PLS Nuclear Power Aff

SDI 2008 Nuclear Power Affirmative
The Facist ROFLCopters
Nuclear Power Affirmative

Nuclear Power Affirmative.............................................................................................................................................1
***1ac***.......................................................................................................................................................................4
OB1: SQ..........................................................................................................................................................................5
Advantage – coal.............................................................................................................................................................6
Advantage – coal.............................................................................................................................................................7
Advantage – coal – warming..........................................................................................................................................8
Advantage – coal – warming..........................................................................................................................................9
Advantage – coal – economy........................................................................................................................................10
Advantage – coal – environment...................................................................................................................................11
Advantage – coal – environment..................................................................................................................................12
Advantage – coal – environment..................................................................................................................................13
Advantage – nuclear power – heg.................................................................................................................................14
Advantage – nuclear power – heg.................................................................................................................................15
Advantage – nuclear power – prolif..............................................................................................................................16
Advantage – nuclear power – prolif..............................................................................................................................17
Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness.............................................................................................................18
Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness (econ)..................................................................................................19
Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness (heg)...................................................................................................20
Plan................................................................................................................................................................................21
OB2: Solvency..............................................................................................................................................................22
OB2: Solvency..............................................................................................................................................................23
OB2: Solvency..............................................................................................................................................................24
***Inherency***...........................................................................................................................................................25
Inherency: Political Gridlock........................................................................................................................................26
Inherency: No Loan Guarantees...................................................................................................................................27
Inherency: Federal Loans Inadequate...........................................................................................................................28
Inherenct: Nuclear Down..............................................................................................................................................29
***Electricity Demand***...........................................................................................................................................30
Electricity Demand Increasing......................................................................................................................................31
Inevitable: Coal or Nuclear...........................................................................................................................................32
Inevitable: Coal or Nuclear...........................................................................................................................................33
New Plants Needed.......................................................................................................................................................34
No Natural Gas Plants...................................................................................................................................................35
No Renewable Plants....................................................................................................................................................36
***Peak Coal***..........................................................................................................................................................37
Yes coal peak – US........................................................................................................................................................38
Yes coal peak – US........................................................................................................................................................39
Yes coal peak – US........................................................................................................................................................40
Yes coal peak – prefer our evidence..............................................................................................................................41
Yes coal peak – global – 2025.......................................................................................................................................42
Yes coal peak – China – 10 years..................................................................................................................................43
A2: Underground gasification......................................................................................................................................44
A2: High coal prices good DA......................................................................................................................................45
A2: Exporting clean coal tech good..............................................................................................................................46
A2: Regulate coal CP....................................................................................................................................................47
***Coal Bad***............................................................................................................................................................48
Yes new coal plants.......................................................................................................................................................49
Coal Demand Increasing- Its Bad.................................................................................................................................50
Coal = GHG Emissions.................................................................................................................................................51
Coal Destroys Ecosystems............................................................................................................................................52
Coal Bad: Mercury........................................................................................................................................................53
Coal Bad: Acid Rain.....................................................................................................................................................54
Coal Ash Bad................................................................................................................................................................55
Mining Bad: Mountaintop.............................................................................................................................................56
Mining Bad: Longwall..................................................................................................................................................57
1
Biodiversity/Eco-System Impacts.................................................................................................................................58
Biodiversity Outweigh Nuclear War.............................................................................................................................59
Biodiversity Good: Disease Module.............................................................................................................................60
***Clean Coal Bad***.................................................................................................................................................61
No Clean Coal Coming.................................................................................................................................................62
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Module................................................................................................................................63
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Pollution..............................................................................................................................64
Mercury Pollution Bad..................................................................................................................................................65
Clean Coal Bad: Pollution.............................................................................................................................................66
***Nuclear Superior to Coal***...................................................................................................................................67
Nuclear Key Getting off Coal.......................................................................................................................................68
Comparative: Nuclear Best...........................................................................................................................................69
Comparative: Uranium Mining Best.............................................................................................................................70
Comparative: Explosion vs. Coal Burning...................................................................................................................71
Coal bad – comparatively more radiation.....................................................................................................................72
Nuclear Safe: Comparative Evidence...........................................................................................................................75
***Hegemony***.........................................................................................................................................................76
Nuclear Policy Key.......................................................................................................................................................77
Nuclear Policy will Restore Credibility........................................................................................................................78
Strong Signal.................................................................................................................................................................79
Soft Power Key Hard Power.........................................................................................................................................80
Soft Power Solves Terrorism.........................................................................................................................................81
***Proliferation***......................................................................................................................................................82
Proliferation: U.S. Signal Key......................................................................................................................................83
Proliferation: Solvency- Model.....................................................................................................................................84
NPT Key Check Proliferation.......................................................................................................................................85
NPT Impacts..................................................................................................................................................................86
Proliferation Impacts.....................................................................................................................................................87
Proliferation Impacts.....................................................................................................................................................88
***Economy***...........................................................................................................................................................89
Economy: Nuclear Power.............................................................................................................................................90
Economy: Nuclear Power Key Jobs/Competitiveness..................................................................................................91
Cheap Electricity Key Economy: Nuclear Solves........................................................................................................92
Economy: Prices Add-on..............................................................................................................................................93
Manufacturing Sector Key............................................................................................................................................94
Competitiveness Key Hegemony..................................................................................................................................95
***Emissions/Warming***..........................................................................................................................................96
Solvency: Emissions Modeling ....................................................................................................................................97
Nuclear Stop Warming..................................................................................................................................................98
Nuclear Power Solves Warming...................................................................................................................................99
Solve Warming- Runaway..........................................................................................................................................100
No GHG Emissions.....................................................................................................................................................101
***Solvency***..........................................................................................................................................................102
Govt Action Key.........................................................................................................................................................103
Solvency: Loan Guarantees........................................................................................................................................104
Solvency: Loan Guarantee..........................................................................................................................................105
Solvency......................................................................................................................................................................106
Solvency: ....................................................................................................................................................................108
Solvency: Loan Guarantees........................................................................................................................................109
Solvency: Loans Key .................................................................................................................................................110
Loan Guarantee...........................................................................................................................................................112
Loan Guarantee Key....................................................................................................................................................113
***Waste***...............................................................................................................................................................114
Storage Safe: Dry Cask...............................................................................................................................................115
2

Coal Trick: Coal Worse Than Nuclear........................................................................................................................118
It Safe and So Clean....................................................................................................................................................119
Inevitable Trick: Waste Inevitable...............................................................................................................................120
***Politics***.............................................................................................................................................................121
Politics: Bush Take Credit...........................................................................................................................................122
Politics: It’s Popular....................................................................................................................................................123
Politics: Not Popular...................................................................................................................................................124
Politics: Presidential Candidates Like.........................................................................................................................125
Politics: Public Supports.............................................................................................................................................125
Politics: Bipart Support...............................................................................................................................................126
***A2***....................................................................................................................................................................127
2ac Risk Calculus........................................................................................................................................................128
A2: Trade-off...............................................................................................................................................................129
A2: Trade-off...............................................................................................................................................................130
A2: Co2 Caps CP........................................................................................................................................................131
A2: Terrorist Attacks...................................................................................................................................................132
A2: Radiation Exposure..............................................................................................................................................133
A2: Accidents .............................................................................................................................................................134
3
***1ac***
4
OB1: SQ
Observaton One: Nuclear Power Not Coming
Although policymakers believe that nuclear power is now a viable investment, private
investors have been hesitant. The construction of coal-fired power plants will begin to meet
the electricity needs of the United States if nuclear power plants are not built
Fred Bosselman (Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law) 2007 “The new power generation:
environmental law and electricity innovation: colloquium article: the ecological advantages of nuclear power”, New
York University Environmental Law Journal, lexis
Will a new generation of nuclear plants be built in the United States? The United States is the world's largest supplier of
commercial nuclear power. In 2005, there were 104 U.S. commercial nuclear generating units that were fully licensed
to [*3] operate, and they provided about 20% of the Nation's electricity. But no new nuclear plants have been built in
the United States for over twenty years. 2 Some policy makers and designers of such plants believe that they can now
build plants that avoid the mistakes of the past and produce power that is both safe and economical. 3 Although
Wall Street remains doubtful about the economics of such plants, the idea seems to be gaining momentum. 4 The Energy Policy Act of
2005 provided "Standby Support for Certain Nuclear Plant Delays," authorizing the Department of Energy to enter into up to six contracts with
sponsors of new nuclear power plants under which the federal government will guarantee to pay certain costs incurred by the sponsors in case
full power operation of the plant is delayed by litigation. 5 For individual projects, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has
consolidated its permitting processes and established an Early Site Permit (ESP) program to resolve in advance all on-site environmental issues
associated with the licensing of a new reactor. 6 Although no company has [*4] definitely committed to building a new plant,
companies have filed applications for more than two dozen plants that are in various stages of the permit process. 7 The NRC must take into
account various issues when deciding whether to allow these applications to go forward. Although Congress and the Administration have made
their support for new nuclear power plants clear, any decision to build a nuclear power plant requires the agreement of many entities, including:
(1) a company prepared to build it; 8 (2) financial backers willing to invest in it; 9 (3) federal policymakers and regulators; 10 (4) state energy
and environmental regulators; 11 and (5) a local community prepared to site it. 12 These entities will undoubtedly take into consideration a
wide range of issues, including safety, efficiency, profitability, health, and security. 13 [*5] This article concentrates only on one issue related
to that decision - an issue that often receives less attention than it deserves: How will the decision affect ecological processes and systems, both
in the United States and globally? 14 The article makes three arguments: (1) if nuclear power plants are not built, the gap will be
filled by more coal-fired power plants; (2) the impact of coal-fired power plants on ecological processes and systems
is likely to be increasingly disastrous; and (3) nuclear power's ecological impacts are likely to be neutral or even
positive.
Electricity increase demands are inevitable—New base-load generation will be required

EEI (Edison Electric Institute) July 2007 “Key facts about the electric power industry,
http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overview_and_statistics/nonav_key_facts
While efficiency improvements have had a major impact in meeting national electricity needs relative to new supply, the demand for
electricity continues to increase. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA),
consumer demand for electricity is projected to grow at an average rate of 1.5 percent per year through 2030.
Overall, electricity consumption is expected to increase by at least 40 percent by 2030. Today, our nation’s demand
for electricity is at an all-time high. American homes use 21 percent more electricity today than they did in 1978. Going forward,
electricity use will continue to grow as house sizes increase and consumers use more electric appliances and
devices. Yet, even as electricity use increases, the average American household’s total spending on electricity has fallen over time. As shown
on page 36, average annual expenditures on electricity fell from 2.7 percent of total household expenditures in 1994, to 2.5 percent of
household expenditures in 2004. To meet the increasing demand for electricity and to ensure fuel diversity and reliability, electric
companies must invest in new baseload power plants. According to EIA, 258 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity will be
needed by 2030.
5
Advantage – coal
Advantage One: Peak Coal
US coal production has already peaked – the most recent studies conclude that remaining
reserves are of LOW QUALITY and impossible to mine. Global coal reserves face a similar
fate, and will peak within 15 years
Richard Heinberg, Core Faculty member of New College of California and a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute,
widely regarded as one of the world's foremost Peak Oil educators. “Peak coal: sooner than you think,” Energy
Bulletin, May 21 2007 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919
Coal provides over a quarter of the world's primary energy needs and generates 40 per cent of the world's electricity. Two thirds of global steel
production depends on coal. Global consumption of coal is growing faster than that of oil or natural gas - a reverse of the
situation in earlier decades. From 2000 to 2005, coal extraction expanded at an average of 4.8 per cent per year compared to 1.6 per cent per
year for oil: although world natural gas consumption had been racing ahead in past years, in 2005 it actually fell slightly. Looking to the future,
many analysts who are concerned about emerging supply constraints for oil and gas foresee a compensating shift to lower-quality fuels. Coal
can be converted to a gaseous or liquid fuel, and coal gasification and coal-to-liquids plants are being constructed at record rates. This
expanded use of coal is worrisome to advocates of policies to protect the global climate, some of whom place great hopes in new (mostly
untested) technologies to capture and sequester carbon from coal gasification. With or without such technologies, there will almost certainly be
more coal in our near future. According to the widely accepted view, at current production levels proven coal reserves
will last 155 years (this according to the World Coal Institute). The US Department of Energy (USDoE) projects annual global coal
consumption to grow 2.5 per cent a year through 2030, by which time world consumption will be nearly double that of today. A startling report:
less than we thought! However, future scenarios for global coal consumption are cast into doubt by two recent
European studies on world coal supplies. The first, Coal: Resources and Future Production (PDF 630KB), published on April 5 by
the Energy Watch Group, which reports to the German Parliament, found that global coal production could peak in as few
as 15 years. This astonishing conclusion was based on a careful analysis of recent reserves revisions for several
nations. The report's authors (Werner Zittel and JÃ¶rg Schindler) note that, with regard to global coal reserves, "the data quality is
very unreliable", especially for China, South Asia, and the Former Soviet Union countries. Some nations (such as Vietnam) have not
updated their proved reserves for decades, in some instances not since the 1960s. China's last update was in 1992; since then, 20 per cent of its
reserves have been consumed, though this is not revealed in official figures. However, since 1986 all nations with significant coal
resources (except India and Australia) that have made the effort to update their reserves estimates have reported
substantial downward revisions. Some countries - including Botswana, Germany, and the UK - have downgraded their
reserves by more than 90 per cent. Poland's reserves are now 50 per cent smaller than was the case 20 years ago. These
downgrades cannot be explained by volumes produced during this period. The best explanation, say the EWG report's authors, is
that nations now have better data from more thorough surveys. If that is the case, then future downward revisions are
likely from countries that still rely on decades-old reserves estimates. Altogether, the world's reserves of coal have dwindled from
10 trillion tons of hard coal equivalent to 4.2 trillion tons in 2005 - a 60 per cent downward revision in 25 years. China (the world's primary
consumer) and the US (the nation with the largest reserves) are keys to the future of coal. China reports 55 years of coal reserves at current
consumption rates. Subtracting quantities consumed since 1992, the last year reserves figures were updated, this declines to 40 to 45 years.
However, the calculation assumes constant rates of usage, which is unrealistic since consumption is increasing rapidly. Already China has
shifted from being a minor coal exporter to being a net coal importer. Moreover, we must factor in the peaking phenomenon common to the
extraction of all non-renewable resources (the peak of production typically occurs long before the resource is exhausted). The EWG report's
authors, taking these factors into account, state: "it is likely that China will experience peak production within the next 5-15 years, followed by
a steep decline." Only if China's reported coal reserves are in reality much larger than reported will Chinese coal production rates not peak
"very soon" and fall rapidly. The United States is the world's second-largest producer, surpassing the two next important producer states (India
and Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Its reserves are so large that America has been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal". The US has
already passed its peak of production for high-quality coal (from the Appalachian Mountains and the Illinois basin) and has
seen production of bituminous coal decline since 1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has
more than compensated for this. Taking reserves into account, the EWG concludes that growth in total volumes can continue
for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of energy content US coal production peaked in 1998 at 598 million tons of oil
equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe. Confirmation: a second study The EWG study so contradicts widespread
assumptions about future coal supplies that most energy analysts would probably prefer to ignore it. However, an
even more recent study, The Future of Coal, by B. Kavalov and S. D. Peteves of the Institute for Energy (IFE), prepared for
European Commission Joint Research Centre and not yet published, reaches similar conclusions. Unlike the EWG team, Kavalov and
Peteves do not attempt to forecast a peak in production. Future supply is discussed in terms of the familiar but often misleading reserves-
< HEINBERG CONTINUES NEXT PAGE 1/2>
6
Advantage – coal
<HEINBERG CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE 2/2>
to-production (R/P) ratio. Nevertheless, the IFG's conclusions broadly confirm the EWG report. The three primary take-away
conclusions from the newer study are as follows: "world proven reserves (i.e. the reserves that are economically
recoverable at current economic and operating conditions) of coal are decreasing fast"; "the bulk of coal production and
exports is getting concentrated within a few countries and market players, which creates the risk of market imperfections"; and "coal
production costs are steadily rising all over the world, due to the need to develop new fields, increasingly difficult
geological conditions and additional infrastructure costs associated with the exploitation of new fields". Early in the
paper the authors ask, "Will coal be a fuel of the future?" Their disturbing conclusion, many pages later, is that "coal might not be so
abundant, widely available and reliable as an energy source in the future". Along the way, they state "the world could
run out of economically recoverable (at current economic and operating conditions) reserves of coal much earlier than
widely anticipated". The authors also highlight problems noted in the EWG study having to do with differing grades of coal and the
likelihood of supply problems arising first with the highest-grade ores. All of this translates to higher coal prices in coming years. The
conclusion is repeated throughout the IFE report: "[I]t is true that historically coal has been cheaper than oil and gas on an energy content basis.
This may change, however ... The regional and country overview in the preceding chapter has revealed that coal recovery in most countries will
incur higher production costs in future. Since international coal prices are still linked to production costs ... an increase in the global price levels
of coal can be expected ..." As prices for coal rise, "the relative gap between coal prices and oil and gas prices will most likely narrow", with
the result that "the future world oil, gas and coal markets will most likely become increasingly inter-related and the energy market will tend to
develop into a global market of hydrocarbons".
7
Advantage – coal – warming

Sub-point __ is warming
Increasing our reliance on coal for electricity generation will release enough emissions to
trigger runaway global warming – the impact is extinction
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, geologist and peak oil theorist, author of the widely-acclaimed books Giants in Their Steps
and The End Of The Oil Age. “Global Climate Change & Peak Oil,” Wilderness Publications 2004
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072004_global_climate3.shtml
As oil and natural gas production go into decline in North America, the alternative we will ultimately turn to is
coal-whether we like it or not. Coal is considered to be abundant in North America, and it is cheap. Despite all the talk of a hydrogen
economy, the real investment will go into stepping up coal production. In fact, the production of coal-fired power plants has already been
stepped up. As of February 2004, at least 100 new coal-fired electric power plants were planned to go up in more than 36
states.23 This new growth market is currently flying below radar, because once plans for a coal-burning plant are made public, they are liable
to be halted by the legislative efforts of environmentalists and neighborhood coalitions. If even half of these plants are
completed, they will increase exhaust gas emissions by 120 million cubic feet per minute. All the new coal plants
being proposed would add one-tenth of one percent to the world's annual carbon dioxide emissions.24 That may
not seem like much, but it is certainly a move in the wrong direction. And it is only the beginning. As the production of oil and
natural gas continues to slide, we will open up our coal reserves for electricity production, heating, industrial use, and to process coal into
liquid transportation fuel. In the process, we will increase our exhaust emissions, rip up vast areas of land, create immense slag dumps, and
pollute our waterways and groundwater. And we will require a major upgrade in our coal transportation network-that is, trucks and trains. You
can expect strong efforts from industry and politicians to turn back environmental laws regulating coal production and coal burning. It will be
argued that these regulations are damaging the economy. They will point to an economy choking from a constricting energy base, and they will
insist that they cannot provide the energy we so desperately need with all these legal restrictions. Power outages will act to blunt the
environmental sensibilities of the public. Perhaps the only salvation here lies in recent research (reported in FTW), that coal is likely to peak
sometime around 2032, if not sooner.25 This will leave us a little less than 20 years of stepped up production before coal joins the list of has-
beens. Then our carbon emissions really may begin to decrease. But the US is not the only country likely to turn to coal. China is also eying its
large reserves of coal, as is India. If the world's two most populous countries step up their coal consumption along with the US, then the decline
in petroleum and natural gas production will actually be greeted with a pronounced increase in carbon emissions. Peak oil will not be a
blessing in disguise with regard to global warming. The models of global climate change developed by the IPCC and others
have not taken into account the impacts of Peak Oil and the North American Natural Gas Cliff. These models are based on faulty
economic projections produced by neo-classical economics-a warped discipline which is blind to resource depletion.26 If we
turn to coal and biomass to make up for the decrease in oil and natural gas production, then it is likely that our actions will push
the average global temperature well beyond the 6º C threshold mentioned above. The end of the oil age could very well
push us into an age of runaway global warming. Coal will not be able to support the kind of energy-intensive economy
which we have built on oil and natural gas. It will be a faltering effort from a civilization in denial, intent on clinging to unsustainable ways. It
will fail in the end, but in this last mad burn-off of energy resources, we may very well incur the demise of life
on this planet.
8
Advantage – coal – warming

And, Runaway warming kills billions and collapses the global economy
Lester Milbrath (director of the Research Program in Environment and Society at the State University of New
York at Buffalo and a professor emeritus of political science and sociology) May 1994 The Futurist, “Climate and
chaos: societal impacts of sudden weather shifts”, lexis
Extreme weather conditions may cause population shifts and decreased agricultural output. Humanity might face
the ultimate test of survival. Climate modelers have been cautiously predicting that the earth will gradually warm in the years ahead,
producing similarly gradual changes in climatic patterns. For instance, the middle of North America will slowly grow arid. It continues…
Another scenario suggests that there could be an extended period, perhaps a decade or two, when there is oscillation-type chaos in
the climate system. Plants will be especially vulnerable to oscillating chaos, since they are injured or die when climate is too
hot or too cold, too dry or too wet. And since plants make food for all other creatures, plant dieback would lead to severe
declines in agricultural production. Farm animals and wildlife would die in large numbers. Many humans also would
starve. Several years of climatic oscillation could kill billions of people. The loss of the premise of continuity would also
precipitate collapse of would financial markets. That collapse would lead to sharp declines in commodity markets, world trade,
factory output, retail sales, research and development, tax income for governments, and education. Such nonessential activities as tourism,
travel, hotel occupancy, restaurants, entertainment, and fashion would be severely affected. Billions of unemployed people would
drastically reduce their consumption, and modern society's vaunted economic system would collapse like a house
of cards.
Independently, burning low quality coal provides less energy AND results in more
emissions – supercharges our impact
Dr G Lu, University of Kent. “Quantitative Characterisation of Flame Radical Emissions for Combustion
Optimisation through Spectroscopic Imaging,” Grant proposal 7/11/2008
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/G002398/1
The power generation industry relies heavily on coal despite the availability of other energy sources. The use
of low quality coals, and
coal blends from a variety of sources is becoming widespread in power plant for economic and availability
reasons. Co-firing coal with biomass on existing coal fired furnaces is recognised as one of the new technologies for reducing CO2 emissions
in the UK and the rest of the world. The changes in these fuel supplies have posed significant technical challenges for
combustion plant operators and engineers to maintain high combustion efficiency and low atmospheric emissions
including CO2, NOx, SOx and particulates. Despite various advances in developing the coal combustion and co-firing
technologies, a range of technological issues remain to be resolved due to the inherent differences in the physical
and combustion properties between coal and biomass. A typical problem associated with the use of low quality coal and
co-firing of coal and biomass is the uncertainty in the combustion characteristics of the fuels, often resulting in poor
flame stability, low thermal efficiency, high pollutant emissions, and other operational problems. To meet the stringent
standards on energy saving and pollutant emissions, advanced technology for improved understanding of energy conversion, pollutant
formation processes and consequent combustion optimisation in coal-biomass fired furnaces have therefore become indispensable. A flame, as
the primary zone of the highly exothermic reactions of burning fuels, contains important information relating closely to the quality of the
combustion process. Recent study has shown that the combustion process, particularly the pollutant emission formation processes, can be better
understood and consequently optimised by monitoring and quantifying radical emissions within the flame zone through spectroscopic imaging
and image processing techniques. It is proposed to develop a methodolgy for the monitoring and quantification of the radiative characteristics
of free radicals (e.g. OH*, CH*, CN* and C2) within a coal-biomass flame and consquently the estimation of the emission levels in flue gas
(e.g. NOx, CO2 and unburnt carbon). A vision-based instrumentation system, capable of detecting the radiative characteristics of the multiple
radicals simultaneously and two-dimensionally, will be constructed. Computing algorithms will be developed to analyse the images and
quantify the radiative characteristics of the radicals based on advanced signal processing techniques including wavelet analysis. The
relationships between the characteristics of the radicals and fuel type and air supplies will be established. The emission levels in flue gas will be
estimated based on characteristic features of the flame radicals obtained by the system. All data processing will be performed in an industrial
computer system associating with integrated system software including a graphic user-interface. The system developed will be initially tested
on a gas-fired combustion rig in University of Kent and then an industrial-scale coal combustion test facility run by RWE npower. A range of
combustion conditions will be created during the industrial tests, including different coal-biomass blends and different fuel/air flowrates. The
relationships between the emission characteristics of radicals and the chemical/physical properties of the fuels and the pollutant emissions will
then examined under realistic industrial conditions. The outcome of this research will provide a foundation for a new area within coal-biomass
combustion optimisation in which advanced flame monitoring techniques could help to predict emissions directly from the flame information
instead of the flue gas measurement, shortening the control loop for emissions reduction. Such techniques would greatly benefit the power
industry by allowing them burning fuels more efficiently and meanwhile reducing harmful emissions to the environment.
9
Advantage – coal – economy

Sub-point __ is the economy:
Peak coal means our window is closing – failure to begin transitioning away from coal
NOW guarantees global economic collapse
Evidence that coal resource limits may constrain CO2 emissions would seem to be good news for climate protection
advocates. However, the latter may be wary that industry-led opponents of emissions-reduction policies will seize on this new data to argue that
governments needn't do anything about emissions, since rates of coal extraction will decline in any case. Nevertheless it makes more sense
for climate activists to embrace the news and use it to advantage, rather than to deny or marginalise it. They can argue
that, even if society finds steep voluntary cuts in the use of coal to be economically onerous, there is really no
alternative: declines in production will happen anyway, so it is better to cut consumption proactively than wait and
be faced with shortages and price volatility later. The findings of the 2005 USDoE-funded Hirsch report (PDF 1.17MB) (Peak of
World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management) regarding society's vulnerability to peak oil apply also to peak
coal: time will be needed in order for society to adapt proactively to a resource-constrained environment. A failure
to begin now to reduce reliance on coal will mean much greater economic hardship when the peak arrives. The new
information about coal tells us that even if the economic price for carbon reduction is high, we have no choice but to
proceed. There is no "business-as-usual" option, even ignoring environmental impacts, given the resource
constraints. Nations that are currently dependent on coal - China and the US especially - would be wise to begin
reducing consumption now, not only in the interests of climate protection, but also to reduce societal vulnerability
arising from dependence on a resource that will soon become more scarce and expensive. The reports' findings are not
uniformly encouraging for climate matters, though. The IFE authors suggest that price increases for coal may discourage
deployment of technologies to capture and bury carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: in poorer countries,
"producing cheap and affordable electricity is more important than producing environmentally friendly
electricity". A wake-up call on coal Taken together, the EWG and IFE reports deliver a shocking message. For a world already concerned
about future oil supplies, uncertainties about coal undercut one of the primary strategies - turning supposedly abundant coal into a liquid fuel -
that is being touted for maintaining global transport networks. The sustainability of China's economic growth, which has
largely been based on a rapid surge in coal consumption, is thrown into question. And the ability of the US to
maintain its coal-powered electricity grids in coming decades is also cast into doubt. In summary, we now have two
authoritative studies reaching largely consistent conclusions with devastating implications for the global
economy. Surely these studies deserve follow-up reviews of the data by the International Energy Agency. If the EWG and IFE conclusions
hold, the world will need to respond quickly with an enormous shift in the directions of energy conservation and
development of renewable sources of electricity. Climate concerns are already drawing some nations in these directions; however, even
nations leading the efforts may not be proceeding fast enough. For China and the United States, the world's two most coal-dependent countries,
the message could not be clearer: whether or not global climate concerns are taken seriously, it is time to fundamentally revise the current
energy paradigm.
Economic decline causes global nuclear war

Mead 92 [Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28]
What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of
But what if it can't?
international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their
billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and
Japan did in the '30s.
10
Advantage – coal – environment

Sub-point __ is eco-system collapse:
Coal extraction destroys eco-systems. Technological improvements only ensure that speedy
extraction will come at the expense of the environment and clean coal technologies won’t be
online fast enough to reduce emissions
Virtually all of the coal mined in the United States is used as boiler fuel to generate electricity, 122 and although few users of that
electricity realize it, half of the nation's electric energy is provided by coal. 123 In his recent book, Big Coal, Jeff Goodell points out that in the United States, the mining and
combustion of coal typically occur in such remote locations that most Americans have no idea "what our
relationship with this black rock actually costs us." 124 This is particularly true with regard to public understanding
of ecological systems that are being destroyed in remote places or through chains of causation that only experts understand. Coal is ecologically
destructive through (1) mining, (2) air pollution, (3) greenhouse gas emissions, and (4) water pollution; and (5) while
so-called "clean-coal" technology is a long-range hope, it is not likely to be common in the next decade. 1. Coal
Mining Is Destroying Vast Amounts of Natural Landscape Originally, almost all coal mining took place through the
construction of a network of shafts underground from which coal would be cut and brought to the surface. Such "underground" mining still takes place in the
United States, 125 but each year a [*26] larger share of the mining is "surface" mining. 126 Both kinds of coal mining have an
impact on the landscape both directly and indirectly. Underground mining typically brings to the surface large volumes of
minerals, only some of which constitutes usable coal. The residue is known as "gob" or "culm" and residue piles from both
existing and abandoned underground mines are common sights in older mining areas. 128 The rain penetrates the piles
and leaches out the soluble material, creating sulfuric and other acids, which are supposed to be stored in impoundments on
the mine site but often flow directly into local watersheds or potable aquifers, particularly if the mine has been abandoned. 129
This kind of acid mine drainage pollutes streams throughout older mining regions, often turning them bright orange,
rendering the water non-potable and uninhabitable by wildlife, and changing the ecological processes on the
riparian landscape far beyond the mine site. Underground mining also destroys landscapes through subsidence. If a
mine shaft is not properly supported, its roof will collapse, which typically causes the surface of the earth over the mine to subside. In older mines, such subsidence regularly happened
only after a mineshaft was abandoned, but many newer mines use a system called "longwall" mining, which makes no attempt to support the roof over the area where coal is removed,
can change drainage patterns on the surface in ways that may
resulting in intentional subsidence. Both intentional and unintentional subsidence
destroy existing ecosystems. Even more directly damaging to the natural landscape is surface mining, which now
produces the majority of our coal. 132 The two most prominent examples of surface mining in the United States and the resulting ecological consequences are in the
Powder River Valley of Wyoming, and in a section of the Southern Appalachians that includes parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. 133 In both areas, surface mining is
used extensively, but the differences in the terrain result in quite different impacts. 134 The Powder River Valley is relatively flat and dry rangeland, supporting cattle and, in the streams,
trout. 135 The coal seams in this valley tend to be massive, and the parts that have been mined are relatively close to the surface. 136 The earth overlying the coal, [*28] known in the trade as
"overburden," is blasted with explosives and then removed by massive machines built for the purpose. 137 The scale of the operations is so large that seventeen Wyoming surface mines supply
over a third of U.S. coal consumption. 138 Despite the effects from the dust created in these operations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to classify such dust as
a non-pollutant. 139 In December 2005, the EPA issued proposed rules that would exempt mining operations in rural areas from dust emission regulations. 140 In the Southern Appalachians,
The current mining method is known as
surface mining is taking place in a forested landscape of rolling hills and mountains with relatively moist conditions. 141
"mountaintop mining," and involves blasting and scraping off the tops of mountains to obtain access to the coal
underneath. In an earlier era, this coal would have been accessed by underground shafts, but today's massive
machinery and cheap explosives makes it more economical to remove the mountaintop and use surface mining
equipment to take out the coal. 142 The rubble that was once the top of the mountain is simply dumped into a
valley adjacent to the mountain, creating what is euphemistically called "valley fill." The result is the destruction
[*29] not only of the ecological characteristics of the mountain itself but also of the adjacent valley. 143 Although this
destruction has been widely criticized, it continues to be supported by both federal and state regulating agencies. 144 Although reserves
of coal in the United States remain plentiful, the quality and accessibility of the coal is likely to decline. 145 "A good
percentage of the coal that's left is too dirty to be burned in conventional power plants, and much of it is buried in inconvenient places - under
homes, schools, parks, highways, and historical landmarks." 146 A future shortage of good quality coal may add to the
ecological destruction involved in coal mining by requiring more disruption to get at equivalent amounts of coal.
2. Coal Combustion Pollutes a Wide Range of Environments In their recent "Nutshell" book on energy law, Joseph Tomain and Richard Cudahy concisely summarize the primary types of air
pollution caused by coal combustion: [*30] Coal combustion generates four main sources of pollution: sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide,
carbon dioxide, and particulate matter; all of which spoil land, water, and air. Sulfur oxide, which increases with the sulfur
content of the coal, causes human health problems, crop damage, and acid rain. Nitrogen oxide contributes to the same problems and
causes smog. Tons of particulate matter are emitted from coal burning facilities daily and cause property damage and health hazards. Finally, carbon dioxide causes
what is known as the greenhouse effect, which is an increase in the temperature of the earth's surface. We have
long known that air pollution from coal combustion damages crops and natural vegetation, in addition to its impact
on human health. In the last thirty years, scientists have learned that pollutants from coal-burning power plants
travel long distances and create acid rain that significantly harms plants and animals.
11

Ecosystem loss risk extinction *Gender Modified*
David N. Diner (Judge Advocate General’s Corps of US Army) 1994 Military Law Review, Lexis
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death --
extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded
determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass
extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the
old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live
off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails,
and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to
find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many
direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the
environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional
ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value.
-- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of
basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of
the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept
that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not
most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations
could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on
it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4.
Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction
has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of
species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse
ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These
ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress.
. . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched
circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially
simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading
Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected
if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined
affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging
closer to the abyss.
Independently the threshold is invisible, if we lose 10% of biodiversity we face a wave of

extinction worse than any other historical epic
Peter Ward, Professor Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, 1994, The End of
Evolution, p. 251
No one disputes that the activities of mankind have caused extinctions in the recent and not so recent past; the phrase "dead as a dodo" is not
pure whimsy. But there is currently a great debate about the extent of man-made extinctions, and even more about the promise—or threat— for
the future. Ultimately, the entire issue devolves on numbers. But the numbers we need are very difficult to obtain: How
many species exist on the earth? How many have there been at various times in the past? How many species have gone extinct in
the last millennium, the last century, or even the last decade or year? And most important of all, how many will be gone in the next century, or
millennium, or million years? None of these numbers is directly obtainable; each has to be reached, if at all, by abstraction, inference,
deduction, or just plain guesswork. It is no wonder that critics of those trying to tell the world that we have entered a
period of mass extinction—and that it will only get much worse unless something is done—are having a field day.
"Species Loss: Crisis or False Alarm?" read the large headline in the August 2.0, 19911 edition of The New York Times. The article was in
response to an earlier edition of Science magazine, which had devoted a handful of articles to the question of global biodiversity and its
potential, impending loss. The major point of the Times article was that great skepticism concerning the more catastrophic estimates of species
loss seemed prudent, in light of the current very poor understanding of global biodiversity. Furthermore, various skeptics wondered if
even 10 percent of current world species diversity would be lost, and suggested that such a small loss would hardly
be noticed. This is the very point that remains so poorly understood or is willfully overlooked by those unconcerned about biodiversity loss:
A 10 percent loss of species at today's diversity makes the current extinction every bit as severe in actual number
of species deaths as any extinction in the past and may, in fact, indicate that a greater number of species is becoming
extinct than the combined total for the First and Second events.
12

And, Contamination of our freshwater destroys any possibility for life on Earth.
Robert B. Jackson and Steven W. Running Spring 2001 “Water in a Changing World”, Issues in Ecology,
Ecological Society of America, http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/issues9.pdf
Life on earth depends on the continuous flow of materials through the air, water, soil, and food webs of the biosphere. The
movement of water through the hydrological cycle comprises the largest of these flows, delivering an estimated 110,000 cubic
kilometers (km3) of water to the land each year as snow and rainfall. Solar energy drives the hydrological cycle, vaporizing water from the
surface of oceans, lakes, and rivers as well as from soils and plants (evapotranspiration). Water vapor rises into the atmosphere where it cools,
condenses, and eventually rains down anew. This renewable freshwater supply sustains life on the land, in estuaries, and in
the freshwater ecosystems of the earth. Renewable fresh water provides many services essential to human health and well being,
including water for drinking, industrial production, and irrigation, and the production of fish, waterfowl, and
shellfish. Fresh water also provides many benefits while it remains in its channels (nonextractive or instream benefits), including flood
control, transportation, recreation, waste processing, hydroelectric power, and habitat for aquatic plants and animals. Some benefits,
such as irrigation and hydroelectric power, can be achieved only by damming, diverting, or creating other major changes to natural water flows.
Such changes often diminish or preclude other instream benefits of fresh water, such as providing habitat for aquatic life or maintaining
suitable water quality for human use
13
Advantage – nuclear power – heg

Advantage Two: Nuclear Power Good
Scenario One: Hegemony

First, U.S. rejection of Kyoto and its unilateral invasion of Iraq have destroyed its
international credibility. Rejuvenating the U.S. nuclear power industry is critical to
restoring US credibility and restoring environmental leadership
James E. Hickey Jr. (Professor of Law, Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, Hofstra Law
School) Winter 2006 “Idea: reviving the nuclear power option in the united states: using domestic energy law to
cure two perceptions of international law illegality”, Hofstra Law Review, lexis
This Idea begins an exploration of the relationships between law and policy, and between domestic and international
law in the context of climate change, the war in Iraq and the domestic law and policy of the United States on nuclear
energy. All too often, a nation's broad foreign policy positions are formulated without a full consideration of the
international law implications of that policy. Even more often, the potential role of existing domestic law to serve
those foreign policy objectives is not considered. Conversely, the foreign policy benefits of domestic law's application are rarely a
meaningful factor in domestic law and policy decision-making. Two perceptions, right or wrong, of international law illegality on
the part of the United States have arisen in the last few years with regard to both the use of military force in Iraq and to
global warming. The first perception is that the United States invaded Iraq illegally to secure a significant source of foreign
oil. The second perception is that the United States ignores the letter and spirit of the evolving international climate
change regime to reduce greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. Both perceptions of international law illegality directly reflect
the domestic growth energy policy of the United States that is anchored by a present and future reliance almost exclusively
on fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas), which both emit GHG and contribute to the dependence [*426] of the United States on foreign
oil. 1 Those perceptions of illegality could be fully cured by an aggressive use of existin g domestic law to revive the nuclear
power industry in the United States to replace its fossil fuel-based electric supply. This would put the United States in
compliance with the climate change regime (whether or not it ever participates in it) and would help both to greatly reduce the dependence of
the United States on foreign oil as a factual matter and to eliminate the perception that it uses force to secure foreign oil sources as a policy
matter. In turn, the benefits of removing perceptions of international law illegality ought to play a significant and positive role in weighing the
benefits and costs of future domestic nuclear energy production.
U.S. credibility is key to hard power

Heiko Borchert (business and political consultant) and Mary Hampton (associate professor of political
science at the University of Utah) Spring 2002 “The Lessons of Kosovo: Boon or Bust for Transatlantic Security?”
Orbis, v46 issue 2
Many of the proponents of U.S. unilateralism equate multilateralism with multipolarity. Such critics assume, for example,
that acting multilaterally, in concert with its European allies, diminishes American power. Charles Krauthammer, representative of
unilateralist advocates, has heralded what he calls the "new unilateralism," observing with approval that: [W]e now have an administration
willing to assert American freedom of action and the primacy of American national interests. Rather than contain American power within a vast
web of constraining international agreements, the new unilateralism seeks to strengthen American power and unashamedly deploy it on behalf
of self-defined global ends. In an article promoting a more unilateralist United States, Krauthammer observes: It is hard to understand the
enthusiasm of so many for a diminished America and a world reverted to multipolarity. Our principle aim is to maintain the stability and
relative tranquility of the current international system by enforcing, maintaining, and extending the current peace. It is not at all clear why
these U.S. objectives are better provided for through unilateralism. The argument that the United States is more
empowered when unshackled from the constraints of its self-inflicted multilateral binds is one made frequently since Allied Force. It is
an argument that confuses leadership and power. In truth, the multilateral order the United States was instrumental in creating at the end
of World War II enhanced its power. Multilateralism lessened the need for employing expensive instruments of coercion by legitimizing U.S.
leadership, both at home and abroad, through interlocking webs of agreements, institutions and regimes. As John Ikenberry has put it: "The
lesson of order building in this century is that international institutions have played a pervasive and ultimately constructive role in the exercise
of American power." Leadership has to do with power but it does not equal power. The crucial variable is purpose. Unlike
naked power-wielding, "leadership is inseparable from followers' needs and goals." Since leadership results from an interactive
process where one actor is presumed to be the leader and other actors are willing to follow, the leader must be able to convince the
followers. Leadership is therefore based on persuasion and normative consensus. Once the leader's commitment
wanes, replaced by neglect or resort to attempted coercion, followers will find the first occasion to defect.
14
Advantage – nuclear power – heg

U.S. hegemony solves nuclear war.
Zalmay Khalilzad (Dep. Secretary of Defense) Spring 1995 The Washington Quarterly
A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and receptive to American values--democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such
as nuclear proliferation, renegade states, and low level conflicts. Finally, US leadership would help preclude the
rise of another global rival, enabling the US and the world to avoid another cold or hot war and all the attendant
dangers, including a global nuclear exchange.
15
Advantage – nuclear power – prolif

Scenario Two: Proliferation
Global nuclear power use will rise inevitable, increasing the risk of proliferation; only a US
policy that revitalizes it nuclear program can prevent proliferation
Shaun Waterman (UPI Homeland and National Security Editor) 7/8/2008 “Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear
power growth, despite risks”, UPI
WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) -- A report from a State Department advisory panel says a coming large expansion in global nuclear
power generation poses proliferation risks, but the United States must embrace it to ensure that nuclear supplier
nations build safeguards into the growing market. The report highlights division among experts about the future of civil nuclear power across the globe, the
risks it poses, and the degree to which U.S. policy should support its spread. Some critics of the report say the expansion of nuclear power is not inevitable and should be resisted. A task force
of the International Security Advisory Board -- chaired by former Pentagon and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz -- produced the report, titled "Proliferation Implications of the Global
Expansion of Civil Nuclear Power," in response to a request from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. The task force, led by former Reagan
and Bush I arms negotiator and government scientist C. Paul Robinson, produced their relatively brief (10 pages, with about twice that in appendices and introductory material) report in just
global demand for power is likely to rise by 100
two months earlier this year. A copy was posted recently on the State Department Web site. The report says
percent by 2030. "Nuclear energy is likely to be in great demand because of the large price increases for oil and
natural gas and the fact that nuclear power produces no carbon (or other) emissions." Robinson bluntly says the expansion of civil
nuclear energy generation is not just inevitable, it is already under way. "You just have to read the newspapers to see
that this is the case," he told United Press International. The report cites a list prepared by the State Department in 2007 of a
dozen countries planning to join the nuclear power club, or "giving serious consideration" to it, within the next 10 years --
including the former Soviet Central Asian nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan; Islamic giants Indonesia, Egypt and Turkey; and Poland and
the Baltic states. Fifteen other nations -- including Algeria, Ghana, Libya, Malaysia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen -- have "longer-
term plans or studies under way," according to the State Department list. While wealthier countries "can try to buy their way out" of the looming energy crunch, "the
Third World does not have that option," and there are few real alternatives to nuclear power for many countries. "There has proved to be no silver bullet in renewable or other alternative
energy sources." The report says there are currently 435 nuclear reactors operating around the world, with 28 new ones currently under construction. It says 222 more are being planned. "It's
One of the key concerns is the two principal ways of making nuclear fuel -- the enrichment
a pretty depressing prospect," Robinson concluded.
of uranium, for instance, in huge installations of centrifuges; and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium -- can too easily be used
to make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs. So the panel recommends the United States -- in partnership with other countries that already have the
capacity to make fuel, the "supplier nations" -- volunteer to "provide reliable, economical supplies of fuel to nations undertaking new or additional nuclear energy plants" with tough
safeguards to prevent them developing their own capacities. But critics challenge their premise, saying the idea that the growth of nuclear power generation is inevitable is a canard. Many of
those 435 reactors currently operating are due to be retired in the next 20 to 30 years, points out Henry Sokolski, a proliferation expert who worked for Wolfowitz in the Bush I administration
Nuclear
and now sits on the congressionally mandated blue-ribbon panel examining the threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear material or other weapons of mass destruction.
energy is too expensive and too risky to be a commercially viable venture without government support, he told UPI.
"There's a reason no one in the private sector wants to do this with their own money," Sokolski said. "Nuclear power is a hard sell,
literally. ... What the (U.S.) nuclear industry is doing is asking for government handouts, in the form of tax credits, loan
guarantees and insurance caps." Reprocessing is also not economically feasible without government financial support. "Working with
plutonium requires special safety measures which are very expensive," Sokolski said. The idea that new technologies could help make
generation or reprocessing economical is "atomic pie in the sky. The advances required are as far off as making fusion-generation practical, in
terms of technology." Expansion is "not inevitable, it is contingent" on U.S. policy changes. "Maybe nuclear power won't
expand. It shrank by 2 percent last year," he said. Sokolski called the report "disappointing." He said its authors "seem to be in the business of
promoting the expansion of nuclear power, rather than examining the risks associated with its expansion. ... They should have explained in
more detail why we should be concerned." But the report does make a bald statement, that the expansion of civil nuclear generating
capacity "particularly within Third World nations, inevitably increases the risks of proliferation. What the United States must
do," it concludes, "is find ways to mitigate those risks." "Something is afoot, and we can't put on blinkers and pretend it's
not happening," said Robinson.
16
Advantage – nuclear power – prolif

Proliferation snowballs – collapse of the nonproliferation regime would trigger an
avalanche of nuclearization.
Lewis Dunn, Vice President, Science Applications International Corporation, 1990. BEYOND 1995: THE
FUTURE OF THE NPT REGIME p. 31-32
Collapse of the nonproliferation treaty in 1995 would increase significantly the prospects for the further spread of
nuclear weapons around the globe. Heightened perceptions of the likelihood of runaway proliferation, corrosion of
the norm of nonproliferation, lessened assurance about neighboring countries intentions, and a weakening of
nuclear export controls are but some of the direct results of the treaty’s breakdown. As a result, the world would become
more dangerous, and all countries’ security—both former parties and outside critics—would be gradually undermined. To elaborate, one
direct impact of a breakdown of the NPT in 1995 would be to change international perceptions of the likelihood of
widespread nuclear proliferation. More specifically, over the nearly two decades since the NPT entered into force in 1970, perceptions
held by government leaders, observers, and others about the prospects for the spread of nuclear weapons have markedly changed. In the early
1960s, it was widely expected that there would be twenty to twenty-five nuclear-weapon states by the mid-1070s. In the late 1980s, it is now
widely assumed that such proliferation can be prevented. The very fact that more than 135 countries have renounced nuclear weapons by
adhering to the NPT has greatly contributed to this change of perception. Particularly, if the treaty’s collapse followed several highly visible
nonproliferation breakdowns, there would be many fears that the earlier predictions, though premature, were correct. Such fears would be
further reinforced if after a failure to renew the treaty many parties were reluctant to reaffirm otherwise their commitment not to acquire
nuclear weapons. This perception of the likelihood of more widespread proliferation could well become a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Leaders of countries that had renounced nuclear weapons would now be asking whether such renunciation would be
reciprocated by other countries, especially their close neighbors. At the least, some countries could be expected to hedge their bets by starting
low-visibility programs to explore the steps needed to acquire nuclear weapons. In other countries that had already been weighing the pros and
cons of covert pursuit of nuclear weapons, a perception that many countries might soon move toward nuclear weapons in the decades after
1995 could tip the balance for a national decision.
Efforts to prevent proliferation shield us from extinction.

Stuart Taylor Jr., September 14, 2002. “Invading Iraq Wouldn't Necessarily Make Us Safer,” THE NATIONAL
JOURNAL
The truth is, no matter what we do about Iraq, if we don't stop proliferation another five or ten potentially unstable nations may go nuclear
before long, making it ever more likely that one or more bombs will be set off on our soil by terrorists or terrorist governments. Even an airtight
missile defense will be useless against a nuke hidden in a truck, a shipping container, or a boat. Unless we get serious about stopping
proliferation, we are headed for "a world filled with nuclear-weapons states where every crisis threatens to go
nuclear," where "the survival of civilization truly is in question from day to day," and where "it would be impossible to
keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists, religious cults, and criminal organizations," So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a
moderate Republican who served as a career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to extend
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
17
Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness

Scenario Three: U.S. Economy
The U.S. nuclear industry is shrinking while the global movement to establish nuclar power
grows. Without quick action, the US will lose out in its ability to dminate the nuclear
industry, crushing competivness, job growth and the manufacturing industry. Loan
guarantees are crucial to reversing this trend.
Oxford Economics September 2007 “An Assessment of the Economic, Employment, Environmental and
Energy Security Benefits of New Nuclear Energy Facility Construction in the USA”, American Council on Global
Nuclear Competitiveness
The ongoing nuclear renaissance offers the promise of spurring new nuclear power plant construction in the United
States. New plant construction, in turn, could stimulate our heavy manufacturing sector and restore United States
leadership in global nuclear energy markets. Many billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of thousands of high-
paying jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a large share of the growing United
States and global nuclear energy markets. This is not just speculation. The initial wave of commercial nuclear
power plant construction, which peaked in the 1970s and 1980s, resulted in more than 400 plants being built across the
globe. These plants generate about 16 percent of the world’s electricity without emitting air pollutants or greenhouse gases. United States
firms dominated this global market. From reactor design to fuel and component fabrication to plant construction and service, United
States firms led the way. The United States also dominated the market for enriched uranium, which was supplied by the United States
government’s two enrichment plants. Over the past decade or more, the United States nuclear manufacturing
infrastructure has been allowed to atrophy. Yet the renewed, global interest in the use of nuclear energy represents
an opportunity for American companies to recapture a large share of the world market for nuclear products and
services. American workers can benefit from the restoration of high-paying jobs in reactor design and construction, component fabrication, reactor operation and maintenance, and other
fields. Resurgence in the construction of nuclear power plants could also have important environmental and national security benefits for the United States. Nuclear power plant operations do
not result in carbon emissions, so U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced substantially by displacing coal and natural gas-fired electricity with nuclear power. Nuclear energy can
also contribute to our nation’s effort to reduce oil imports and thus increase our national security. The public debate over the expanded use of nuclear energy has, until now, not included a
realistic estimate of these potential economic, environmental and national security benefits. The American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness arranged for the economic modeling
experts at Oxford Economics to prepare the attached analysis to help quantify the benefits that could accrue if the United States were to engage in a new wave of nuclear energy infrastructure
construction. In conducting the evaluation, the market for new nuclear energy products and services was considered in two major segments. The first is for the design, construction and
operation of new nuclear power reactors. The next few years could see the construction of several new, large light water reactors in the United States. This is the type of reactor used in most
of the world’s nuclear power plants. Plans have already been announced to build more than 30 of these reactors in the U.S. starting in the next ten years. In the analysis, Oxford Economics
and the Council have assumed that fifty of these plants will be in operation or under construction by 2030. By about the year 2020, these large light water reactors could be joined by so-called
Generation IV reactors such as high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and fast spectrum reactors. Compared with today’s reactors, High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGRs) offer a
high degree of versatility due to their higher outlet temperatures. Their ability to serve as a high temperature heat source for hydrogen or synthetic fuel production should be appealing to many
nations seeking to reduce their reliance on oil imports. In addition, their robust fuel cladding contributes to their excellent safety and security characteristics. Fast spectrum reactors are needed
to efficiently use recycled nuclear fuel from today’s reactors and thus capture the full benefits of the coming fuel recycling system. Both HTGRs and fast-spectrum reactors are not yet in
widespread commercial use, so a system of suppliers will have to be created to provide the needed materials and components. In the analysis, Oxford Economics and the Council have
assumed that 20 HTGRs and 12 fast spectrum reactors will be in operation or under construction by 2030; if Generation IV reactors are not ready for wide-scale deployment in the next two
decades, additional advanced light-water reactors could be constructed and would result in essentially the same level of benefits. The second market segment is the design, construction and
operation of fuel cycle facilities, particularly those for the enrichment of uranium and for the recycle of used fuel. New fuel cycle facilities will have to be constructed in the United States and
abroad to support a wide-spread expansion of nuclear energy. In the analysis, Oxford Economics and the Council have assumed that three nuclear fuel recycling facilities (each with 1200
metrics tons/year of recycle capacity) will be in operation in the U.S. by 2030. The Oxford Economics report draws from several studies and sources to provide an integrated estimate of the
economic and employment benefits that could accrue if the United States were to capture large shares of these three market segments. The report is intended to provide estimates that can help
inform the public debate over investment incentives, research funding, or other policies that would assist in the restoration of American leadership in the global nuclear energy market. The
Based on the studies and sources cited in the Oxford Economics report, they have estimated that the construction of light-water reactors, high-temperature gas reactors, fast-spectrum reactors
and used fuel recycle facilities in the United States could result in the generation of: • More than 75,000 manufacturing jobs; • Upwards of 100,000 construction and operations jobs;
Another 150,000 induced jobs in non-nuclear industries throughout the country. All told, the
More than 100,000 indirect jobs related to the nuclear power industry; and •
rebirth of a robust nuclear construction and manufacturing industry in the United States could result in the creation
of more than 400,000 jobs. This figure could – and almost certainly would – be even higher as rejuvenated United States
firms secured contracts to supply American-made nuclear and products and services across the globe. The
construction value alone of these new nuclear facilities would be more than $100 billion. The retail value of the electricity produced by the new
reactors would be more than $30 billion dollars per year. The electricity produced would avoid the emission of 430 million tons (390 million
metric tons) of carbon per year by 2030 and would reduce oil imports by $41 billion per year. If no new nuclear reactors are
constructed in the United States, the United States will not accrue many of these economic benefits. We will also find
ourselves increasing our trade deficit and weakening our international nuclear policy and non-proliferation position
by allowing other nations to be the predominant nuclear suppliers to the world. To help reap the benefits set forth in the Oxford
Economics report, the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness makes the following recommendations: * Congress
should recognize the contributions that nuclear energy can make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and should not
discriminate against nuclear energy when enacting policies designed to address global warming; * The Administration should make an
expressed commitment to restore the competitive position of the U.S. nuclear industry. DOE should consider the health of the domestic
industry when deciding how to allocate funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Nuclear Power 2010, the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant and other programs; and * DOE should ensure that loan guarantee program rules allow applications by projects beyond new
reactors that will restore the domestic nuclear energy design, manufacturing, service and supply industry.
18
Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness (econ)

Sub-point A: Manufacturing Sector
Manufacturing sector is the independent backbone to the U.S. economy, without a strong
manufacturing sector U.S. economic collapse is inevitable
U.S. Department of Commerce 2004 “MANUFACTURING IN AMERICA: A Comprehensive Strategy to
Address the Challenges to U.S. Manufacturers”, January,
http://www.commerce.gov/DOC_MFG_Report_Complete.pdf
Manufacturing is crucial to the U.S. economy. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods. In
addition, innovations and productivity gains in the manufacturing sector provide benefits far beyond the products
themselves. There is no dispute over the significant contribution that manufacturing makes to the U.S. economy and to America’s standard
of living. The sector continues to account for 14 percent of U.S. GDP and 11 percent of total U.S. employment.
Those statistics, however, do not adequately convey the importance of the manufacturing sector to the U.S.
economy and to America’s future. Manufacturing is an integral part of a web of inter-industry relationships that
create a stronger economy. Manufacturing sells goods to other sectors in the economy and, in turn, buys products
and services from them. Manufacturing spurs demand for everything from raw materials to intermediate components to
software to financial, legal, health, accounting, transportation, and other services in the course of doing business. According to the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, every $1 of final demand spent for a manufactured good generates $0.55 of GDP in the manufacturing sector and $0.45 of
GDP in non manufacturing sectors.1 The automotive sector provides a good example. The production of automobiles stimulates the demand for
everything from raw materials in the form of coal and iron to manufactured goods in the form of robots to the purchase of services in the form
of health insurance for the automobile companies’ employees. A healthy manufacturing sector is critical to America’s economic
future for other reasons as well—innovation and productivity. Innovation holds the key to rising productivity, and
productivity gains are the key to both economic growth and a rising standard of living.3 As one leading economist put it: A nation’s
standard of living in the long term depends on its ability to attain a high and rising level of productivity in the industries in which its firms
compete.4
United States fall would collapse the global economy

Francesco Sisci 2002, Asia Times, “THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: Part 3: The fear within”, October 18,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DJ18Ak02.html
The implosion or fall of the US would have been bad news not only for Europe, but for the rest of the world. A cowering,
wounded United States would have precipitated a global economic downturn, dragging down all emerging markets,
China's included, and would have created a huge vacuum of power that no one could fill. This in turn could have brought about chaos for
developed and developing nations, with the only benefit going to the ultimate producers of energy and fundamentalist faiths such as Wahhabi
Islam. Incidentally, both happen to reside in the same place - Saudi Arabia
19
Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness (heg)

Sub-point B: Competitiveness
U.S. leadership on alternative energy is key to spurring innovation which is vital to
America reclaiming it’s technological leadership
Hal Raveche (President of Stevens Institute of Technology) January 26 2007 “Technology innovation; America
needs a new strategy now” Washington Times
While there is some validity to both sides of the argument, the
growing prevalence of a risk-averse mindset is stifling the
American entrepreneurial spirit that fuels the national economic engine. Government may have been among the
first to corner the risk-aversion market. The operating mantra for the bureaucracy was, and remains, that the punishment for taking a
risk and making a mistake to be ridiculed, disciplined or fired was far more severe than the potential reward for thinking beyond the norm and
dreaming up with a better idea, program or policy. The result is to discourage innovation by many of the people who know
best how to fix the broken programs that they deal with every day. Elected leaders, as well as CEOs, who embark on radically
different paths are often lambasted by the protectors of the status quo and likely to find themselves with the label "former" attached to their
titles simply for traveling down the path of innovation. Risk aversion has had a devastating impact on America's leadership in
technology. The fact is, no president, Republican or Democrat, and no previous Congress has ever developed a
meaningful national technological strategy for the United States. Certainly, there were fits and starts the Kennedy Space
Program, the Carter Shale Oil Program, the Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative and the Clinton/Gore Human Genome Initiative but never has a
comprehensive and consistent strategy been employed. The failure may be directly linked to the potential backlash that could
result from a president or Congress being accused of "picking the winners and losers" for future business growth.
Unfortunately, this kind of government thinking has reached the private sector. The Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, whose
purpose was improving accountability and transparency in corporate governance, has also chased innovative thinkers from corporate
boardrooms. Choosing to serve on a corporate board or deciding to take a small private company public may now not be worth the risk. Risk
aversion in the private marketplace has had a paralyzing effect on high-tech growth. In 2000, there were an estimated 170
initial public offerings for high-tech companies; by 2006 the number of such IPOs dwindled to 35. Economic competition from Singapore,
Taiwan, Korea, India, China and Japan reminds us of the atrophy in the domestic auto industry. The burgeoning presence of nail and tanning
salons on Main Street USA stands in stark contrast to Singapore's stem-cell "research city," Taiwan's science parks and the new R&D labs in
Bangalore, India. To be remembered for rebuilding America, our president must commit to re-establishing the global
technological leadership of the United States and take a risk on some technologies that meet our national needs,
such as alternative energy, for decades to come. If the new Congress really wants to improve the future for America's
working families, it will leave the self-congratulatory echo chamber about enhancements to the minimum wage and get down to the hard
work of implementing a national strategy for technological innovation, even if this threatens the defenders of the
status quo. The 110th Congress can be inspired by the bipartisan 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, enabling universities to own intellectual property
from federally sponsored research. Prior to this transformational legislation, the annual number of university patents fluctuated below 500. By
1990 it doubled and, by 2003 it exceeded 3,000, with a threefold increase in the number of participating universities, which furthered high tech
economic growth. We need such visionary initiatives now from Congress and the president.
US technological leadership and economic competitiveness is key to hegemony

Khalilzad, fellow at RAND, 1995 (Zalmay, “Losing the moment? The United States and the World after the
Cold War?” Washington Quarterly Vol 18 no 2 Spring)
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines
seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and
the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon
more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To
sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic
realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and
industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were
able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the
beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If
the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily
worsen.
20
Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should provide loan guarantees without caps
for the development and construction of nuclear power plants in the United States.
21
OB2: Solvency
Observation Two: Solvency
Providing loan guarantees is the only way to ensure that new nuclear plants will be built.
Although new plants are being ordered without additional incentives, without getting Wall
Street and other private investors on board the projects will not get off the drawing board.
Nuclear power is the only power sources that will meet future electricity demands without
risking environmental collapse. With new plant safety features, accidents and meltdowns
are a thing if the past
Theodore G. Adams (health physicist at T. G.Adams and Associates in Springville) June 8 2008 “Federal loan
guarantees key to nuclear plant construction”, The Buffalo News Opinion,
http://www.buffalonews.com/367/story/365369.html
Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the United States, but few, if any, are
likely to get beyond the drawing- board stage until the government provides loan guarantees. Because high up-
front costs have made nuclear plant construction potentially risky, Wall Street investors say federal loan guarantees
are needed in the event that unanticipated delays from intervention or litigation drive up the cost of construction, as
happened during the 1980s. To facilitate the construction of new plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
approved several plant sites, certified designs for new reactors and modified its plant licensing process. If nuclear
plant construction proceeds pretty much on schedule, loan guarantees will cost taxpayers nothing. Congress two years ago approved
loan guarantees for the first few new nuclear plants. But it conditioned the loan guarantees on being awarded no
later than 2009 and then only to companies possessing a joint license to construct and operate a new nuclear plant. Since no company
has yet to obtain such a license from the commission and the 2009 window is fast closing, the deadline for
eligibility should be extended. The Bush administration and Congress need to take prompt action. Since nuclear power
accounts for more than 70 percent of carbon-free electricity generation in the United States, not to increase its use would be folly. Nuclear
power is safe and reliable. And it’s produced here in this country, free of foreign interference. Some environmental groups claim that
renewable energy sources can meet our needs and that nuclear power is no longer necessary. But renewable sources like
solar and wind, while part of the answer to global warming, cannot provide the large amounts of base-load electricity
needed to drive our economy. Solar panels and wind turbines generate power only intermittently, requiring back-up energy from fossil
fuels. Although strongly supported and promoted by the federal government and many states, solar and wind combined provide only 3 percent
of the nation’s electricity, compared to 52 percent from coal and 20 percent from nuclear power. With electricity demand on the
upswing, record amounts of coal and natural gas being burned and scientists warning about the potentially
devastating impact of global warming, we are headed for a perfect storm. It is encouraging that the presidential candidates
recognize the need to control greenhouse-gas emissions. Sen. John McCain is principal author of legislation, introduced last year, that seeks to
cut emissions to 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A longtime supporter of nuclear power, McCain said on the Senate floor that the
measure proposes “adding new reactor designs for nuclear power.” He said, “The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our future
energy mix is an unsustainable position. At a minimum we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy’s level of contribution, so that this
capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.” The legislation calls for federal funding to develop clean-energy technologies,
including new nuclear power plants. Among the bill’s co-sponsors are Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. By all measures, there
has been a significant improvement in nuclear safety since the 1970s. Industrial and nuclear safety records are consistently better
than ever in more than four decades of operation. Unplanned automatic plant shutdowns, workplace accident rate, collective
radiation exposure and other indices of plant safety continue to meet tough goals set by the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations. And spent fuel is being stored safely and securely at nuclear plant sites, while work proceeds on developing a
permanent repository for nuclear waste in Nevada. The upshot is that the cost of producing nuclear- generated electricity is less than electricity
coming from fossil-fuel plants. Last year, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the 104 U. S. nuclear plants produced electricity, on
average, at a cost of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh). By comparison, electricity cost 2.3 cents per kwh from coal-fueled plants, 6.7 cents per
kwh from natural gas plants, and 9.6 cents per kwh from oil plants. It is expected that new nuclear plants will have even lower production costs
given improved designs that should cost less to operate and maintain. What will it take to build the next nuclear plant? In short,
some insurance in the form of loan guarantees to cover the potential cost and schedule impacts of new plant construction. Now is
the time to move forward with nuclear power. It’s the key to our energy security and environmental well-being.
22
OB2: Solvency
Federal government action is necessary to get support from investors. Loan guarantees will
provide the necessary incentives to get first time investors on board, as well as providing
support for future investments
Frank L. Bowman (President and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Energy Institute) June 19 2008, CQ
Congressional Testimony, lexis
Consensus estimates show that the electric sector must invest at least $1 trillion between now and 2020 for new
generating capacity, new transmission and distribution, efficiency programs, and environmental controls. That is more than the
book value of the entire existing electric power supply and delivery system, and it does not include the cost of carbon
controls. Addressing this investment challenge-and we must address this problem-will require innovative approaches to
financing. Meeting these investment needs will require a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. The times
demand innovative approaches, combining all the financing capabilities and tools available to the private sector, the federal
government and state governments. In terms of new nuclear plant construction, one of the most significant financing
challenges is the cost of these projects relative to the size, market value and financing capability of the companies that will build
them. New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at least $6 to 7 billion. U.S. electric power companies do not have the size,
financing capability or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects on balance sheet, on their own-particularly at a
time when they are investing heavily in other generating capacity, transmission and distribution infrastructure, and
environmental controls. These first projects must have financing support-either loan guarantees from the federal government
or assurance of investment recovery from state governments, or both. The states are doing their part. Throughout the South and Southeast, state
governments have enacted legislation or implemented new regulations to encourage new nuclear plant construction. Comparable federal
government commitment is essential. The modest loan guarantee program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act was
a small step in the right direction, but it does not represent a sufficient response to the urgent need to rebuild our
critical electric power infrastructure. We believe the United States will need something similar to the Clean Energy Bank
concept now under consideration by a number of members of Congress-a government corporation, modeled on the Export-Import Bank and the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to provide loan guarantees and other forms of financing support to ensure that capital
flows to clean technology deployment in the electric sector. Creation of such a financing entity should be an integral component
of any climate change legislation. Such a concept serves at least two national imperatives. First, it addresses the challenge mentioned earlier-
the disparity between the size of these projects relative to the size of the companies that will build them. In the absence of a concept like a
Clean Energy Bank, new nuclear plants and other clean energy projects will certainly be built, but in smaller numbers over a longer period of
time. Second, federal loan guarantees provide a substantial consumer benefit. A loan guarantee allows more leverage
in a project's capital structure, which reduces the cost of capital, in turn reducing the cost of electricity from the
project. Electricity consumers-residential, commercial and industrial-are already struggling with increases in oil, natural gas and electricity
prices. The high cost of energy and fuel price volatility has already compromised the competitive position of American industry. We know that
the next generation of clean energy technologies will be more costly than the capital stock in place today. In this environment, we see a
compelling case for federal financing support that would reduce consumer costs. If it is structured like the loan guarantee program authorized
by Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, in which project sponsors are expected to pay the cost of the loan guarantee, such a program
would be revenue-neutral and would not represent a subsidy. The public benefits associated with a robust energy loan
guarantee program-lower cost electricity, deployment of clean energy technologies at the scale necessary to reduce
carbon emissions-are significant. That is why the U.S. government routinely uses loan guarantee programs to support
activities that serve the public good and the national interest-including shipbuilding, steelmaking, student loans, rural electrification, affordable
housing, construction of critical transportation infrastructure, and for many other purposes. Achieving significant expansion of
nuclear power in the United States will require stable and sustained federal and state government policies relating to
nuclear energy. The new nuclear power projects now in the early stages of development will not enter service until the 2016-2020.
23
OB2: Solvency
The recently allotted $18.5 billion for nuclear power loan guarantees is not enough to get
investors on board. Nuclear power construction is a capital intensive process that will
require investors to have confidence the project will succeed, only a removal of the loan
guarantee cap will provide the necessary incentive for investors, creating a nuclear power
revival
Inside Energy with Federal Lands June 9 2008 “Limits on loan guarantee program seen blunting its
impact on nuclear revival”, lexis
Representatives of the Energy Department, Wall Street and industry told senators last week that DOE's $18.5 billion
in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is not enough to substantially promote a revival of nuclear
power in the US. In a roundtable discussion, four senators were reminded that nuclear plants are capital-intensive and require
utilities to spend tens of millions of dollars to prepare to build the units. "These new nuclear plants are very high-cost ?
capital-intensive plants that can't be financed on individual companies' balance sheets," said Nuclear Energy Institute President Frank "Skip"
Bowman. "I don't think Congress has done everything in all respects to help promote this obvious need for new nuclear plants." Bowman said
the cost of electricity is increasing and the nuclear plants would help lower those expenses. Wall Street analysts told
the lawmakers that investors are uncomfortable financing such long-term projects that are subject to the whims of politics
and regulatory change. Among the issues for investors is DOE's loan-guarantee program. The program, a provision of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for the department to cover up to 100% of a loan for a clean energy project, up to 80% of the cost of the entire
project if the loan comes from the Federal Financing Bank at the Treasury Department. DOE would cover up to 90% of the total cost of a loan
that comes from another lending institution. Under the program, DOE would act as a sort of cosigner to the financing. In April, DOE
announced that it plans to conduct solicitations this summer for advanced energy projects that may qualify for up to $38.5 billion in federal
loan guarantees (IE, 14 April, 14). $18.5 billion of that amount is earmarked for nuclear plants, with another $2 billion for uranium-enrichment
facilities. In an interview after the roundtable, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon agreed that
the $18.5 billion would barely cover the construction of three nuclear plants. Spurgeon said, "for us to be able to
put the amount of nuclear energy into use that we believe is required in order for us to meet both energy needs and
reduce our carbon emissions, requires many more nuclear plants than can be supported by the current cap on loan
guarantees." The Congress must appropriate more money or eliminate the cap on the guarantees, the assistant
secretary said. "The subsidy cost is paid by the applicants. Just like with the Export-Import Bank, this is not something that, run properly,
would cost the taxpayer a dime," Spurgeon said. No DOE solicitation yet DOE has not yet issued a solicitation for new nuclear
projects that would be financed through the loan guarantee program, and the department cannot award the assistance to
utilities until they file for a construction and operating license (COL) at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bowman said the loan
guarantee program is "hamstrung" by the loan volume. He said of the nine applications for 15 plants currently
pending before NRC, only four to eight would be online by 2016. "Part of the reason is financing. But that $18.5 billion that's available
for nuclear, wouldn't even support that modest approach, that first wave of four to eight plants," Bowman said. Paul Farr, PPL Corporation's
chief financial officer, said "financing is the most significant aspect and most daunting prospect" in deciding to build a
nuclear plant, and even filing a COL. Farr said PPL is spending about $80 million to $100 million to prepare its COL application, which it
expects to file with NRC in September. It is planning on a loan guarantee. He noted, "$18.5 billion is nowhere near sufficient."
Building a 1,600-MW unit could cost $10 billion, for a company that may have $20 billion in assets, Farr said. "This is very clearly as
much as anything else a financing exercise. The technology can be operated. It's the legal, regulatory and political risk of
permitting. It's the new process of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's the first stage of this DOE loan guarantee process," Farr said.
During the discussion, Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, one of the three senators that called the meeting, said he also supports
getting rid of the limit on loan guarantees. "We ought not to have any cap," he said. Democratic Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware,
Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma were also on the panel. Voinovich
solicited comments from Wall Street analysts about what it would take for the Street to invest in nuclear plants and
whether eliminating a cap on loan guarantees would entice investors. "If the market knew that the cap was off, and we were going full speed,
would that make a difference?" he asked analysts. Analysts said financing is a hurdle because a nuclear project is initially capital-intensive and is also subject to some volatility because of
potential political or regulatory changes over the course of the five- to 10-year project. Also last week, two industry experts, Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh, released a paper, "The Nuclear
Illusion," in which they say a nuclear renaissance will not happen because of the high capital costs and the unwillingness of Wall Street to invest. The report said there were 439 nuclear plants
operating as of the end of 2007. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 31 units were under construction in 13 countries. All but five of those projects were in Asia or Eastern
Europe. Yet, the Asian Development Bank has never financed one, nor has the World Bank, for the most part, the report said; it invested in one in 1959. Economic evidence confirms, the
report said, that "new nuclear plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market because of their excessive costs and financial risks and the high uncertainty of both." "Turning ambitions
into actual investments, firm orders, and operating plants faces fundamental obstacles that are now first and foremost economic," the report said. 'Get it done faster' Inhofe said the country
must somehow find a way to get more plants built. "We can't resolve the [energy-demand] problem without a huge nuclear component," Inhofe said. There are 33 applications for new plants
at the NRC. "Our job is to streamline this thing to get it done faster," he said. Carper said, "One of the best ways to screw this [nuclear] renaissance up is missteps." "One Three-Mile Island
[disaster] and we're dead, hopefully not literally," he added. Carper said he would support including in climate change legislation next year a "clean energy" fund to provide incentives to
"We
utilities for nuclear plants. "We cannot accomplish reducing carbon in what our goals are without nuclear," Inhofe said. "We cannot get there with the current nuclear title."
have got to have loan guarantees that are robust to encourage the financing. We need to have
incentives that have some degree of parody. We subsidize wind and solar 20 times what we do nuclear," Inhofe said.
24
***Inherency***
25
Inherency: Political Gridlock

Political gridlock and lobby infighting will halt any increase in nuclear power
Edmund L. Andrews June 12 2007 "As Congress Turns to Energy, Lobbyists Are Out in Force," New York
Times, http://www.newenergytimes.com/Inthenews/2007/Q2/NYT-CongressTurnsToEnergy.htm
Having tried and failed to overhaul the nation's immigration laws last week, Congress begins what some say is an even more divisive
project this week: taming America's thirst for oil. With gasoline prices hovering near all-time highs, the Senate on
Monday began debating a sprawling energy bill that has already kicked off an epic lobbying war by huge industries, some of
them in conflict with one another: car companies, oil companies, electric utilities, coal producers and corn farmers, to name a few. Industry
groups have raced to sign up influential lawmakers and are nervously calculating how much regulation they might have to accept from the
Democratic majority in Congress. ''This is going to be harder than immigration,'' said John B. Breaux, a former Democratic senator
from Louisiana who is representing Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that recently took control of the Chrysler
Corporation. ''This is going to be the mother of all bills. By that I mean, any one portion of it is important enough to affect completion of the
whole bill.'' Detroit's automakers are lobbying hard against tough fuel economy standards, but they support increased production of ethanol
and other alternative fuels. But Charles W. Stenholm, a former Democratic representative from Texas, is lobbying on behalf of oil producers
and cattle farmers against big subsidies for corn-based ethanol. The Senate bill, as well as a similar measure in the House, would force
automakers to increase the fuel economy of their cars and light trucks. It would require a huge expansion of alternative fuels for cars and trucks
as well as electric power plants. And it is expected to offer as much as $25 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to promote those fuels. ''Bold
steps and big ideas,'' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a speech on Monday. ''The Democratic plan is all
about harnessing power: the clear, renewable power that exists literally all around us.'' Senate leaders have allotted up to
two weeks for debate, but that may not be enough. It took the Republican-controlled Congress four years to pass the last major energy bill, in
2005, and even that measure almost died because of fights over a peripheral issue involving a fuel additive. This time, Democrats are
emphasizing renewable fuels, as opposed to the Republican focus on increased oil production. But lawmakers from
both parties are drafting scores of proposed amendments, many of which would tilt the competitive advantage of one industry over another, and
some would cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Some debates are over basic questions that seem obvious but are not. Does
''clean'' and ''renewable'' energy include nuclear power? Should the government subsidize only ''renewable'' fuels, like wind or
ethanol, or should it subsidize ''alternative'' fuels, including coal-based liquids, that might substitute for oil and reduce dependence on foreign
oil? The clash between rival industry agendas was apparent on Monday. Fifteen trade associations and companies from the food
industry warned senators in a letter that heavy government subsidies for ethanol would push up prices for corn and other feed, and thus the cost
of food. ''It is essential to carefully weigh the impacts of these policy actions,'' warned the group, which includes trade associations for beef,
pork, turkey and chicken producers as well as big food companies like the H. J. Heinz Company, the Kellogg Company and Nestlé. Food
producers use corn as a feedstock for cattle and poultry as well as an ingredient in things like baked goods and soft drinks. ''We are in favor of
developing all the alternative energy that we can, but we need to be as market-oriented as possible,'' said Mr. Stenholm, the former member of
Congress from Texas who now lobbies for oil and farming industries. ''You can't produce food and feed without oil and gas, and you can't
produce oil and gas without food and feed and fiber.'' As groups jockey for position, the underlying agendas are often less
than obvious. The Energy Security Leadership Council, which includes the chief executives of big energy-consuming companies like
FedEx and Southwest Airlines, began broadcasting television advertisements Monday night on CNN, Fox and other cable news outlets. The
advertisements warn that ''America's enemies understand that oil is the lifeblood of our economy,'' and strongly support higher fuel-economy
standards for cars and an expansion of ''alternative fuels.'' But the group also supports nuclear fuel as an alternative to coal. Coincidentally or
not, a co-founder of the group is John Rowe, chief executive of the Exelon Corporation, an electric utility company that is also the nation's
biggest operator of nuclear power plants. Amid all the complexity of the energy bills, the biggest fights are likely to center on a handful of
issues. One fight will be over whether to increase the government's mandate for production of renewable fuels for cars and trucks to 36 billion
gallons a year in 2022 from about 8.6 billion gallons a year in 2008. President Bush proposed a similar goal in January, but Mr. Bush's
mandate could be satisfied in part with coal-based liquid fuels. The coal industry, which has political support in both parties, is pushing for the
government to guarantee billions of dollars in loans for coal-to-liquid plants as well as price subsidies and long-term government purchases.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy Committee and the Senate bill's main author, has opposed big
government support for coal-to-liquid fuels. But House Democrats have already included coal measures in early drafts of their energy bill. A
second fight will be over increased fuel-economy requirements for cars and light trucks. The Senate bill would require that cars, pickup trucks
and sport utility vehicles have a combined average mileage of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The current requirement is 27.5 miles per gallon for
cars and 24 miles per gallon for light trucks. Car manufacturers are fiercely fighting the measure, though they have agreed to the general call
for higher fuel-economy requirements. The manufacturers are insisting that light trucks and sport utility vehicles be allowed to meet a lower
mileage standard. House Democrats are bogged down in a major intraparty battle over a related issue. A bill drafted by two Democrats,
Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, would reverse a Supreme Court ruling that directed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The draft bill has set off a furor among lawmakers, governors and attorneys general from California and 11 other states that want to impose
tough new restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide. A third big fight is likely over a section in Mr. Bingaman's bill that would create
a ''renewable energy standard'' for electric utilities by requiring them to produce 15 percent of their power from
renewable sources of energy by 2020. Electric utilities and coal producers are opposed. Senator Pete V. Domenici of New
Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Energy Committee, is expected to offer a substitute ''clean energy'' standard that would allow utilities to
use nuclear and ''clean coal'' technologies to meet their requirements.
26
Inherency: No Loan Guarantees

The Bush administration will not adopt full loan guarantee’s, without these the nuclear
power industry will not generate the investment necessary to build new reactors
Edmund L. Andrews and Matthew L. Wald July 31 2007 "Energy Bill Aids Expansion Plans of Atomic
Power," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.html
WASHINGTON, July 30 — A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging
of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.
Lobbyists have told lawmakers and administration officials in recent weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion
in loan guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion. The biggest champion of the loan guarantees is
Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee and one of the nuclear industry’s strongest
supporters in Congress. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and the energy bill’s author, has long argued that nuclear power
plants do not need federal loan guarantees. Mr. Bingaman said that the industry was over-interpreting the provision and that it would provide
loan guarantees for only the most innovative power plants. But the provision has the potential to considerably expand the nuclear industry,
which plans to build 28 new reactors at an estimated cost of about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece. And while the nuclear industry would be the
biggest beneficiary, the provision could also set the stage for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for power plants that use “clean coal”
technology and renewable fuels. The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition
from environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, worried
about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, support some expansion of nuclear power. But the provision could go much further than
many lawmakers had in mind by giving the Department of Energy the power to approve an unlimited amount of loan guarantees for “clean”
power generation. Under legislation enacted in 2005, nuclear power qualifies as a clean technology because it does not emit carbon gases that
contribute to global warming. Power companies have tentative plans to put the 28 new reactors at 19 sites around the
country. Industry executives insist that banks and Wall Street will not provide the money needed to build new
reactors unless the loans are guaranteed in their entirety by the federal government. The federal government guarantees
many billions of loans each year to help farmers, exporters, small businesses and students. The government does not actually lend the money
but agrees to pay it back in case the borrower defaults. While the nuclear industry says it will need $25 billion in loan guarantees in
2008 and $50 billion over the next two years, President Bush had proposed a far smaller amount — $4 billion — in
new loan guarantees next year for “clean” electric power technologies, which include plants that run on so-called clean coal
technologies and renewable fuels. Many experts fear that the proposed subsidies could leave taxpayers responsible for billions of dollars in
soured loans. “Such projects, by their nature, pose significant technical and market risks,” the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
warned last month in an analysis of the provision. “Studies of the accuracy of cost estimates for pioneering technologies have found that
estimates are consistently low.” Michael J. Wallace, the co-chief executive of UniStar Nuclear, a partnership seeking to
build nuclear reactors, and executive vice president of Constellation Energy, said: “Without loan guarantees we will not build
nuclear power plants.” The little-noticed provision in the Senate bill subtly refines and expands the loan guarantee program that Congress
passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As before, the Department of Energy would be allowed to guarantee 100 percent of the loans and up
to 80 percent of the total cost to build a reactor. But the bill essentially allows the department to approve as many loan guarantees as it wants
for both new reactors and plants that use other “clean” technologies. That is a big change. Under current law, the government is only allowed
to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress. Last year, Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in
loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year. Mr. Domenici, who has been pushing the Energy
Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees, has argued that there is no need for limits on the
loan volume because power companies will be required to pay an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost of the guarantee. In essence, the
“credit subsidy” payments would be used as a kind of insurance premium that could be used to cover the cost of any defaulted loan. “It is very
clear that this is a self-financing program,” Mr. Domenici told James Nussle, Mr. Bush’s nominee to become the White House budget director,
at Mr. Nussle’s confirmation hearing last week. “There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund.” But the
Bush administration opposes the measure, fearing that it could prove extremely costly.
27
Inherency: Federal Loans Inadequate

Nuclear power is on the verge of a comeback, however current federal loan money is
inadequate to get investors on board
Selina Williams (Staff Writer) March 10 2008 “UPDATE:US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear
Too Small-NRC” Dow Jones Newswires, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm
The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the
country's next generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission said Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and
could ultimately hinder companies from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in
London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more
federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The
U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial
to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave of new nuclear would need assistance as
there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's been 30 years since one was
built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG). "But once we demonstrate that, we should be able to finance the
next wave with commercial loans," Wallace told Dow Jones Newswires on the sidelines of a utilities conference. Constellation Energy hopes
to break ground on a new nuclear power reactor at its Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland at the end of this year following a final decision in
November. The company plans for the 1.6-gigawatt reactor to come on line in 2015. To date, the NRC has received five complete applications
and one partial application for licenses to operate and construct a nuclear power plant, Jaczko said. He expects to receive 17 applications for 30
nuclear power reactors with around 45 GW of capacity over the next two to three years. It's not yet clear how many licenses will be approved,
Jaczko said. Some construction, such as site clearing, can begin before a company receives a license, he added. The NRC is likely to settle on
three new reactor designs out of the five it is currently evaluating so as to simplify the licensing process and encourage standardization across
the industry, he said. Nuclear power is on the verge of a revival in the U.S. due to efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions, reversing three decades of stagnation following the 1979 disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Last
September, NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) became the first company in 30 years to file an application to build new nuclear power plants.
28
Inherenct: Nuclear Down

Nuclear power uses and investment will decrease in future
Carbon Control News 7/7/2008 “Activists make new economic case against nuclear's climate benefits”, lexis
Nevertheless, the IEA paper notes that "competitive costs and CO2 mitigation potential are not the only precondition for nuclear power's
expansion." In fact, if waste management and proliferation concerns are not adequately addressed, "nuclear power is unlikely to
expand and its share in electricity generation might be dropping in the future."
29
***Electricity Demand***
30
Electricity Demand Increasing

Electricty demand increases is making nuclear power a viable option
CBO (Congressional Budget Office) May 2008 “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity”,
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf
By the end of the next decade, demand for electricity in the United States is expected to increase by about 20 percent,
according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). That projected increase—coupled with concerns about the effects of
greenhouse-gas emissions on the environment—has encouraged policymakers to reassess the role that nuclear power might
play both in expanding the capacity to generate electricity and in limiting the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the
combustion of fossil fuels. Because nuclear power uses an abundant fuel source to generate electricity without emitting such gases,
prospects that new nuclear power plants will be planned and financed in the next decade are greater than at any
time since the 1970s, when cost overruns and concerns about public safety halted investment in such facilities.
Base-load electricity demand will inevitably increase and the nuclear industry can meet
these demands. With worldwide nuclear development will increase.
Marvin Fertel (Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at Nuclear Energy Institute) March 5 2008
“Written Testimony U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/FertelTestimony030508.doc.
The United States faces major demand for new base-load electricity generation. The Administration and Congress both
have recognized that nuclear power plants are critical to meeting electricity supply and for addressing climate change issues. The 104
operating nuclear power plants represent about 11% of installed capacity; however, they provide nearly 20% of electricity demand. In
response, the nuclear industry 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 energy costs 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 is protecting about a 15% increase in the number of operating reactors by 2020. This world wide expansion requires
the expansion of the world suppliers of nuclear fuel cycle services. This is why it is important for U.S. utilities to have access
to international suppliers.
Electricity demand increases are inevitable- Status quo will default to natural gas which
will cause electricity jumps
Nicolas Loris (Research Assistant) and Jack Spencer (research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation) 5/5/2008 “Nuclear power gaining momentum in the US”,
Spero News,
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15632&t=Nuclear+power+gaining+momentum+in+the+US
U.S. electricity demand is projected to increase up to 40 percent by 2030, and other countries are projecting similar
increases.[4] The rapid industrial development of both China and India is already placing great pressure on global
energy supplies. And because energy sources, especially fossil fuels, are global commodities, growing demand in one
part of the world affects the global economy. As a result, higher prices and tightened supply have some nations,
such as China, experiencing power shortages.[5] While the U.S. has, for the most part, been able to keep the lights on, with the price of
gas breaking the $4 barrier and natural gas prices increasing, every American knows full well the pain of increasing global energy demand.
Nuclear energy can help meet this growing demand. Most directly, nuclear energy can be used to generate electricity. If that
demand were not met by nuclear power, then it would likely be met with natural gas. This would put additional
pressure on natural gas reserves, driving up the price for electricity as well as all the other goods that use natural gas in their
production.
31
Inevitable: Coal or Nuclear

Demand for electricity in the U.S. will increase in the future. New technologies and energy
conservation will not offset the future demand for electricity. The option is between
nuclear or coal fired plants.
Predicting the amount of demand for new electricity generation is difficult, but it is easy to predict that there will
be at least some demand over the next decade. 15 In this section, I argue that: (A) electricity demand requires that electric utilities have
access to several different types of power plants, including plants that can provide reliable "base-load" capacity; (B) even with dramatic
improvements in energy conservation and efficiency, there will be a need for some substantial amount of new
generating capacity; (C) generating plants powered by natural gas, wind, solar, or water will not be able to produce
reliable base-load power within that time; and (D) no new technologies are likely to change these conclusions
within the next decade. To meet the demand for base-load power, the choice is between coal and nuclear power.
Nuclear and coal plants are the only option to meet future base-load needs
Electric utilities need to be able to have access to a "portfolio" of different types of generating plants. Because
electricity cannot be stored on a large scale, power generators must continually [*6] produce power as it is
consumed. 16 Some users of electric power produce a relatively constant and predictable demand for electricity, and this amount is known as
"base-load." 17 Electric utilities need reliable generation sources with low operating costs for meeting base-load
needs. 18 Base-load power plants run virtually without interruption to supply the continuous portion of electricity needs, as compared to the
needs that expand and contract seasonally or diurnally. 19 Base-load plants are often called "must-run" plants, because they
will run for as long as possible at full load, and will produce the lowest overall power-generating costs for this type of use. 20
Today, many observers consider coal and nuclear power to be the only reliable future sources of base-load power. 21
Base-load electricity increases are inevitable- only way to save the environment is to
implement nuclear energy increases
I have argued that the next decade's need for reliable base-load electrical generation in the United States will be
solved by building either nuclear power plants or coal-fired power plants; the unreliability of natural gas supplies
and prices, and the intermittent nature of current renewable resources, make them unsuitable for base-load needs.
The extent to which a significant share of this new generation will be nuclear depends on a wide range of factors,
only one of which - ecological impact - is discussed in this article. Insofar as that factor is concerned, however, the
evidence overwhelmingly favors nuclear power over coal, and I hope that this will be recognized and taken into
consideration. But I am making no prediction as to how important nuclear power will become, because any student
of the history of energy knows that all forecasts always seem to be wrong.
32
Inevitable: Coal or Nuclear

Without an increase in nuclear power future electricity demands will be met with coal
plants
Despite these advantages, the growth of the nuclear power industry has been moribund since the late 1970s because of
domestic concerns about cost, accidents, and waste disposal. 32 As a result, the nuclear energy contribution to meet the nation's
total electric demand hovers at about twenty percent. 33 If nothing changes in the calculus of the benefits and costs of nuclear
power production, the contribution of nuclear energy to meet the rising energy needs of the United States will decline
in the future. Existing nuclear plants are operating at top efficiency and they are near the end of their useful lives, with no new plants on the
horizon. 34 In turn, U.S. electric demand is expected to increase by forty-three percent over the next twenty years
requiring between 1300 and 1900 new power plants. 35 Without nuclear power plants, the primary fuel source for
those plants will be fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil), which are the major contributors of GHG to the atmosphere
from electric generation. 36 Renewable energy sources presently contribute little more than two percent of the nation's total electric
generation, excluding hydroelectricity (i.e. wind, solar, geothermal). 37 Even if renewable capacity was trebled, it would still constitute only a
very small portion of the total electric energy needs of the country. Hydroelectric power provides between six and seven percent of the
country's electricity. 38 It is fully developed in the sense that nearly all rivers and streams capable of being used for production of [*432]
hydroelectricity have been exploited. It is estimated that fossil fuels, without a change in energy laws and policies, will provide eighty-six
percent of the energy supply of the United States in 2030. 39
33
New Plants Needed

The need for more electricity production in future will require new base-load electricity
plants to be built. The choice will be between coal and nuclear, with wall street favoring
coal
Demand for electricity is influenced by many different factors, including the weather, the strength of the economy, the price of
electricity, and the use of high-demand equipment and buildings. The history of the last fifty years has provided many examples
of over-and under-estimation of demand growth, but no evidence of any decline in demand for any multi-
year period. 27 The hot summer of 2006 provided a test of the ability to make even short-run predictions of energy demand. California,
having experienced severe shortages of electricity in 2000-2001, had instituted programs to cut back on demand and increase supply that
decision makers thought equipped the state to face future hot summers, but the summer of 2006 forced various businesses to close at peak
periods and severely strained the transmission network. 28 Conservation programs to reduce electricity demand can be divided into two
categories: (1) conservation programs that shift more electricity usage out of periods of peak usage and into times when demand is less (often
called "peak-shaving"); and (2) efficiency-enhancing programs that reduce the total amount of electricity used, such as programs to require
more efficient appliances or to mandate higher temperatures in air-conditioned buildings. Both types of demand management are being used in
various places. Insofar as the choice of the type of power plant to build is concerned, the peak-shaving programs and
the efficient usage programs have differing effects on that decision. Both should reduce the overall amount of new generating
capacity needed, but peak-shaving will result in an increase in base-load plants' share of overall generating capacity, because the usage
removed from peak periods will be transferred to times when base-load plants are needed. Other efficient-usage programs may not have any
major impact on the choice of the type of power plant to be constructed. Because Congress has mandated peak-shaving, 29 and
many industries are eager to adopt it, 30 peak-shaving programs are likely to help tilt the choice of new facilities
toward base-load plants. California's efforts to encourage energy conservation focused on incentives for the more efficient use of
electricity on a daily and yearly basis by smoothing out the demand for electricity and reducing peak needs. 31 These have succeeded in
persuading some users of electrical equipment to shift from using it on hot summer afternoons, when demand for air conditioning is at its peak,
to night time when demand is low, substantially reducing the ratio of peak to base-load demand. 32 In the short run, much of this conservation
will be created by the trend toward the use of "smart meters." A "smart meter" knows how much power you are using each hour of each day,
and communicates the information back to the power company. 33 This makes it practical for an electric utility to charge higher rates for the
use of electricity during peak hours, which in turn gives the customer an incentive to schedule the use of electricity at times of lower demand -
an incentive that is lacking when meters register only gross monthly use. 34 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires all electric utilities to
make time-of-use rates available to all customers by 2007. 35 As electricity rates increase, the use of equipment that uses less electricity
overall, not just at peak periods, will likely increase. When energy prices rose in the 1970s, an increased demand for such equipment was a
definite factor in reducing the rate of increase in annual demand for electricity. 36 Even larger price increases might induce the government to
impose mandatory requirements for more efficient refrigeration and air conditioning, [*10] but it is hard to envision such requirements having
a major impact during the next decade, given the time needed to set standards, manufacture the equipment, and begin selling and using it.
Within that period, energy efficiency regulation is likely to focus on the easier and quicker methods of reducing peak use. Finally, even if
demand for electricity stayed the same for the next decade, there would be a need for new generating plants.
Tighter air pollution controls are scheduled to be phased in within that period, and the prospect of controls on
greenhouse gas emissions will force plant owners to give more serious consideration to replacing aging plants with
new ones. 37 In sum, for the purposes of this article, I am not concerned with demonstrating how many new power plants will be needed,
but only that some substantial number will be needed. Wall Street seems to agree because 159 new coal-fired
generating plants are being proposed at various places in the United States.
34
No Natural Gas Plants

Increase in natural gas prices has resulted in investors moving away from natural gas
powered plants, this trend will continue
As this is being written, the consensus of opinion has swung violently away from reliance on natural gas for base-load
electricity generation. 41 The market price of natural gas increased sharply beginning in 2003 and has been highly volatile ever
since. 42 As a result, many of the natural-gas-fired power plants that were built during the boom years have operated
at a small fraction of their capacity and at much less than the anticipated profitability. 43 Many of these plants were built in the
expectation that [*12] electricity markets throughout the nation would be deregulated and interstate transmission at free market prices would
be an everyday occurrence. In a deregulated market, the price of electricity would presumably rise to high levels in periods of peak demand,
which would mean that a power plant could be profitable, even if it were only operated during peak periods. 44 However, after California
deregulated its electricity market, the state experienced very high electricity prices and poor supply in 2000 and 2001. 45 "From May 22, 2000
until June 2001, the California electricity market was characterized by emergency alerts, rolling blackouts and huge price spikes." 46
"Electricity prices during the summer of 2000 had soared to unimaginable heights of $ 200, $ 400, $ 500, and even $ 800 per megawatt-hour
(compared to a normal price of about $ 35 per megawatt-hour)." 47 Companies that saw these prices quickly concluded that a natural-gas-fired
power plant could be profitable even if it only operated on hot summer days, and the rush to build such plants was accelerated. 48 But the
profitability of these plants depended not only on the assumption of a deregulated market for electricity, but on continuing stable prices of
natural gas. For a variety of reasons, however, during this period the price for natural gas rose to unprecedented levels. 49 Support for
deregulation waned, especially in the wake of the Enron bankruptcy. 50 Consequently, [*13] many of the states that had begun to deregulate
their electricity markets backed off, including California itself, leaving only a handful of states with truly open markets for electricity, and some
of those are thinking about re-regulation. 51 In a regulated market, electricity prices are expected to lack big seasonal spikes. Although retail
electricity prices have risen in most states, they have tended to rise on a year-round basis. 52 The result has been that nuclear and coal-fired
power plants, which have already recovered their capital investment and have much lower operating costs than the newer natural-gas-fired
plants, have become profitable while many of the natural-gas-fired plants have been reduced to providing peaking power at rates that do not
reflect market conditions. 53 This situation is likely to continue unless the price of natural gas drops back to 1990s
levels.
No new natural gas plant investments

Natural gas is primarily methane mixed with smaller amounts of other hydrocarbons. When hydrocarbons are burned,
carbon dioxide is emitted into the air; carbon dioxide is the most prevalent of the "greenhouse gases," which have the
effect of trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. 72 Methane itself is a greenhouse gas. 73 [*16] The gradually increasing
emission of such gases has begun to affect the global climate to a significant degree, 74 and most scientists believe that such
effects are likely to accelerate unless greenhouse gas emissions are controlled. 75 Natural gas has an advantage over coal in that the
amount of carbon dioxide produced by natural gas combustion is roughly one-half of the amount produced by the combustion of an amount of
coal creating an equivalent amount of energy. 76 Nevertheless, the combustion of natural gas for electricity generation is providing a significant
share of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions. 77 The bottom line is that many financial institutions today expect the
government to create economic disincentives to the emission of greenhouse gases within the lifetime of any new capital
project, reducing the expected profitability of any facility that omits greenhouse gases. Although any calculation of the
amount of such disincentives would be speculative, a prudent investor would take the possibility of these costs into account in considering the
long term profitability of long-range projects. 78 In summary, the high price of gas, the uncertainty of the supply and price of
future imports, and the fear of financial disincentives to greenhouse gas emission have brought the production of
new natural-gas-fired power plants in the United States to a virtual halt. There may still be a place for more plants to meet
peak needs in certain areas, particularly for small plants near sources of high demand, but the construction of new natural-gas-fired
plants for base-load power generation seems quite unlikely at this time.
35
No Renewable Plants
Renewables will not meet base-load electricity needs
The goal of a completely renewable system of electric generation appeals to almost anyone who does not have vested
interests in the continued use of non-renewable energy sources. The currently available renewable sources of electrical energy on a large scale
are primarily hydroelectric power (hydro), 80 wind, 81 and solar. 82 The United States and individual states have provided some
incentives for the creation of renewable generating systems, and some European countries have provided even more, 83 but
renewable energy resources can meet only a small fraction of reliable base-load electricity needs within the next
decade because: (1) their availability depends on external factors beyond human control, requiring backup by reliable
generation; (2) their potential location is also dependent on factors beyond our control; and (3) [*18] new renewable
technologies, although promising, are more than ten years away from large scale production.
New renewable plants will not be built- lack mobility

Another handicap that most sources of renewable energy face as potential supplies of base-load electrical power is
that they are immobile - they must be created where the wind blows, the sun shines, or the dam can be built. 105 Most other energy
sources, such as coal, uranium, oil, or natural gas, can be delivered to a site of a generating plant that will be conveniently located in relation to
sources of electricity demand and to the transmission network. Electricity is and always can be transmitted long distances over
high-voltage transmission lines, but because people who live near the site of a proposed transmission line typically
oppose its construction, state and local officials have "strong incentives to protect their own incumbent firms or
citizens, rather than supporting interstate cooperative market norms." 106 Consequently, such lines are costly and very difficult to
build. 107 A percentage of the energy is lost with each mile of distance. 108 To get a true cost for power from remote sources, the cost and
difficulty of providing transmission must be factored into the equation. In some parts of the world, such as Denmark and Northern Germany,
the reliability of offshore winds in the Baltic Sea near major population centers has encouraged large-scale offshore windfarm construction, 109
but its true cost-effectiveness is hard to determine because the extent of subsidies involved is complex. 110 Whether similar conditions exist in
many parts of the United States, and whether the opposition to such farms can be overcome, remains to be seen.
Renewables cannot compete with coal and nuclear for new base-load plants
Few people would disagree with the idea that renewable energy research and development is desirable, and support
for such work continues to come from both the public and private sectors. Virtually every day brings news of a new proposal somewhere in the
world to develop another system of producing electricity renewably, 115 but few energy analysts believe that new systems of
large-scale renewable generation are likely in the next few decades. 116 One other existing renewable source of electricity is
the burning of vegetative material. 117 In the United States, the burning of wood chips in cogeneration plants has been producing [*24]
electricity for the lumber and paper industries, 118 and there have been scattered successful examples of the use of municipal solid waste to
produce electricity, 119 but most of the current interest in biomass relates to converting it to transportation fuel in the form of ethanol or
biodiesel fuel. 120 There is little likelihood that biomass combustion will be a significant source of electric energy for the future. If the
production and storage of hydrogen ever proves to be the first efficient way of storing large amounts of electrical energy, as many people hope,
this will provide another effective way of reducing the need for peaking facilities. Electricity from such sources as wind and solar energy could
be stored and used to meet base-load needs. However, more basic research and development is needed before a "hydrogen economy" will be
realized. 121 In summary, renewable sources of electricity are likely to play an important role in supplying electricity for
intermediate and peaking needs in the United States, but their unreliability, their often inconvenient location, and the
potential problems of new technology development, make it unlikely that they will compete with coal and nuclear
as sources of base-load power except under unusual circumstances.
36
***Peak Coal***
37
Yes coal peak – US

US reserves of HIGH QUALITY coal have ALREADY peaked – remaining reserves of
mostly of low-quality bituminous and lignite coal
Energy Watch Group, an group of independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for
global energy supply, initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell. “Coal: Resources And Future
Production,” background paper prepared, March 2007
The country with the largest reported coal reserves is the United States of America. But as already discussed above, also these
reserves have been revised downward for several times in the past. Nevertheless, the present R/P-ratio allows the continuation of
present production rates for more than 200 years. First it has to be noted that the current proved reserve figures as stated in the BP statistics –
which correspond to the WEC definition of proved recoverable reserve – are identical with the estimated recoverable reserve according to EIA.
The EIA definition seems to be somewhat weaker than the BP and WEC definitions. Here we observe that the same values have misteriously
changed from estimated to proved. Our understanding is that only the EIA definition of “recoverable reserves at producing mines” can be
regarded as “proved reserves”, whereas the EIA category “estimated recoverable reserves” in analogy to the definitions used for mineral oil
would not be regarded as “proved reserves” but as “proved + probable reserves”. A more detailed analysis reveals that in the USA
the era of high quality coal is nearing its end and the efforts to produce the coal are steadily increasing.
The following figure A-4 shows coal production rates since 1950, distinguishing between anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous and lignite.
Anthracite production has been steadily declining since 1950, from 5.5 million tons in 1950 to 1.5 million tons in 2005.
Bituminous coal production has also been declining since about 1990. But total coal production has still been rising by about 20 million tons
per year since 1960. This increase seems to have flattened out somewhat since 1998 but is still rising reaching its maximum in 2005. Since
1970 lower quality subbituminous and low qualitiy lignite have been contributing with rising volumes. The growing
share of lower quality coal is the reason why total coal production in terms of energy content peaked in 1998 at 598.4 Mtoe and has since
declined to 576.2 Mtoe in 2005 in spite of the continuous rise in produced volumes (BP 2006).
QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Ffigure A-5 demonstrates this aspect of declining coal quality (in terms of energy content) also for several other countries. Although the
overall data quality might be rather poor, general trends are obvious for the USA (probably with highest data quality), Brazil and
Poland. Australia is the only investigated country where the coal quality is still increasing. The slight decline of German coal quality,
interrupted by an increase during the 1990ies, is a result of the German reunification in 1990 when coal production in the eastern states was
restructured and inefficient coal mines were closed. The observed steady decline of coal quality is due to the steadily rising
share of lower quality coal shifting from anthracite and bituminous to subbituminous and to lignite. The
declining coal quality is not only due to a steady shift towards subbituminous and lignite. Also within each class,
the quality declines. Another aspect is the productivity of the US coal industry in terms of produced tons per miner. Until the year 2000,
productivity steadily increased for all types of coal produced covering surface and subsurface mining. But since then productivity has declined
by about 10% (see the figure below). The decline in productivity can only be explained by the necessity of rising efforts in production. This
might be due to deeper digging and/or to a higher level of waste production. Are these already indications for the era of "easy coal" drawing to
a close? The rising effort for coal mining has also been reflected in rising coal prices since about the year 2000 but the price rice certainly has
also other causes. These price rises are summarised in the following table.
38

US production of high-quality coal peaked 5 years ago
Energy Watch Group, independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for global
energy supply, initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell.. “Coal: Resources And Future
The USA, being the second largest producer, have already passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the
Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming more than compensated for this decline in
terms of volume and – according to its stated reserves – this trend can continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due
to the lower energy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy has already
peaked 5 years ago – it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed. Also specific productivity per miner is declining since about
2000. About 60 percent of US reserves are located in the three states of Illinois, Wyoming and Montana. Illinois and Montana
show no signs of expanding their production which since two decades remains at low levels or even declines. There are a number
of possible reasons for this: low quality coal, political opposition because of competing land use and environmental
issues, overestimated coal reserves because of poor geological data or a weaker definition of “proven”.
Their “200 year” timeframe is a pathetic trope – most of those reserves are useless because
they’re low quality and un-mineable
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, former Core Faculty member of New College of
California. “Richard Heinberg's Museletter #179: Burning the Furniture,” 3/33/2007
http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_179_burning_the_furniture
The United States is the world’s second-largest producer, surpassing the two next important producer states (India and Australia) by nearly a
factor of three. Its reserves are so large that America has sometimes been called “the Saudi Arabia of coal.” The U.S. has
already passed its peak of production for high-quality coal (from the Appalachian mountains and the Illinois basin) and has
seen production of bituminous coal decline since 1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has
more than compensated for this. Taking reserves into account, the authors of the report conclude that growth in total
volumes can continue for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of energy content U.S. coal production peaked in 1998
at 598 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe. This forecast for a near-term peak in
U.S. coal extraction flies in the face of frequently repeated statements that the nation has 200 years’ worth of coal
reserves at current levels of consumption. The report notes: “all of these reserves will probably not be converted
into production volumes, as most of them are of low quality with high sulfur content or other restrictions.” It also
points out that “the productivity of mines in terms of produced tons per miner steadily increased until 2000, but
declines since then.” The report’s key findings regarding future U.S. coal production are summed up in the following paragraph: Three
federal states (Montana, Illinois, Wyoming) own more than 70% of US coal reserves. Over the last 20 years two of these three states (Montana
and Illinois) have been producing at remarkably low levels in relation to their reported reserves. Moreover, the production in Montana has
remained constant for the last 10 years and the production in Illinois has steadily declined by 50% since 1986. This casts severe doubts on the
reliability of their reported reserves. Even if these reported recoverable reserves do exist, some other reasons prevented their extraction and it is
therefore very uncertain whether these reserves will ever be converted into produced volumes. Considering the insights of the regional analysis
it is very likely that bituminous coal production in the US already has peaked, and that total coal production will peak between 2020 and 2030.
39

US coal reserves are overestimated – high quality production can’t increases, and even
reserves of low-quality will peak by 2020
Energy Watch Group, an group of independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for
global energy supply, initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell. “Coal: Resources And Future
To summarize the analysis: Three federal states (Montana, Illinois, Wyoming) own more than 60% of the US coal reserves.
Over the last 20 years two of these three states (Montana and Illinois) have been producing at remarkably low levels in
relation to their reported reserves. Moreover, the production in Montana has remained constant for the last 10 years and the production in
Illinois has steadily declined by 50% since 1986. This casts severe doubts on the significance of their reported reserves.
Even if these estimated recoverable reserves (according to EIA) or proved reserves (according to BP) do exist, there must be
other reasons which have prevented their extraction. In Illinois the reason might be the high sulphur content of the coal. The
possible reasons relating to Montana have been discussed above. Therefore it is very uncertain whether these reserves will ever
be converted into produced volumes. Considering the insights of the regional analysis it is very likely that
bituminous coal production in the US has already peaked, and that total (volumetric) coal production will peak
between 2020 and 2030. The possible growth to arrive at peak measured in energy terms will be lower, only about 20% above today’s
level.
40
Yes coal peak – prefer our evidence

Their numbers are wrong – US reserves are OVER estimated because they’re based upon
biased USGS surveys
Dave Rutledge, Chair for the Division of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech. “The Coal Question and
Climate Change,” The Oil Drum, 6/25 2007 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697
Why are coal reserves high? In his book Hubbert’s Peak, Ken Deffeyes says this about the US Geological Survey,
“When USGS workers tried to estimate resources, they acted, well, like bureaucrats. Whenever a judgment call
was made about choosing a statistical method, the USGS almost invariably tended to pick the one that gave the
higher estimate.” My theory relates to my sister-in-law, Nancy Yee. Nancy appraises apartments for a bank. If her
estimates are too high, the bank loses money, and she loses her job. My suspicion is that no one in a geological
survey ever lost her job for being optimistic about coal reserves.
Don’t buy any evidence written before 2008 – world coal reserves are being re-estimated
David Strahan, award-winning investigative journalist. “The great coal hole,” The Last Oil Shock/New Scientist
1/17 2008 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/39236
Mine below the surface, however, and the numbers are not so reassuring. Over
the past 20 years, official reserves have fallen by
more than 170 billion tonnes, even though we have consumed nothing like that much. What’s more, by a measure
known as the reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio – the number of years the reserves would last at the current rate of consumption –
coal has declined even more dramatically. In February 2007, the European Commission’s Institute for Energy reported that the R/P
ratio had dropped by more than a third between 2000 and 2005, from 277 years to just 155. If this rate of decline were to continue, the institute
warns, “the world could run out of economically recoverable …reserves of coal much earlier than widely anticipated”. In 2006, according to
figures from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the R/P fell again, to 144 years. So why are estimates of coal reserves falling so fast –
and why now? One reason is clear: consumption is soaring, particularly in the developing world. Global coal consumption rose 35 per cent
between 2000 and 2006. In 2006, China alone added 102 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity, enough to produce three times as much
electricity as California consumed that year. China is by far the world’s largest producer of coal, but such is its appetite for the fuel that in 2007
it became a net importer. According to the International Energy Agency, coal consumption is likely to grow ever faster in both China and India.
Another less noticed reason is that in recent years many countries have revised their official coal reserves downwards, in
some cases massively, and often by far more than had been mined since the previous assessment. For instance, the
UK and Germany have cut their reserves by more than 90 per cent and Poland by 50 per cent. Declared global
reserves of high-quality “hard coal” have fallen by 25 per cent since 1990, from almost 640 billion tonnes to less
than 480 billion – again more than could be accounted for by consumption.
41
Yes coal peak – global – 2025

The best-case scenario is that world coal reserves will peak by 2025 – their data is based
upon biased data
Energy Watch Group, independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for global
energy supply, initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell.. “Coal: Resources And Future
Global coal production to peak around 2025 at 30 percent above present production in the best case Based on the
assessment that reserve data may be taken as upper limit for practically relevant coal quantities to be produced in
the future, production profiles are developed. The following figure provides a summary of past and future world coal production in
energy terms based on a detailed country-by-country analysis. This analysis reveals that global coal production may still increase over
the next 10 to 15 years by about 30 percent, mainly driven by Australia, China, the Former Soviet Union countries (Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan) and South Africa. Production will then reach a plateau and will eventually decline thereafter. The possible
production growth until about 2020 according to this analysis is in line with the two demand scenarios of the
International Energy Agency (IEA) in the 2006 edition of the World Energy Outlook. However, the projected development beyond 2020 is
only compatible with the IEA alternative policy scenario in which coal production is constrained by climate policy measures while the IEA
reference scenario assumes further increasing coal consumption (and production) until at least 2030. According to our analysis, this will not be
possible due to limited reserves. Again, it needs to be emphasized that this projection represents an upper limit of future coal
production according to the authors' best estimate. Climate policy or other restrictions have not been taken into account.
Conclusion and recommendation Global coal reserve data are of poor quality, but seem to be biased towards the high side.
Production profile projections suggest the global peak of coal production to occur around 2025 at 30 percent
above current production in the best case.
42
Yes coal peak – China – 10 years

Chinese coal production will peak in 5-15 years
China (the world's primary consumer) and the US (the nation with the largest reserves) are keys to the future of coal. China reports 55
years of coal reserves at current consumption rates. Subtracting quantities consumed since 1992, the last year
reserves figures were updated, this declines to 40 to 45 years. However, the calculation assumes constant rates of
usage, which is unrealistic since consumption is increasing rapidly. Already China has shifted from being a minor
coal exporter to being a net coal importer. Moreover, we must factor in the peaking phenomenon common to the
extraction of all non-renewable resources (the peak of production typically occurs long before the resource is
exhausted). The EWG report's authors, taking these factors into account, state: "it is likely that China will experience peak
production within the next 5-15 years, followed by a steep decline." Only if China's reported coal reserves are in
reality much larger than reported will Chinese coal production rates not peak "very soon" and fall rapidly. The United
States is the world's second-largest producer, surpassing the two next important producer states (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three.
Its reserves are so large that America has been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal". The US has already passed its peak of production
for high-quality coal (from the Appalachian Mountains and the Illinois basin) and has seen production of bituminous coal
decline since 1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has more than compensated for this.
43
A2: Underground gasification

Underground coal gasification doesn’t work and has many disadvantages
The International Energy Agency’s “World Energy Outlook 2006” (WEO 2006) discusses two future scenarios for global coal production: a
“reference scenario” that assumes unconstrained coal consumption, and an “alternative policy scenario” in which consumption is capped
through government efforts to reduce climate impacts. Both scenarios are compatible with the supply forecast in the EWG report until about
2020. Thereafter, only a rate of demand corresponding with the “alternative policy scenario” can be met. This clearly has implications for
climate policy, which I will explore in a later section of this article. The report focuses on mined coal and does not discuss underground coal
gasification. The U.S. DOE has estimated that up to 1.8 trillion tons of otherwise unminable coal might be turned into useful energy by
underground gasification, roughly tripling the amount of energy that could be recovered from the mining of U.S. coal resources. However, as
report author Werner Zittel noted in an email exchange on this point, underground coal gasification is still in the research stage
and its future as a source of global energy is uncertain. Major problems include:
the variable gas composition and its low heating value
environmental issues due to sudden soil sinks, groundwater contamination and numerous bore holes
changing coal composition and its seem thickness
inclination of the coal layer
water levels
density of covering layers
economic aspects
44
A2: High coal prices good DA

Declining coal reserves means high prices are guaranteed regardless of plan – extraction
difficulties
The three primary take-away conclusions from the newer study are as follows: "world proven reserves (i.e. the reserves that are economically
recoverable at current economic and operating conditions) of coal are decreasing fast"; "the bulk of coal production and exports is getting
concentrated within a few countries and market players, which creates the risk of market imperfections"; and "coal production costs are
steadily rising all over the world, due to the need to develop new fields, increasingly difficult geological conditions and additional
infrastructure costs associated with the exploitation of new fields". Early in the paper the authors ask, "Will coal be a fuel of the future?" Their
disturbing conclusion, many pages later, is that "coal might not be so abundant, widely available and reliable as an energy
source in the future". Along the way, they state "the world could run out of economically recoverable (at current economic
and operating conditions) reserves of coal much earlier than widely anticipated". The authors also highlight problems noted in the
EWG study having to do with differing grades of coal and the likelihood of supply problems arising first with the highest-grade ores. All of
this translates to higher coal prices in coming years. The conclusion is repeated throughout the IFE report: "[I]t is true that
historically coal has been cheaper than oil and gas on an energy content basis. This may change, however ... The
regional and country overview in the preceding chapter has revealed that coal recovery in most countries will incur higher
production costs in future. Since international coal prices are still linked to production costs ... an increase in the
global price levels of coal can be expected ..." As prices for coal rise, "the relative gap between coal prices and oil and gas prices will
most likely narrow", with the result that "the future world oil, gas and coal markets will most likely become increasingly inter-related and the
energy market will tend to develop into a global market of hydrocarbons".
Their coal prices DA doesn’t make sense – coal isn’t like oil, markets are regional – price
changes in one area don’t necessarily change prices in others
Unlike oil, which is traded globally, coal is a regional resource: 90 percent of coal production is consumed in the
country of origin. Australia is the foremost coal exporter, and last year was responsible for 30 percent of the
international trade in coal, double the proportion of the next-largest exporter (Indonesia).
45
A2: Exporting clean coal tech good

US tech isn’t exportable – coal is different in every part of the world – what works here
won’t necessarily work abroad
Kevin Bullis, “Picking a Winner in Clean-Coal Technology,” MIT Technology Review 3/19/2007
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18398/page1/
These and other advantages, including easier capture of pollutants such as sulfates, have led many
environmentalists and policy makers to favor IGCC. But the MIT researchers say that things aren't so simple. The
key issue is that not all coal is the same. "There are many different types of coal, not only in the United States, but
around the world," Deutch says. "Different coals will suggest different carbon-capture schemes and different
technologies." Coal from certain areas of the United States, for example, might contain twice the amount of
energy as coal in parts of India. The amount of water, ash, carbon, and sulfur varies markedly, and all have an
impact on the efficiency and economics of coal plants. And the impact of different coals can be significantly
greater for IGCC than for more-conventional types of coal plants.
46
A2: Regulate coal CP

Regulating coal sufficiently to handle coal-radiation would make nuclear power more
competitive – means CP links to all their net benefits
Alex Gabbard, leader of the High Temperature Fuel Behavior Group in the Nuclear Fuel Materials Section of
Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Metals and Ceramics Division. He is a principal investigator for the Laboratory's
Nuclear Energy Program. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger,” Oakridge National Laboratory Review
(ORNL) - Summer/Fall 1993 http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Fifth, the fact that large quantities of uranium and thorium are released from coal-fired plants without restriction
raises a paradoxical question. Considering that the U.S. nuclear power industry has been required to invest in
expensive measures to greatly reduce releases of radioactivity from nuclear fuel and fission products to the
environment, should coal-fired power plants be allowed to do so without constraints? This question has
significant economic repercussions. Today nuclear power plants are not as economical to construct as coal-fired
plants, largely because of the high cost of complying with regulations to restrict emissions of radioactivity. If coal-
fired power plants were regulated in a similar manner, the added cost of handling nuclear waste from coal
combustion would be significant and would, perhaps, make it difficult for coal-burning plants to compete
economically with nuclear power.
47
***Coal Bad***
48
Yes new coal plants

Future reliance on coal is guaranteed – energy shortages will over-come opposition based
upon environmental concerns
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, geologist and peak oil theorist, author of the widely-acclaimed books Giants in Their Steps
and The End Of The Oil Age. “Global Climate Change & Peak Oil,” Wilderness Publications 2004
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072004_global_climate3.shtml
As the production of oil and natural gas continues to slide, we will open up our coal reserves for electricity production,
heating, industrial use, and to process coal into liquid transportation fuel. In the process, we will increase our exhaust emissions, rip up vast
areas of land, create immense slag dumps, and pollute our waterways and groundwater. And we will require a major upgrade in our coal
transportation network-that is, trucks and trains. You can expect strong efforts from industry and politicians to turn back
environmental laws regulating coal production and coal burning. It will be argued that these regulations are
damaging the economy. They will point to an economy choking from a constricting energy base, and they will insist
that they cannot provide the energy we so desperately need with all these legal restrictions. Power outages will act
to blunt the environmental sensibilities of the public.
The power of the anti-coal environmental lobby is over-estimated

Judy Pasternak, 23 years veteran reporter for the LA Times. “Coal at heart of climate battle,” LA Times April 14,
2008 http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/14/nation/na-coalwars14
The environmental coalition, which includes the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental
Integrity Project, claims 65 victories over the last three years. The Sierra Club is coordinating opposition to about 50 additional power
plant proposals. “We have a national presence, so we’re sort of mission control,” said Pat Gallagher, director of the Sierra Club’s environmental
law program. The goal: “We hope to clog up the system,” said David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel. “It’s putting pressure
on Congress to put together a comprehensive plan.” Utilities and industry groups acknowledge that the environmentalists
have been responsible for stopping some coal plants that otherwise would have been built. But the number is
“nowhere near” 65, said Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA official who is now an industry lobbyist.
49
Coal Demand Increasing- Its Bad

The U.S. is set to build more coal-fired power plants to meet new electricity demands would
accelerate global warming
Mark Clayton (Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor) March 22 2007 “Global boom in coal power – and
emissions”, Christian Science Monitor, lexis
Forget the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Disregard rising public concern over global warming. Ignore the Kyoto Protocol.
The world certainly is – at least when it comes to building new electric-power plants. In the past five years, it has been on
a coal-fired binge, bringing new generators online at a rate of better than two per week. That has added some 1
billion tons of new carbon-dioxide emissions that humans pump into the atmosphere each year. Coal-fired power
now accounts for nearly a third of human-generated global CO2 emissions. So what does the future hold? An
acceleration of the buildup, according to a Monitor analysis of power-industry data. Despite Kyoto limits on greenhouse gases, the
analysis shows that nations will add enough coal-fired capacity in the next five years to create an extra 1.2 billion tons of CO2 per year. Those
accelerating the buildup are not the usual suspects. Take China, which is widely blamed for the rapid rise in greenhouse-gas emissions. Indeed,
China accounted for two-thirds of the more than 560 coal-fired power units built in 26 nations between 2002 and 2006. The Chinese plants
boosted annual world CO2 emissions by 740 million tons (see chart). But in the next five years, China is slated \to slow its buildup by half,
according to industry estimates, adding 333 million tons of new CO2 emissions every year. That's still the largest increase of any nation. But
other nations appear intent on catching up. "Really, it's been the story of what China is doing," says Steve Piper, managing director of power
forecasting at Platts, the energy information division of McGraw-Hill that provided country-by-country power-plant data to the Monitor. "But
it's also a story of unabated global growth in coal-fired power. We're seeing diversification away from pricier natural gas and crude oil. Coal
looks cheap and attractive - and countries with coal resources see an opportunity that wasn't there before." For example, the United States
is accelerating its buildup dramatically. In the past five years it built 2.7 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity. But in the
next five years, it is slated to add 37.7 gigawatts of capacity, enough to produce 247.8 million tons of CO2 per
year, according to Platts. That would vault the US to second place –just ahead of India – in adding new capacity. Even nations that have
pledged to reduce global warming under the Kyoto treat are slated to accelerate their buildup of coal-fired plants. For example, eight EU
nations – Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic – plan to add nearly 13 gigawatts of new coal-
fired capacity by 2012. That's up from about 2.5 gigawatts over the past five years. New countries join coal-fired binge In all, at least 37
nations plan to add coal-fired capacity in the next five years – up from the 26 nations that added capacity during the past five years. With Sri
Lanka, Laos, and even oil-producing nations like Iran getting set to join the coal-power pack, the world faces the prospect five years from now
of having 7,474 coal-fired power plants in 79 countries pumping out 9 billion tons of CO2 emissions annually – out of 31 billion tons from all
sources in 2012. "These numbers show how far in the wrong direction the world is poised to go and indicate a lot of
private sector investors still don't get it in terms of global warming," says David Hawkins, climate center director of the
Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. "This rapid building of global-warming machines – which is what coal-
power plants are – should be a wakeup call to politicians that we're driving ever faster toward the edge of the cliff."
But the cliff can be avoided, some researchers say, without having to reduce the world's energy consumption. If carbon
dioxide gas could be captured at power plants and then pumped underground and permanently "sequestered" in layers of rock, then coal might
continue to be used without damaging the climate, concluded a major report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released last week.
In that light, whether or not China decides to build power plants that sequester carbon dioxide underground will be a central question. Right
now, based on those power plants that Platt's has been able to verify, overall construction growth could be tapering off. But none of them is
expected to sequester emissions – and estimates of how many plants China expects to build vary widely. So far there are 100 power plants with
firm construction plans compared to 361 built in the previous five years, according to Platts. But other analysts, pointing to official government
reports, say the total may be far higher. Chinese government reports, for instance, tout coal-power plant building far in excess of what Platt's
and others have been able to verify – about 170 gigawatts of new coal-power over the past three years, according to China expert Philip
Andrews-Speed, director of the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy at the University of Dundee in Scotland. "If the
Chinese are right then it's a much worse problem than we might think," says Christopher Bergesen, a Platts expert who oversees power-plant
data collection. He acknowledges Platts data may be a conservative base line for China. But until China reveals plant-specific data, not just
aggregate numbers, he and other researchers can't be sure how fast China is building power plants that spur global warming. That leaves
climate scientists and policy experts wondering how to influence power-plant construction in China and India. A huge factor is whether the EU
and the US are able to persuade the Chinese to build plants that capture and sequester CO2. Much depends on the US because China is unlikely
to sequester its carbon dioxide if the US does not, analysts say. "The Chinese won't be able to go forward by themselves," says Dr. Andrews-
Speed. "They are going to need, EU, Japan, and US together to help them and set a good example." Right now, the US is planning to
build more than 150 coal-fired power plants that don't sequester their emissions, according to the US Department of Energy. Platts
short list of those most likely to be built in five years lists 64 power plants – which would still vault the US into a virtual tie with India at
38,000 megawatts of new output. If that happens, the US alone would add 250 million tons a year of CO2 emissions to
the atmosphere - on top of the billions its power plants already emit. The recent decision by new owners of TXU not to build eight coal-
fired power plants gives some reason for hope.
50
Coal = GHG Emissions

Coal will increase GHG emissions
Many studies have shown that climate change brought about by the increase of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, has had
adverse ecological impacts. 168 Studies of the impact of climate change on animal species are already beginning to show significant
changes to the geographical movements of animals that appear to be the result of changes in climate. 169 For example, mussel diversity along
the California coast has declined in the face of warming water temperatures; 170 amphibian diversity in Costa Rican cloud forests has declined
in the face of warmer and drier conditions; 171 and a study of 34 butterfly species found that their European ranges had shifted to the north
from 35 to 240 kilometers. 172 [*34] Plant species will also be significantly affected by climate change. Increased levels of
carbon dioxide accelerate plant growth in laboratory studies, 173 but many botanists believe that any stimulative effects will be offset by
declines in soil nutrient availability. 174 Moreover, the plants that could readily adapt to the new climate conditions may be far away and lack
good dispersal capability. 175 And although some scientists hope that higher carbon dioxide levels will increase the
ability of forests to store carbon, recent studies cast doubt on the extent to which this will occur. 176 One analysis
suggests that 15-37% of a sample of 1103 land plants and animals would eventually become extinct as a result of
climate changes expected by 2050. 177 Not all of the projected climate change can be attributed to the combustion of coal, but coal's
share of the responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions is very significant. 178
Coal produces mad amounts of GHG;s

Michael Driscoll (Professor of Nuclear Engineering at MIT) 2003 “The Future of Nuclear Power: An
Interdisciplinary MIT Study”, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower
Washington, D.C. – A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today
what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy." The
report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of
power." "Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020," said Deutch.
"In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this
accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the
global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions."
Bringing new coal plants on line will ensure human induced warming that will cause mass
extinction and ecosystem collapse—We are at the tipping point now, we must transition
away form coal or die
USA Today June 24 2008 “NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'”
WASHINGTON - Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation
has gotten so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action. James Hansen told Congress on Monday that the world
has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said
Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without
changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises. "We're toast if we don't get on a
very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming
science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance." Hansen brought global warming home to the public in June 1988 during a
Washington heat wave, telling a Senate hearing that global warming was already here. To mark the anniversary, he testified before the House
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming where he was called a prophet, and addressed a luncheon at the National Press
Club where he was called a hero by former Sen. Tim Wirth, D-Colo., who headed the 1988 hearing. To cut emissions, Hansen said
coal-fired power plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the United States after 2025, and should
be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030. That carbon capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost efficient for power
plants. Burning fossil fuels like coal is the chief cause of man-made greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth's atmosphere
has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10 percent higher: 386.7 parts per million. Hansen
said he'll testify on behalf of British protesters against new coal-fired power plants. Protesters have chained themselves to gates and equipment
at sites of several proposed coal plants in England. "The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power
plants," Hansen told the luncheon. "I'm not yet at the point of chaining myself but we somehow have to draw attention to this." Frank
Maisano, a spokesman for many U.S. utilities, including those trying to build new coal plants, said while Hansen has shown foresight as a
scientist, his "stop them all approach is very simplistic" and shows that he is beyond his level of expertise. The year of Hansen's original
testimony was the world's hottest year on record. Since then, 14 years have been hotter, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's
still time to stop the worst, but not much time. "We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP
before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."
51
Coal Destroys Ecosystems

Coal ash destroys ecosystems
After coal is burned in a power plant, the solid noncombustible material is a waste product, often known as ash, which
contains a highly complex and variable mix of the impurities found in coal, including mercury, selenium, thorium, radium, uranium and
vanadium. 179 Each year coal-fired power plants produce about 130 million tons of this solid waste. 180 Some ash is used in construction
materials, but much of the ash is stored in impoundments at or near the power plant site. 181 If these impoundments are not properly
maintained, rain can leach toxic materials from the ash into underground water supplies, and floods have sometimes washed
out impoundment dams, sending tons of ash into communities and rivers, destroying their ecological viability. 182
Uranium, radium, and thorium found in coal are naturally radioactive elements, and it is estimated that 500 tons of uranium are left in the ash
produced by coal-fired power plants each year, some of which will decay, releasing radon gas. 183 The amounts of radioactivity
involved are probably harmless, but the amount of radioactivity released by a coal-fired power plant exceeds that of a nuclear
power plant, a fact that few people realize. 184 Radioactive emissions from coal-burning power plants cause some 320 deaths per year
worldwide.
52
Coal Bad: Mercury

Coal burning releases deadly amounts of mercury
The Roanoke Times (VA), COAL PLANT WILL SPEW TOXINS; EDITORIAL;, The Roanoke Times (VA),
6/25/2008, Lexis
Coal-fired power plants are also the major source of the mercury in our food. Unborn children and infants are
especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of mercury, which causes brain damage, learning disabilities and attention
deficit disorders. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that as many as 600,000 children are born each
year with dangerous mercury levels in their bodies, most likely because their mothers ate contaminated fish while
pregnant. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality just this month released a report noting that 20 health
advisories are posted for streams in the commonwealth because of mercury contamination in fish. Recreational
anglers and subsistence fishermen are advised against consuming fish caught from these waterways.
53
Coal Bad: Acid Rain

Coal burning causes acid rain
Steve Connor, Science editor, “Global Warming and a coal fired condundrum”, The Independent, August 31,
2006, Lexis Nexis
Coal was cheap and plentiful, but costs have risen as mines have gone deeper. Coal-fired power stations are also
relatively inefficient at producing electricity. A new coal-fired plant would only have an efficiency of about 40 per
cent, meaning that 60 per cent of the chemical energy in a lump of coal is lost during its conversion to electricity. A
combined heat-and-power plant can improve this efficiency to between 70 and 80 per cent by using the spare heat
given off by burning coal for domestic or industrial heating. The uncontrolled burning of coal produces high levels
of sulphur and nitrogen oxides, which cause acid rain. Filters fitted to power station chimneys have reduced
sulphur emissions by up to 90 per cent.
Burning coal causes acid rain

The Australian “US power suits end suit over acid rain” Oct 10, 2007, Lexis Nexis
The suit, brought in 1999, accused AEP of expanding or modifying its older plants without installing pollution-control equipment that would
have curbed emissions that cause acid rain. The suit involved nine of the oldest coal-fired plants of the Columbus, Ohio-based power generator.
Those plants are in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia. AEP, with 38,000 megawatts of power-generating capacity, is one of
the largest power producers in the US. About two-thirds of AEP's power is made by burning coal, which creates emissions that cause
acid rain, including nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. The eight states, mainly from northeastern US, involved in the suit are the ones that
claim they are affected by the acid rain caused by the coal-fired AEP plants in other states. The states that joined the suit are New York, New
Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island. There are 14 environmental groups involved in the
suit. Attempts to reach the Environmental Protection Agency and other plaintiffs were not successful last night. Environmentalists have long
charged that utilities including AEP, which has one of the largest fleets of older coal-fired plants, went ahead with expansions without seeking
''new source'' reviews. Set up in the 1970s by various provisions of the Clean Air Act, the new source reviews require that new plants or
substantial expansion to existing plants have pre-construction environmental reviews.
54
Coal Ash Bad

Coal ash disposal is harmful for the environment
Joshua Stewart (Staff Writer) June 12 2008 MDE secretary: Federal rules could have controlled fly ash, The
Maryland Gazette, Lexis
In a 2000 report, the Environmental Protection Agency recommended safeguards for controlling the substance but
they were never enacted, leaving the dumping of the substance loosely controlled to this day. But concerns about
what to do with fly ash are growing throughout the country. About 125 million tons of coal ash are produced in the
United States annually, about half of which is turned into products such as drywall and bricks. The rest is dumped
in landfills and mines, a practice that has caused health risks and environmental damage.
Dumping of coal ash is not regulated

Joshua Stewart (Staff Writer) June 12 2008 MDE secretary: Federal rules could have controlled fly ash, The
Maryland Gazette, Lexis
But as recently as February 2007, MDE and Constellation officials were in discussions about expanding dumping
in Gambrills, using the same techniques and design plans that were used in 1995. There are nine coal power plants
in Maryland, producing a total of about 2 million tons of coal waste a year. Additionally there 29 fly ash dump
sites, 20 of which are former coal mines and the BBSS sand and gravel mine in Gambrills. But there are no state
regulations specifically for fly ash or other coal waste products, Ms. Wilson said.
Coal waste is harmful to humans-brain damage

The Roanoke Times (VA), COAL PLANT WILL SPEW TOXINS; EDITORIAL;, The Roanoke Times (VA),
6/25/2008, Lexis
Coal-fired power plants pose a major threat to public health. Yet, Dominion Resources is clearing land to build a
new coal plant on the Clinch River. While Dominion suggests the proposed plant as a solution to increasing energy
demands, the facility would create a host of new environmental and public health threats. The proposed plant
would be a conventional coal-fired power plant, one that would spew out tons of pollutants that lead to asthma,
heart attacks and even brain damage.
55
Mining Bad: Mountaintop

Mountaintop mining destroys ecosystems
John Murawski (Staff writer for The News & Observer) May 28 2008 "Bill aims to outlaw coal mined by
removing mountaintops; Utilities say move would boost costs", The News & Observer
The Guilford County Democrat wants to outlaw importation of coal that has been extracted by a controversial form of strip mining known as
mountaintop removal. The process involves blowing up several hundred feet of mountaintop to expose embedded veins of coal. The state's
power companies say Harrison's proposal would force utilities to buy more expensive coal and raise the cost of electricity for consumers. Coal
mined from mountaintops is the cheapest coal available to Raleigh-based Progress and Charlotte-based Duke. North Carolina relies on coal for
about 60 percent of its electricity. Mountaintop coal removal is not practiced in North Carolina, but coal mined that way is imported from West
Virginia, Kentucky and other Appalachian states. Critics say that mountaintop removal destroys habitats, leads to erosion and
flooding, and releases toxins into waterways. "Every time we turn on our lights, we're using energy derived from
those destroyed mountains," Harrison said Tuesday at a news conference in Raleigh to discuss her proposal.
Mountaintop mining destroy aquatic systems

Chattanooga Times Free Press March 5 2008 "Ban the mining abuses"
Mountaintop removal is as lethal as it sounds. Miners first cut away the entire earth above the coal seam -- the
mountain's vast tonnage of trees, rocks and compacted soil that comprises the so-called "overburden" hiding the
coal. Then they push avalanches of the destroyed mountaintop down the mountainsides into streams, often
nnmmmdestroying forever miles and miles of streams and aquatic life, along with the mountain's flora and fauna.
Mountaintop mining destroys ecosystems

Chris Sturr (Amy Offner) and Amy Offner (Dollars & Sense co-editor) July 3 2007 "Flattening Appalachia",
Dollars & Sense, proquest
As the name suggests, mountaintop removal uses enormous explosive power to blast the top off a mountain-
sometimes the top 1,000 feet of a 3,000-foot peak. The rubble, or "overburden," is dumped into adjacent streams
and valleys, diverting water flows, wreaking havoc on ecosystems, and exacerbating floods. Afterwards, the
barren, rocky landscapes cannot absorb rain, so coal companies contain liquid run-off with structures-dams,
sediment ponds, drainage ditches, and slurry impoundments-that can poison communities when they leak or
overflow.
56
Mining Bad: Longwall

Longwall mining destroys wetlands
Chris Sturr (Amy Offner) and Amy Offner (Dollars & Sense co-editor) July 3 2007 "Flattening Appalachia",
Dollars & Sense, proquest
In states like Pennsylvania, another new technique called "longwall mining" removes entire seams of underground
coal, causing what companies euphemistically term "a gentle lowering of the earth"-or what residents describe as
man-made earthquakes. As coal companies hollow out tunnels up to 1,000 feet wide and two miles long, the earth
above commonly sinks as much as four feet, damaging buildings, roads, streams, and wetlands. "Our first loss was
our spring," explained Laurine Williams, whose Pennsylvania farm was damaged by longwall mining. "After
many years of supplying excellent water for the house, our spring went dry when all of the wells down the valley
went dry." Williams' pasture developed cracks 15 feet long and nearly three feet wide. "We couldn't tell how deep,"
she said, "because they appeared to be bottomless."
57
Biodiversity/Eco-System Impacts
Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction
Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program, 1996,
http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10
Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support
system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for
mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in
weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy
environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on
our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.
The impact is extinction

Montague 95 (Peter, Rachel's Environment & Health News, The Four Horsemen -- Part 2: Loss of Biodiversity,
December 14 http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=651)
Extinctions are dangerous for humans, but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In their 1984 book, EXTINCTION, Paul
and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet
will pop out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash
seems certain to occur. So it is with humans and the other species with whom we share the planet. No single species is essential
to our well being, yet it is certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive. Therefore each time we diminish
diversity, we take another irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss. In the process, we desecrate the wondrous
works of the creator.
Biodiversity collapse threatens human extinction

Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, May 24,
2000, Federal News Service
A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History confirmed that a majority of scientific experts believe
that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things. These scientists agree that: the loss of species will pose a
major threat to human existence in this century; during the next 30 years as many as one-fifth of all species alive
today could become extinct; this so-called "sixth extinction" is the fastest in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, but
unlike prior mass extinctions, is primarily the result of human activity and not natural causes; biodiversity loss is a
greater threat than the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution and contamination.
Biodiversity decline is a roulette wheel of ecosurvival for all

Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life
Sciences, 1994, p 177
Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the
system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can
never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And,
because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key
plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this
magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the
"lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes.
We must protect biodiversity or face extinction

Accra News, June 28, 2000, reported by Africa News
Accra - Thefact that one's life is greatly enriched by the life forms around him compels greater attention to be paid
to the conservation of biodiversity as well as utilising them today for the benefit of mankind. Plants are the providers of all our
basic necessities of life - food, clothing, medicine, fuel, just to mention a few. In recent decades greater percentage of
our tropical forest have been depleted by accelerated human activities such as land clearing and bush burning which impinge on
biodiversity and pose a threat to human life as this would lead to the extinction of most flora and fauna.
58
Biodiversity Outweigh Nuclear War

Species loss outweighs nuclear war
Richard Tobin, The Expendable Future, 1990, p. 22
Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of
species.” Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions.
To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or
even nuclear war. As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired within a few
generations. The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species
diversity by destruction of natural habitats.
LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY RESULTS IN EXTINCTION AND OUTWEIGHS ALL

OTHER IMPACTS
WILSON 1992 (Dr. Edward O.- Professor at Harvard and author of two Pulitzer Prize winning books, “The
Diversity of Life”, 1992)
The worst thing that can happen, will happen, is not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or
conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few
generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980’s that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species
diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly that our descendants are least likely to forgive us.
59
Biodiversity Good: Disease Module

Biodiversity is key to prevent and solve rashes of new disease outbreaks
Francesca Grifo, Director of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural
History, 1999, Epidemic The World of Infectious Disease, p. 25
Many of the pathogens that cause human disease are present in the environment most of the time. The reasons why we
are not constantly symptomatic are varied and complex. In many instances they have a direct link to the benefits provided by biodiversity.
Biodiversity, the incredible variety of living things, assures sufficient food and water supplies, keeps populations of disease-
causing organisms in check, provides source materials for medical therapies, models for medical discoveries, and
warnings of toxins and other environmental hazards. The disruption of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity threaten supplies of the
food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the medicines we need. Biodiversity plays a significant role in controlling
pests, pathogens, vectors, and human parasites. Disease-causing organisms, the pathogens, often have very complex life cycles
in which they may utilize numerous species as hosts (places to live and or reproduce), vectors (ways to get from one place to
another), or reservoirs (places to "hang out" until external conditions improve). When ecosystems are disrupted, the normal
disease behavior is frequently disrupted and humans very often end up being at greater risk of becoming ill or even dying. As
we know, forest ecosystems are highly biodiverse. One of the clearest examples of how ecosystem disruption affects disease behavior can be
seen in the interactions between deforestation and the infectious, and particularly the vector-borne, diseases that are common throughout the
tropics and the sub-tropics.
The terminal impact is human extinction

Frank Ryan, M.D., 1997, virus X, p. 366
How might the human race appear to such an aggressively emerging virus? That teeming, globally intrusive
species, with its transcontinental air travel, massively congested cities, sexual promiscuity, and in the less affluent
regions — where the virus is most likely to first emerge — a vulnerable lack of hygiene with regard to food and water
supplies and hospitality to biting insects' The virus is best seen, in John Hollands excellent analogy, as a swarm of competing mutations, with
each individual strain subjected to furious forces of natural selection for the strain, or strains, most likely to amplify and evolve in the new
ecological habitat.3 With such a promising new opportunity in the invaded species, natural selection must eventually come to dominate viral
behavior. In time the dynamics of infection will select for a more resistant human population. Such a coevolution takes
rather longer in "human" time — too long, given the ease of spread within the global village. A rapidly lethal and
quickly spreading virus simply would not have time to switch from aggression to coevolution. And there lies the
danger. Joshua Lederbergs prediction can now be seen to be an altogether logical one. Pandemics are inevitable.
Our incredibly rapid human evolution, our overwhelming global needs, the advances of our complex industrial
society, all have moved the natural goalposts. The advance of society, the very science of change, has greatly
augmented the potential for the emergence of a pandemic strain. It is hardly surprising that Avrion Mitchison, scientific director of
Deutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum in Berlin, asks the question: "Will we survive!” We have invaded every biome on earth and we continue to destroy other
species so very rapidly that one eminent scientist foresees the day when no life exists on earth apart from the human monoculture and the small volume of species
useful to it. An increasing multitude of disturbed viral-host symbiotic cycles are provoked into self-protective counterattacks. This
is a dangerous
situation. And we have seen in the previous chapter how ill-prepared the world is to cope with it. It begs the most frightening question of all:
could such a pandemic virus cause the extinction of the human species?
60
***Clean Coal Bad***
61
No Clean Coal Coming

No clean coal – Bush pulled the plug on the program
Lester R. Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, dubbed “one of the world's most influential thinkers” by the
Washington Post and the recipient of 23 honorary degrees, a MacArthur Fellowship, the 1987 UN Environment
Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize, the Presidential Medal of
Italy, the Borgström Prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry. “U.S. Moving Toward Ban
on New Coal-Fired Power Plants,” Earth Policy Institute 2/14/08 http://www.earth-
policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70.htm
Utilities have argued that carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal plant smokestacks could be captured and stored underground, thus helping keep hope
for the industry alive. But on January 30, 2008, the Bush administration announced that it was pulling the plug on a joint
project with 13 utilities and coal companies to build a demonstration coal-fired power plant in Illinois with
underground carbon sequestration because of massive cost overruns. The original cost of $950 million when the project was
announced in 2003 had climbed beyond $1.5 billion by early 2008, with further rises in prospect. The cancellation effectively moves
the date for any coal plants with carbon sequestration so far into the future that this technology has little immediate
relevance. Some utilities are being refused licenses for coal plants because they have not examined alternative
methods of satisfying demand, such as increasing the efficiency of electricity use. For example, insulating buildings greatly reduces
energy needs for heating and cooling. Shifting to more-efficient light bulbs would save enough electricity to close 80 U.S. coal power plants.
There are only two IGCC clean coal plants and there are no plans for more
David Eggert. “New coal-fired power plants generate opposition,” The Associated Press April 14, 2008
http://blog.mlive.com/tricities/2008/04/new_coalfired_power_plants_opp.html
Citing climate change, the state Department of Environmental Quality has asked companies proposing new plants
to consider a new type of coal use: integrated gasification combined cycle technology, or IGCC. Such plants are
considered cleaner because they produce electricity by burning gas made from coal and have the potential to trap
greenhouse gases and store them underground. But only two of the plants exist in the U.S., leading Consumers
Energy to conclude building one near Bay City would be too expensive and unreliable. A 700-megawatt IGCC
plant is in the works in Alma, though Florida-based M&M Energy LLC hasn't yet sought air permits from the
state.
Clean coal technology is stall far from development

Large-Scale Use of "Clean-Coal" Technology Is Decades Away Scientists and engineers believe that it is technologically
possible to create a process for burning coal which creates no conventional air pollution and stores all of the potential carbon emissions in the
earth's underground layers. 186 In 2003, such a proposal was part of the President's State of the Union speech, 187 and the coal industry has
been talking about this idea without rushing to adopt it. 188 Whether the needed carbon storage and sequestration will ever come
about, however, is another question. The [*37] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released an extensive study of the
potential methods of carbon capture and storage. 189 They concluded that capturing carbon dioxide before it is released as power-plant
emissions is possible but expensive with current technology. 190 Once captured, existing technologies can be used to inject the gas
into underground layers, such as existing or depleted petroleum reservoirs. 191 But the risk of sudden escape of the injected
gas needs to be evaluated; the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can asphyxiate all
oxygen-dependent organisms enveloped by the cloud of carbon dioxide. 192 In summary, coal mining and
combustion adversely affects the natural environment in many ways, and the chances of seeing widespread use of
technological innovations that will reduce these impacts within the next decade are negligible.
62
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Module

Clean coal dramatically increases Mercury pollution.
Stephen Bernow, et al, Michael Lazarus, Sivan Kartha, May 2001, “COAL: America’s Past America’s Future?
President Bush’s Plan and the Risk of Global Warming” http://www.tellus.org/energy/publications/E01-073-1.pdf
The mercury is rising. Coal plants are the single leading source of all mercury pollution in the US, accounting for a third of
all airborne mercury releases. Mercury has already contaminated over 50,000 lakes and streams in the US. Coal plant
mercury emissions are expected to increase 33% by 2010, and yet they are the only major mercury sources that are unregulated.
Ironically, a proposed “clean coal” plant (fluidized bed) proposed in Kentucky could actually emit up to 1.8 tons of mercury per year,
twice as much as any other coal plant currently in operation.
Mercury destroys ecosystems, and contaminates food supplies

Clear The Air April 2002 “Mercury, Your Health and the Environment”,
http://www.cleartheair.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=17321
Mercury is a hazardous air pollutant that can cause serious adverse health effects. Depending on the dose, the effects range from
subtle losses of sensory or cognitive ability, delays in developmental milestones (e.g. walking, talking), to birth defects, tremors and even
death. Once released into the environment mercury is easily transported through the air, sometimes for thousands of miles,
where even a relatively small amount can contaminate an entire ecosystem. Although there are numerous sources of mercury
pollution, the largest source is the electric power industry. Power plants are responsible for 34 percent of the total
mercury emitted by all known sources. More than 99 percent of that mercury comes from coal-fired plants. According to EPA,
mercury from coal-fired power plants is the most hazardous air pollutant emitted by utilities. Coal-fired power plants emitted 46
tons of mercury in 1990, and this amount is expected to climb 33 percent by 2010. Power Plants: The Only Unregulated Source of Mercury Air
Pollution In stark contrast to coal burning power plants, the other major sources of mercury pollution have been made subject to mercury
emission reductions. Recently issued EPA regulations for municipal and medical waste incinerators will require that mercury air pollution be
reduced by 90 percent and 94 percent respectively by 2002. Similarly, as a result of pollution prevention efforts and restrictions on mercury in
paints and pesticides, domestic industrial demand for mercury decreased by more than 75 percent from 1988 to 1996. In contrast, the electric
power industry has done nothing to help solve the mercury pollution problem. Instead, their lobbyists have aggressively sought special
loopholes from Congress. The coal and utility industries got Congress to exclude mercury emissions from regulation under the 1990 Clean Air
Act - an exemption that applied to no other industry. This lethal loophole creates a powerful economic incentive for the electric industry to
operate its dirty old coal plants at the expense of our health and the environment. Mercury Puts Our Health at Risk Americans are being warned
that eating the fish from our rivers, lakes and oceans can be harmful to our health. Mercury contamination is responsible for 60
percent of state fish consumption advisories. Over forty states advise their citizens to reduce their consumption of
fish from contaminated waterways. Ten states have issued statewide mercury warnings. Between 1993 and 1998 alone, advisories
due to mercury pollution rose by 115 percent (from 899 to 1,931). Infants and children are the most at risk from mercury contamination. Nearly
all the mercury that accumulates in fish tissue is the organic form called methyl mercury. Dietary methyl mercury is almost completely
absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues including the brain. It also readily passes through the placenta to the fetus and fetal brain.
From there it can cause serious neurological and developmental damage, including subtle losses of sensory or cognitive ability, delays in
developmental milestones such as walking and talking, and birth defects. Mercury Severely Damages Our Environment Mercury exposure
harms wildlife, with fish-eating birds and mammals receiving the highest exposures. Documented adverse effects in birds and mammals
include reduced reproductive success, impaired growth and development, behavioral abnormalities, and death. Mercury contamination has
also tarnished the second most popular sport in the US - recreational fishing. Throughout significant regions of the country fishermen can no
longer consume their "catch" because of mercury contamination. It is estimated that nearly 49 million Americans participate in recreational
fishing, adding $69 billion annually to the economy. To ensure the safety of our food supply and the health of millions of
Americans who eat fish, we must reduce current releases of mercury from coal-fired power plants. Because mercury persists in
the environment and bioaccumulates in the food chain, the sooner we begin to reduce mercury emissions, the better. Legislation in
Congress has been introduced that would finally close the 30-year old loophole that lets power plants off the hook and that would set a
reasonable and achievable cap on mercury emissions. Only when dirty old power plants are made to comply with modern pollution control
standards can we all begin to breathe easier.
63
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Pollution

Clean coal tech uses low-grade coal, which increases mercury pollution.
Hoosier Environmental Council, February 2001, “Clean Coal Technology”,
http://www.hecweb.org/Programs%20and%20Initatives/CCW/wastenewsmstr1.htm
Steel and other industries are increasing their use of the fluidized bed combustion (FBC) process to power their factories. Now power
companies want to use this process to make electricity. They claim it is a "clean coal" technology that reduces pollution and cleans the
environment. Does it? No. FBC plants do produce smaller amounts of some air pollutants than conventional coal-fired power plants, but
they also produce more mercury and increase the pollution of water and land. FBC plants can burn low-grade coal and waste
coal ("gob"), the material that is left after preparing and cleaning coal before it is burned in a conventional power plant boiler. Because huge
gob piles still blight the Appalachian and Midwestern coal fields and are a major source of acid drainage into rivers and lakes, "clean coal"
advocates work to convince communities that FBC plants help clean up the environment while producing electricity. They neglect to mention
that waste coal contains much higher levels of mercury than cleaned coal. More mercury emitted Air pollution from
conventional power plants is already the largest man-made source of mercury, one of the most toxic substances for
humans and wildlife. One teaspoon of mercury can poison a 20-acre lake. EPA decided last year to set mercury emission limits
under the Clean Air Act for power plants by December 2004. In September 2000, EPA researchers found that waste coal contained
nearly 8 times more mercury than the ordinary coal burned in power plants. This means fluidized bed combustion plants
spew out even more mercury than conventional plants.
Clean coal fails to remove mercury pollution from emissions.

Greenpeace, January 2005, ““Clean Coal” Technology”,
http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/pdfs/CleanCoalBriefing.pdf
Mercury is a particular problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), mercury and its compounds are
highly toxic and pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’2 Coal-fired power and heat production are
the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions.3 There are no commercially available technologies to
prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.4 “Clean coal” is the industry’s attempt to “clean up” its dirty image – the
industry’s greenwash buzzword. It is not a new type of coal. “Clean coal” technology (CCT) refers to technologies intended to reduce
pollution. But no coal-fired power plants are truly ‘clean’. Despite over 10 years of research, and $5.2 billion of
investment in the US alone5, scientists are still unable to completely remove harmful emissions from coal-fired power
plants. Clean coal technologies are expensive and do nothing to mitigate the environmental effects of coal mining, or
the devastating effects of global warming. Furthermore, clean coal research risks diverting investment away from renewable energy, which is
available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now.
64
Mercury Pollution Bad

Mercury can spread for hundreds of miles, and even tiny amounts can cause death. No tech
exists to control mercury pollution.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia, No Date, “The Myth of ‘Clean Coal’”,
http://www.greenpeacesoutheastasia.org/en/rpt/prm_ce_cleancoalmyth.pdf
Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury pollution in the US, responsible for 33% of the total mercury emissions from
all known manmade sources nationwide. 2 Mercury emissions from coal plants in the US reach over 43 tons each year.3 According to the US
National Wildlife Federation (NWF), a single 100-MW coal-fired power plant emits approximately 25 pounds of mercury a year.4
According to the US Center for Clean Air Policy, 50% of the mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants can travel up
to 600 miles from the power plant.5 According to the US Department of Energy, “[C]oal presents an environmental challenge …
[T]here is no commercially available technology that uniformly controls mercury emissions to the limits anticipated from all of
the nation's coal-fired boilers. New technology will have to be developed.” An American congressman has this to add: “There is nothing new
being developed in the clean coal technology program except for new ways to squander taxpayers money.”6 According to NWF, as little as
1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury a year can contaminate a 10.12-hectare lake to the point where fish are no longer safe
to eat.7 Contamination of methyl mercury, the more lethal form that mercury takes when it is absorbed by fish or comes into contact with
sediment, in food sources as low as one part per million has been shown to cause death in some animals.8 CO2 represents the major
portion of greenhouse gases. Over the last 30 years, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 30%, Nine of the
ten warmest years in recorded history have occurred in the last decade. Last year was the second warmest year while 1998 is considered the
hottest year of all.9
65
Clean Coal Bad: Pollution

Waste released from clean coal plants is worse
Hoosier Environmental Council, February 2001, “Clean Coal Technology”,
http://www.hecweb.org/Programs%20and%20Initatives/CCW/wastenewsmstr1.htm
The wastes are highly caustic. Because the FBC process uses lime, the wastes can have a pH as high as 13. A pH this high
means the waste is as caustic than lye and kills living organisms. The wastes contain even higher concentrations of
cancer-causing compounds than other power plant wastes. Fluidized bed combustion uses much lower temperatures and less
oxygen than traditional burning processes. As a result, some of the really nasty organic compounds in coal are not readily
broken down or they reform because of the incomplete burning. The compounds include anthracene, chrysene, fluorene, pyrene,
benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene; some of these compounds are well-known carcinogens. Dumping
permits do not required the companies to test the wastes for these compounds or to monitor the ground water for them. The wastes are highly
reactive. FBC wastes contain a higher concentration of sodium than other power plant wastes. Although the sodium itself is not
much of a danger, the higher concentrations of sodium make the wastes more chemically reactive with other
substances. This can result in more pollutants being leached out of the wastes and into ground and surface water.
Even the best-performing clean coal plants release huge amounts of pollutants.
Greenpeace, January 2005, ““Clean Coal” Technology”,
http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/pdfs/CleanCoalBriefing.pdf
Clean Coal” Still Pollutes The industry prides itself on the efficiency of some of its pollution controls. However when you look at the
actual quantities of pollutants emitted the figures are not so impressive. For example, the World Coal Institute uses the Lethabo
Power Station in South Africa as an example of a successful emissions control programme. The plant’s ESPs remove 99.8% of the
fly ash. Nevertheless the plant still emits around 60,000 tons of particulates into the atmosphere every year. Futuregen – what
kind of future? The industry rhetoric sounds very enticing – working towards a zero-emission coal-fired future. The $1 billion dollar Futuregen
project in the USA is based on experimental IGCC technology. Intended to create the world's first ‘zero-emissions’ fossil fuel plant, the project
will take 10 years to complete. It will be even longer before the technology is commercially available.40 In reality however, there can be no
such thing as a zero-emission plant. After being collected by pollution control devices to prevent emissions to the air,
pollutants are merely shifted to another waste stream as solid or liquid wastes.41 Either that, or waste products, which are
contaminated with heavy metals, are sold on for construction use. This results in these dangerous contaminants being released
into the environment.
66
***Nuclear Superior to Coal***
67
Nuclear Key Getting off Coal

Nuclear power is the only power source that can provide a smooth transition from coal, is
key to prevent catastrophic climate change, and is a safe technology
Patrick Moore (Co-founder of Greenpeace) April 16 2006 “Going Nuclear,” Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my
compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S.
hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to
update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible
disaster: catastrophic climate change. Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36
percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.
Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while
continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely. I say that guardedly, of course, just
days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium. "The nuclear technology is only for the
purpose of peace and nothing else," he said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated to
producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear weapons. And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of
nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing
mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda
and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in
which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at
Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country. What nobody noticed at
the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did
just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor
itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the
only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further
developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then. Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just
20 percent of America's electricity. Eighty percent of the people living within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (that's not including the
nuclear workers). Although I don't live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp. And I am not alone among seasoned
environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes
that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the "Whole Earth Catalog," says the
environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with
excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was
forced to resign from the group's board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter. There are signs of a new willingness to listen,
though, even among the staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke
to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical
production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. The
Greenpeace spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period, and I expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed
with much of what I said -- not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a clear feeling that all options must be explored. Here's why: Wind
and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big
baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too
volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination,
the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple. That's not to say that there aren't real problems -- as well as various myths --
associated with nuclear energy. Each concern deserves careful consideration:
68
Comparative: Nuclear Best

Nuclear power is cleaner and safer then coal generated power
Like coal, nuclear power is made from a mineral substance that comes from a mine, is transported to the power plant and
removed from the plant when its usefulness has ended. The uranium used in nuclear power plants, however, has only a small
fraction of the ecological impact of coal at any stage of its cycle, both in total effect and per unit of power produced. The
nuclear industry claims that: Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment - including air, land, water, and
wildlife - of any energy source, because it does not emit harmful gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and
requires less area to [*38] produce the same amount of electricity as other sources. 193 The evidence supports these claims, as will be
shown below. 194 Moreover, the risk of a serious accident or terrorist attack on the next generation of nuclear plants
will be slight. 195
69
Comparative: Uranium Mining Best

Uranium mining is better for environment than coal mining
The mining of uranium admittedly can create some of the same adverse ecological impacts as the mining of coal. 196 The difference, however,
is that while the coal-fired power plants in the United States used slightly over a billion tons of coal in 2005, 197 nuclear power plants used
only 66 million pounds of uranium oxide. 198 Thus the scale of the impact from uranium mining is not in the same ball park
as the impact of coal mining. 199 Virtually all uranium mines currently operating in the United States are
underground mines or use the in situ leaching method, 200 which both have much less impact on the environment
than open pit uranium mining. 201 Moreover, coal-fired power plants produce [*39] half the electricity in the United States while nuclear
power plants produce one-fifth. 202 In addition, unlike coal, uranium used in power plants can be recycled and used
again. 203 At the present time, the United States does not reprocess its nuclear fuel, 204 but countries such as Great Britain, France, Japan,
and Russia do so on a regular basis. 205 The policy issues related to reprocessing are beyond the scope of this article, but it should be noted
that the possibility of future reprocessing further reduces the slim risk that supplies of uranium will run out, 206 despite the fact that the known
uranium resources would provide enough fuel to support four times the current amount of worldwide nuclear electricity generation for the next
80 years. 207 Furthermore, uranium is not the only element that can be used as nuclear fuel; India is producing nuclear fuel from thorium, of
which it has ample supplies. 208
70
Comparative: Explosion vs. Coal Burning

The burning of coal does more ecological damage than a nuclear plant explosion—the
environment can adapt to the nuclear meltdown, but it can not bounce back form the
burning and mining of coal
The study of the ecological impact of the Chernobyl experience should cause us to compare that terrible disturbance
to the more gradual and less dramatic changes that humans are causing by burning coal. Explosions, even huge
ones, are one-time events. Ecological processes have a long history of adapting to such events and recovering, as
they have in the area around Chernobyl. But incremental changes of a unidirectional nature, which go on and on at
rates faster than the kinds of change to which ecological processes have adapted, such as acid rain, mercury emissions, and
climate change, may be the most serious threat to ecological systems and processes. 274 Ecological systems can be
"metastable" if irregular disturbances at a particular scale are within the level of resilience of the system, thus allowing the system to remain
relatively stable at a larger scale. 275 But disturbances that are continually pushing ecological systems in the same
direction, as in the case of the disturbances that cause climate change, are likely to exceed the boundaries of
metastability. 276 The "excess carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere today is removed exceedingly slowly, meaning that the carbon
dioxide we emit in the next half-century will alter the climate for millennia to come." 277 Many biologists and ecologists today are
more concerned about the impacts of climate change than about threats of nuclear accidents; 278 British scientist James
Lovelock has written: [*52] I am a green and would be classed among them, but I am most of all a scientist; because of this I entreat my
friends among greens to reconsider ... their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are
not, its use as a secure, safe and reliable source of energy would pose a threat insignificant compared with the real threat of
intolerable and lethal heatwaves and sea levels rising to threaten every coastal city of the world. 279 If we were to
assume that nuclear power would produce a Chernobyl every thirty years, a highly improbable assumption, I believe we
would do much less damage to ecological systems than is resulting from the ecological damage caused in large part
by the burning of coal.
71
Coal bad – comparatively more radiation

Burning coal emits thousands of tons more radiation that nuclear power
Charles Hugh Smith. “It's Not Just Peak Oil: It's Peak Coal, Too,” 4/25/2008
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr08/peak-coal.html
So is that the worst? Not by a long shot. It seems that burning 700 million tons of coal every year to generate about
50% of the electricity in the U.S. is releasing 1,000 tons of radioactive uranium and thorium every year. The irony
is a wee bit thick, isn't it? Here we all are, convinced by ceaseless decades of propaganda (or shall we say "one-
sided presentations"?) about dangerous, horrible nuclear plants, while all the while burning entire mountains of
coal that's releasing 1,000 tons of radioactive material into our environment every year--1,000 tons more than the
radioactive materials released by all the nuclear plants put together and twice as much as all the uranium fuel
burned to make 15% of the electricity in the U.S.
Burning coal releases significantly more radiation than a nuclear power plant
Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal
combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with
14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal combustion
produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and
nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known,
releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium. Former
ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of
Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans
living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear
power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article. The fact that coal-
fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the
environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and
that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions
from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.
72

Burning coal release 100 times more radiation that nuclear power
Because existing coal-fired power plants vary in size and electrical output, to calculate the annual coal consumption of these facilities, assume
that the typical plant has an electrical output of 1000 megawatts. Existing coal-fired plants of this capacity annually burn about 4
million tons of coal each year. Further, considering that in 1982 about 616 million short tons (2000 pounds per ton) of coal was burned
in the United States (from 833 million short tons mined, or 74%), the number of typical coal-fired plants necessary to consume this quantity of
coal is 154. Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the
year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released
5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982
(from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of
thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in
1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of
uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium. Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580
million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:
U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons): Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235) Thorium: 357,491 tons
Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons): Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235) Thorium:
2,039,709 tons Radioactivity from Coal Combustion The main sources of radiation released from coal combustion include
not only uranium and thorium but also daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes, such as radium, radon,
polonium, bismuth, and lead. Although not a decay product, naturally occurring radioactive potassium-40 is also a significant contributor.
According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100
millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton. This figure can be used to calculate the average expected radioactivity release from coal
combustion. For 1982 the total release of radioactivity from 154 typical coal plants in the United States was, therefore, 2,630,230 millicuries.
Thus, by combining U.S. coal combustion from 1937 (440 million tons) through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total
in the year 2040 (2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity release to the environment by 2040 can be
determined. That total comes from the expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of
477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409 million tons of
coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries. For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from
operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and
4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100
times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste
disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from mining to
power plant operation to waste disposal, is not listed in this report and is probably unknown. During combustion, the
volume of coal is reduced by over 85%, which increases the concentration of the metals originally in the coal. Although significant quantities
of ash are retained by precipitators, heavy metals such as uranium tend to concentrate on the tiny glass spheres that make up the bulk of fly ash.
This uranium is released to the atmosphere with the escaping fly ash, at about 1.0% of the original amount, according to NCRP data. The
retained ash is enriched in uranium several times over the original uranium concentration in the coal because the uranium, and thorium, content
is not decreased as the volume of coal is reduced. All studies of potential health hazards associated with the release of
radioactive elements from coal combustion conclude that the perturbation of natural background dose levels is
almost negligible. However, because the half-lives of radioactive potassium-40, uranium, and thorium are
practically infinite in terms of human lifetimes, the accumulation of these species in the biosphere is directly
proportional to the length of time that a quantity of coal is burned. Although trace quantities of radioactive heavy metals are
not nearly as likely to produce adverse health effects as the vast array of chemical by-products from coal combustion, the accumulated
quantities of these isotopes over 150 or 250 years could pose a significant future ecological burden and potentially
produce adverse health effects, especially if they are locally accumulated. Because coal is predicted to be the
primary energy source for electric power production in the foreseeable future, the potential impact of long-term
accumulation of by-products in the biosphere should be considered. Energy Content: Coal vs Nuclear An average value for
the thermal energy of coal is approximately 6150 kilowatt-hours(kWh)/ton. Thus, the expected cumulative thermal energy release from U.S.
coal combustion over this period totals about 6.87 x 10E14 kilowatt-hours. The thermal energy released in nuclear fission produces about 2 x
10E9 kWh/ton. Consequently, the thermal energy from fission of uranium-235 released in coal combustion amounts to 2.1 x 10E12 kWh. If
uranium-238 is bred to
<CONTINUED>
73

<CONTINUED>
plutonium-239, using these data and assuming a "use factor" of 10%, the thermal energy from fission of this isotope alone constitutes about 2.9
x 10E14 kWh, or about half the anticipated energy of all the utility coal burned in this country through the year 2040. If the thorium-232 is bred
to uranium-233 and fissioned with a similar "use factor", the thermal energy capacity of this isotope is approximately 7.2 x 10E14 kWh, or
105% of the thermal energy released from U.S. coal combustion for a century. Assuming 10% usage, the total of the thermal energy capacities
from each of these three fissionable isotopes is about 10.1 x 10E14 kWh, 1.5 times more than the total from coal. World combustion of coal has
the same ratio, similarly indicating that coal combustion wastes more energy than it produces. Consequently, the energy content of
nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is more than that of the coal consumed! Clearly, coal-fired power plants are not
only generating electricity but are also releasing nuclear fuels whose commercial value for electricity production by nuclear power plants is
over $7 trillion, more than the U.S. national debt. This figure is based on current nuclear utility fuel costs of 7 mils per kWh, which is about
half the cost for coal. Consequently, significant quantities of nuclear materials are being treated as coal waste, which
might become the cleanup nightmare of the future, and their value is hardly recognized at all. How does the amount of nuclear
material released by coal combustion compare to the amount consumed as fuel by the U.S. nuclear power industry? According to 1982
figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of
electricity. During the same year, about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add
1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels.
The same conclusion applies for worldwide nuclear fuel and coal combustion.
Coal releases worse radiation – their evidence doesn’t assume the release of plutonium-239
Another unrecognized problem is the gradual production of plutonium-239 through the exposure of uranium-238
in coal waste to neutrons from the air. These neutrons are produced primarily by bombardment of oxygen and
nitrogen nuclei in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and from spontaneous fission of natural isotopes in soil. Because
plutonium-239 is reportedly toxic in minute quantities, this process, however slow, is potentially worrisome. The
radiotoxicity of plutonium-239 is 3.4 x 10E11 times that of uranium-238. Consequently, for 801 tons of uranium
released in 1982, only 2.2 milligrams of plutonium-239 bred by natural processes, if those processes exist, is
necessary to double the radiotoxicity estimated to be released into the biosphere that year. Only 0.075 times
that amount in plutonium-240 doubles the radiotoxicity. Natural processes to produce both plutonium-239 and
plutonium-240 appear to exist.
74
Nuclear Safe: Comparative Evidence

Nuclear plants are safe and waste will not release radiation, however, coal plants will
destroy the environment and harm humans
Neil M. Cabreza (Department of Nuclear Engineering) 1994 “Nuclear vs Other Sources”,
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html
The unceasing public outcry over the use of nuclear energy was one of the major factors that led to the termination of the construction of
nuclear power plants in the United States. People believe that nuclear energy produces radioactive wastes that can destroy
the environment. People also believe that nuclear power plants emit cancer causing radiation and for this reason its
use should be discontinued. What most people don't realize is that most of what they hear are false rumors started
by anti-nuclear activists. The waste nuclear power plants generate is all contained and none of it is released into
the environment. This, however, does not hold true for the other major sources of power. A typical 1000-megawatt
coal-burning plant emits 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5000 tons of fly ash into the
environment per year while a typical 1000-megawatt oil-burning plant emits about 16,000 tons of sulphur dioxide and 20,000 tons of
nitrogen oxides. These emissions account for damaging human lungs, the formation of acid precipitation that defaces
monuments and buildings and kills the life in countless lakes. However, the problems don't stop here. These type
of plants also emit great quantities of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide tends to trap heat on the earth's surface and thus in
sufficient concentrations, could create the dreaded greenhouse effect. High enough concentrations could also increase global
temperatures which could affect the distribution of rainfall and could create deserts of much of the Northern Hemisphere, causing
irreversible catastrophes of unparalleled magnitude, affecting all of mankind. The use of nuclear power since 1973 has been able
to offset the demand for electricity provided by oil and coal, thus decreasing the mentioned figures significantly. In a span of twenty years,
electricity generated by nuclear power plants averted the cumulative emission of 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, 65 million tons of
sulphur dioxide, and 27 million tons of nitrogen oxides. The only environmental drawback associated with the use of nuclear
power is where to store the radioactive waste. Studies show that geological disposal is the answer. In this way, no radiation will be
emitted into the environment, thus keeping the public safe from its emissions.
75
***Hegemony***
76
Nuclear Policy Key

US action in nuclear industry is key to global leadership. Failure will allow nations to take
the lead, which risk free trade and proliferation
Jack Spencer (Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at
The Heritage Foundation) June 2 2008 “Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic
Impact”, WebMemo #1944, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1944.cfm
Take the lead in developing a new international framework for managing the global growth of nuclear power. Because
the United States has largely allowed its commercial nuclear industry to atrophy over the past three decades, it has little to
offer on today's international market. However, it does have the power and prestige necessary to take the lead in
developing a new framework to manage the growth of nuclear power around the world. If it does not undertake
this role, other nations like Russia will. Indeed, the Russians are already establishing agreements to facilitate nuclear cooperation.
These agreements will likely not embody American principles like free trade and transparency or adequately elevate non-
proliferation objectives. That is precisely why the United States must lead the effort.
77
Nuclear Policy will Restore Credibility

Expanding nuclear power will restore US credibility and environmental leadership
It may now be time to rebuild that consensus and revive the growth of the nuclear power industry in the United States.
Our dependence on foreign oil has grown to an unacceptable degree and evidence of the dangers of irreversible global catastrophe from global
warming is mounting, while the energy policy of the United States remains a prisoner of fossil fuels. This has resulted in
widely held perceptions, right or wrong, that the United States violated international law on the use of force by invading Iraq
to secure foreign oil sources and that it now is violating the letter and spirit of the emerging international law regime to
deal with climate change. Those perceptions can be removed by a domestic growth energy policy resting on existing
domestic energy laws that moves away from fossil fuels and expands nuclear power production. If fossil fuels continue to be
the centerpiece of long term domestic energy policy, those perceptions of international law illegality will persist to the detriment of U.S. foreign
policy for decades.
Nuclear power solves energy crisis and security and is key to maintaining hegemony.
Steve Creamer (chairman and chief executive officer of EnergySolutions Inc) June 13 2008 “Nuclear power will
solve energy crisis,” Tennessean,
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/OPINION01/806130395/1008
The United States is in an energy crisis. In order to solve this crisis and achieve energy security, we must find ways to
diversify our energy supply and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear power is one of the energy sources
that must be utilized, along with solar, wind, biofuels and other renewables, to achieve energy security for the United States. Nuclear
energy is a clean, safe, reliable and non-carbon-emitting source of energy. It must play a growing role in meeting
our energy demand. EnergySolutions' mission is to help the United States achieve energy independence, reduce carbon emissions and
protect the environment. We can accomplish this by helping clean up the nuclear-waste legacy of the past and by managing current nuclear-
waste issues. This will pave the way for nuclear power to play a greater role in meeting our growing energy demands The United States is
no longer the world leader in the nuclear industry. It has fallen behind France and Japan. In order for the U.S. to
reassert its leadership role, it must participate and compete on the global stage. The United States needs companies like
EnergySolutions to safely and responsibly manage the recycling, processing and disposal of nuclear material. I am immensely proud of our
workers and our exceptional safety record. We stand ready to provide technical solutions to other countries that are in need. This does not mean
that EnergySolutions, or any other U.S. company, should be responsible for disposing of all of the world's nuclear waste.
78
Strong Signal
US action to increase efficiency responds to our lack of action and sends a strong message
to allies
Paul Roberts (energy expert and writer for Harpers) 2004, The End of Oil, pg. 325
Politically, a new U.S. energy policy would send a powerful message to the rest of the players in the global energy
economy. Just as a carbon tax would signal the markets that a new competition had begun, so a progressive, aggressive American energy
policy would give a warning to international businesses, many of which now regard the United States as a lucrative dumping ground for older
high-carbon technology. It would signal energy producers — companies and states — that they would need to start making investments for a
new energy business, with differing demands and product requirements. Above all, a progressive energy policy would not only
show trade partners in Japan and Europe that the United States is serious about climate but would give the United States the
leverage it needs to force much-needed changes in the Kyoto treaty. With a carbon program and a serious commitment to improve
efficiency and develop clean-energy technologies, says one U.S. climate expert, “the United States could really shape a global
climate policy. We could basically say to Europe, ‘Here is an American answer to climate that is far better than Kyoto. Here
are the practical steps we’re going to take to reduce emissions, far more effectively than your cockamamie Kyoto protocol.”’
79
Soft Power Key Hard Power

Soft power is the only way to make leadership effective.
Julia Hanna, Kennedy School Bulletin, “Going It Alone,” Spring, 2002,
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/spring2002/features/alone.html, accessed 10/15/02
It’s more than a matter of staying one step ahead of our enemies in a technological game of cat and mouse, he continues. “When the Pan Am
flight exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, the cause was a bomb in unaccompanied luggage. “So now the airline employees ask if we packed
our bag ourselves. A Mohammed Atta would say, ‘Yes, I packed my bag myself,’ so we’ve created new security procedures. Unfortunately,
each time you find a solution, someone will be looking for a chink in your armor. That dynamic is bound to continue.” Military power is an
essential part of the response, but an equally productive focusing point, Nye continues, would be the cultivation of what he
calls “soft power,” or the ability to advance one’s agenda through attraction rather than coercion. “Soft power arises from our culture,
values, and policies,” he states. Given its proper weight, soft power can serve as a much-needed balance to our economic and
military might, two examples of “hard power” that can overwhelm and alienate other countries. The thousands of international
students who come to study at U.S. institutions are an example of this country’s soft power. Our government’s democratic values and
promotion of peace and human rights influence how other countries perceive us. For better or worse, so does the latest Bruce Willis action
flick. America’s use of capital punishment and relatively permissive gun control laws undercut its soft power in European countries. While its
intangible quality makes soft power much more difficult to use and control, observes Nye, that fact does not diminish its importance.
“American pre-eminence will last well into this century, but our attitudes and policies will need to encompass a very different means of
meeting challenges and achieving our goals,” he says. While a strong military presence will continue to be essential to maintaining global
stability, it proves less adequate when confronting issues such as global climate change, the spread of infectious diseases,
and international financial stability. “We must not let the illusion of empire blind us to the increasing importance of soft power,” Nye
cautions. “A unilateralist approach to foreign policy fails to produce the right results, and its accompanying arrogance
erodes the soft power that is often part of the solution.”
Lack of soft power inspires backlash and erodes overall hegemony.

New York Times, April 14, 2002
But even if firm alliances won't work, there are still significant reasons to want friends alongside in the fight. And the
most significant are political. The United States has become a global target in part by failing to address simmering resentments in much of the
world, officials concede. Finding common cause with other nations widens the field of targets and builds political support abroad. In the end,
that may be the secret to preserving American influence. Joseph S. Nye Jr., the dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government, argues that America faces a "historical test" to develop consensus with other nations around certain principles. "American
power is not eternal," Mr. Nye writes in a new book, "The Paradox of American Power" (Oxford). "If we squander our soft power
through a combination of arrogance and indifference, we will increase our vulnerability, sell our values short and hasten the
erosion of our preeminence."
Soft power preserves peace, re-builds failed states, deters rogues, and prevents terrorism
Michael Hirsh, former Foreign Editor of Newsweek, Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2002
There is a middle choice between the squishy globalism that the Bush sovereigntists despise and the take-it-or-leave-it unilateralism they offer
up as an alternative. A new international consensus, built on a common vision of the international system, is possible. In today's
world, American military and economic dominance is a decisive factor and must be maintained -- as the right believes -- but mainly to be the
shadow enforcer of the international system Americans have done so much to create in the last century, in which the left places much of its
trust. It is this international system and its economic and political norms that again must do the groundwork of keeping order and peace:
deepening the ties that bind nations together; coopting failed states such as Afghanistan, potential rogues, and
"strategic competitors"; and isolating, if not destroying, terrorists. As Henry Kissinger wrote, "the dominant trend in American
foreign-policy thinking must be to transform power into consensus so that the international order is based on
agreement rather than reluctant acquiescence." Or, as Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican increasingly critical of the administration, recently
summed it up, "We need friends."
80
Soft Power Solves Terrorism

Soft power key to stop terrorism.
Joseph S. Nye Jr., Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003.
THE WILLINGNESS of other countries to cooperate in dealing with transnational issues such as terrorism depends in
part on their own self-interest, but also on the attractiveness of American positions. Soft power lies in the ability to attract
and persuade rather than coerce. It means that others want what the United States wants, and there is less need to
use carrots and sticks. Hard power, the ability to coerce, grows out of a country’s military and economic might.
Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. When U.S. policies
appear legitimate in the eyes of others, American soft power is enhanced. Hard power will always remain crucial in a world
of nation-states guarding their independence, but soft power will become increasingly important in dealing with the transna-
tional issues that require multilateral cooperation for their solution.
Soft power is critical to winning the war on terror.

Tony Judt, Director of the Remarque Institute at New York University, “Its Own Worst Enemy,” The New York
Review of Books, August 15, 2002, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15632
If the United States is to win its war on terror, if it is to succeed in its assertion of world leadership, it is going to need the
help and understanding of others, particularly in dealing with poor Arab and Muslim states and others resentful at their own
backwardness. This is perfectly obvious. International police actions and the regulation and oversight of intercontinental
movements of currency, goods, and people require international cooperation. "Failed states," in whose detritus terrorists
flourish, need to be rebuilt—the U.S. is culpably uninterested in this task and no longer much good at it, in depressing contrast to its
performance after 1945. America does the bombing, but the complicated and dangerous work of reconstruction is left to others. The
European Union (including its candidate members) currently contributes ten times more peacekeeping troops worldwide than the U.S., and in
Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere the Europeans have taken more military casualties than the U.S.. Fifty-five percent of
the world's development aid and two thirds of all grants-in-aid to the poor and vulnerable nations of the globe come from the European Union.
As a share of GNP, U.S. foreign aid is barely one third the European average. If you combine European spending on defense, foreign aid,
intelligence gathering, and policing—all of them vital to any sustained war against international crime—it easily matches the current American
defense budget. Notwithstanding the macho preening that sometimes passes for foreign policy analysis in contemporary Washington, the
United States is utterly dependent on friends and allies in order to achieve its goals. If America is to get and keep
foreign support, it is going to have to learn to wield what Nye calls "soft power." Grand talk of a new American Empire is
illusory, Nye believes: another misleading historical allusion to put with "Vietnam" and "Munich" in the catalog of abused analogies. In
Washington today one hears loud boasts of unipolarity and hegemony, but the fact, Nye writes, is that The success of U.S. primacy will depend
not just on our military or economic might but also on the soft power of our culture and values and on policies that make others feel they have
been consulted and their interests have been taken into account. Talk about empire may dazzle us and mislead us into thinking we can go it
alone.[ Soft power, in Nye's usage, sounds a lot like common sense, and would have seemed that way to every post-war American
administration from Harry Truman to George Bush Sr. If you want others to want what you want, you need to make them feel
included. Soft power is about influence, example, credibility, and reputation. The Soviet Union, in Nye's account, lost it in the course of its
invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968. America's soft power is enhanced by the openness and energy of its society; it is
diminished by needlessly crass behavior, like Bush's blunt assertion that the Kyoto agreement was "dead."
81
***Proliferation***
82
Proliferation: U.S. Signal Key

Only development of the U.S. nuclear industry will allow the us the needed global
leadership to address nuclear proliferation
Jackie Saunders (Special Representative of the President of the U.S) April 29 2004 “Third Session of the
Preparatory Committee For the 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons”, http://usembassyaustralia.state.gov/hyper/2004/0511/epf206.htm
The central bargain of the NPT is that if non-nuclear-weapon states renounce the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and
comply fully with this commitment, they may gain assistance under Article IV of the Treaty to develop peaceful nuclear
programs. The United States promotes such cooperation, and shares the view that the proper application of nuclear
technology can improve the quality of life on an international scale. However, Parties cannot afford to ignore the fact that
several countries have exploited Article IV to advance their illicit nuclear weapons programs and threaten international security. These
countries have not lived up to their end of the bargain, and if we allow this abuse to continue, the net-value of peaceful nuclear cooperation will
diminish, and the security benefits derived from the NPT will erode. IT CONTINUES… The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
maintains relationships between DOE laboratories and counterparts in developing countries, known as sister laboratories. Dating from the
1980s, these cooperative relationships establish a direct line of communication between U.S. nuclear specialists and the nuclear communities in
participating countries. Information exchange, training, and scientific visits benefit both the United States and developing countries' experts,
and directly advance Article IV objectives. We have nine such sister-lab arrangements. To make the transfer of nuclear commodities
and technologies occur as smoothly as possible, under conditions consistent with the aims and purposes of the NPT, we maintain
a large number of international agreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation with other nations and groups of
nations. These agreements establish the necessary basis for the United States to provide significant nuclear exports
to other states. Power reactors, research reactors, major reactor components, and fuel are all commonly exported
under the terms of these agreements. The United States currently has in force twenty-six bilateral agreements of this type, as well as a
number of others concluded trilaterally, with the cooperation of the IAEA. Last year, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed U.S.
companies to transfer significant nuclear commodities to 32 countries, all NPT parties in good standing. The U.S. Department of Commerce
and the U.S. Department of Energy gave numerous additional approvals for transfers of nuclear components and nuclear technology,
respectively. The United States also provides technical support through Joint Standing Committees to coordinate with organizations in other
countries in areas such as severe accident research, reactor licensing and regulation, reactor and fuel cycle development, spent fuel storage and
disposal, nuclear waste management and IAEA safeguards. We have four such committees, and are pursing a fifth. In conclusion, Mr.
Chairman, the peaceful application of nuclear energy can bestow enormous benefits on humankind. The United
States will continue to contribute to the development of peaceful nuclear energy throughout the world.
The United States must reevaluate its nuclear energy program in order to rally its global
leadership
Pete V. Domenici (Republican Senator NM) 1997 Issues in Science and Technology, “Future Perspectives on
Nuclear Issues”, Winter, http://www.issues.org/issues/14.2/domen.htm
The United States needs to take a fresh look at nuclear technologies in order to tap their potential more effectively.
In the United States, we've traditionally optimized new advanced technologies to serve our nation's needs; this has
helped us craft an impressive economy and quality of life. With nuclear technologies, we have not followed this pattern. With
only a few exceptions such as nuclear medicine, we have done a poor job of evaluating nuclear technologies, addressing real
risks, and optimizing benefits. Instead, we worry about our dependence on fossil fuels and increasing oil imports,
but we don't use advanced nuclear energy systems that we've licensed and are selling overseas. Many
environmentalists who want to reduce carbon emissions don't want to consider nuclear power. We may worry about
excessive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but as we dismantle our own weapons, we store the complex classified components that would allow
us to rapidly rebuild weapons. Some who are concerned about the dangers of nuclear waste oppose efforts to move the waste from power plants
to a more remote and secure location or to explore systems that enable far better management of waste issues. We have consumer groups
concerned about food safety that accept bacterial contamination of food instead of supporting irradiation of food
supplies. In a world of increasing global competition, we can't afford to accept these contradictions. We can't
afford to abandon the broad suite of nuclear technologies when they hold real promise for further national benefits
in many areas. Although at first sight these issues appear to be distinct, they are tied together by their dependence
on nuclear science and by strong public concerns about nuclear technologies in general. These public concerns have
frequently been molded by an antinuclear movement focusing only on risks, both real and perceived, in ways that have been tremendously
appealing to the mass media. Actions to address risks have rarely received equal attention and have suffered from lack of national leadership in
key cases. In many cases, decisions and policies crafted in one policy arena are limiting our options in other arenas. We need a dialogue
focused on benefits and risks of nuclear technologies. Where real risks exist, we need research focused on
quantifying and mitigating them, followed by solid progress in addressing them. Where past programs have lacked
leadership to achieve success, we need to energize that leadership. The time has come for a careful scientifically based
reexamination of nuclear issues in the United States.
83
Proliferation: Solvency- Model

Specifically, as nuclear power use increases countries will model the U.S. reactor choice, the
U.S. must revitalize its nuclear program to send a correct signal
Michael Driscoll (Professor of Nuclear Engineering at MIT) 2003 “The Future of Nuclear Power: An
Interdisciplinary MIT Study”, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower
There is another national security dimension to nuclear power. Combating nuclear proliferation is one of our most
important foreign policy objectives. There is no doubt about the great risk to the security of the United States and the rest of
the world that the spread of nuclear weapons to other states and perhaps non-state actors would bring. So there is a major
security interest in how all aspects of nuclear commerce develop around the world. For example, the extensive U.S.
“Cooperative Threat Reduction program,”6 provides assistance to Russia for the purpose of improving their efforts to protect their nuclear
weapons and nuclear explosive materials against theft.7 On the other hand, there is considerable tension between the United States and
Russia created by Russian assistance to Iran on commercial nuclear power, especially since Iran is awash in natural gas. Indeed,it is worth
recalling that the unresolved nuclear fuel cycle “schism” of the 1970s between the United States and its European and Japanese allies
stemmed from nonproliferation concerns. In the Ford and Carter administrations, the United States stopped the recycling
of plutonium in commercial reactors because of proliferation risks associated with a “plutonium economy. ”The
hope that others would emulate this policy was not realized, as energy resource-poor countries, such as France and Japan, evaluated the
balance of risks differently. As countries look to shape today’s nuclear fuel cycle policy and R&D decisions in the context of the
world environmental, economic development, and security needs of the next fifty years, finding a common path among the G-8 and
others can itself contribute significantly to managing proliferation concerns. The expansion of nuclear power, should it
occur, will raise proliferation concerns that call for ongoing American engagement in nuclear fuel cycle issues independent of
nuclear power’s level of contribution to domestic electricity generation.
84
NPT Key Check Proliferation

NPT can assist nonproliferation by encouraging bargaining.
Amir Azaran, BS 1995, University of Illinois; MS 1997, University of Colorado; JD Candidate 2006, University
of Chicago, Summer, 2005. “DEVELOPMENT: NPT, Where Art Thou? The Nonproliferation Treaty and
Bargaining: Iran as a Case Study,” 6 Chi. J. Int'l L. 415
In this Development, I argue that the NPT cannot effectively deter nonproliferation on its own terms, nor can it do so by virtue of establishing a
"nonproliferation norm." 14 Instead, because of its broad language, the security uncertainties characteristic of the post -- Cold War geopolitical
landscape, and the desire of nuclear weapon states to maintain their monopoly, the NPT is able to deter nuclear proliferation only
insofar as it encourages bargaining between "threshold states" 15 and more powerful countries dissatisfied with the NPT's
[*418] default rule of allowing uranium enrichment. In other words, the NPT's effectiveness does not lie in its legal prohibition
on nuclear weapon development; rather, its effectiveness stems from providing a broad baseline against which
states can bargain. 16 Section II provides a background on the nonproliferation framework under the NPT and examines why it enables
bargaining. Section III highlights Iran's particular case and some probable characteristics of states willing to attempt this type of bargaining. A
brief conclusion follows in Section IV.
Developing nature of threshold states will increase the effectiveness of the NPT in
preventing proliferation.
Amir Azaran, BS 1995, University of Illinois; MS 1997, University of Colorado; JD Candidate 2006, University
of Chicago, Summer, 2005. “DEVELOPMENT: NPT, Where Art Thou? The Nonproliferation Treaty and
Bargaining: Iran as a Case Study,” 6 Chi. J. Int'l L. 415
First, the threshold state will not merely have security concerns, but it will have legitimate security concerns coupled with a
concurrent need to grow its economy. This is a straightforward consequence of cost justification -- in order to trade
NPT enrichment rights, a state must acquire the means to enrich. This includes specialized technology and trained
personnel, and is very costly. If a state undertakes this enterprise for the sole purpose of trading NPT rights for
economic incentives and the bargain never materializes, the costs would far exceed the benefits of domestic
enrichment capabilities. On the other hand, if the state also is in a precarious security position, enrichment
technology gives it the ability to create nuclear weapons. This is a large benefit because it can be realized without
actual weapons production; merely having the capability to build nuclear weapons may tip the geopolitical scales
in the state's favor. Iran meets this first criterion. While it has large oil and natural gas reserves, its economy was decimated during its
eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. At the end of the war, a population boom doubled Iran's size from 35 million in 1979 40 to nearly 70
million today. 41 As a result, 70 percent of Iran's citizens are under the age of thirty, 42 creating a great need for job growth. In addition to its
[*423] economic needs, Iran's security situation is precarious; it is surrounded by four of the world's eight nuclear powers -- Pakistan and India
to the east, Russia to the North, and Israel to the west. 43 Further, Iran is made nervous by the substantial presence of the United States military
in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's direct neighbors to the east and west. Moreover, a threshold state probably will be at odds
politically with the Western democracies. This is related to the first characteristic -- it is the Western democracies that, for the most
part, can provide the economic concessions and security guarantees that would cost justify the entire enterprise. A country seeking a
more favorable economic position or a better security arrangement presumably would pursue such goals using
diplomatic channels if possible, since diplomacy is far less costly than trading uranium enrichment rights.
Furthermore, acquiring the means to enrich uranium carries with it adverse diplomatic consequences because the
state will be criticized for wishing to "go nuclear." While this reputation cost will be less for a state with favorable
relations with the West (those with good relations are less likely to criticize each other diplomatically), it
nevertheless weighs against a state resorting to bargaining enrichment rights if it has other means of bargaining
available.
Fixing the nonproliferation regime soon is key to survival.

Orde F. Kittrie, Associate Professor of Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University,
Winter, 2007. “AVERTING CATASTROPHE: WHY THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY IS
LOSING ITS DETERRENCE CAPACITY AND HOW TO RESTORE IT,” 28 Mich. J. Int'l L. 337
The nuclear nonproliferation regime is at a tipping point, with its viability in the balance. If a nuclear 9/11, or a
series of them, someday occurs, it will be because the international community failed to enforce and repair the
nuclear nonproliferation regime while it still could. The time to act is now. Humanity's future may depend on it.
85
NPT Impacts
Strong NPT is key to solve global prolif
Jayantha Dhanapala (Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs UN) May 2001 “The State of the Global
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime: 2001”, http://disarmament.un.org/speech/21may2001.htm
For their part, multilateralists must pay closer attention to issues of national perception. In particular, they must work
harder to ensure that the global rule of law does in fact translate into concrete national payoffs, in the form of enhanced
security and material prosperity. They must recognize that global norms do not enforce themselves and that many
improvements in enforcement measures are needed internationally, including in the areas of export controls, sanctions, and
other compliance mechanisms. A broadened alliance of shared interests and ideals would help substantially in advancing
the full gamut of international efforts, quite beyond non-proliferation and disarmament. It would help in building
and sustaining coalitions needed to shape national policies and legislation. It would help in educating the public, by
clarifying how each person has an important stake in the success of efforts to improve the conditions of peace and prosperity at the global level.
The ultimate challenge to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime comes not from so-called rogue nations - despite the attention they
typically get in various circles of government, the news media, and in academia. Instead, the ultimate challenge is to sustain and expand the
foundation of political support for the goals for which it stands - namely, the elimination of nuclear weapons in the interest of international
peace and security, and non-proliferation as a stepping-stone to that goal. The more one considers the potential gains from
meeting this challenge - and the tragic consequences of failing to meet it -- the more apparent it becomes how
much international peace and security depends upon the future of the NPT -- the linchpin of the global nuclear
non-proliferation regime, if not international peace and security itself. Full compliance with all the provisions of the treaty is - as the late
William Epstein would say -- our "Last Chance" for a safer world for everybody
86
Proliferation Impacts
Nuclear proliferation creates multiple scenarios for nuclear war
Samuel Totten (Associate Professor, College of Education, University of Arkansas) 1994 The Widening Circle of
Genocide, p. 289
There are numerous dangers inherent in the spread of nuclear weapons, including but not limited to the following: the
possibility that a nation threatened by destruction in a conventional war may resort to the use of its nuclear weapons; the
miscalculation of a threat of an attack and the subsequent use of nuclear weapons in order to stave off the suspected attack;
a nuclear weapons accident due to carelessness or flawed technology (e.g., the accidental launching of a nuclear weapon); the use of
such weapons by an unstable leader; the use of such weapons by renegade military personnel during a period of
instability (personal, national or international); and, the theft (and/or development) and use of such weapons by terrorists. While
it is unlikely (though not impossible) that terrorists would be able to design their own weapons, it is possible that they could do so with the
assistance of a renegade government.
Proliferation leads to war

Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense March 1 1998 Strategic
Assessment
A messier world could indeed be dangerous. The
proliferation of substantial amounts of nuclear, chemical, and biological
materiel and missile technology in the hands of rogue states and nonstate actors accountable to no one is unsettling at best.
Russia would be a major source of this materiel, and Russia or China, in political turmoil or civil war, could conceivably turn to WMD to
resolve its conflict. In this messier world, WMD could be used on U.S. targets, mimicking the bombings in Oklahoma City and
at the World Trade Center, with more devastating effect. Such a world would be horrific. In it, the United States would need to maintain
tight control over its nuclear forces, use satellite technologies and all available censors to determine the identity of the perpetrators (a very
demanding task), and deliver lethal force to destroy the users of WMD. Precision and control would remain the fundamental desirable attributes
of U.S. nuclear and nonnuclear forces. The irony of a messier and even a nastier world is readily apparent. The United States fought the Cold
War for 50 years against a highly dangerous adversary that had the ability to annihilate it. It triumphed without a nuclear weapon being used in
anger. Now, in the aftermath of this great victory, unexpected to most in its swiftness and decisiveness, the United States is on the verge
of confronting a new series of threats. None of these is individually so daunting as the nuclear-armed Soviet Union at the peak of the
Cold War, but collectively they could create an international environment so poisonous and challenging that the
likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in the post-Cold War world could rise, alas, rather than fall.
Proliferation Threatens Global Peace

Anastasia A. Angelova (J.D., Candidate, Columbia University School of Law) 1999 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF
TRANSNATIONAL LAW, p. 420-421
The risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is well recognized as a threat to international peace and
security. One way to counter the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction is by controlling the transfer of missile equipment, materials
and related technologies for systems capable of delivering those weapons. The Missile Technology Control Regime is an attempt to introduce
export licensing limitations on ballistic missiles and air vehicle delivery systems or related materials or technology. One of the interesting
features of the MTCR is that it does not have built-in enforcement provisions; it is up to the signatories to enforce the regime through domestic
legislation.
87
Proliferation Impacts
Multiple flashpoints of nuclear tension exist – proliferation could turn them all deadly
Arjun Makhijani (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research) June 1998 Foreign Policy In Focus,
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol3/v3n18asi_body.html
If India tries to approach the size and variety of China’s arsenal (estimated to be about 400 warheads), it will have to
expend enormous resources. Moreover, India simply cannot match the industrial and economic infrastructure of China, although they
both have a similarly large population base. A nuclear arms race would mean that India would fall further behind in
industrial infrastructure, economic growth, and consumer goods, even if one ignores the impact of the U.S.-
imposed sanctions. The situation is even worse for Pakistan, which will suffer far more from U.S. sanctions than India—it has a
far smaller population base, is far deeper in debt, and has a much weaker scientific and industrial base. It would be ruinous for Pakistan to try to
match India’s nuclear capabilities. Further, Pakistan has left itself almost no room to maneuver since its nuclear policy is
even more reactive than that of India. It has tied its nuclear policy—including its strategy on nuclear testing and
signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bans all nuclear explosions, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT)—to India’s nuclear policy. The Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons tests have greatly increased the
threat of nuclear war in South Asia, notably over the Kashmir question. Moreover, there are also numerous global
dimensions to the South Asian nuclear crisis. The tests have rekindled a nascent nuclear crisis in the Middle East,
coming as they did at a time when the failing Middle East peace process is spreading gloom and restlessness throughout
the region. At the same time, they have aggravated the already grave dangers associated with the potential
diversion of nuclear materials from Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union into international black
markets. In the Middle East, harsh U.S. sanctions against Pakistan for nuclear tests are being contrasted anew with U.S. military and
economic aid to Israel (which has a far larger nuclear arsenal than Pakistan). This is intensifying resentment in Arab countries and
strengthening proliferation pressures. Pakistan has strongly denied that its bomb is an "Islamic bomb," and its policy since the tests appears to
be consistent with its statements. However, there is the possibility that, given its very weak financial position and the debilitating
impact of U.S. sanctions, Pakistani leaders may decide that sharing its nuclear-weapons technology and expertise
with countries that provide it with aid may be necessary for the survival of the Pakistani state. Pakistan, which has
declared a financial emergency, has already begun economic aid discussions with Saudi Arabia. By unhappy
coincidence this complex nuclear emergency is developing when the Asian financial crisis is deepening and affecting Russia in adverse ways.
Economic conditions in Russia (the largest potential source of fissile materials for nuclear black markets) could
greatly increase the severity of any regional nuclear crisis and more rapidly turn it into a global one. Another
concern is that Russia’s deteriorating nuclear infrastructure presents the United States and the rest of the world
with the threat of destruction by accidental nuclear war.
88
***Economy***
89
Economy: Nuclear Power

Electricity demand will exceed supply within 10 years, failure engage nuclear power will
collapse the economy
Linda C. Byus (Chartered Financial Analyst and currently runs her own business, BYI Consulting) July 2008 “The
nuclear power renaissance: "It's the economy, stupid", Nuclear News, lexis
According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), over the next 10 years, the forecasted growth in
demand for electricity in the United States significantly exceeds planned capacity additions. The electricity industry is
once again a growth industry, but its structure has changed dramatically. The most notable change in the electricity industry is deregulation.
Since the mid-1990s, the electricity market has evolved from tightly regulated to competitive. When the 100-plus operating nuclear units in the
United States were built, the price of electricity was regulated, and the cost of building plants was passed on to customers through the
regulatory process. While some of the costs were disallowed--or "stranded"--and written off, for the most part the company that built the plant
recovered its costs and was allowed to earn a return on its investment. That is no longer the case: Any new generating plant must compete
based on the market price of electricity. The cost of a new nuclear generating plant is estimated to range from $5 billion to $12 billion. Before a
new plant is built, there must be a plan (or contract) in place to recover the cost of construction, as well as the incremental production cost. If
nuclear plants are so expensive to build, why is there interest in constructing new ones? The answer is simple: Consider the alternatives.
Nuclear generation currently provides about 20 percent of the electricity in the United States, with most of the rest generated by carbon-
producing fossil fuels: coal and natural gas. Hydro generation provides 8-10 percent of the United States' electricity, but other renewable
sources such as wind and solar are still a relatively small (and expensive) part of electricity supply. In light of climate change issues--
specifically carbon production and controls--coal is not an attractive choice for new generating plants because the environmental costs are
enormous. Natural gas is somewhat less of an environmental concern, but the limited supply of natural gas, and the cost escalation associated
with it, limits the viability of gas generation. Why a renaissance in nuclear power? It's the economy. The U.S. economy is
driven by energy, specifically electricity. The three large-scale generating fuel options--coal, natural gas, and
nuclear--all have high costs and political baggage. But nuclear generation may be the most attractive alternative for the
long term.
Nuclear power is critical to meeting future energy needs and providing jobs—both are
critical to the US economy
NAM (National Association Of Manufacturers) June 17 2008 “Expanding Nuclear Capacity Will Create High-
Wage Jobs, Says NAM”, http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/545823
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 17, 2008 - The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) said today that expanding America's nuclear
capacity is critical to creating essential, high-wage U.S. manufacturing jobs and will help meet the nation's
growing energy demand. "Nuclear energy is a clean, reliable source of power that has the potential to create thousands of
high-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs," said NAM President and CEO John Engler at a news conference today with the Clean and Safe
Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition) to release a new white paper, titled Job Creation in the Nuclear Renaissance, which examines the job
growth potential for existing and future nuclear power plants in the next decade. "The United States has not built a nuclear plant in decades.
The technical knowledge to construct and operate plants and to design and manufacture key nuclear components is
retiring with the baby boomers -- and America does not have the necessary skilled workers to replace them. A nuclear renaissance
can not happen without robust investment in the education and training of America's current and future workforce,"
he said. "We must continue to support the expansion of nuclear energy to maintain jobs and economic growth in
America. A robust economy demands more energy, even as we pursue alternative means such as conservation and efficiency.
Failure to supply those increased energy demands will raise energy costs for manufacturers and consumers and hurt our global
competitiveness," he said. "It is imperative that industry, government and educators join together to support the growth of
nuclear energy to stimulate America's economy, protect our environment and create good jobs here at home," Engler
concluded.
90
Economy: Nuclear Power Key Jobs/Competitiveness

New plant construction is key to US economy and competitiveness
Frank L. Bowman (President and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Energy Institute) June 19 2008, CQ
Congressional Testimony, lexis
But construction of these new nuclear plants will have other benefits too. At the peak of construction, a nuclear plant will employ
2300 skilled workers and, on completion, approximately 700 workers to operate and maintain the plant. New
nuclear plant construction will also lead to new investment in the supply chain- in new manufacturing facilities to produce
pumps, valves, pipe, electrical cable and other equipment and components. That will create more jobs, new opportunities and
higher economic growth, and allow the United States to reclaim economic opportunity that has moved overseas
over the last several decades.
91
Cheap Electricity Key Economy: Nuclear Solves

Affordable electricity is critical to US economic competitiveness—Nuclear energy will
provide cheap energy and jobs
Nicolas Loris (Research Assistant) and Jack Spencer (research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation) 5/5/2008 “Nuclear power gaining momentum in the US”,
Spero News,
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15632&t=Nuclear+power+gaining+momentum+in+the+US
Nuclear power is gaining momentum in the United States as the nation seeks environmentally friendly and affordable
sources of energy that can meet growing demand. As the U.S. deliberates the possibility of building new nuclear power plants, other
nations have already begun the process. A Domestic Source of Energy France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to
reduce foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is
a net exporter of electricity.[1] Germany, alternatively, decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this
energy.[2] Japan is another country that has looked to nuclear power as a clean, safe and reliable form of energy. Nuclear power already
provides 30 percent of the country's electricity; however, Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017.[3]
Finland, ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption, has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions.
Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources, Finland has begun constructing a
modern 1,600-megawatt reactor, which will likely be a model used throughout the United States. Finland already gets 28 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power, and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially. Presently, the U.K. has 19 reactors that
provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. Because the U.K. is already a net importer of energy and all but one of its coal-fired and
nuclear plants are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2023, building new reactors is a must for the U.K. if it is to avoid creating increased
energy dependencies. The British government, while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power, has made it clear that it
would not subsidize the industry. The U.S., on the other hand, continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some
subsidies to the industry. As a result, the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward, while the
U.S. model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry. Environmental Concerns Nuclear
energy is attractive to many countries because of its impeccable environmental record. Burning fossil fuels releases an abundance of elements
into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy, to the contrary, fully contains all of its byproduct in the form of used nuclear fuel. Such waste is safely
managed throughout the world in countries like France, Finland, and Japan. Nations across the world that are struggling to reconcile mandates
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions with the need to maintain economic competitiveness are looking to nuclear technology. Under the new
European Union energy plan, by 2020 Finland will be forced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent, increase renewable energy by
20 percent, and increase efficiency by 20 percent by 2020. It has turned to nuclear energy to meet these goals. Economic Competitiveness
Affordable energy is critical to sustaining economic competitiveness in economies with high labor costs,
expensive environmental mandates, and other regulatory expenditures. This is especially true in economies that
depend on energy-intensive activities like manufacturing, such as the Finnish and U.S. economies. Finland concluded that
access to vast quantities of affordable energy should be a top national priority, and nuclear was an obvious choice. These countries and others
searching to expand their nuclear capacity have an opportunity to fuel their respective economies through the thousands of jobs, both temporary
and permanent, that nuclear energy creates. A global nuclear renaissance will attract construction jobs as well as high-skill engineering jobs to
operate the plants. Thus, two of the greatest benefits of building more nuclear reactors, if done correctly, will be more jobs
and cleaner, cheaper energy. Countries that do not choose to produce clean energy in a carbon constrained world will inevitably pay
more to produce energy, resulting in higher input costs and higher prices for consumers on the open market.
92
Economy: Prices Add-on

Electricity is the backbone to the U.S. economy and stable electricity prices are to generate
sufficient amounts of electricity
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) 2004 “Nuclear Energy and the Nations Future Prosperity”,
http://www.nei.org/documents/Vision2020_Booklet.pdf
More than half of the academy’s top 20 achievements depend on electricity. What is more striking, however, is how the diffuse items on the list
interact, in combination with electricity, to power the nation’s economic progress. One prominent example is the
country’s technology-reliant digital economy. Such an economy could not operate, let alone prosper, without
reliable electricity to power computers (ranked eighth), electronics (ranked ninth) and the Internet (ranked thirteenth) that are so basic
to our economic success. In other words, electricity is an economic multiplier—a gateway technology that fosters
economic growth and additional technological progress. The strong historical correlation between electricity
demand and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is powerful evidence that electricity plays an essential role in economic
growth (see Fig.5 ). As the nation’s GDP rises,electricity demand follows with near lockstep precision. Stated differently,increased
availability of electricity spurred wider and more diverse applications of that electricity. This in turn spawned
increasing economic growth as the nation developed new ways to derive increased economic value from electricity and to improve the
overall standard of living. While these supply and demand variables remain in balance, electricity prices remain stable
and economic growth continues. Moreover,the wider application of electrotechnologies results in greater productivity gains and the
more efficient use of this valuable commodity. This can be seen in the measure of electricity intensity—the ratio of kilowatthours per unit of
GDP. As electricity demand increases over time,electricity intensity has fallen since 1974 (see Fig.6 ).
Nuclear power loan guarantees are essential to maintain stable electricity prices
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) February 28 2007 Nuclear Energy Industry Experiences Record Year, Anticipates
Developments, Growth, http://petrochemical.ihs.com/news-07Q1/nei-nuclear-energy.jsp
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included incentives for a limited number of advanced-design nuclear plants among its provisions encouraging
improved energy efficiency and the construction of renewable energy sources and cleaner fossil-fired power plants. The legislation provides
limited investment incentives for construction of nuclear plants and other high-capital-cost clean energy technologies. But it does not by itself
resolve all financing challenges, particularly with regard to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) implementation of the clean technology-
neutral loan guarantee program that the energy bill authorized, Bowman said. "The construction period is when a new nuclear
project most needs credit support," he said. "Unfortunately, the [DOE] interim guidelines published last year were developed without
input from companies with financial expertise and are not optimal for large power projects. So we must continue to work cooperatively with
the agency as it moves forward. Constructive input from credible organizations and institutions, including the financial community, will be
essential to making this program a success." Properly implemented, the loan guarantee program will reduce financing costs
and thus reduce the consumer cost of electricity from the project, Bowman said. The industry's average production costs -
including expenses for uranium fuel and operations and maintenance - were an all-time low of 1.66 cents/kW in 2006, according to preliminary
NEI figures. Average production costs have been below 2 cents/kW for the past eight years, making nuclear power plants cost competitive with
other electricity sources, particularly those capable of reliably producing large amounts of electricity. Electricity production at nuclear power
plants has increased 36% since 1990, adding the equivalent of more than 26 large power plants to the electrical grid and preventing the
emission of massive amounts of controlled air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The average production cost dropped to a record-
low even though prices for uranium fuel have increased over the past three years. Production costs are a key
measure of an electricity source's competitiveness in the market because generating companies typically dispatch
their low-cost electricity to the grid first. Even when expenses for taxes, decommissioning and yearly capital additions are added to
production costs to yield a total electricity cost, nuclear-generated electricity typically clears the market for less than 2.5
cents/kW. By comparison, production costs alone for natural gas-fired power plants averaged 7.5 cents/kW in 2005, according to Global
Energy Decisions data.
Economic declines leads to global war and nuclear use

Walter Russell Mead (Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations) Summer 1992 New Perspectives Quarterly
What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict:
South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear
weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
93
Manufacturing Sector Key

US MANUFACTURING SECTOR IS THE CORNERSTONE OF THE US ECONOMY
American manufacturers are a cornerstone of the American economy and embody the best in American values.
They enhance U.S. competitiveness while improving lives domestically and internationally. President Bush’s
concern for the men and women who work in manufacturing and the critical contribution they make to the U.S.
economy is the driving force behind this report. Manufacturers are full partners in the effort to build the future of
the country in the marketplace for new products and ideas. Simply put, a healthy manufacturing sector is key to
better jobs, fostering innovation, rising productivity, and higher standards of living in the United States. The
United States is the world’s leading producer of manufactured goods. Standing alone, the U.S. manufacturing
sector would represent the fifth-largest economy in the world—larger than China’s economy as a whole.1 The U.S.
manufacturing sector also leads in innovation, accounting for more than 90 percent of all U.S. patents registered
annually. 2 Investments in technology create new industries and careers in manufacturing as U.S. firms introduce
products and cutting-edge manufacturing techniques.Perhaps most importantly, productivity in manufacturing has
continued to rise significantly.
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY IS KEY TO SERVICE SECTOR, WHICH MAKES UP

THE 70% OF THE US ECONOMY
Rising productivity is the key to maintaining U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing, but the benefits of rising
manufacturing productivity extend to the economy as a whole. For example, improvements in cotton harvesting equipment,
manufactured in the Midwest, help improve the productivity of cotton growers in California and Texas. And expanding the power of
computers makes on-line banking and other financial services possible. A recent study by the National Instituteof Standards and Technology
reinforces how the benefits of improved manufacturing productivity extend to other sectors in the economy. The NIST
study detailed the service sector’s reliance on U.S. manufacturers for the goods and technology that spur service sector growth. It
emphasized “the substantial dependency of services on manufacturing firms for technology” and the “critical role”
manufacturing plays in stimulating growth in the services sector, which now makes up more than 70 percent of the
U.S. economy.5
94
Competitiveness Key Hegemony

Competitiveness key to maintain a military that discourages any challengers
Barry Posen (Political Science Professor at MIT) Summer 2003 “Command of the Commons", International
Security, Vol. 28, Issue 1, Pg. 5
What are the sources of U.S. command of the commons? One obvious source is the general U.S. superiority in
economic resources. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States produces 23 percent of gross world product
(GWP); it has more than twice as many resources under the control of a single political authority as either of the next
two most potent economic powers -- Japan with 7 percent of GWP and China with 10 percent. n14 With 3.5 percent of U.S.
gross domestic product devoted to defense (nearly 1 percent of GWP), the U.S. military can undertake larger projects
than any other military in the world. The specific weapons and platforms needed to secure and exploit command of
the commons are expensive. They depend on a huge scientific and industrial base for their design and production.
In 2001 the U.S. Department of Defense budgeted nearly as much money for military research and development as Germany and France
together budgeted for their entire military efforts. n15 The military exploitation of information technology, a field where the U.S.
military excels, is a key element. The systems needed to command the commons require significant skills in systems
integration and the management of large-scale industrial projects, where the U.S. defense industry excels. The development of
new weapons and tactics depends on decades of expensively accumulated technological and tactical experience embodied in the institutional
memory of public and private military research and development organizations. n16 Finally, the military personnel needed to run
these systems are among the most highly skilled and highly trained in the world. The barriers to entry to a state
seeking the military capabilities to fight for the commons are very high.
95
***Emissions/Warming***
96
Solvency: Emissions Modeling

US leadership through loan guarantees for carbon free emission is key for global modeling
Jay Apt (is executive director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of
Business and the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, where he is a Distinguished Service Professor)
David W. Keith (is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment in the Department of
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and the Department of Economics at the University of Calgary) and M.
Granger Morgan (is University and Lord Professor and department head of the Department of Engineering and
Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and co-director of the Electricity Industry Center) Spring 2007
"Promoting Low-Carbon Electricity Production”, Issues in Science and Technology, v. 23,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200704/ai_n19198506
China will soon pass the United States as the largest CO2 emitter. Many argue that for this reason, the United
States should do nothing to control emissions from its power plants until China does more to curtail greenhouse
gas emissions. When people hear this argument, they probably think in terms of familiar air pollution, such as
sulfur dioxide. Once it enters the atmosphere, normal pollution stays there only a few hours or days. Carbon
dioxide is not like that. Much of it stays in the atmosphere for a century or more. Climate change is caused by the
cumulative impact of all the CO2 that human activities have added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the
industrial revolution. When past emissions are factored in, the United States is responsible for just over a quarter
of all anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels currently in the atmosphere. Europe, China, and India are responsible
for 19%, 9%, and 3% respectively. The EU has agreed to reduce emissions to 8% below 1990 levels by 2012; the
United States has not. EU emissions are the same as in 1990; U.S. emissions have increased by 20%. And because
CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for over a century, the largest single share of CO2 will continue to
belong to the United States for many decades, despite China's growth. Since the United States has put the largest
single share of CO2 into the air, it must begin to take the lead in reducing it. In a few decades, China, India, Brazil,
and other developing countries also will have to undertake serious controls. But they will not do so until we take
the lead and show how it can be done in an efficient and affordable way. Beginning now with measures such as
CPSs and loan guarantees for low-carbon plants can make later actions much less costly. A CPS is the least-cost
national solution, and has many of the benefits espoused by proponents of RPSs. But there is no escaping the
conclusion that effective control of carbon in the U.S. electric power industry requires regulators to act quickly to
set a clear timetable for emission reductions.
97
Nuclear Stop Warming

Expansion of nuclear power is key to stopping climate change, however, high construction
cost are deterring new reactors
John Deutch (Professor at MIT, and Ernest Moniz, Profesor at MIT) December 7 2006 "The Nuclear Option"
Scientific American, http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/deutch/policy/80TheNuclearOption2006.pdf
A threefold expansion of nuclear power could contribute significantly to staving off climate change by avoiding one
billion to two billion tons of carbon emissions annually. Nuclear power supplies a sixth of the world's electricity. Along with hydropower
(which supplies slightly more than a sixth), it is the major source of "carbon-free" energy today. The technology suffered growing pains, seared
into the public's mind by the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, but plants have demonstrated remarkable reliability and efficiency
recently. The world's ample supply of uranium could fuel a much larger fleet of reactors than exists today throughout
their 40- to 50-year life span. With growing worries about global warming and the associated likelihood that greenhouse gas emissions
will be regulated in some fashion, it is not surprising that governments and power providers in the U.S. and elsewhere are increasingly
considering building a substantial number of additional nuclear power plants. The fossil-fuel alternatives have their drawbacks.
Natural gas is attractive in a carbon-constrained world because it has lower carbon content relative to other fossil fuels and because advanced
power plants have low capital costs. But the cost of the electricity produced is very sensitive to natural gas prices, which have become much
higher and more volatile in recent years. In contrast, coal prices are relatively low and stable, but coal is the most carbon-intensive source of
electricity. The capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide, which will add significantly to the cost, must be demonstrated and introduced on a
large scale if coal-powered electricity is to expand significantly without emitting unacceptable quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. These
concerns raise doubts about new investments in gas- or coal-powered plants. All of which points to a possible nuclear revival. And
indeed, more than 20,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity have come online globally since 2000, mostly in the Far East. Yet despite the
evident interest among major nuclear operators, no firm orders have been placed in the U.S. Key impediments to
new nuclear construction are high capital costs and the uncertainty surrounding nuclear waste management. In addition, global
expansion of nuclear power has raised concerns that nuclear weapons ambitions in certain countries may inadvertently be advanced.
98
Nuclear Power Solves Warming

Nuclear power is the only effective and risk free response to global warming
Hans Blix (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency) September 1997 Nuclear News,
“Nuclear energy in the 21st century”
Let me focus next on the environmental dangers of continued use of fossil fuels at current or increased levels. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the
major environmental concerns were local and regional. They related primarily to the release of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides causing acid
rains, which damaged forests and lakes. This concern remains, but several techniques now fortunately exist to eliminate or drastically reduce
the emission of these gases -- although at considerable cost. Today's chief concern is related to CO[2] emissions, which, along
with other so-called "greenhouse gases," such as methane from gas fields and gas pipelines, are believed to contribute to
the increase in the temperature of the world's atmosphere -- global warming. There is no viable technique available
to remove or neutralize the CO[2] formed in the burning of all fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) is warning that if present trends continue, these CO[2] emissions could by 2100 lead the average temperature of the Earth to increase by
1.5 to 3.5 deg. C -- possibly even causing the sea level to rise as much as one metre. For island nations and countries like Bangladesh and the
Netherlands, this would be a terrible prospect. However, climate change brought about by such a temperature increase would concern everyone.
We all know what climate we have; we do not know what climate we might get.
There is a great difference in the CO[2] emissions resulting from nuclear and fossil-fueled plants. This can be
illustrated by contrasting the cases of the United Kingdom and France. In the U.K., where some 49 percent of electricity was generated by coal
in 1994, emissions of CO[2] per kWh were about 0.63 kg. In France, where about 75 percent of electricity was generated by nuclear power that
same year, the emission of CO[2] per kWh was about one-tenth of the U.K. value, or 0.064 kg. In China, the CO[2] level was even higher than
in the U.K., 0.797 kg. This was no doubt a reflection of the dominant use of coal for electricity generation in China.
Thus it is clear that a greatly expanded use of nuclear power could help the world satisfy its increasing needs for
energy while restraining CO[2] emissions. For further evidence, we need to look back only a few decades. In a speech before the
Second Session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Geneva last summer, Robert Priddle, the executive
director of the International Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), noted that "nuclear
power accounted for the greater part of the lowering of carbon intensity of the energy economies of the OECD
countries over the last 25 years." Why not let nuclear power continue this mission? If the fear of global warming
after all were to be unfounded, nothing would have been lost by a greater use of nuclear power, as the cost of
nuclear power is roughly competitive with fossil fuel alternatives. Nuclear power, in my view, is therefore truly the
"no regrets" response that has been proposed to potential global warming.
99
Solve Warming- Runaway

Expanding nuclear power is critical to check runaway warming
Michael McCarthy (Environmental Editor) May 24 2004 “Only nuclear power can now halt global warming”,
http://membrane.com/global_warming/notes/nuclear_energy.html] lp
'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming' 'The ice is melting much faster than we thought' Guru who tuned
into Gaia was one of the first to warn of climate threat James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution Global warming is
now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can
prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says. His call will cause huge disquiet
for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as
the most important issue facing the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of
both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call. Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author of the Gaia
hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of living things themselves, was among the first researchers to sound
the alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect. He was in a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on climate change to
Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989. He now believes recent climatic events have shown
the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it would, in their last report in 2001. On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time
for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place
of the coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm. He
believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CO2, can now check a runaway warming
which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture
unviable over large areas. He says fears about the safety of nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green movement
to drop its opposition.
Nuclear power is critical to stop rapid warming

James Lovelock (independent scientist and inventor of Gaia theory) August 15 2001 “We need nuclear power,
says the man who inspired the Greens As a wide-ranging energy policy is under way”, The Daily Telegraph
Our fear of all things nuclear has that same quality as our forefathers' fear of hell. We reject nuclear energy with the same
unreasoning arguments that our ancestors would have used to reject geothermal energy, the effort to harness the heat of the Earth. Compared
with the imaginary dangers of nuclear power, the threat from the intensifying greenhouse effect seems all too real. I
wholly support the Green wish to see all energy eventually come from renewable sources but I do not think that we have the time to wait until
this happens. Nuclear is the only practical energy source that we could apply in time to offset the threat from
accumulating greenhouse gases. Greens could look on the use of nuclear power as a temporary bandage to be used until the harm from
carbon burning has been remedied. We do not know for certain the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuel but a
sizeable group of scientists, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), predicts a rise in global temperature of between
1.5C and 6C by the end of this century. This may not seem to be serious - the mid point, 3.5C, is less than half of the difference between spring
and summer in Europe. Yet the consequences of a 3.5C global rise in temperature could be awesome. It is an increase
comparable with the difference of the temperature of the Earth between the ice ages and the pre-industrial world of the 18th century. It could
change the world into a hotter place as different from our pleasant world of today as was the change from the glaciation. To comprehend the
consequences, consider someone living 12,000 years ago in a coastal region of south-east Asia in the milder climate of the ice age tropics. Who
then could have imagined that in a short time the sea would rise 393ft (120 metres) and put beneath the waves an area of land equal in size to
Africa? Who then would have predicted the emergence of the tropical rain forests and a five-fold decline in ocean life? Humans survived
through these changes and will survive through those to come, but civilisation is more fragile. This is why we have few options other
than to use nuclear energy to supplement alternative energy and eliminate carbon fuel combustion. Nuclear
electricity is now a well-tried and soundly engineered practice that is both safe and economic; given the will it
could be applied quickly. It is risky if improperly used but, even taking the Chernobyl disaster into account, it is,
according to a recent Swiss study, by far the safest of the power industries.
100
No GHG Emissions
Nuclear power generates zero ghg emissions
The use of nuclear fuel to generate electricity causes no emissions of greenhouse gases. 219 As of 2003, nuclear power
accounted for 69% of the carbon-free generation in the United States. 220 Even if the full life cycle of a nuclear power plant is
calculated, the emissions of greenhouse gases are negligible. 221 The avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions has been a major
factor in converting some prominent environmentalists to the [*42] support of new nuclear reactor construction. 222 Many companies in the
United States now recognize the need to factor in the potential cost of complying with future greenhouse gas regulations in evaluating power
plant proposals, 223 and some of the countries that have agreed to comply with the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions are looking at nuclear power as a way to facilitate compliance. 224
101
***Solvency***
102
Govt Action Key

Private sources and wall street are hesitant to invest in nuclear power—Government action
is critical
Bob Audette (journalist) May 4 2007 "Nukes too Expensive, Says Study," Brattleboro Reformer
Nuclear power is not a practical nor economically viable method of addressing global climate change, according to a
global environmental organization.
While Lyons admitted she had not fully read the 65-page Greenpeace report and couldn't comment on it at this time, she said the nuclear
industry is pushing ahead with plans to build 33 reactors in the United States, starting in 2010. She said once construction is
started, it will take seven years to complete each power plant. "We have a new licensing procedure in this country and we are
moving forward," she said. The nuclear industry is now trying to build a grudging acceptance of nuclear power by
claiming it could help to reduce reliance on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, said Riccio. Though
Greenpeace's report is not a direct reaction to the industry's push to burnish its environmental record, it provides evidence to the argument that
nuclear power "isn't viable and lives off the backs of American taxpayers," he said. "You don't need to buy the nuclear industry scare tactic that
it is the only solution to climate change," he said. "Every dollar spent on energy efficiency was worth $7 to $10 spent by the nuclear industry
addressing global warming. There are solutions that are better than nuclear." One local anti-nuclear activist, Ed Anthes of Nuclear Free
Vermont, said the Greenpeace report supports the reaction of financial investment firms to the prospects of nuclear
power. "Wall Street isn't willing to fund nuclear reactors," he said. "The people who are concerned about the money in the
industry should take a hard look at this report," agreed Riccio. "These are people who are already reticent to invest in nuclear power."
Without private funding sources, the federal government has had to step up to the plate to help subsidize nuclear
power through programs such as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and the Price Anderson Act. Without past subsidies, said
Anthes, "we wouldn't have had nuclear power and we wouldn't have waste on the Connecticut River."
103
Solvency: Loan Guarantees

Federal government should give loan guarantees to new power generating technologies that
decrease carbon emissions
To encourage utilities to emit less carbon dioxide, the government should implement-soon-a carbon portfolio
standard with predictable requirements and guarantee loans for building advanced generating facilities. The
electric power industry is the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the United States, accounting for 40% of
CO2 emissions in 2006, up from 36% in 1990 and 25% in 1970. The electricity sector is therefore a natural target
as federal and state governments begin to get serious about managing CO2 emissions. Moreover, because the
marginal cost of reducing emissions in the electricity sector appears to be lower than in other sectors such as
transportation, the electricity sector may deliver the largest proportional carbon reductions under an economically
efficient climate policy.
Loan guarantees essential to new nuclear projects

Carbon Control News 7/7/2008 “Activists make new economic case against nuclear's climate benefits”, lexis
In May, NEI President Frank Bowman noted that "U.S. electric power companies do not have the size, financing capability
or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects," as doing so "could place the entire company at risk." Rather, he
argued, "These first projects require credit support -- either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of
investment recovery from state governments, or both."
104
Solvency: Loan Guarantee

Federal loan guarantees are crucial to new nuclear plant development
Improving coal-fired power plants will be critical, as more than half of all U.S. electricity is produced by coal.
Also, the average coal-fired generator is 34 years old, and 10% of plants are at least 48 years old. Many plants will
be replaced soon, and new ones will be added to meet increased demand. However, one of the largest barriers to
corporate investment in low-carbon technologies is the rate of return on capital invested in such technologies as
compared to the rate of return on alternative investments. State public utility commissions set electric rates, giving
companies a set rate of return on approved investments. In the states where PUCs set utilities' prices-some states
have turned away from this practice in recent years-the PUCs can play a significant role in stimulating low-carbon
investments, if they can be reconciled with the PUCs' statutory obligations, as is the case when a requirement for
pollution control devices exists. Profits are based on a set rate of return on capital, so more investment means
more profit. When the PUC approves such investments, utilities find that they can borrow capital at reasonable
rates, since the lenders correctly perceive that they face low risk because the rate of return is guaranteed and the
utility faces no competition within its service territory. On the other hand, investors lending funds to competitive
power producers face uncertain returns and so lend at much higher rates. Not surprisingly, the majority of utilities
contemplating investments in large low-carbon plants are in regulated states, where they are attempting to secure
access to capital by partnering with their public utility commissions to build such facilities. Federal policy, such as
the loan guarantees enacted in 2005 for the first few new coal gasification and nuclear plants, can significantly
lower the capital cost. These policies are much less costly to the government than are direct subsidies because the
government pays only when the borrower defaults.
105
Solvency
Finan
James K. Asselstine (Managing Director at Lehman Brothers) April 23 2008 Testimony before House Science
and Technology Committee, CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis
The process of planning, developing, licensing, building, and financing a new nuclear plant is likely to be one of the most
complex endeavors facing an electric utility or power generation company today. As currently envisioned, this process will require
a preliminary planning period of about two years, a period of three to four years to complete the process to obtain a combined construction and
operating license (COL) from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and a construction period of from four to five years. Thus,
more than a decade will be required to plan, license, build, and bring a new nuclear unit into commercial operation. A new nuclear unit
will also be a large, very complex, and capital intensive construction project. In terms of its cost and construction
complexity, building a new nuclear unit is likely to be similar to building a large new coal- fired generation unit.
This cost and construction complexity will also be much greater than that for the gas-fired generating capacity that has represented the bulk of
new power generation built in this country over the past two decades. Because the cost of a new nuclear unit can represent a
substantial portion of the market value of a utility or power generation company, the decision to proceed with a
new nuclear project is likely to be one of the more significant decisions facing the company's management and
investors. Further, unlike any other power generation alternative, a new nuclear unit is subject to the NRC's licensing process and regulatory
oversight. This exposes a new nuclear plant project to the potential for changing regulatory requirements, and for licensing and litigation
delays. Changing regulatory requirements, and licensing or litigation delays could increase the cost of a new nuclear unit, delay the recovery of
the company's financial investment, and in extreme cases, prevent a completed plant from entering commercial operation. A number of our
existing nuclear units experienced cost increases as a result of changing regulatory requirements, and licensing and litigation delays in the
1980s and 1990s, and one completed plant ultimately failed to enter commercial operation as a result of these factors. Since that time, the
Congress and the NRC have established a new licensing process for nuclear plant applications that is intended to achieve final licensing
decisions as early as possible in the process in order to minimize the risk of delay or disruption after the company has made a substantial capital
investment in the plant. This new licensing process, including the use of a combined license (COL) that would authorize both construction and
operation of the plant, holds great promise, but has yet to be tested to verify that it will work as intended. As the companies and their
investors evaluate a potential new nuclear plant project, I believe that they will need to consider several factors. First, the
companies and investors are mindful of the experience with construction delays, cost increases, and licensing and litigation delays for many of
the existing plants that entered commercial operation in the 1980s and 1990s. They will want to be satisfied that the causes for these past
problems have been addressed for any new project. Second, given the construction complexity and large capital investment for a new nuclear
project, the companies and investors will want to be confident that a new project can be completed on budget and on schedule. Third, the
companies and investors will want assurance that technology risk for the project is relatively low. Because all of the new plant projects being
contemplated use technology that is similar to the light water reactor designs of the existing plants, and because those plants have established a
consistent track record of safe and reliable operation, I do not believe that technology risk is a significant factor. Fourth, the companies and
their investors will want assurance that the risk of cost increases due to new regulatory requirements, and licensing
and litigation delays is acceptably low. The existing light water reactor technology in use today is much more mature than it was
when many of the existing plants were licensed, and we now have an extensive base of successful operating experience with the existing plants.
In addition, a number of issues such as the post-Three Mile Island issues, fire protection, equipment reliability, material condition issues and
metallurgy, and maintenance issues have been addressed satisfactorily by the industry and the NRC. Further, over the past decade, we have had
a period of regulatory stability with the NRC that has contributed to the successful operation of the existing plants. Thus, although there is the
potential for additional regulatory requirements to address issues such as plant security and material condition as the existing plants grow older,
the risk of costly and disruptive new regulatory requirements for new plants appears to be relatively low. Similarly, as I discussed previously in
my testimony, the adoption of a new licensing process by the NRC for future nuclear plants that is intended to address the causes of delays and
cost increases in the past is encouraging. But, until licensing decisions have been completed for a group of initial new plants, that new licensing
process remains untested, and some uncertainty remains as to whether the process will function as it is intended. Fifth, the companies and
investors will require assurance that the price of power to be generated by a new nuclear plant will be competitive 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 in first-of-a-kind engineering costs for each new nuclear plant design in
order to develop the detailed engineering design information required to satisfy the NRC's design certification process. Depending upon how
these engineering design costs are allocated, this could significantly increase the cost of the initial new plants. Finally, as is the case with any
new proposed generating project, the companies and investors will need confidence that the power from the new plant is needed, and that the
company will be able to recover its capital investment in the plant and earn a fair return on that investment. In the case of a regulated electric
utility, this confidence will depend upon the state rate-setting arrangements that are in place for the new plant. In the case of an unregulated, or
merchant, generation company, this confidence will depend upon any contractual arrangements to sell the output of the plant, and upon studies
of power market conditions in the region in which the plant will be located. Mr. Chairman, I believe that a number of these factors can be
addressed by the industry through the contractual arrangements for construction and risk-sharing among the parties
involved in designing, building, owning, and operating a new nuclear plant. But some factors such as the
magnitude, complexity, and large initial capital investment, including engineering design costs, of a new nuclear project, and
residual uncertainties associated with the new, but as yet untested NRC licensing process, will likely require federal financial support
to allow the companies and investors to move forward with new nuclear plant commitments. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 contained four provisions that were intended to facilitate and encourage industry commitments to build and operate new nuclear plants.
First, the Act included a 20-year extension of the Price-Anderson Act, which provides insurance protection to the public in the event of a
nuclear reactor accident. With the previous expiration of the Price- Anderson Act, insurance coverage for the public remained in place for the
existing 104 operating nuclear units, but that coverage would not have been available for new plants. The 20-year extension of the Price-
Anderson Act corrected this problem. Second, the Act provided a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for up to 6,000 megawatts
106
of generating capacity from new nuclear power plants for the first eight years of commercial operation. This production tax credit is subject to
an annual cap of $125 million for each 1,000 megawatts of generating capacity. A similar production tax credit was provided, and has
historically been available, for certain renewable energy resources. Third, the Act provided standby support or risk insurance for a new nuclear
project's sponsors and investors against the financial impacts, including financing costs, of delays beyond the industry's control that may be
caused by delays in the NRC's licensing process or by litigation. This standby risk insurance for regulatory and litigation delays provides
protection for the first six new nuclear units built. Up to $500 million in protection is provided for the first two new units, and 50 percent of the
cost of delays up to $250 million, with a six- month deductible, is provided for units three through six. Finally, the Act provided for federal
loans and loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the project's cost. These federal loan guarantees were not limited to new nuclear plants, but
instead were made available to support the development of innovative energy technologies, including advanced nuclear power plants, that
avoid or reduce certain air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Chairman, I believe that these financial support provisions in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, if properly implemented, can provide a sufficient basis to support the development and
financing of new nuclear plants in this country. Although no company has yet placed a firm order for a new nuclear unit, there is
clear evidence from the level of activity within the industry since the Energy Policy Act was enacted that these provisions
in the Act are having their intended effect of facilitating and encouraging new plant development. To date, the NRC has
certified two new reactor designs for use, and reviews of two additional designs are currently underway. Thus, it appears likely that the industry
will be able to select from at least four new NRC- certified plant designs. Further, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, as of April 8,
2008, at least 23 companies or consortia have stated their intention to file applications with the NRC for a combined license for at least 27 new
nuclear units in this country. Of these, applications for COLs for 15 units have now been filed with the NRC, and that number could grow to
about 20 units by the end of this year. In addition, a number of companies are pursuing Early Site Permit applications with the NRC in order to
resolve site environmental issues in advance of the COL proceeding. Mr. Chairman, I believe that continued successful implementation of all
three of the financial support components in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will be essential if this industry activity is to be converted into firm
orders for new plants. These financial support provisions are complementary; collectively, they have the potential to reduce the
residual uncertainties, risks, and costs associated with a new nuclear plant to levels that are likely to be comparable
to other base load generating alternatives. The standby risk insurance provides valuable protection against licensing and litigation
delay costs for the initial six units to be built, although there would be no protection for what may be a number of additional units working their
way through the NRC licensing process at about the same time. The production tax credit provides a valuable financial benefit for new plants
over their initial eight years of operation. This benefit can offset the somewhat higher cost of the initial plants; however, this benefit only
becomes available when the unit begins operation, and the exact amount of the available production tax credit for each plant will not be known
for some time. The available tax credit benefit will be spread among all of the eligible plants, and initial eligibility will be determined by the
number and size of the plants for which COL applications are filed with the NRC by the end of this year. The federal loan guarantee can help to
facilitate the availability of debt financing for up to 80 percent of the total cost of the plant. Given the magnitude of a new nuclear plant
investment, this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies, including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project.
But the loan guarantee may be essential to facilitate debt financing for the unregulated, merchant generation
companies that may have somewhat less financial flexibility than the regulated utility companies. This is especially the
case if the company seeks to use a non-recourse project finance structure similar to the financing structures used for many gas-fired power
plant projects in the 1990s.
107
Solvency:
Federal nuclear energy policy that provides incentives to the development of new nuclear
plants is critical for their development
Larry Parker and Mark Holt (Both Specialists in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division)
March 9 2007 Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors
The renewed interest in nuclear power has resulted primarily from higher prices for natural gas, improved
operation of existing reactors, and uncertainty about future restrictions on coal emissions. Until the recent price volatility,
low fuel costs had helped gas-fired power plants dominate the market for new electric generation capacity since the late 1980s. Nuclear
power’s relatively stable costs and low air emissions may now appear more attractive, particularly combined with
a substantial tax credit for nuclear generation and other incentives provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). New nuclear
plant applications can also take advantage of amendments to the Atomic EnergyAct made in the early1990s to reduce licensing delays. In
announcing the new reactor license applications, however, utilities have made clear that they are not committed to actually
building the reactors, even if the licenses are approved. Large uncertainties about nuclear plant construction costs still
remain, along with doubts about progress on nuclear waste disposal and concerns about public opposition. All those problems helped cause
the long cessation of U.S. reactor orders and will need to be addressed before financing for new multibillion-dollar nuclear power plants is
likely to be obtained Federal energy policy may play a crucial role in determining whether the current interest in new
nuclear reactors leads to a significant expansion of the U.S. nuclear power industry. Nuclear opponents have long
maintained that nuclear power will never be economically viable without federal subsidies and should be abandoned in favor of safer
alternatives. But supporters contend that nuclear power will be vital in diversifying the nation’s future energy supply and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that federal subsidies for at least the first few new reactors are justified. The
greenhouse gas issue has also prompted some environmentalists to support nuclear power expansion. This report includes analyses of the
potential effect of the tax credit for nuclear power provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and possible competitive effects of various
proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Under baseline assumptions, the cost of electricity from new nuclear power
plants is likely to be higher than power generated by new coal- and natural gas-fired plants. The new nuclear tax
credit would more than offset that cost disadvantage, but it is limited to the first 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear generating
capacity. That is the capacity of about four to six reactors, although the credits could be spread among a larger number of new reactors under
current rules. If the tax credit results in new reactor construction, the next question will be whether nuclear construction would continue
without further credits. Greenhouse gas legislation could also be an important factor in nuclear power economics; analysis shows that
someproposals, if enacted, could push the cost of coal- and natural gas-fired electricity above projected nuclear costs.
108
Solvency: Loan Guarantees

Loan guarantees are the only way to get investors on board
William H. Miller (professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at
the University's research reactor) Sep 23 2007 “Financing the next generation of nuclear power plants”,
publicutilities.utah.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants.pdf
Nuclear power, with global warming and energy security at stake, needs $5 billion in government loan guarantees for each of the
first few nuclear power plants to be built in the United States. Providing this credit support would help prevent
greater costs down the road — in response to electricity shortages, ever-increasing reliance on imported oil and
environmental harm from the emissions of fossil-fuel plants. Notwithstanding charges by anti-nuclear groups like Greenpeace
and Public Citizen that loan guarantees are a subsidy to the nuclear industry, the guarantees, if managed properly, will cost taxpayers nothing.
The loan-guarantee program is designed to be self-financing, with companies responsible for paying an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost
of the guarantee. The benefits from loan guarantees would be huge. To meet growing demand for clean energy, 17 electrical
companies are gearing up to build 33 nuclear power plants using standardized designs and advanced technology. Although improvements
have been made in the reactor licensing process and project management to eliminate unnecessary delays, the first few plants will cost
more than the rest, because it has been many years since construction of a nuclear plant in the United States, and
the companies that build the first new plants will face extra expenses that subsequent companies will not have to bear. For example, there
are "first-of-a-kind" design and engineering costs. And there is no absolute assurance that hitches in licensing and
construction might not happen, causing project costs to rise, much as they did when today's nuclear plants were built in the
1970s and 1980s. Recognizing this, Congress in the 2005 Energy Policy Act authorized guarantees to new nuclear plants to provide some
extra surety. Without loan guarantees, banks would not provide companies with the low-cost financing they need.
The guarantees will enable nuclear plant operators to obtain financing at favorable rates. This directly benefits
consumers because it will save about a third of the cost of electricity from a new plant. Nuclear power, however, will have to compete for the
same loan guarantees with other clean-energy technologies, including methods for sequestering carbon emissions from coal plants, designing
more fuel-efficient vehicles and using switch grass and other cellulosic sources to make ethanol. Now, some members of Congress, heedless
of the economic and environmental consequences, want to bar nuclear plants from the loan-guarantee program or, short of that, place severe
restrictions on the portion of the program reserved for nuclear power. It's encouraging to know that, despite differences over energy policy,
several presidential candidates recognize the need for additional nuclear power. Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, D-Ill., and
John McCain, R-Ariz., support federal incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants. McCain says there is "no way that you
could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and anybody who tells you differently is not telling
the truth." Nuclear power today compares favorably with other energy sources. Because nuclear plants are performing more efficiently than
in the past and their fuel costs are relatively cheap, the cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity is slightly less than the cost of
producing power at coal plants and one-third the cost of electricity from plants fueled with natural gas. Nuclear power's competitive edge is
likely to widen once the government begins regulating carbon emissions or Congress approves a carbon tax. Loan guarantees for new
nuclear plants are a relatively painless way to deal with the potentially devastating effects of energy shortages,
imported oil and global warming. And that's something Congress should keep in mind.
109
Solvency: Loans Key

The Nuclear Regulatory Committee is anticipating 30 new applications over the next few
years, however these applications will not materialize to plant construction due to price
uncertainty, only an expansion of the federal government loan guarantee will provide the
incentive to get applications to construction
Gregory B. Jaczko (Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) March 10 2008 "The Nuclear Option
a" A Perspective on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Policy", States News Service, lexis
The important triangle that this conference addresses - security, price, and climate change - I think has right in the center of it nuclear policy. It
is the convergence of at least two of those, energy security and climate change, that particularly in the United States has renewed discussions
about nuclear policy, and about the possibility of new nuclear construction. The third leg of that, the issue of price, is probably one of the
most uncertain as we go forward, and one of the elements of that triangle that could present the greatest challenge to nuclear
construction in the United States. So I want to focus on the issues that I think are important challenges for nuclear policy in the United
States. Some of these really are the usual kinds of issues that we deal with. And the last one I will touch on a little bit. It's this issue of price,
and I think that's very closely related to actions by the U.S. Congress, and actions by other agencies in the executive branch of our government.
As FERC Chairman Joe Kelliher mentioned in his remarks, I will also give my disclaimer. These are my views and my thoughts, and do not
represent the views of the Commission in any way, well, other than to the extent they are my views. I think it is important to keep in mind that
at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we are safety regulators. Our focus is fundamentally on ensuring public health and safety. And, as such,
when we take action, that is really the key element of what we do. With any new nuclear prospects in the United States, ensuring that the NRC
continues to be viewed as, and continues to be a safe and effective regulator is one of the most important elements of that new development. I
believe that is an area where the NRC has more work to do; where the industry, in the United States has more work to do; and worldwide, both
the nuclear industry and the regulatory community have more work to do to continue to reassure the public that nuclear operation can happen in
a way that ensures protection of public health and safety. In the United States, this area is most properly captured with the idea of public
confidence. There continue to be incidents in the United States in which nuclear technology is the focus, regardless of whether nuclear happens
to be a particular area of interest. And I'll give an example of what I mean. There was recently a grid event in the state of Florida in the United
States. At this point, the information we have leads us to believe that there were some problems with the transmission infrastructure. As a result
of that grid disturbance, two nuclear units were shut down. Nuclear units are, because of the safety requirements, very sensitive to grid
disturbances, and as a result, will often shut down for safety reasons in those situations. So what you had in the United States was a situation in
which nuclear power plants functioned the way that they were intended, and they shut down safely. The media and others in the United States
were very interested in the status of the nuclear units in this event. I would say far more interested in many ways than the actual status of the
transmission infrastructure. There were questions very quickly asked about the status of the nuclear units, what caused the nuclear units to shut
down, were the nuclear units shutting down the cause of the grid disturbance; all of which, in my mind, was ancillary to what was really
happening. There was a grid disturbance because of transmission problems, because of equipment failures with the transmission grid, and the
nuclear components performed appropriately. Interestingly enough, people criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that we did not act
quickly enough to alert people about the status of the nuclear units. Well, in my mind, there was very little to inform the public about. The
nuclear units had functioned as intended, they had shut down correctly, and there were no issues. But I bring this up just to reinforce the
importance that actions at nuclear units will always happen in public, that events that do not necessarily involve nuclear units will immediately
concern the public. Given the tremendous access to information sources the public has, that information can be transmitted very quickly, and
questions will be asked very quickly. So it is crucial for the regulator and the industry, in general, in the United States to continually focus on
the ideas of openness and ensuring transparency in our decision making, and continuing to reinforce public confidence in the safe operation of
nuclear power. That is probably the most important element for any new nuclear construction in the United States - the continued safe operation
of the existing fleet. Concerning, new reactors, I think one of the biggest challenges going forward is to really learn the lessons from the past.
One of the greatest missed opportunities with the current fleet of reactors that we have in the United States was the failure to standardize
around a limited number of designs. We currently have 104 operating nuclear units in the United States, and we have approximately 104
unique nuclear units in the United States. That is not an efficient approach from a regulatory standpoint. It is not an efficient approach from an
operational standpoint. So that is one of the most crucial lessons that I think we need to learn. Right now, in the United States, the
NRC is anticipating applications for approximately 30 new reactors over the next several years. According to the
estimates, this would be a small share of the number of reactors the U.S. would need to maintain the 20 percent of electricity share that nuclear
currently produces. About 50 new reactors are projected to be needed over the next 30 years to do that, so just maintaining that 20 percent
would require tremendous investment. The United States is focusing on possibly five new designs. When I first came to the Commission about
three years ago, that number was closer to three. This reminds me of a funny scene from Monty Python' The Holy Grail, where the characters
count to three, and three is the number, and you don't want to go below three, you don't want to go above three. In my mind, I think that is a
better number of different designs for the United States to consider. I think it is a more manageable number. It would provide the diversity of
supply that is important, without providing an unnecessary and inefficient number of reactor designs to license and regulate. So I think
standardization is really one of the key issues that we will have to deal with as we go forward. Without that standardization, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission simply does not have the resources to license and regulate a large number of new reactors. That is, I think, just a
practical reality of where we are today. In many ways, as I said, while I think the number of designs is a little bit higher than I would like to
see, I think there has been a good recognition on the part of the industry that standardization is going to be important. So, what has developed is
a set of working groups around those designs. And I think in many ways, vendors and applicants are focusing their attention, and working
together to ensure that their applications are as uniform and consistent as possible. Now, as I said, I think one of the really crucial
cornerstones to any new construction in the United States is fundamentally going to come down to cost. And I will
raise a question that I would be very interested to hear the rest of the panel address, as I suspect that they will. But I think there has been a bit of
a conundrum that has developed in the nuclear industry in the United States. Over the last several years, there has been a lot of discussion in
the industry about achieving bipartisan support in Congress as a crucial element for new nuclear construction. I think in many ways that has
been achieved. In general, I think the Congress, and the Administration right now are very supportive. The Congress, I think, is generally, in a
bipartisan way, supportive of nuclear power. There are members certainly across the entire spectrum from support to opposition, but I think, in
general, there is a majority that is supportive of new nuclear reactors. In the past, I think that meant one thing, and that was really to provide
110
industry with the tools that it needed to move forward with construction. Today, however, I think the debate really is not about whether there is
a bipartisan consensus; the debate really needs to be about what that bipartisan consensus means. And I think if you look at one of the most
important issues that has been out there with the industry, and that many potential applicants have stressed as the most crucial
aspect for them to move forward with actual construction of new units, that is to provide federal loan guarantees for
nuclear units. Right now the Congress has provided about $18 billion in federal loan guarantees that would provide
approximately 80 percent of the financing of a new unit's construction. Given the current cost of reactors, that would buy you on the order of
two to three reactors today. I think that is certainly a far cry from the number of applicants we have heard from, who have
expressed directly to the NRC that the loan guarantees are a crucial element of any new construction in the United
States. So I do not necessarily have an answer to the question of what that will mean for the future of the nuclear industry, but I throw it out
there more as a question, and something that I think needs to be looked at as we move forward. The NRC has changed its licensing
process in a significant way. In essence, we used to require applicants to build a plant, and then come in and get the authority to operate
that facility. What we have done is reverse that order, so that today you get the authority to operate that plant before you have to commit to
construct it. And what that has allowed industry to do is to bifurcate some of the financial risk, so that you can move
forward with licensing without necessarily committing to build, because the cost is significantly lower for licensing versus
actual construction, and, ultimately, operation. So I think it is important to keep in mind when you talk about a resurgence of
interest in nuclear power in the United States, so far it is interest in applying for a license. Given the uncertainties
with the federal loan guarantee program right now, and the ultimate construction costs, I do not think it is clear whether all
of those units will actually be built in the future. So I think that is really one of the areas that I would continue to watch, and I think it will be
interesting to see how that plays out in the future with those financial incentives. Just to conclude, I talked about a few things that I think are
challenges. I would like to mention a few things that I do not think are challenges. I think the NRC is well prepared today to deal with the work
of licensing, and potentially regulating a new fleet of reactors. Our focus has to continue to be on the existing fleet in the short term, of course,
to ensure safe and secure operation in the future. The NRC has done a tremendous amount of work to build up its own internal infrastructure to
handle that, so I do not see regulatory issues as being any obstacle to licensing at this point. I would also say that although we often hear about
a nuclear resurgence in the context of climate change, I think the actual determinant will be the economic realities of new base load generation
in the United States. In many ways the economics are being driven by the climate debate, and those economics are, right
now, pushing people into exploring nuclear. But I think, again, the uncertainties going forward about what those
economic realities will be, and what kind of federal loan guarantees will actually materialize, creates a lot of
uncertainty in terms of the numbers of plants that I think will actually be built in the United States.
111
Loan Guarantee
Loan guarantees are essential to park investment in nuclear power without the loans
nuclear power will be a non-starter
Kevin Bogardus May 24 2007 “Nuclear power, banks link up in bid to get better financing”, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/the-executive/nuclear-power-banks-link-up-in-bid-to-get-better-financing-2007-05-24.html
The nuclear energy industry and the country’s top banking institutions have together applied pressure on the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to secure more comprehensive loan guarantees for new power plants. And lawmakers are
responding by considering legislation that would ensure those guarantees. In a meeting in April with OMB, a representative from the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI), electric utility executives and a banking official pushed for complete loan guarantee coverage that could cover 80
percent of a project’s cost. Without better coverage, say nuclear energy advocates, the nuclear “renaissance” could be seriously
derailed. Since the April meeting, the Department of Energy (DoE) has proposed that the federal government cover 90 percent of loan
guarantees, higher than its original guidelines of 80 percent, released in August 2006. DoE’s proposed coverage under Title XVIII of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, has left many in the nuclear industry dissatisfied because they seek 100 percent coverage. “There either
will be no or limited new nuclear plants developed without a workable loan guarantee program,” said Peter Saba of Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker. Saba, who represents nuclear energy companies and served in the DoE in the George H.W. Bush
administration, attended the meeting and said that in the banking community, “there is not going to be any financing”
unless the loan guarantee is fixed. Loan guarantees by the federal government act as default protection for private lenders when they
help finance massive projects, like nuclear power plants, to take into account certain risks and possible delays. In materials circulated to
OMB, executives from financial institutions including Credit Suisse and Lehman Brothers wrote that “lenders and investors in the
fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a series of major risks, including the possibility of delays in
commercial operation of a completed plant.” They also made clear they wanted to avoid “another Shoreham” — referring to the
decommissioned Long Island nuclear power plant that saddled residents with huge electric rates without producing any power. The NEI
provided a stark assessment by its New Plant Finance Task Force, a group of nuclear executives across the country. Without better loan
guarantee coverage, the task force argued, companies would have difficulty in financing new plants, which can cost as much
as $4 billion.
112
Loan Guarantee Key

Loan guarantees are essential to get new nuclear power projects off the ground. The
guarantee will provide the financial incentive for investors to get on board, and these
investments will causes the market to shift, making nuclear power cost competitive which
ensures future investment and plants
Larry R. Foulke (ANS Vice President/President Elect) February 2003 “The status and future of nuclear power in
the United States”, Nuclear News, lexis
This all sounds logical and compelling. However, no new, large commercial electrical generating capacity of any kind will
be built today without a suitable and reliable financial return on investment from the private sector. Hence, industry
and government need to work together to address specific financial risks involved with building nuclear plants. To
have a new nuclear plant by 2010, industry should encourage the government to take additional steps to mitigate
financial risks. While energy planning should not constrain price competition or innovation, it should promote dependable and clean energy supplies for the long term. The nation's
energy plan should permit government intervention in situations where market forces alone cannot bring about long-range goals to meet a national imperative. Driving forces
such as environmental quality and energy independence require more aggressive short-term government
investment to obtain the long-term benefits that nuclear energy provides. Major deterrent to near-term nuclear power As indicated above, a
major roadblock to building a new nuclear power plant in the United States now is financial risk. Other barriers to
building new nuclear plants have not vanished but have been reduced: * The management of spent fuel took a giant step forward with the support of a
geological repository at Yucca Mountain by the President and Congress. "Spent fuel management" is a problem of perception and, therefore, a political issue. In reality, the used fuel from nuclear power plants has some great
advantages that we do not exploit -- the waste is of small volume per MW of energy produced; it is sequestered and segregated from the start; and it is easy to track. In fact, only about 3 percent of used fuel is truly waste. The bulk
of the used fuel remains as valuable fertile and fissile material that we may recycle someday -- and, thereby, reduce waste volumes and activity still further. * Renewal of the Price-Anderson Act appears to have support from both
houses of Congress. * The NRC's new combined construction and operating licensing process (10 CFR 52) looks promising, but until it is demonstrated and court-tested, there will still be concern whether or not the new ITAAC
(Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria) process works. * The majority of the population is pronuclear, especially in light of growing environmental concerns regarding global warming, although they tend not to be
activists in their belief. * Operating costs are low, and the facts show that the risk to humans from nuclear power per MW of energy produced is very low. The nuclear industry responded to the President's National Energy Policy
with "Vision 2020," n10 which sets a goal of 50 000 MW of new nuclear generating capacity to be added to the U.S. grid by 2020. The Nuclear Energy Institute took a lead role in formulating this vision and has established an
The industry applauds the DOE's Nuclear Power 2010

Executive Task Force on New Nuclear Power Plants to help guide near-term industry actions toward that goal.
triple initiative in which the government and the private sector will work together to (a) explore sites for new nuclear power plants, (b) demonstrate the efficiency and timeliness of
key processes designed to make licensing of new plants more predictable, and (c) encourage and fund research needed to make the safest and most advanced technologies available. This is all
but it may not be enough. Government has a role to ensure supply
excellent Governing bodies have, and have had, a clear role and
responsibility to assure reliable sources of energy, and, hence, to help remove
barriers to an expanded role for nuclear power in
the United States. Such issues are too important to be left to the vagaries of a free market. Such issues must be considered and
planned in light of the inextricable linkage among energy independence, national security, global economic competitiveness, and environmental quality. Governing bodies can mitigate these
risks for the benefit of the nation. While deregulated markets can stimulate low prices through competition, they do not capture well the long-range benefits of energy independence, energy
diversity, and a reduction of environmental pollution. Once upon a time in a regulated market, the utility's job was to provide reliable power while recovering costs in the rate base. In other
words, reliability of supply and financial solvency were paramount. But now many utilities face new economic forces. There is little premium for vision and investment in the national welfare.
There is currently no financial benefit for production of electricity from non-polluting energy sources or for enhancing the nation's energy independence and security. Moreover, the CEO of a
generating company has little incentive for doing more than that which satisfies his board of directors. National imperatives seldom come into a board decision -- financial return does. Hence,
national imperatives force us to find alternative ways to motivate the mitigation of financial risks and to promote
financial credits for the nonfinancial benefits of the nuclear option. Financial issues and mitigating actions Let us consider the four major issues
and the potential mitigating actions for near-term nuclear power in the United States. The actions proposed are not out of line with a recent report to the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee (NERAC) by an integrated project team composed of key DOE staff members and Scully Capital Services. n11 Let us also keep foremost in mind that new nuclear power plants are
The higher cost of early plants is
projected to be competitive after the first several plants are built and the financial risks associated with the first plants no longer exist.
associated primarily with two learning-curve issues: First-of-a-kind-engineering and construction. Once these two
issues are put behind the industry, new nuclear plants may still be relatively expensive but they will generate
power that is competitive in many markets. Early costs for these learning-curve issues could be addressed by government dollars as a "preferred equity"
investment. n12 Dividends to the government on the equity investment would occur after plant capacity factors reach a preset level. Commercial lenders would then loan only as much as they
the government could provide loan guarantees for a portion of the plant cost during the
consider economically justified. As an alternative,
construction period. Once the high-risk period is passed and the plant is operating, the plant owners could
restructure the debt, thus avoiding the need for guarantees by the government. Investment tax credits payable during construction to mitigate the issue
of significant earnings dilution during the construction period have usefulness, although the credits are limited. Investment tax credits would amount to a modest percentage of the investment in a given year, but the credit would
normally be granted only once for a particular investment. Since a new plant will take three to four years to build, two or three years of investment will still have to be carried without earnings. Hence, investment tax credits are not
enough to eliminate the hit in earnings over a multi-year period -- but they would help mitigate them. Also, accelerated depreciation could be made available for new nuclear plants to be more in line with other major industrial
facility additions. Such steps may be necessary in a deregulated environment in which the power company cannot pass on construction costs as an "allowance for funds used during construction." Issue 2: There are concerns about
delays and/or termination of plant projects as a result of acts of government (regulator) or the acts of the public (intervenors). The government could assume extraordinary costs associated with delays due to the acts of government
or the acts of the public (as a consequence of government actions) through standby credit facilities. Through these facilities, the government would agree to carry interest payments resulting from construction delays caused by
changing government requirements and not contractor faults. Such standby credit facilities could also offer a "make whole" provision under which the government would take ownership of the plant and repay both the lender and
equity-holder in the event that "acts of the government" and "acts of intervenors" (that could result from government actions) prevent plant commissioning. This step would provide excellent protection from the specific risks that
are at issue but without the disadvantages of loan guarantees. Issue 3: A great financial risk is recovering costs from a deregulated market. The solution here is a long-term power purchase agreement from a creditworthy entity.
Reduced uncertainty in siting and licensing is helpful, but it may not be enough. Given the higher capital cost of a nuclear plant, the risk of long-term recovery of that investment is a great financial penalty faced by the plant owner.
The government could guarantee the purchase of a certain amount of the future power production from a new plant at a negotiated price. This would mitigate the risk of forecasting electricity demand and price for many years out
in the future. This temporary floor price would allow investor returns similar to that achievable from alternate power-generated sources. Issue 4: The government should provide credits for the nonfinancial benefits of nuclear
power. Free enterprise can hurt the nation if credits for nonfinancial, national benefits such as environmental quality, energy security, and the burnup of weapons-grade fissile material are not entered into the financial equation.
Initiatives must be pursued to create a level playing field for nuclear power. Carbon trading would create an enormous incentive to build
nuclear plants. Every citizen is a stakeholder when it comes to burning up weapons-grade fissile material, and having clean air, clean water, reliable electricity supplies, and energy security.
More prominence must be given to the emission-free nature of nuclear power, and its role in helping to meet the challenge of international agreements to limit carbon emissions. Emissions
These financial proposals are meant to ease the introduction
credits for nuclear generation would go a long way toward encouraging new construction.
of the next generation of nuclear plants. Once the technology and processes are demonstrated, overcoming many
of the first-of-a-kind hurdles, normal financial markets can be expected to provide traditional financing as more
generating companies and financial markets become confident in the technology and reliability of construction
schedules. Regardless of the financing scheme, clean air credits are a legitimate incentive that will help stimulate nuclear construction and provide a mechanism for addressing the
challenge of Kyoto.
113
***Waste***
114
Storage Safe: Dry Cask

Dry cask storage is safe way to store nuclear fuel
In the United States, one of the most common arguments against nuclear power relates to the current proposal to bury spent fuel from power
plants in a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 225 In my opinion, resolution of this debate is really unnecessary for the
construction of new nuclear power plants because recent studies have shown that dry cask storage is a safe and secure
method of handling spent fuel for the next century. 226 Dry casks are designed to cool the spent fuel to prevent
temperature elevation from radioactive decay and to shield the [*43] cask's surroundings from radiation without
the use of water or mechanical systems. Heat is released by conduction through the solid walls of the cask (typically made of
concrete, lead, steel, polyethylene, and boron-impregnated metals or resins) and by natural convection or thermal radiation. The cask walls
also shield the surroundings from radiation. 227 Spent fuel is usually kept in pools for five years before storage in dry casks in order
to reduce decay heat and inventories of radionuclides. 228 As the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy recently explained, dry
cask storage "is a proven, safe, inexpensive waste-sequestering technology that would be good for 100 years or
more, providing an interim, back-up solution against the possibility that Yucca Mountain is further delayed or derailed - or cannot be
adequately expanded before a further geologic repository can be ready." 229 At present, most spent fuel is initially stored in water-filled pools
on each nuclear power plant site. 230 After five years, the fuel has cooled enough to be transferred to dry casks for storage, and many plants
have built such casks onsite. 231 The National Research Council has pointed out that the temporary storage of spent fuel in a retrievable form,
such as dry cask storage, might provide opportunities for re-use of the material if new ways of using it were developed in the future. 232 In any
event, the current availability of dry cask storage means that the problem of spent fuel no longer appears to be an
insurmountable barrier to building new nuclear plants.
Dry cask storage is safe and environmentally sound

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 2007 “Backgrounder on Dry Cask Storage of
Spent Nuclear Fuel”, 3/07, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dry-cask-storage.html
Dry casks typically consist of a sealed metal cylinder containing the spent fuel enclosed within a metal or concrete
outer shell. In some designs, casks are placed horizontally; in others, they are set vertically on a concrete pad. The NRC reviews and
approves the designs for spent fuel dry storage systems. The NRC’s regulations for review are developed through a
public process and provide a sound basis for determining whether use of a proposed storage system will protect public health and
safety and the environment. The NRC periodically inspects the design, fabrication, and the use of dry casks, to ensure
licensees and vendors are performing activities in accordance with radiation safety and security requirements, and
licensing and quality assurance program commitments. Dry spent fuel storage in casks is considered to be safe and
environmentally sound. Over the last 20 years, there have been no radiation releases which have affected the public, no
radioactive contamination, and no known or suspected attempts to sabotage spent fuel casks or ISFSIs. For approval of
cask designs, the NRC conducts a technical review to ensure the design would be safe and secure for use at a broad range of nuclear power
plant site characteristics, consistent with the requirements for a general license. [Additional information is available at
http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html .] Dry cask storage systems are designed to resist floods, tornadoes, projectiles, temperature
extremes, and other unusual scenarios. NRC requires the spent fuel to be cooled in the spent fuel pool for at least five years before being
transferred to dry casks. Typically, the maximum heat generated from 24 fuel assemblies stored in a cask is less than that given off by a typical
home heating system in an hour. As the fuel cools further, the heat generated will decrease over time.
Dry cask storage is safe and will last for 100 years.
Koerner, Brendan, contributing editor for Wired magazine and a columnist for both The New York Times and
Slate magazine, Slate Magazine, “Not in My Back Yucca”, 6/15/2008, Lexis
The good news is that we've got a viable stopgap solution: dry-cask storage. After nuclear fuel rods have been used up,
they're cooled in pools of water. After five years of such cooling, they can be placed in sealed casks made of heat-resistant metal alloys and
concrete. This technique is currently used at 31 locations nationwide, all of which must be licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The NRC asserts that there has never been a single incident at any of these sites. The
conventional wisdom is that these dry-cask storage sites will suffice for at least the next 100 years. But they'll fill up at
some point, and some worry over their vulnerability to terrorist attacks, natural catastrophes, or theft. The whole rationale for Yucca Mountain
was to secure all high-level nuclear waste in a single, safe location; with that project now imperiled, what's a nuclear nation to do?
115

There is overwhelming consensus that dry cask storage is safe for 100 years.
Federal News Service, “hearing of the senate environment and public works committee; subject: yucca mountain
nuclear waste”, 10/31/2007, Lexis
Interesting listening to some of the testimony this morning. I think, actually, Madame Chair, that you have to put this in the broader context of
nuclear power, of the science and the politics, because it all does play a role and it has played a role up to this point. Senator Craig, a lot of
what he was talking about -- he even said that the waste can be shipped back and stored safely. I think that's an important
point to make: that the science has told us that the storage of nuclear waste is safe for at least 100 years in dry
casks. Nobody disagrees with that. And so the rush to build Yucca Mountain as a, quote, "permanent repository" would seem to me,
when there are so many questions -- some people think it's good science. Others have really questioned the science. And there have been
tremendous cost overruns in Yucca Mountain because of the changes in the science. Latest estimates: somewhere around $60 billion to build
Yucca Mountain. Nobody believes that that estimate is accurate. It's probably closer to $100 billion. And the dirty little secret here is that you
need at least one other Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain itself is not adequate enough to handle our nation's nuclear waste.
Dry Cask storage is safe and essential

Matthew Wald (“New Focus on an Old Nuclear Problem”, New York Times, 6/4/2001,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE4DA153FF937A35755C0A9679C8B63&n=Top/Reference/T
imes%20Topics/Subjects/W/Waste%20Materials%20and%20Disposal)
The casks, which could also be used for shipping, are designed to last at least 40 years. They are filled with inert gas to
prevent corrosion, and require no mechanical cooling systems; David J. Foss, an engineer here who supervised their
loading, said maintenance consisted mostly of inspecting them and sweeping the leaves off the pad. Peach bottom's
approach is typical. For now, the 103 operating power reactors around the country store their wastes in spent-fuel pools like the ones here, 40
feet on a side and 40 feet deep, designed to withstand earthquakes and filled with purified water. Since the fuel rods still generate heat, even
years after being removed from a reactor, the water is needed to prevent meltdown. It also provides radiation shielding. But the pool
requires additional systems: heat exchangers to keep the water from boiling away, and filtration systems to pick out the radioactive material
that builds up in the water. Over the long term, corrosion and cooling are concerns. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's
main trade association, says there are already 16 reactor sites with dry cask storage, and an additional 20 that will run out of space in their
spent-fuel pools by the end of 2004 and will probably need such storage. Nearly all will need it by 2010.
yucca is not key – dry cast is safe everywhere

Mathew Wald (reporter of the NYT on the nuclear industry for 25 years, “Radioactive Waste Site: A Shift In
Strategy”, New York Times 7/31/2001,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE2DA113DF932A05754C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&page
wanted=1)
After spending 14 years and $4.5 billion to figure out whether Yucca Mountain is dry and stable enough to entomb highly radioactive waste for
10,000 years, the Department of Energy is shifting its focus from geology to the protective powers of titanium and
steel. What began as an exercise to find dry rock with predictable characteristics in an ancient desert ridge has evolved into a debate about
whether the engineers can create materials that will survive the natural environment at Yucca. Nevada officials, who oppose the waste site,
argue that 95 percent of the federal plan for safe storage now relies on tough containers, not on the geology that
attracted federal interest in the first place. Since a repository with containers that good could go anywhere, said Robert
Loux, director of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project Office, ''then you could put it in Central Park.''
Dry Cask containers are the alternative to Yucca

Mathew Wald (reporter of the NYT on the nuclear industry for 25 years, “Radioactive Waste Site: A Shift In
Strategy”, New York Times 7/31/2001,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE2DA113DF932A05754C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&page
wanted=1)
The alternative to Yucca is probably a purely artificial environment, the dry-cask storage yards now going up at nuclear
reactors around the United States. These are thick concrete pads surrounded by razor wire and motion detectors, where
enormous steel canisters loaded with spent fuel sit for the indefinite future. Reactor operators say these will operate
flawlessly for decades. On the other hand, many sit in places that hardly anybody would have chosen for permanent disposal. Yucca advocates
say the site has the advantage of being remote, as opposed to storage sites like Prairie Island, in Red Wing, Minn. That site, on the Mississippi
River, is adjacent to a casino and a day care center.
116

Dry casks are the safest method with near zero risk chance.
Evan Lehmann, staff writer, Reformer Washington Bureau, “Sanders pushes for inspections of reactors”,
10/4/2007, Lexis
A central repository isn't necessarily needed, commissioners said, citing the use of onsite dry cask storage using
steel cylinders to hold spent fuel rods surrounded by inert gas. Klein said it is a "safe" method "Safe is a big word when we
have Osama bin Laden and others running around," Sanders said. "I hope you recognize that." Gregory B. Jaczko, an
NRC commissioner, responded: "When we say safe, we mean very, very safe." "The risk is very close to zero."
Dry cask storage is safe at-reactor for at least 100 years

Jason Fordney, A top Energy Department official, Electric Utility Week, “Customer groups say MISO resource
plan imposes too many limits on what is counted”, 3/3/2008, Lexis
In the meantime, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein said earlier in the week, his agency continues to
have confidence that at-reactor storage of spent nuclear fuel will pose no safety risk, despite new delays in the schedule for
opening a geological repository. In remarks to a nuclear waste conference in Phoenix, Klein said spent fuel stored in dry casks at
many nuclear power plant sites is safe for at least 100 years and deep-geological disposal of that fuel is technically feasible.
Under its so-called waste confidence rule, the NRC has stated that it believes spent fuel can be safely stored until
permanent storage is available. In the rule, the agency said it is confident a repository will be available to begin accepting shipments by
2025. Klein said after his speech that a "significant or unusual change" in the Department of Energy's repository program would need to occur
to trigger a new rulemaking.
Dry cask storage better than Yucca –Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) was wrong
Aletheia Gooden (Atourney at law for straus uritz, “The 10,000 Year Guarantee: High-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada”, The Regents of the University of California, Fall 2002, Lexis)
Very few policymakers probably knew of the risks associated with permanently storing high-level radioactive
waste underground when NWPA was passed. As a result, the soonest a repository would be complete is 2010, twelve years after the date
required by law. Additionally, [*120] the very utilities that are producing the radioactive waste are collecting damages against the government
in the billions of dollars because the Secretary breached its duty under the Standard Contracts for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. For these
reasons, the Yucca Mountain repository should not be built at this time. Instead, spent fuel should remain in storage pools and dry
cask storage at the reactor sites. Once the storage pools fill up, the spent fuel should be stacked in dry cask storage
until a sound scientific and moral disposal solution is presented. A repository may be the answer, but only if alternative sites
can be analyzed and compared in determining the final location.
117
Coal Trick: Coal Worse Than Nuclear

Our coal advantage turns their waste disposal argument – radioactive coal waste is
comparatively worse because it isn’t regulated
For the 100 years following 1937, U.S. and world use of coal as a heat source for electric power generation will result in the distribution of a
variety of radioactive elements into the environment. This prospect raises several questions about the risks and benefits of coal combustion, the
leading source of electricity production. First, the potential health effects of released naturally occurring radioactive elements are a long-term
issue that has not been fully addressed. Even with improved efficiency in retaining stack emissions, the removal of coal
from its shielding overburden in the earth and subsequent combustion releases large quantities of radioactive
materials to the surface of the earth. The emissions by coal-fired power plants of greenhouse gases, a vast array of chemical by-
products, and naturally occurring radioactive elements make coal much less desirable as an energy source than is generally accepted. Second,
coal ash is rich in minerals, including large quantities of aluminum and iron. These and other products of commercial value have not been
exploited. Third, large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated
as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants
are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts
were released from nuclear facilities. Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed
throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner. Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on electric utility
sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes
through air and water movement and the food chain.
118
It Safe and So Clean

Storage is safe and clean-
Kent Johnson June 27 2008 “Fear of Nuclear Power”, The Salt Lake Tribune,
http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_9722759
Much of the recent hype and concern about nuclear power and nuclear waste are simply the creation of an
uninformed imagination by citizens. J.D. Webster is wrong ("Matheson sat it out," Forum, June 16). The waste that would be either
trafficked through or stored in Utah does not pose the threat it once did. The stringent safety requirements on nuclear
waste transportation and storage protect all those involved in such activities. Of course, there is radiation damage that
anyone would undergo from being involved in those types of activities, but every day one is exposed to much more nuclear
radiation from our sun than any nuclear fuel rod. And still, spent nuclear fuel rods are stored nearly 200 feet
underground in containers that are nearly indestructible. If the American people could get over the media-perpetuated fear of
nuclear power and nuclear waste, America could be on its way to a cleaner, safer and more efficient source of electrical power. If Americans are
as motivated by change as Barack Obama's cliché expression indicates, then let us embrace new ideas with open minds and willing intellects.
Otherwise, progress is impossible.
Nuclear energy is clean and safe

Business Wire October 5 2006 "Greenpeace Co-Founder Urges Iowans to Join National Coalition Supporting
Increased Use of Nuclear Energy", http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_Oct_5/ai_n27046353
Significant energy needs keep growing. We must diversify our energy sources to meet these needs, Nuclear energy should
be an important part of this diversification plan, especially since its production generates no air pollutants or greenhouse gases.
Iowas CASEnergy kick-off was held at the FPL Energy Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo, where Dr. Moore was joined by Cedar Rapids
Mayor Brian Quirk, Cedar Rapids City Councilman and President of the Hawkeye Labor Council; of the Cedar Rapids Area Chamber of
Commerce; and FPL Duane Arnold Energy Center Site Vice President . FPL Energy Duane Arnold Energy Center s only nuclear power facility
generated 4,539,312 megawatt hours of electrical power in 2005, which accounted for 10.3% of the states electricity. Iowa is a part of the
United States West North Central power grid that is projected to need 21% more electricity by 2030 to meet increasing demand. Coalition
members said that if a new nuclear power plant were built in Iowa, it would create economic, consumer and environmental benefits. While
there are currently no plans to build a new plant in the state, just one new facility would create 1,400-1,800 construction jobs, employ 400-500
full-time professional workers, result in 400-500 jobs in the surrounding communities, and generate $500 million a year for the local economy.
Employees at U.S. nuclear power plants also earn salaries approximately 40 percent higher than salaries earned by non-plant employees in
nearby communities. Dr. Moore stressed that nuclear energy is also an environmentally clean option for electricity
production it produces no harmful greenhouse gases suspected to cause global warming and no gases that could cause ground-
level ozone formation, smog or acid rain. Scientific evidence shows that nuclear power is an environmentally sound and
safe energy choice, said Dr. Moore. To create a safe environment and secure energy for our future, the United States
must regain its leadership in this area. If the United States were to double nuclear energy production, it would be possible to
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing our energy supply.
119
Inevitable Trick: Waste Inevitable

Nuclear power in inevitable it only a question to safe deployment verse a fast deployment
that might be technologically safe
John McCarthy (Professor at Stanford University) 2008 “Nuclear Now” Stanford Journal, http://www-
formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclearnow.html
Sooner or later the world will go for nuclear energy in a big way. If this is to be done in a technologically and
economically optimal way, the changes will begin soon. Indeed it was a tragedy that ignorance and fanaticism
prevented the good start on nuclear energy made in the 1960s from continuing. If it had, the US would already be in
compliance with the Kyoto targets for CO2 emission. Perhaps the Sierra Club has been the largest single cause of more CO2 in the atmosphere.
It has had a choice of what to recommend, but the utilities really haven't had much choice of what sources of energy to use. 2008 April: The
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received 9 applications for construction and operation licenses for new
nuclear power plants. Details are on the above web site. Six of the applications are for two reactors. Three are for a single reactor. This is
in accordance with the NRC's stated expectations. 32 applications are expected for 2008. According to the plans construction
will start in 2010 with completion in 2014. NRC expects 14 applications for 20 reactors in 2008 and 2 applications for 3 reactors in
2009.
Globally, nuclear expansionism inevitable

Shaun Waterman (UPI Homeland and National Security Editor, UPI Homeland and National Security, A report
from a State Department advisory panel, 7/8/08,
http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2008/07/08/Report_urges_US_to_embrace_nuclear_power_growth_despite_
risks/UPI-63221215528998/
The report says global demand for power is likely to rise by 100 percent by 2030. "Nuclear energy is likely to be
in great demand because of the large price increases for oil and natural gas and the fact that nuclear power
produces no carbon (or other) emissions." Robinson bluntly says the expansion of civil nuclear energy generation
is not just inevitable, it is already under way. "You just have to read the newspapers to see that this is the case," he
told United Press International.
120
***Politics***
121
Politics: Bush Take Credit

Bush will take credit for the plan
Peter Baker and Steven Mufson (Washington Post Staff Writers) May 25 2006 “Bush Calls For New Nuclear
Plants President Talks Of Environmental Benefits, Safety”, The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402072.html?nav=rss_business
LIMERICK, Pa., May 24 -- President Bush promoted nuclear power Wednesday as part of his answer to energy
and environmental problems as more companies consider taking advantage of government incentives to build the
nation's first new nuclear plant in decades. In the shadow of twin giant cooling towers, Bush said that his plan to
expand nuclear power would curb emissions contributing to global warming and would provide an "abundant and
plentiful" alternative to limited energy sources. Bush called the nuclear sector an "overregulated industry" and
pledged to work to make it more feasible to build reactors. "Nuclear power helps us protect the environment. And
nuclear power is safe," he said to loud applause from workers at the Limerick Generating Station, about 40 miles
from Philadelphia. He added: "For the sake of economic security and national security, the United States must
aggressively move forward with construction of nuclear power plants. Other nations are." Bush has been an ardent
advocate of nuclear power since taking office, and he was introduced Wednesday as the industry's most supportive
president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. The energy legislation he pushed through Congress last year offered a
menu of benefits to industry to build new reactors; 16 companies have expressed interest this year, compared with
two last year, although none has filed an application.
122
Politics: It’s Popular

Nuclear power is popular
Peter Baker and Steven Mufson (Washington Post Staff Writers) May 25 2006 “Bush Calls For New Nuclear
Plants President Talks Of Environmental Benefits, Safety”, The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402072.html?nav=rss_business
Opinion polls suggest public attitudes toward nuclear power are shifting. Support for expanding the use of nuclear
energy has grown from 43 percent to 55 percent in the past three years, according to surveys by the Gallup Organization. The Pew
Research Center found rising support in the past few months as gasoline prices have soared, from 39 percent last
September to 44 percent in February. Still, 49 percent remain against expanding nuclear energy. "It's still a controversial issue," said Pew
Executive Director Andrew Kohut, "but it might have a little wind in its sails, given people's concerns about energy prices."
123
Politics: Not Popular

Loan guarantees not popular
Now, some members of Congress, heedless of the economic and environmental consequences, want to bar nuclear
plants from the loan-guarantee program or, short of that, place severe restrictions on the portion of the program
reserved for nuclear power.
124
Politics: Presidential Candidates Like

Nuclear power popular with presidential candidates
It's encouraging to know that, despite differences over energy policy, several presidential candidates recognize the
need for additional nuclear power. Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-
Ariz., support federal incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants. McCain says there is "no way
that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and anybody
who tells you differently is not telling the truth."
Politics: Public Supports

Public supports increases in nuclear power
Ann Stouffer Bisconti (Ph.D in Social Science Research, and President of Bisconti Research inc) April 2001
“More Nuclear Power Plants” Bisconti, April 2001 http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/public/mandate.pdf
Public support for building new nuclear power plants has increased dramatically in the past few months, as concern about
energy shortages and prices spreads across the nation. Two-thirds of U.S. adults–66%–now support building more nuclear
power plants, compared with 51% in January and 42% in October 1999. That’s an increase of 24 percentage points over the past year and a
half. Support for building new nuclear power plants has increased substantially in all regions, with the largest changes in
the Western region, where energy shortages are most prominent, and the Midwest. The trends are from national opinion Percent Who Agree:
“We should definitely build more nuclear energy plants in the future” Oct.1999 Jan.2001 Mar.2001 Change surveys for NEI by
Bisconti Research, Inc. with Bruskin Research–most recently March 20-22. All surveys cited are with nationally representative samples of
1,000 U.S. adults who were interviewed by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. The survey also
found increased support for renewing the federal licenses of nuclear power plants, which produce 20% of U.S. electricity.
On the question of whether we should “renew the license of nuclear energy plants that continue to meet federal safety standards,” 87% agreed
—up eight percentage points from 79% in October 1999. Also, nearly three-quarters agreed we should “keep the option to build more nuclear
energy plants in the future”—up 13 percentage points from 60% in October 1999. And 78% agreed with the statement, “Considering the
electricity shortages in California and other states, electric utilities should prepare now so that new nuclear power plants could be built if
needed in the next five years.” Nearly half (46%) agreed strongly, and only 11% disagreed strongly. One of the reasons the public
believes it makes sense to prepare now for building new nuclear power plants is that the majority views nuclear
energy as an important fuel of the future. In fact, 70% in the March survey said nuclear energy should play a “very important” or
“somewhat important” role in meeting America’s future electricity needs.
125
Politics: Bipart Support

Bipartisanship support for nuclear power
Gregory B. Jaczko (Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) March 10 2008 "The Nuclear Option
a" A Perspective on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Policy", States News Service, lexis
Over the last several years, there has been a lot of discussion in the industry about achieving bipartisan support in
Congress as a crucial element for new nuclear construction. I think in many ways that has been achieved. In
general, I think the Congress, and the Administration right now are very supportive. The Congress, I think, is
generally, in a bipartisan way, supportive of nuclear power. There are members certainly across the entire spectrum
from support to opposition, but I think, in general, there is a majority that is supportive of new nuclear reactors.
126
***A2***
127
2ac Risk Calculus

Risk assessment should be given on whole--- must compare maximum solvency to any risk
—extinction is inevitable without a transition to nuclear power
The Guardian August 12 2004 “Nuclear Plants Bloom”, John Vidal
Nuclear now has powerful advocates around government who say it is the best way to survive climate change. "One
advantage is that the technology is known," says Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office and the UN's intercontinental
panel on climate change, in a new edition of Global Warming, the Complete Briefing. "They can be built now and
therefore contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions ... estimates are that the cost of nuclear electricity is similar to
the cost of electricity from natural gas when the additional cost of capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide is added." Sir
Crispin Tickell, former UK ambassador to the UN, who famously introduced Margaret Thatcher to the environment and has advised
governments on sustainable development, has said that the word nuclear was banned from Downing street, but is now being
reassessed out of necessity. "The problems of true cost, safety, proliferation, security, risk and the rest should be
examined in a complete overall assessment of nuclear against other forms of renewable energy to lay a proper
foundation for debate and future policy," he said recently. "All over the world people have to change their ways and
remodel their thinking. Otherwise Nature will do what she has done to over 99% of species that have ever lived,
and do the job for us." Other environmentalists, traditionally hostile to nuclear, say that growing understanding of
climate change is leading them to question old assumptions. "It's important that environmentalists don't become
fundamentalists [just] following the 1970s line," says Paul Allen, development director at the Centre for Alternative Technology in
Machynlleth. "We've got to look at all the arguments. We have to engage in the debate. Nuclear is one of the
arguments that must be considered. We should not just write it off." Allen says he is not endorsing nuclear, but is trying to
keep an open mind. Nuclear costs, he says, must include the security, insurance, decommissioning, long term storage and waste disposal costs,
as well as the energy needed to build the plants. "For me [nuclear] is not a winner, but let's do the calculations," he
says. Keith Taylor, new joint principal speaker of the Green party, agrees that the worst nuclear disaster would not be as serious
as the worst possible climate change. However, he adds that this does not justify using nuclear power, which he says is now subsidised
in Britain by £2m a day. "But no one group has all the solutions," he says. "No one can afford to be dogmatic. It's important to listen to each
other."
128
A2: Trade-off
Rising energy cost have made nuclear energy price competitive--
Jack Spencer (Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy) and Nicolas Loris (Research Assistant in the Thomas A.
Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation) June 19 2008 “Critics of Nuclear Power's
Costs Miss the Point”, WebMemo #1961, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961.cfm
Carbon-capping legislation and recent studies that conclude that a massive build-up of nuclear power is needed to
minimize the negative economic impact of CO2 caps have spurred several high-profile articles on the costs of nuclear energy.
One such article notes that estimated construction costs for nuclear power plants and the overall costs of nuclear power
have increased significantly since 2000 and espouses wind power, solar power, and energy efficiency as
alternatives to new nuclear plants. What these articles do not recognize is that energy prices are increasing
broadly. When considered properly, nuclear power is the only available technology that is adequate, affordable,
reliable, safe, and environmentally clean. If the nation wants to limit CO2 emissions, then it must turn to nuclear
power. Though nuclear energy is expensive and lowering its real costs (as opposed to artificial discounts through subsidies and
mandates) should by a primary goal of public policy—especially in light of its critical role in meeting CO2 targets—those who
criticize nuclear energy based solely on costs do not fully appreciate the broader context of energy policy, energy
inflation, and rising construction costs in general.
Non-unique: companies are looking to license plants and cost high are across the board for
any energy development
Cost problems are not specific to the nuclear industry. Energy and construction prices are escalating across the
board. Much of the increase is a result of rising commodity prices for products like cement, steel, and copper.[3] The truth is that coal,
wind, and solar projects are all becoming increasingly expensive. If those sources were inexpensive, few would
even consider building new nuclear plants, yet nearly 20 companies are pursuing construction and operating
licenses for up to 30 new reactors. Renewable energy sources would not need mandates and subsidies to survive if they were affordable.
Furthermore, assiging all of the costs of the first few nuclear plants to future plants is inaccurate. As more orders are placed, economies of scale
will be achieved. Today, it is very expensive to produce nuclear-qualified components and materials because steep overhead costs are carried by
only a few products. Additional production will allow these costs to be spread, thus lowering costs overall. Further savings should be achieved
by applying lessons learned from initial construction projects. Because nuclear plants could have an operating life of 80 years, the benefit could
be well worth the cost. To argue that nuclear power is not viable based on cost alone while ignoring the many
problems, including costs, that are associated with wind, solar, and efficiency measures is to present an inaccurate
picture.
129
A2: Trade-off
Wind and Solar are not technological ready to power America and are expensive
Wind and solar power do have a role in America's energy mix, but those technologies alone are not ready or able to power the
United States. Despite efforts to portray these sources as viable alternatives to nuclear power, they have their own
problems. They are expensive, intermittent, and inappropriate for broad swaths of the United States. For example,
wind turbines are virtually useless in the Southeast, where there is little wind. Even environmental activists are beginning to oppose wind
projects because they kill birds, despoil landscapes, and ruin scenic views. The costs of wind power have been increasing. The Department of
Energy reports that the price of wind turbines has gone up 85 percent from 2000–2007, citing the declining value of the dollar and the increased
input prices of steel and oil as the primary reasons.[4] In fact, the cost of planned wind generation in the Rocky Mountain region now exceeds
$14.5 billion for about 8,000 megawatts of capacity. This may seem like a bargain until two important points are taken into consideration.
First, wind is intermittent, producing electricity only about a third of the time. This means that power plants are
needed to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing. If one is going to rely on wind and the additional power-generating
capacity that is needed when the wind is not blowing, those additional costs should be assigned to wind power as well. Second,
the life expectancy of windmills is projected to be 20 years.[5] Nuclear power plants produce power for up to 80
years. This must be taken into account when considering costs. Solar energy projects are also running into trouble.
Like wind, solar is intermittent: It produces electricity only when the sun is shining. The general economic problems of
solar power were recently described in a study by Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of
Business and director of the UC Energy Institute. He looked at the costs of 26,522 photovoltaic solar panel installations, equal to 103
megawatts of capacity, that have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86,000–$91,000) far outweighed their value
($19,000–$51,000).[6] Other problems have arisen as well. For example, Solar, Inc., the world's largest solar company, recently told investors
that its largest market, the European Union, may ban its solar panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride.[7] To replace the cadmium
model with a silicon-based model would quadruple the production costs. The intermittent nature of wind and solar energy is
important to the overall economics of energy and how these renewable sources relate to nuclear power. Given the
low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant, lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed.[8] It is therefore difficult
to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all.
Turn: renewable sources will be accompanied with energy efficiency, this will crush the
economy and technological innovation
Even critics of nuclear energy acknowledge that renewable sources alone will likely not meet America's growing
energy demand. These critics assert that any shortfalls in supply will be met by increased efficiency, and they want
mandatory energy reductions to assure that it happens. Such draconian measures are not needed and would not work without
dire economic consequences. Energy efficiency standards have run into their own problems with higher costs and unintended
consequences, such as lower productivity. This is not to downplay the importance of efficiency. Energy resources are precious, and society
benefits by their conservation. However, the value of efficiency mandates is questionable. People's interests are served by efficiency, and they
will pursue it where it most benefits them. That is why consumers and producers, not government, should drive the push for efficiency.
Mandatory efficiency requirements often raise the price of consumer goods and force engineering in directions that
technology is not ready to support. The result is often lower productivity and less efficient technological
innovation. This not only affects everyday lives (toilets do not effectively flush, and washing machines do not effectively wash), but also can
have broader technological effects.[10] For example, new CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)[11] standards will force automobile
manufacturers to focus their research and development resources on meeting new miles-per-gallon mandates instead of on revolutionary
transportation technologies.
130
A2: Co2 Caps CP

Nuclear power key to co2 caps
Nuclear power must be expanded if CO2 caps are to work. Despite claims of high costs, nuclear power is competitive
with renewable energy sources when all costs are factored in. The time has come to acknowledge the critical role that
nuclear power will play in the United States.
131
A2: Terrorist Attacks

Nuclear plants are safe from terrorist attacks and spent fuel cannot be used to make a
terrorist bomb
Terrorists could not acquire bomb-making material from spent fuel in a nuclear power plant, because the material
would be too radioactive for them to handle. 233 Nor would it be feasible to bomb an American reactor in a way
that would release deadly radiation. 234 All reactors in American power plants are contained in structures made of
heavy steel and concrete three to four feet thick, 235 and the reactor pressure vessel itself is further protected by steel
walls eight inches thick. 236 The robust construction of nuclear power plants would provide substantially more protection against assault
with airplanes or other types of weapons than exists at "other critical infrastructure such as chemical plants, refineries, and fossil-fuel-fired
electrical generating stations." 237 Attacking a plant by crashing an airplane into it would be difficult because the reactor is a small, low
structure often surrounded by large but harmless cooling towers. 238 Even an attempt to hit a reactor with a large airliner would
be unlikely to succeed in releasing radiation, with success depending on the attacker's "unpredictable "good fortune.'" 239
Legitimate concerns have been raised that some (but not all) existing nuclear power plants have spent fuel storage
pools in locations that might be susceptible to a terrorist attack that could drain the water from the pool, which might cause a
release of radiation if the water was not quickly replaced. 240 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued new regulations
to protect against this possibility, 241 and designers of newly-constructed [*45] power plants are now aware of this
potential problem and will avoid it.
Our coal advantage turns their terrorism argument – radioactive coal ash is comparatively
easier to weaponize because it is unregulated and unprotected
Fourth, by collecting the uranium residue from coal combustion, significant quantities of fissionable material can be
accumulated. In a few year's time, the recovery of the uranium-235 released by coal combustion from a typical
utility anywhere in the world could provide the equivalent of several World War II-type uranium-fueled weapons.
Consequently, fissionable nuclear fuel is available to any country that either buys coal from outside sources or has its own reserves. The
material is potentially employable as weapon fuel by any organization so inclined. Although technically complex,
purification and enrichment technologies can provide high-purity, weapons-grade uranium-235. Fortunately, even
though the technology is well known, the enrichment of uranium is an expensive and time-consuming process. Because electric utilities
are not high-profile facilities, collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals, including uranium for
weapons or reactor fuel, can proceed without attracting outside attention, concern, or intervention. Any country
with coal-fired plants could collect combustion by-products and amass sufficient nuclear weapons material to
build up a very powerful arsenal, if it has or develops the technology to do so. Of far greater potential are the much
larger quantities of thorium-232 and uranium-238 from coal combustion that can be used to breed fissionable
isotopes. Chemical separation and purification of uranium-233 from thorium and plutonium-239 from uranium
require far less effort than enrichment of isotopes. Only small fractions of these fertile elements in coal
combustion residue are needed for clandestine breeding of fissionable fuels and weapons material by those nations
that have nuclear reactor technology and the inclination to carry out this difficult task.
132
A2: Radiation Exposure

Plants are safe- no risk of radiation exposure
Insofar as the risk of accidents is concerned, few industries - and certainly not the coal industry - have a safety record as
exemplary as the nuclear power industry. 243 The operation of U.S. nuclear power plants has proven to be very
safe; the National Commission on Energy Policy has affirmed that "experience with nuclear power plants over the past decade and more, in
the United States and elsewhere, has demonstrated that these plants can be operated with high degrees of reliability and safety and extremely
low exposures of workers and public radiation." 244 The same can be said of power plants elsewhere in the world, except in the Soviet Union.
University of Washington nuclear physicist David Bodansky states that "for commercial reactors in the non-Soviet world,
which account for the largest part of the reactor experience, the safety record is excellent." 245 At no such power
plant has an accident "caused the known death of any nuclear plant worker from radiation exposure or ... exposed
any member of the general public to a substantial radiation dose."
Nuclear power plants are safe—no harmful radiation is emitted

Whereas coal burning creates large amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, nuclear power generation emits
none. 209 The reason that nuclear power plants produce no air pollutants when generating power is that in a nuclear power plant, nothing is
burned; the heat used to spin the turbines and drive the generators comes from the natural decay of the radionuclides in the fuel. 210 It is the
burning of fossil fuels, and particularly coal, that causes air pollution from electric power plants. 211 Nor does a nuclear
power plant pollute its surroundings with dangerous radiation, as its opponents often imply. 212 The population exposure
from the normal operation of nuclear power plants is far lower than exposure from natural sources. 213 "The civilian
nuclear power fuel cycle, involving mining, fuel fabrication, and reactor operation, contributes a negligible dose [of
radiation] to the general public." 214 Life cycle air pollutant emissions from nuclear plants are comparable to those
of the wind, solar, and hydro facilities - in other words, minimal. 215 Concern is sometimes raised about the
possibility of releases of large amounts of radiation from an accident at a nuclear power plant. 216 In the four decades of
commercial power plant operation [*41] in the United States, such a release has never occurred. 217 The only serious
accident at a commercial nuclear reactor in the United States caused no radiation damage to people outside the plant and little environmental
damage.
133
A2: Accidents
Should not evaluate nuclear accident risk—no baseline for evaluating the probability
Taylor Burke (J.D., University of Tulsa, 2006; B.A., Political Science and History, University of Tulsa) Winter
2006 “nuclear energy and proliferation: problems, observations, and proposals”, Boston University Journal of
Science and Technology Law, lexis
There is no clear way to evaluate the risk of a nuclear accident, much less the risk posed by nuclear proliferation.
The lack of a tangible means of evaluating the probability of such incidents is not a reason to ignore the problem.
If nuclear energy is a necessary step in addressing the rising energy demand worldwide, it will take an investment
in the future to protect the world from dangers posed by nuclear proliferation. Allowing examples like the
Kinshasa reactor to discourage a policy that pursues the safe development of nuclear energy is a mistake.
134

PLS Nuclear Power Aff

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PLS Nuclear Power Aff

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SDI 2008 Nuclear Power Affirmative

The Facist ROFLCopters

Nuclear Power Affirmative

Storage Safe: Dry Cask...............................................................................................................................................117

Electricity increase demands are inevitable—New base-load generation will be required

Advantage – coal – warming

Advantage – coal – warming

Advantage – coal – economy

Economic decline causes global nuclear war

Advantage – coal – environment

Advantage – coal – environment

Independently the threshold is invisible, if we lose 10% of biodiversity we face a wave of

Advantage – coal – environment

Advantage – nuclear power – heg

Scenario One: Hegemony

U.S. credibility is key to hard power

Advantage – nuclear power – heg

Advantage – nuclear power – prolif

Advantage – nuclear power – prolif

Efforts to prevent proliferation shield us from extinction.

Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness

Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness (econ)

United States fall would collapse the global economy

Advantage – nuclear power – competitiveness (heg)

US technological leadership and economic competitiveness is key to hegemony

Inherency: Political Gridlock

Inherency: No Loan Guarantees

Inherency: Federal Loans Inadequate

Inherenct: Nuclear Down

Electricity Demand Increasing

Inevitable: Coal or Nuclear

Inevitable: Coal or Nuclear

New Plants Needed

No Natural Gas Plants

No new natural gas plant investments

New renewable plants will not be built- lack mobility

Yes coal peak – US

Yes coal peak – US

Yes coal peak – US

Yes coal peak – prefer our evidence

Yes coal peak – global – 2025

Yes coal peak – China – 10 years

A2: Underground gasification

A2: High coal prices good DA

A2: Exporting clean coal tech good

A2: Regulate coal CP

Yes new coal plants

The power of the anti-coal environmental lobby is over-estimated

Coal Demand Increasing- Its Bad

Coal = GHG Emissions

Coal produces mad amounts of GHG;s

Coal Destroys Ecosystems

Coal Bad: Mercury

Coal Bad: Acid Rain

Burning coal causes acid rain

Coal Ash Bad

Dumping of coal ash is not regulated

Coal waste is harmful to humans-brain damage

Mining Bad: Mountaintop

Mountaintop mining destroy aquatic systems

Mountaintop mining destroys ecosystems

Mining Bad: Longwall

The impact is extinction

Biodiversity collapse threatens human extinction

Clean Coal Bad

Nuclear Superior to Coal