal has become more of a challenge," says Jim Suciu, presidentof global sales for GE Energy. "A lot of people are having difficulty permitting coal plants, and coal will see more carbon pressure.Nuclear doesn't have that element."

7


8/31


Link renewable energy

Nuclear power and renewables tradeoff investment capital is finite and nuclear is winning nowMarshall, 08 (Christa, CLIMATE: Nuclear question is radioactive in Hill debate, Environment and Energy Daily, 3/13, lexis)//DH

"The private capital market isn't investing in new nuclear plants, and without financing, capitalist utilities aren't buying," saidAmory Lovins, the co-founder and chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit energy research organization, said atthe House Select Committee on Energy Dependence and Global Warming hearing.The creation of new power plants actually worsens global warming, Lovins said, because it saps investment money from lower-cost renewable energy options such as wind power.But more than a dozen companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors and spending millions on"developing, submitting and defending" existing applications, said Alex Flint, senior vice president of governmental affairs at theNuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group."Financing will be available for nuclear power under the right conditions," Flint said.Flint added that billions in new federal loan guarantees to promote the construction of new plants cost the government nothing,prompting a sharp retort from committee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

Nuclear power and renewable energy tradeoff investment capital is finiteHanley, 08 (Paul, Nuclear industry spins new mythology, 6/24, The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan), lexis) //DHAmory Lovins = chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute

According to Amory Lovins, reducing carbon emissions would be cheaper and safer if nuclear was rejected in favour ofalternatives that are sustainable. "The bottom line is that nuclear buys two to 10 times less climate protection than its competitors."Investing in the nuclear option in Saskatchewan would suck up all the capital that would be spent more cost-effectively onrenewable energy, efficiency and conservation.

8


9/31


Link decreasing energy demand

Decreasing electricity demand empirically undermines nuclear powerPeterson 8 -Scott, Vice President-Communications of Nuclear Energy Institute(Speech given 41st Japan Atomic Industrial ForumConference, 4-15-08, Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction in theUnitedStates,http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/petersonspeech0415/)

And finally, we were building under difficult business and economic conditions. Growth in electricity demand slowed from 6 to 7percent a year to 1 to 2 percent. Many utilities intentionally slowed construction . The prime lending rate for financing hit 20percent in the early 80s. As project schedules stretched out, costs increased and companies were forced to borrow more money atdouble-digit interest rates.The 1980s were somewhat dark days for nuclear power. Remember that back then, the average annual capacity factor of U.S.nuclear plants was in the mid-50-percent range. Refueling outages ran, on average, more than three months.

9


10/31


Link new renewable investment

Increases in renewables take investments from nuclear power.Time, 8 (Bryan Walsh, Is Nuclear Power Viable, 6/6/08, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812540,00.html, AG)

But to Amory Lovins a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute there's a much better green

reason to be against nuclear power: economics. Lovins, an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers, argues ina report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. In his study, titled "TheNuclear Illusion," he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry including wind and solar last year attracted $71billion in private investment, the nuclear industry attracted nothing. "Wall Street has spoken nuclear power isn't worth it," hesays.More nuclear subsidies, which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for, won't do the trick either. Lovins notes that the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century, andthat federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant roughly how much it now costs to build one still haven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. At the same time, the price of building a

plant all that concrete and steel has risen dramatically in recent years, while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk. Nuclear supporters like Moore who argue that atomicplants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs, not to mention the huge liability risk of anaccident the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant, so it's up to government to do so. Conservatives like Republican presidential candidateJohn McCain tend to promote nuclear power because they don't think carbon-free alternatives like wind or solar could be scaled up sufficiently to meet rising power demand, but McCain's idea of a crash constructionprogram to build hundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just as unrealistic.

10


11/31


Link RPS

A national RPS will decrease investment in nuclear powerSovacool and Cooper, 07 - *Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor ofGovernment and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a nationalnon- profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy

(Benjamin and Chris, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), June,http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdf)

Often overlooked, is how RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the U.S. Researchers inNorth Carolina, for example, determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize theenvironmental impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.240 In Oregon, the GovernorsRenewable Energy Working Group analyzed a 25 percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every 50 MW of renewableenergy would displace approximately 20 MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power.241 Environment Michigan estimates thata 20 percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities.242

Utilities in Ontario, Canada, are deploying renewable energy systems in an attempt to displace all coal and nuclear electricitygeneration in the region entirely.243

A national RPS decreases nuclear power and clean coal investment

Fershee, 08 assistant professor of law at the University of North Dakota (Joshua, 29 Energy L. J. 49, CHANGINGRESOURCES, CHANGING MARKET: THE IMPACT OF A NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD ON THEU.S. ENERGY INDUSTRY, lexis)

Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other types ofgeneration that utilities have considered. Some utilities, for example, have been considering building new nuclear generationfacilities. n113 A national RPS would seem to make that less appealing, although it is not entirely clear that new nuclear facilities were that likely,or the best option, anyway. Nonetheless, a national RPS, at least absent a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions' cap, would add another hurdle fornuclear investment. Clean coal technologies, another major generation source in development, n114 would face similar hurdles,unless, of course, the national RPS were to include clean coal as a renewable source. And, of course, what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer. n115

A national RPS picks renewables as the winning technology at the expens of nuclear power and clean coal

Josten, 07 - Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce, Letter to Rep. John Dingelland Rick Boucher, 6/15,http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf)

One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are renewable. Clean,safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal technology have typically been excludedfrom this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers.Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standardwhich, again, the Chamber does not considernecessarythen it must strive to be as inclusive as possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy production, there is no legitimatereason why certain clean, safe energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit.

A federal RPS will artificially hinder nuclear powerSpencer, 07 senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation (Jack, Congress Should Not Overlook Benefits of Nuclear Energy,

11/14, http://www.heritage.org/research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1704.cfm)

Most of the bills focus too much on the process of energy production rather than on the product itself. For example, some language under considerationexcludes nuclear power by creating mandates that can only be fulfilled with other sources of energy; or it creates so-calledrenewable portfolio standards that mandate only certain types of energy production.This approach artificially eliminates energy sources that are compatible with Congress's proclaimed goals of reducing CO2emissions and energy dependence. Nuclear technology is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly energy source. Itcan generate massive amounts of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources.

11
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdfhttp://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdfhttp://www.heritage.org/research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1704.cfmhttp://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdfhttp://www.heritage.org/research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1704.cfm


12/31


Link Wind

Renewable energy trades off with nuclear energy investment.Lovins et. al, 8 veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and AlexMarkevich, Forget Nuclear, Spring 08, http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php, AG)

Nuclear power, were told, is a vibrant industry thats dramatically reviving because its proven, necessary, competitive, reliable,safe, secure, widely used, increasingly popular, and carbon-freea perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal power. Newnuclear plants thus sound vital for climate protection, energy security, and powering a growing economy.Theres a catch, though: the private capitalmarket isnt investing in new nuclear plants, and without financing, capitalist utilitiesarent buying. The few purchases, nearly all in Asia, are all made by central planners with a draw on the public purse. In the UnitedStates, even government subsidies approaching or exceeding new nuclear powers total cost have failed to entice Wall Street.This non-technical summary article compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success,deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains whysoaring taxpayer subsidies arent attracting investors. Capitalists instead favor climate-protecting competitors with less cost,construction time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no serious rivals, let alone those competitorswhich,however, already out produce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster.

Renewables offset natural gas and nuclear powerDr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and AdjunctAssistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of theNetwork for New Energy Choices

(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing AmericaThe Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Renewable energy offsets nuclear power.

Studies from Michigan, North Carolina, and Oregon found that renewable generation displaces new nuclear reactors and decreasesthe mining of uranium. A national RPS saves billions of gallons of water.

Conventional and nuclear power plants will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than Americas farmers usefor all the irrigated agriculture in the entire nation (over 3.3 billion gallons each day).A nuclear reactor requires 600 times as much water to generate the same amount of electricity as a wind farm. A coal-fired plant uses 500 times as much water as a wind farm; A gas-fired plant uses 250 times as much. Asingle 100-watt solar panel saves up to 3,000 gallons of water over its lifetime. // pg. 12

12


13/31


Link SPS

SSP undercuts the rationale for expanding nuclear powerGlaser 2000, (Peter, The World Needs Energy from Spacehttp://www.space.com/opinionscolumns/opinions/glaser_000223.html, 2-23-00) // CCH

The conversion of solar energy in space to usable power on Earth is the most plausible global alternative to nuclear power plants,with their attendant safety, decommissioning and plutonium proliferation issues.SSP can also be an integral part of global development. It can help boost economic growth and improve living standards. It is the only means towardincreased energy supplies compatible with the environment.

SPS will be used to replace current fossil fuel and nuclear plantsNansen, 95 - led the Boeing team of engineers in the Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Programforthe Department of Energy and NASA, andPresident Solar Space Industries (Ralph, Sun Power,http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/sunpower09.html)

The real potential, however, is the ability to add generating capacity as the demands for energy grow. After meeting new energy requirements we couldstart replacing the existing fossil fuel plants and obsolete nuclear plants. A large percentage of the current power plants in thecountry are wearing out, and maintenance costs are accelerating as they reach the end of their useful life. They could be replaced with solar power

satellites, thus eliminating the demand for fossil fuels as our major energy source and starting the process to clean up our atmosphere. Once thisis done, a more natural growth can occur. With the availability of ample low-cost electricity, the move could be made to replace a largeshare of the transportation requirements with electric power vehicles as well.

SSP will end oil dependence and reliance on nuclear powerNSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for StrategicSecurity; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease mankinds reliance on fossil fuels, aswell as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of nuclear materials that will almost certainly unfold if manymore countries in the world transition to nuclear power with enrichment in an effort to meet their energy needs with carbon neutralsources.

To the extent mankinds electricity is produced by fossil fuel sources, SBSP offers a capability over time to reduce the rate at which humanityconsumes the planets finite fossil hydrocarbon resources. While presently hard to store, electricity is easy to transport, and ishighly efficient in conversion to both mechanical and thermal energy. Except for the aviation transportation infrastructure, virtuallyall of Americas energy could eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground transportation, a movementtoward plugin hybrids would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground transportation to be powered by SBSP electricity.For those applications that favor or rely upon liquid hydrocarbon fuels, Americas national labs are pursuing several promising avenues of research to manufacturecarbonneutral synthetic fuels (synfuels) from direct solar thermal energy or radiated/electrical SBSP. The lab initiatives are developing technologies to efficiently

split energyneutral feedstocks or upgrade lowergrade fuels (such as biofuels) into higher energy density liquid hydrocarbons. Put plainly, SBSP could beutilized to split hydrogen from water and the carbon monoxide (syngas) from carbon dioxide which can then be combined tomanufacture any desired hydrocarbon fuel, including gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel. This technology is still in its infancy, andsignificant investment will be required to bring this technology to a high level of technical readiness and meet economic andefficiency goals.This technology enables a carbonneutral (closed carboncycle) hydrocarbon economy driven by clean renewable sources of power,which can utilize the existing global fuel infrastructure without modification. This opportunity is of particular interest to traditional oil

companies. The ability to use renewable energy to serve as the energy feedstock for existing fuels, in a carbon neutral cycle, is a total game changer that deservessignificant attention.Both fossil and fissile sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but dependence on the exact mix must be

carefully managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased use of nuclear powerisnot of particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning internal security mechanisms, it may be of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States might consider the security challenges ofwide proliferation of enrichmentbased nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so,having a viable alternative that fills acomparable niche might be attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fueldependence.

13
http://www.space.com/opinionscolumns/opinions/glaser_000223.htmlhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/doe.htmhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/doe.htmhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/sunpower09.htmlhttp://www.space.com/opinionscolumns/opinions/glaser_000223.htmlhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/doe.htmhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/sunpower09.html


14/31


Impact new construction key to nuclear leadership

Maintaining strong domestic nuclear capabilities is the linchpin of U.S. influence over nonproliferationBENGELSDORF, 07 consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned withinternational nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTUREAND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear

Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)//DH

Historically, the ability of the U.S. to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons has stemmed from many factors, not least ofwhich has been the political, military and economic power that the US has exercised in international affairs. The U.S. has usedmany tools to promote its nonproliferation objectives. One important instrument that the U.S. has employed for decades inbuilding the international nonproliferation system has been its ability to provide nuclear fuel, nuclear power plants and fuel cycleservices to countries on a reliable and stable basis, under strict nonproliferation controls and conditions .In the early days of the nuclear era, the U.S. essentially had a monopoly in the nuclear fuel supply market. This capability, among others, allowed the U.S. to

promote the widespread acceptance of nonproliferation norms and restraints, including international safeguards and physical protection measures, and, mostnotably, the NPT. The United States concluded agreements for cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy with other states, which require strict safeguards, physical

protection and other nonproliferation controls on their civil nuclear programs.

Moreover, the strength of U.S. civil nuclear capabilities gave it an important seat at the international table, not only in negotiatingthe norms that should govern the conduct of civil nuclear power programs to protect against their misuse or diversion to nuclearweapons, but also in shaping the key elements of the global nonproliferation regime . In addition domestic U.S. nuclear programs

have enabled the United States to make important contributions to achieving technical improvements in international safeguards,physical protection, and nuclear detection systems.However, the challenges now confronting the international nonproliferation regime come at a time when the U.S. commercialshare of the global nuclear market has declined and when there are serious concerns about the health of the U.S. nuclearinfrastructure.

U.S. nuclear leadership is decreasing because of the lack of new constructionDOE, 05 (Department of Energy,MOVING FORWARD WITH NUCLEAR POWER: ISSUES AND KEY FACTORS , FinalReport of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Nuclear Energy Task Force, 1/10,http://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/NETF_Final_Draft_0105.pdf)//DH

Central to meeting U.S. non-proliferation goals is U.S. leadership in the very business it created. But American leadership in thecommercial international field is seriously threatened, reducing our leverage with the rest of the nuclear world. In the early years,

Russia and the United States together controlled almost 90 percent of the global trade in peaceful nuclear products and services.Today, although the United States has a healthy and thriving domestic nuclear electricity generating structure, the rest of the U.S.nuclear enterprise is almost out of business. As early as 1976, President Fords administration lamented the fact that the U.S. share (and control) of theglobal trade in nuclear materials, hardware, and services had dwindled to 50 percent.Several countries have slowly weaned themselves of any need for U.S. support, goods, or services. Virtually all U.S. fuel and hardware vendors have beenabsorbed into foreign corporations. By 1996, 15 other countries had developed partial or complete nuclear fuel cycle capabilities with limited, or no, U.S. orRussian involvement. Some of these countries (e.g., Japan, China, South Korea, Argentina, India, and Brazil) could become very competitive nuclear suppliers tothe next growth era. Some have already established an independent multilateral cooperative network. China, for example, has developed indigenous cradle-to-

grave capabilities. This means that other nations will reap the benefits of supplying nuclear goods and services to support theindustrialization of developing nations and global energy demand and, by default, will have the capacity to define the character ofthe future global nuclear infrastructure.The facts suggest that we could move into a new nuclear era that involves little or no participation by, or benefit to, the UnitedStates. Other countries have announced aggressive growth plans for commercial nuclear power and will move ahead swiftly, withor without the United States. If it appears to them that we do not intend to participate in keeping nuclear power as a key energytechnology, those countries might decide to develop fuel cycle technologies and material- handling policies that meet lower non-proliferation standards. The influence of the United States will be respected in this sphere only to the extent that we participate inthe development and deployment of nuclear technologies in the future.

14
http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)//DHhttp://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/NETF_Final_Draft_0105.pdf)//DHhttp://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)//DHhttp://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/NETF_Final_Draft_0105.pdf)//DH


15/31


Nuclear Leadership solves prolif

Nuclear leadership is vital to enhancing U.S. influence in nonproliferation globallyBENGELSDORF, 07 consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned withinternational nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S.

NONPROLIFERATION POLICY, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May,http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH

The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure can have an important bearing in a variety of ways on the ability of the UnitedStates to advance its nonproliferation objectives. During the Atoms for Peace Program and until the 1970s, the U.S. was the dominant supplier in theinternational commercial nuclear power market, and it exercised a strong leadership role in shaping the global nonproliferation regime. In those early days, theU.S. also had what was essentially a monopoly in the nuclear fuel supply market. This capability, among others, allowed the U.Sto promote the widespread acceptance of nonproliferation norms and restraints, including international safeguards and physical protectionmeasures, and, most notably, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The United States concluded agreements for cooperation in

peaceful nuclear energy with other states, which require strict safeguards, physical protection and other nonproliferation controls on their civil nuclear programs.Today due to its political, military and economic position in the world, the United States continues to exercise great weight in nonproliferation matters.

However, the ability of the United States to promote its nonproliferation objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation withother countries has declined. The fact that no new nuclear power plant orders have been placed in over three decades has led toerosion in the capabilities of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, during the same period, the U.S. share of the globalnuclear market has declined significantly, and several other countries have launched their own nuclear power programs and have

become major international suppliers in their own right.It is highly significant that all but one of the U.S. nuclear power plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers and manufactures for light water reactors have now beenacquired by their non-U.S. based competitors. Thus, while the U.S. remains a participant in the international market for commercial nuclearpower, it no longer enjoys a dominant role as it did four decades ago. To the extent that U.S. nuclear plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers andmanufacturers are able to reassert themselves on a technical and commercial basis, opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferation can beexpected to increase. However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide plants and nuclear fuel technology and services on a competitive

commercial basis suggests that the U.S. will have to work especially hard to maintain and, in some cases, rebuild its nuclearinfrastructure, if it wishes to exercise its influence in international nuclear affairs.The influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to achieve success in its

Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond.There is a clear upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in theseprograms and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viabilityof the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies ofother countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs.

Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that areunprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosuresof the nuclear operations of A.Q. Khan. These developments underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of thenuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintaining effective policies to achieve these

objectives. Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is perceived as a major technological leader,supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology.As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime,regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market. However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructurehas begun to weaken the ability of the U.S. to participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes moredependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. toinfluence nonproliferation policy will diminish.It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not onlymeet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful

nuclear cooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states nuclear programs through the

nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called consent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in formor content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials andequipment that the U.S. has supplied.Further, the ability of the U.S. to develop improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistent and vigorous support fornuclear R&D programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support in order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As the U.S.Government expends taxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Generation IV initiative and other

programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and to U.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and source selection wherepossible.Finally, the ability of the United States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility ofthe U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital to implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitive nucleafacilities to other countries.

15


16/31


Nuclear Leadership solves prolif

The nonproliferation regime is effective but only if U.S. nonproliferation credibility can be maintainedBENGELSDORF, 07 consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned withinternational nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S.

NONPROLIFERATION POLICY, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May,http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH

The international nonproliferation regime has proved largely effective in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. Contrary topredictions made during the 1950s and 1960s that 20 to 30 states would possess nuclear weapons by the 1970s, by the year 2007only nine states have actually conducted nuclear weapons tests and a tenth (i.e., Israel) is widely regarded as possessing nuclearweapons. An eleventh, Iran, has engaged in activities in violation of its safeguards agreement with International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA), which it entered into pursuant to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons(NPT or Treaty). As a consequence, Iran is presently subject to sanctions by the United Nations (UN) Security Council. On theother hand, 183 non-nuclear-weapon states have faithfully adhered to their obligations under the NPT and have adopted a strongnonproliferation ethic.Despite the fact that earlier dire predictions have not been realized, the international nuclear nonproliferation regime now facesserious, new challenge s. These include the threats posed by the nuclear programs of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea(DPRK) and Iran; the clandestine marketing of sensitive nuclear materials and technology by A.Q. Khan; the procurementnetworks employed by such countries as Iran and the DPRK to support their respective nuclear weapons programs; and the risks

that terrorists may gain access to nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons-usable material.These difficulties come at a time when the international community is demonstrating an increasing interest in expanding the use ofcommercial nuclear power not only to meet growing energy needs but also to address the environmental problems produced byother energy sources.One of the key challenges that the nonproliferation regime faces is, therefore, to ensure that this projected growth in commercialnuclear power will take place under conditions that provide the maximum protection against the misuse of civil nucleartechnology for military or nuclear explosives purposes. At the same time, if this challenge is not met effectively, it willundermine the prospects of achieving the expanded use of peaceful nuclear power and the benefits that it can provide in thecoming decades.The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure can have an important bearing in a variety of ways on the ability of the UnitedStates to advance its nonproliferation objectives . During the Atoms for Peace Program and until the 1970s, the U.S. was thedominant supplier in the international commercial nuclear power market, and it exercised a strong leadership role in shaping theglobal nonproliferation regime. Today due to its political, military and economic position in the world, the United States continues

to exercise great weight in nonproliferation matters. However, the ability of the United States to promote its nonproliferationobjectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries has declined . The fact that no new nuclear power plantorders have been placed in over three decades in the U.S. has led to erosion in the capabilities of the U.S. civil nuclearinfrastructure. Moreover, during the same period, while the U.S. share of the global nuclear market declined significantly, severalother countries launched major nuclear power programs and became major international suppliers in their own right.

16


17/31


Nuke Leadership key to Nuke safety

Leadership in nuclear power is vital to influencing global reactor safetyDomenici, 04- Senator of the United States (Pete, A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy. pg. 218-219//DG

The United States has been a world leader in both the policy and technical aspects of nuclear energy. This nation operates more

nuclear power plants than any other country, and most of the world's operating nuclear power plants are based on u.s. LWRtechnology. Given:the projected growth in global energy demand as developing nations industrialize;our strategic interests in addressing nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear safety, economic competitiveness, and potential globalclimate change; andour need to satisfy growing domestic needs for energy in an environmentally responsible manner,the United States must regain its scientific and technological leadership in nuclear energy. This leadership will provide the

United States a key "seat at the table" at ongoing international discussions regarding the future implementation of nuclear

technologies, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear safety, and many other issues important to U.S. policy objectives.

The United States' leadership in nuclear technology is a vital component of our nation's foreign policy. Americanprominence in nuclear technology enables the United States to exercise considerable influence on the manner in which

nuclear technologies are applied worldwide. Strategies to prevent nuclear materials proliferation, nuclear safety practices, andsafeguards policy are directly influenced by U.S. technical leadership in the international community.

Reactor accidents are inevitable globally theyll occur outside the U.S.Cochran, 08 - Senior Scientist, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council (Thomas, CQ Congressional Testimony,4/23, lexis) //DH

4. Reactor safety is a significant concern and, to a degree not matched by any other power source, continued nuclear powergeneration is hostage to its worst practitioners. The most important factor affecting the safety of nuclear power plants is the safetyculture at the plant. In the United States and some OECD countries the safety culture at operating plants has improved over thepast two decades. While new reactor designs have improved safety and security features, over the next two to three decades, thesafety and security of nuclear plants in the United States and the rest of the world will largely be determined by the safety andsecurity of existing reactors. Several countries that already have nuclear plants, e.g., Russia, Ukraine, China, India, and Bulgaria,have notably weaker safety cultures than the nuclear enterprise merits. This is not a situation that the United States government asa whole or this Congress can control or resolve.Compounding the problem, expansion of nuclear power is projected to occur primarily in countries that currently have significantweaknesses in legal structure (rule of law), construction practice, operating safety and security cultures, and regulatory oversight,e.g. China and India. Securing commercial sales and "nuclear renaissance" exuberance have taken precedence over nuclear safetyand non-proliferation concerns. This is evidenced by the fact that since his election in May 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy hasoffered French reactors to such authoritarian, unaccountable, nontransparent, and corrupt governments as Georgia, Libya, theUAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, and Algeria (Nucleonics Week Vol.49. No. 7, Feb. 14, 2008). Consequently, if anothercatastrophic nuclear reactor accident occurs during the next couple of decades, it is more likely to occur in Russia, Ukraine, China,India, or another country with a poor safety culture, than in the United States. Several countries recently expressing an interest inacquiring nuclear reactors also have very high indices of industrial accidents and official corruption.

17


18/31


A2 meltdowns

Nuclear power is safe no accidentsBeller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas(Dr. Denis E, Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future, 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//markoff

No caveats, no explanation, not from this engineer/scientist. It's just plain safe! All sources of electricity production result inhealth and safety impacts. However, at the National Press Club meeting, Energy Secretary Richardson indicated that nuclear poweris safe by stating, "I'm convinced it is." 45 Every nuclear scientist and engineer should agree with that statement. Even mining,transportation, and waste from nuclear power have lower impacts because of the difference in magnitude of materials. In addition,emissions from nuclear plants are kept to near zero. 46 If you ask a theoretical scientist, nuclear energy does have a potentialtremendous adverse impact. However, it has had that same potential for forty years, which is why we designed and operate nuclearplants with multiple levels of containment and safety and multiple backup systems. Even the country's most catastrophic accident,the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, did not injure anyone. 47 The fact is, Western-developed and Western-operated nuclear power is the safest major source of electricity production. Haven't we heard enough cries of "nuclear wolf" fromscared old men and "the sky is radioactive" from [*50] nuclear Chicken Littles? We have a world of data to prove the fallacy ofthese claims about the unsafe nature of nuclear installations.

[SEE FIGURE IN ORIGINAL]Figure 2. Deaths resulting from electricity generation. 48

Figure 2 shows the results of an ongoing analysis of the safety impacts of energy production from several sources of energy. Of allmajor sources of electricity, nuclear power has produced the least impact from real accidents that have killed real people during thepast 30 years, while hydroelectric has had the most severe accident impact. 49 The same is true for environmental and healthimpacts. 50 Of all major sources of energy, nuclear energy has the least impacts on environment and health while coal has thegreatest. 51 The low death [*51] rate from nuclear power accidents in the figure includes the Chernobyl accident in the FormerSoviet Union. 52

New reactor designs solve the meltdown riskCFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy, April 25,http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ)

Repeat of Chernobyl-like meltdown. A dozen or so other Chernobyl-era nuclear plants with aging equipment are still operatingand expected to continue to operate for the next thirty yearswithin the former Soviet Union. Although their design flaws have forthe most part been addressed, some experts fear human error makes a future meltdown, however remote, still a possibility.Elsewhere, Chernobyl-like meltdowns are becoming unlikely, thanks mainly to developments in technology, IAEA DeputyDirector Tomihiro Taniguchi told the Associated Press. Others point to advanced technologies like pebble-bed reactors, which usegraphite pebbles and gases like helium as a coolant, and are safer, cheaper, and more efficient but leave greater waste thantraditional nuclear power plants. Plans for these kinds of reactors are in place in South Africa and the United States.

18
http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n45http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n46http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n47http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n48http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n49http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n50http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n51http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n52http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.htmlhttp://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n45http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n46http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n47http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n48http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n49http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n50http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n51http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=4a9f74e9d68358dde5b1da7c76fcc08d&docnum=42&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkAB&_md5=b940f69f179ebb657dc94d1baf8c0fbd#n52http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html


19/31


Nuclear power solves warming

Nuclear power is a critical solution to global warming alternatives will devastate the economyBowman 6-20 President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, (Frank L., States News Service, Testimony before theCommittee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONREDUCTION, 2008, L/n, rday)

First, we see a growing consensus that any credible program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and worldwide willrequire a portfolio of technologies and approaches, and that nuclear energy is an indispensable part of that portfolio. Thisconclusion is supported by an impressive body of mainstream research and analysis.And second, we believe it is imperative to address the major investment challenge facing the electric power sector as it seeks todevelop and deploy the low-carbon and zero-carbon technologies necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Federallegislation must obviously include targets and timetables for carbon reduction, but legislation must also help provide industry thetechnology and the means to achieve those targets and timetables. In our view, that will require an aggressive program of financingsupport-more aggressive and ambitious than anything in place today.The growing body of mainstream research and analysis shows that nuclear power is an important part of the portfolio required toreduce carbon emissions. The most recent came from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)'sInternational Energy Agency (IEA) last week. The IEA's 2008 Energy Technologies Perspective asserts that "A global revolution isneeded in ways that energy is supplied and used. Far greater energy efficiency is a core requirement. Renewables, nuclear power,

and CO2 capture and storage must be deployed on a massive scale."Last week's IEA report amplifies the findings in its World Energy Outlook, the pre-eminent global energy forecast, which waspublished earlier this year. In the 2008 edition of that forecast, the IEA analyzed what must be done to stabilize the concentrationof CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm)-the level judged necessary by the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange to avoid irreversible damage. In that scenario, world nuclear generating capacity more than doubles-from 368 gigawattstoday to 833 gigawatts in 2030.Even with this ambitious growth, the additional nuclear capacity does not shoulder the entire carbon reduction load: end-useenergy efficiency, improved efficiency of coal-fired power plants, and major gains in CO2 capture and storage are also necessary.This conclusion-that nuclear power is an essential component of any carbon reduction initiative- is unambiguous and beyondquestion. It is shared by leaders and governments around the world, including Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Mr. de Boer said last July that he had never seen a credible scenario forreducing carbon emissions that did not include nuclear energy.In addition to policy leaders, the world's scientific community agrees that nuclear energy must play a significant role in meetingthe dual challenges of electricity production and greenhouse gas reduction. The most recent assessment report from theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies nuclear energy as one of the "key mitigation technologies."Closer to home, analyses of the various legislative proposals that have come before Congress, including the modeling conductedby the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, all show that nuclear plant construction mustaccelerate in a carbonconstrained world. In EIA's analysis of the Lieberman-Warner legislation, the model forecasts more newnuclear capacity than could realistically be built during the forecast period. And in those modeling runs where nuclear energyexpansion is constrained, carbon emissions and carbon prices are higher, electric sector consumption of natural gas soars,electricity and gas prices are higher, and GDP losses are greater.

Nuclear power decreases CO2

Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute(Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming,http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony/ //VR)

Nuclear power plants generate over 70 percent of all carbon-free electricity in the United States. By using nuclear power insteadof fossil fuel-based plants, the US nuclear energy industry prevented 681 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2006.For perspective, the volume of greenhouse gas emissions prevented at the nations 104 nuclear power plants is equivalent to taking96 percent of all passenger cars off Americas roadways.

19


20/31


Nuclear power solves oil dependence

Nuclear power decreases oil consumption because of hybrid carsZawatsky, 08 chief executive officer of havePower, LLC. (Jay, Inside Track: Going Nuclear on Energy, The National Interest4/9,http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=17332] //DH

How is nuclear power the cure to all that ails us? Heres how: We import ten million barrels of oil every day. That costs us onebillion dollars every day, adding $365 billion each year to our trade deficit. Nearly all of that imported petroleum goes intotransportation fuels. Replacing all of the imported-oil horse

nuke power disad

Documents