WHAM Nuclear Power Aff 2.0

8/14/2019 WHAM Nuclear Power Aff 2.0

1/49

SDI 2008 1 of 49WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

1AC Waste Disposal 4 minute version .........................................................................................3

ADV U.S. Nuclear power leadership ............................................................................................6

ADV Global Warming ...................................................................................................................8

ADV Brownouts/Blackouts ..........................................................................................................11

ADV Dependency .........................................................................................................................12

ADV Legal obligation ..................................................................................................................13

ADV US-Australian relations .....................................................................................................14

ADV US-Russian Relations .........................................................................................................15

ADV Competitiveness ..................................................................................................................16

Inherency ......................................................................................................................................18

CA Dry Cask storage is safe ........................................................................................................19

CA Companies want to build nuclear power plants .................................................................20AT CA Public opposes nuclear power ........................................................................................21

AT CA Nuclear power is to expensive ........................................................................................22

AT T waste storage isnt an incentive ......................................................................................23

AT T waste storage isnt an incentive ext. Waste storage key to NP ....................................24

AT DA Generic nuclear power expanding now ......................................................................26

AT DA Generic Lots of incentives to do nuclear power now ................................................28

AT DA Yucca mountain is unsafe ...............................................................................................29

AT DA Nuclear plant meltdowns ................................................................................................30

AT DA Nuclear waste is dangerous ............................................................................................32

AT DA Reprocessing ....................................................................................................................33

AT DA Economy ...........................................................................................................................34

AT DA Spending ...........................................................................................................................35

AT DA Politics Nuclear power is unpopular ...........................................................................36

AT DA Politics Obama will do the plan (DA turns the case) .................................................37

AT CP States .................................................................................................................................38

AT CP Solar .................................................................................................................................39

AT CP Wind ..................................................................................................................................40

AT CP Natural Gas ......................................................................................................................41

AT CP Hydroelectric ....................................................................................................................42

AT CP Cap and Trade ..................................................................................................................43

AT CP PIC out of Yucca Mountain ............................................................................................44


2/49


AT K Discursive ...........................................................................................................................46

SMART Act ..................................................................................................................................47

GNEP ............................................................................................................................................49

....................................................................................................................................................... 49


3/49


1AC Waste Disposal 4 minute version

Inherency

Despite a host of incentives the nuclear industry needs one more a place for waste

disposal.Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, NuclearFuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VP

Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S.,

there are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs of

natural gas and oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly objects to the greenhouse gas emissions

from burning fossil fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and

insurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loan

guarantees. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want? Just one thing: a

place to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed, the lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging over

the entire enterprise. The projected opening of a federal waste storage repository in Yucca Mountain inNevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest) has already slipped by two decades, and the cooling

pools holding spent fuel at the nations nuclear power plants are running out of space.

Plan: The United States Federal Government should pursue a dual track approach to nuclear waste

storage allowing interim dry cask storage and developing a permanent repository.

Solvency

The plan would save the nuclear power industry.

Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 NUCLEAR ENERGY AT ACROSSROADS(DS) Lexis, dru

The waste storage problem in the United States is manageable. The United Statesshould pursue a dual-track approach: commit to developing a consensus and then opening

up a permanent repository and in parallel store as much spent fuel as possible in dry casks

that are hardened against attack at existing reactor sites. The combination of interim

storage and commitment to a permanent repository would provide the assurances needed

by the public and the investment community for continued use of nuclear power .


4/49


Advantage 1 Global Warming

The only way to reduce greenhouse gases and nuclear energy is to use nuclear energy

United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, Domenici PraisesFocus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report,http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a-

4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM

The IPCC panel, which was established by the UN to assess scientific, technical, and socio-economicinformation relevant for the understanding of climate change, includes a major expansion of nuclear poweras a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the worlds climate . This is a no-brainer: any realistic plan to reduce carbon emissions in a meaningful way must include a vastexpansion of nuclear power. The IPCC is right to include nuclear energy as a necessary part of the

climate change solution, said Domenici, who is the author of A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling thePromise of Nuclear Energy.

Global warming causes disease spread, environmental damage, and escalating regional conflicts

Podesta, Stern, and Batten2007(John, Todd, and Kit, President, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy, and SeniorFellow at the Center for American Progress, Capturing the Energy Opportunity, November 2007, Accessed May 15, 2008,http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf)

Climate change presents the United States with multiple foreign policy challenges quite apart from those directlyconnected to our nations deepening dependence on imported oil, which we will detail shortly. These challenges include, forexample, increased border stress resulting from the impact of climate change-induced storms and droughts in Mexico and the

Caribbean. Orconsider the complications posed by ever-scarcer water supplies to political progress in the

Middle East. Perhaps the greatest climate change-induced geopolitical challenge in the shortterm, though, will

arise in the developing countries in the earths low latitudes. In these countries, even a relatively small

climatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, the spread of disease, and natural

resource competition. Such conditions fuel political turmoil, drive already weak states toward collapse, and

threaten regional stability. According to a recent report by 11 former Army generals and Navy admirals, climate change is

a threat multiplier for instability in volatile parts of the world.16 Nigeria and East Africa pose particularly acutechallenges. Nigeria, Africas most populous country, will confront intense drought, desertification, and sea-level rise in thecoming years. Already, approximately 1,350 square miles of Nigerian land turns to desert each year, forcing both farmers and

herdsmen to abandon their homes.17 Lagos, the largest Nigerian city, is one of the West African coastal megacities that the IPCCidentifies as at risk from sea-level rise by 2015.18 These conditions, coupled with rapid population growth projections, are likelyto force significant human migration and contribute to regional political and economic turmoil. The threat of regional turmoil ishigher yet in East Africa because of the concentration of weak or failing states, numerous unresolved political conflicts, and thesevere effects of climate change. Climate change will likely create large fluctuations in the amount of rainfall in East Africaduring the next 30 yearsa 5 percent to 20 percent increase in rainfall during the winter months would cause flooding and soilerosion, while a 5 percent to 10 percent decrease in the summer months would cause severe droughts.19 Such volatility will

jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of people and the economic capacity of the region: Agriculture constitutes some 40 percentof East Africas GDP and employs 80 percent of the population.20 In Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya, watershortages have already led to the desertification of large tracts of farmland and grassland. Fierce competition between farmersand herdsmen over the remaining arable land, combined with simmering ethnic and religious tensions, helped ignite the firstgenocide of the 21st century.21 This conflict has now spilled into Chad and the Central African Republic. Meanwhile, the entire

Horn of Africa remains threatened by a failed Somalia and other weak states. Beyond Africa, the IPCC warns that

coastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East and Southeast Asia, will be at

greatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some mega-deltas, flooding from the rivers.22 In South

Asia, this will generate political tension as displaced people traverse the regions many contested borders andterritories, such as those between Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and China. In Bangladesh, for example, the

combination of deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, radical Islamic political groups, and dire

environmental insecurity brought on by climate change could prove a volatile mix, one with severe regional

and potentially global consequences.23


5/49


Independently, warming causes human extinctionHenderson 2006 (Bill, Frequent Contributor to online news source CounterCurrents, Counter Currents, August 19, 2006, Accessed May 10,2008, http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm)

The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general

public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer

temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly

points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. Ifimpossibly Draconian security measures are not

immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking

at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year oldexistence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

Advantage Two U.S. Nuclear energy leadership

Nuclear Power Requires Global Cooperation To Solve Climate Change, Proliferation, And

Economic Objectives

Christina Bellantoni, 7-7-08, The Washington Times, GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states; Economytakes focus, lexis, bc

"(I) will discuss with Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh how best to take forward this reform agenda, whichis something the United Kingdom attaches great importance to." He will iterate that sentiment in a speech

on Monday which 10, Downing Street has said will be one of his major speeches of 2008. It will dwell on theneed for significant modernization of the international framework of governance in order to make itrepresentative and effective. Climate change is another issue that will be high on his agenda during the visitto India. Appreciating India's advocacy of common but differentiated responsibility, the British primeminister said in the interview that developed countries should take responsibility for reducing greenhouse gasemissions and transitioning to a low-carbon, high-growth model of economic development. "Climatechange is a global problem that requires a global solution. Caused by developed countries, the weight

of responsibility to solve it lies with us," Mr Brown said. "However," he added, "countries need to acttogether to have the greatest hope of solving this shared dilemma." In that context, Mr Brown said thatnuclear energy is non-polluting and it can make a significant contribution to limiting climate change. Hesuggested that, under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices, new nuclear power stations would yieldeconomic benefits to India in terms of carbon reduction and security of supply. "The UK and India agree onthe potential of civil nuclear energy to be a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of energy, which couldmake a significant contribution to meeting the global challenge of achieving energy security, sustainabledevelopment, economic growth and limiting climate change," he said. The British prime minister reiteratedhis country's support for the proposed India-USA civil nuclear cooperation agreement. "The UK supportsthe India-USA civil nuclear cooperation initiative. We believe that the deal can make a significantcontribution to energy security, development, economic and environment objectives for India and theinternational community," he said. Britain has unveiled a new energy policy, the centrepiece of which is adecision to support the building of new nuclear power stations. Mr Brown said the UK and India areactively engaged on non-proliferation and arms control issues, too. "We engage with India on a full range ofnon-proliferation and arms control issues, both bilaterally and through multilateral forums, including the UNand organizations related to it, such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said. Heasserted that "such international engagement is increasingly vital in reducing proliferation risks,including that of terrorists gaining access to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons and

their means of delivery". Mr Brown said he is looking forward to building on the very close relationshipenjoyed by the UK and India during Monday's summit. His discussions with Prime Minister Manmohan

Singh will centre on how both countries can work together to meet common challenges for the future at alllevels - bilaterally, multilaterally or globally. "At a bilateral level, (I am) keen to strengthen education andtrade links between the two countries," Mr Brown said. A senior level delegation of UK business leadersand heads of some of the UK's top universities will accompany him to India. "We hope to conclude anumber of agreements at the summit. Another important issue for (me) is that of development.


6/49


ADV U.S. Nuclear power leadership

Having a strong nuclear industry is key to the U.S. ability to decrease proliferation.

Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International StudiesWashington, D. C. 3/2/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000302ebel.pdf

The ability of the United States to influence the control of proliferation of nuclear weapons derives fromour ability to influence the policies and practices of other nations as they develop their own nuclear

power industry. But our ability to influence depends very much on the state of our own nuclearindustry.

Nuclear power expansion is supported by other countries, which undermines U.S. nuclear

power leadership.

Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies

Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdfClearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy.At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist theseconsumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption.Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to

supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear poweras a viableoption in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-lookingplan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Ministerof Atomic Energy recentlystated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030 . DoesChina? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations bythe year 2020. Does Japans, despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plansto add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclearoption faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our

judgment that the market alone won't do it).


7/49


Invigorating the nuclear industry is key to our nuclear energy leadership and competitiveness.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008

Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come.Thus farmuch of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmentalbenefits offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but its not the whole story. What has been missing

from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that canaccrue if the U.S. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United Statesgreatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to theearly 1990s. At that time, U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global useof nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy

leadership. In the ever-expanding global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be able tocompete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred supplierposition. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can notbecome complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as business-as-usual. The Unites Statesinvented nuclear energy, and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design, manufacturing, serviceand supply improves, our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgomultibillion-dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nucleardesign, manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in:

o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories;o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; ando greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns.Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity more than onemillion jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of thegrowing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close attention tothe ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers and operators,as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will be needed to build,operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater education on theseissues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nations political,

industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure

Americas nuclear leadership is restored.


8/49


ADV Global Warming

Nuclear Energy is the best solution to carbon dioxide emissions

Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest)

WITH NEWS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GROWING MORE alarming day by day, some are steppingforward to suggest that nuclear energy-a form of energy that Americans had largely rejected by the 1980s-is thebest and fastest way to reduce the United State's enormous carbon footprint. The term "nuclear renaissance,"promoted by the nuclear-energy industry, is finding its way into news articles featuring interviews with well-knownenvironmentalists like Patrick Moore, co-founder oh Greenpeace, who hold up low-carbon nuclear power as theanswer to global warming.

Nuclear energy is the only way to cost effectively decrease CO2.

Kemeny, Leslie,2008. Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy,Canberra Times, July 4, 2008, p.15/A. Lexis V.F

Australian industrial leaders and domestic consumers of energy will digest with some apprehension the economicimpacts of Professor Ross Garnaut's emission trading scheme. His interim report will be issued today. A green papershould be available from Climate Minister Penny Wong's department a little later. Without nuclear power, Australia

stands exposed to hefty economic penalties as energy prices will undoubtedly escalate. Meanwhile, the coerciveutopian exponents of renewables and clean coal vigorously advocate their populist causes. These already costAustralians an estimated $8 billion a year. Globally there is a growing consensus among energy experts andclimate scientists that the only effective way to combat climate change and to maintain energy security at

reasonable cost is through the comprehensive acceptance of nuclear power. Fifty years ago Australia was set tobecome the first nation south of the equator to embrace civilian nuclear power. Sadly, political vacillation, pooreducation, radical green activism and the fossil fuel lobby have, so far, successfully conspired to negate suchenterprise. Our energy and climate change policy-makers could well learn from Australia's uranium trading partners.While the Canberra summit essentially removed nuclear power from its agenda, the Australian Davos Connection'sFuture Summit 2008 Conference in Sydney provided a central forum for its discussion. Renowned physicist PaulDavies claimed that for too long nuclear power has been "politically incorrect"in Australia but would be the fastestand most effective way of reducing the nation's carbon emission. Former top public servant Peter Shergold said itwould be unrealistic for any debate on global warming to neglect the nuclear option. The World Business Councilfor Sustainable Development states that as global emission will be mandated to more than half by 2050,

nuclear technology is a global imperative. And, for the risk-conscious Australian psyche it delivers a specialmessage "the safety record of nuclear energy is better than any other major industrial technology in OECDcountries".

Nuclear power is the only practical way to solve global warmingSteven J. Milloy 4/13/06 Twenty Years After Chernobyl o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/019,05270.cfm

Its quite ironic that while Greenpeace squawks about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases

in order to avert the much-dreaded global warming, the group continues spreading fear about

greenhouse gas-free nuclear power plants the only practical alternative to burning fossil fuels for

producing electricity.


9/49


Nuclear Power Is Best Weapon To Solve Global Warming While Maintaining Economic

DevelopmentBen Packham, 9-6-07, Herald Sun, PM feels heat as nuke deal struck, lexis, bc

JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday, announcing a joint nuclearenergy action plan with the US. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global warming.They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible, saying action on

climate change was ''urgently needed''. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed to tackleclimate change as a priority. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change that reducesgreenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies, reduce poverty, andimprove living standards,'' Mr Howard said. Under the deal, the US will back Australia's membership of aglobal partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. Nuclear and clean coal technology willbe shared directly with the US under the pact. US President George Bush said the PM had been aninternational leader on climate change. ''Now, I know some say, 'Well, since he's against Kyoto he doesn'tcare about climate change','' Mr Bush said. ''That's urban legend. That is preposterous.'' Backing MrHoward's nuclear ambitions, Mr Bush said the power source was a vital weapon in the fight against

global warming. ''If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us -- if we take theissue seriously, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John does -- then you should be supportive ofnuclear power,'' he said. ''After all, nuclearpower enables you to generate electricity without anygreenhouse gases.'' Under the nuclear deal, the US agreed to support Australian membership of the

Generation IV International Forum -- a global body working on next-generation reactor technology. Thefourth-generation reactors are being designed to be safer, cheaper and more efficient. Australia will also join-- as revealed by the Herald Sun in July -- the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a US-backed initiative toexpand the use of safe, zero-emission nuclear energy. The deal, the product of months of negotiations, comesamid intensive talks on an APEC-wide agreement. Insiders said delegates were a long way from a consensus,which Mr Howard hopes will be the summit's major outcome. The APEC Business Advisory Council, whichcomprises as many as three business representatives from each of APEC's 21 economies, will be urgingleaders to set a transparent and consistent policy framework to combat global warming as soon as possible.''What APEC is saying to those leaders is there is a real sense of urgency in the business community for thepolicy makers to set clear rules,'' said Mark Johnson, chairman of retailer AGL Energy Ltd and head of abusiness advisory council to APEC leaders. He said business must accelerate innovation, research,development and investment in new technologies. ''For all this to work, clear market-based policies arerequired for business so business can make judgments about where to invest,'' he said. ''Consumers are goingto have to change their behaviour in response to the cost of climate change, and business is going to have tochange its behaviour markedly.'' Mr Bush said cutting greenhouse emissions did not require slowing ofdevelopment. The US had managed to curb its own greenhouse emissions last yearwhile growing itseconomy, he said. A government-endorsed report earlier this year found Australia could have 25 nuclearreactors up and running by 2050. Mr Howard recently moved to calm concerns about the nuclear industry byguaranteeing local residents a veto on the location of any reactor.


10/49


With nuclear power we can meet the Kyoto Treaty.

Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with

the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp

Had we continued to build nuclear power plants over the past 30 years instead of depending

increasingly on fossil plants and fickle renewables, we would most likely be meeting our Kyoto Treaty

limits for carbon dioxide emissions.


11/49


ADV Brownouts/Blackouts

Expanding nuclear power is the way to increase electicity generation and cut co2 emissions.

Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, Nuclear energy now our only option, p.17/A. Lexis VFThe two cleanest means of generating power are nuclear and solar, but nuclear produces enough. Solar doesn't. Theworld's first civilian nuclear power reactor came on stream 50 years ago. There are now 440 reactors generatingpower in 31 countries and producing 15 per cent of the worlds electricity. In France, 80 per cent of electricity isgenerated in nuclear power stations. In the OECD generally, it is 22 per cent. The International Energy Agency in itsWorld Energy Outlook for last year observed that the world faced the twin threats of not having adequate and securesupplies of energy together with the environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it. Switkowski expectsdemand for electricity to more than double by 2050 , while at the same time pollution and emission levels mustbe brought down on today's levels.The solution as he sees it is a fast deployment of 25 nuclear reactors by2050, so that about one third of electricity generation is nuclear, with greenhouse gas emissions down by 18

per cent. The first of them could be operating by 2016 and certainly by 2020. They appear to be safe. Switkowski'scommission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs.Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low. Britain, theUnited States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants , havingconcluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said.

Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste, which takes 50 years to decay.

If scheduled plants come on line nuclear power will substantially increase the amount of

electricity generation.

United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, Domenici PraisesFocus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report,http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a-4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in theDepartment of Energys Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharingeffort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced nuclear planttechnologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. If all the proposed nuclear power plantscome online, an additional 38,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020enough to power

28 million American households.

Increasing nuclear power necessary just to maintain current electricity generation.

Steven J. Milloy 5/15/08 McCains Embarrassing Climate Speech Originally published inFoxNews.com o.z. http://cei.org/articles/mccains-embarrassing-climate-speech

McCain lauded wind as a "predictable source of energy." He must have missed this Feb. 27 headline

from Reuters: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency." The electric grid operator was

forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes. "Our economy depends uponclean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels," McCain stated. What hes talking about is not quite clearsince our current economy is about 75 percent dependent on fossil fuels and will remain that way for at

least the next 25 years, as solar and wind technologies remain only marginal sources of energy. Ifanything, we are likely to be even more dependent on fossil fuels in the future as nuclear power, whichprovides about 20 percent of our electricity, shrinks in availability as a supply of energy. Although ourenergy needs are ever-growing, construction of nuclear power plants is not keeping pace not one has

come online in the last 30 years. Even if a few nuke plants are constructed during the next decades,

they will not supply enough power to keep nuclear power at the 20 percent level.


12/49


ADV Dependency

Nuclear Power Will End Our Dependence On Oil From Unstable RegimesDaniel Martin and David Derbyshire, 1-11-08, Daily Mail, Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills, lexis,bc

A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be in place within a decade, the Government promisedyesterday. MPs were told that the technology was 'tried and tested, safe and secure'. John Hutton saidnuclear power would also mean Britain would not have to rely on oil and gas supplies from unstableregimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Business Secretary said he had invited energy firms tobuild new reactors and the first could be in place 'well before' 2020. Critics said the move would seehousehold electricity bills rise by up to 250 a year, partly because of the cost of dealing with waste. Theysaid plants would be built only with taxpayer subsidies. However, EDF, a French nuclear power giant, saidyesterday it would submit plans to build four reactors by 2017. Westinghouse, a British nuclear firm, alsoexpressed an interest. Mr Hutton said: 'Giving the go-ahead that nuclear power should play a role inproviding the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest. 'Setagainst the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear

power stations is compelling.We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering thisimportant part of our energy policy. 'I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build

and operate new nuclear power stations. 'With a third of our generating capacity coming offline withinthe next 20 years and increasing reliance on imported energy it is clear we need investment in a range

of new energy infrastructure.'

Nuclear energy would decrease the dependence on fossil fuels and help rid the environment ofharmful emissions.Oxford Economics 2007. Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA. September 2007.www.oxfordeconomics.comVF

Moreover, maintaining the current generation capacity of the US nuclear energy industry

would also imply reducing US reliance on imports of oil to meet its energy needs future oil

imports would fall by up to $41 billion per year (assuming an oil price of $50pb in constant 2005 prices)as a result of the investment program compared to a baseline in which nuclear generation capacity fell tozero. A higher oil price would clearly increase the savings: $75pb would generate savings of $62 billion per

year. Finally, nuclear energy produces electricity without the attendant carbon emissions that comefrom burning fossil fuels. Maintaining the current nuclear generation capacity would mean reducing

future US emissions by up to 390 million tonnes of CO2 per year comparedto a zero-new-nuclear-generation baseline
http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/


13/49


ADV Legal obligation

The USFG has a legal obligation to open a nuclear waste repository.

Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc

"It's high time that we accomplish this task," he said. "We've passed laws and resolutions to do it. We'vecollected over $27 billion ? from electricity consumers to pay for it. Andcourts have affirmed that wehave a legal obligationto do it." Inhofe drafted the bill without input from the nuclear power industry,though several of its sections are in line with industry priorities. Portions of the bill also resemble legislationRepublican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced in 2006 (NF, 9 Oct. '06, 9). The Inhofe bill,for instance, would allow DOE to begin some non-nuclear work at the site in preparation for repositoryconstruction before NRC issues a license authorizing DOE to build a disposal facility there.


14/49


ADV US-Australian relations

Nuclear Power Use Strengthens US-Australian Relations-- solving global poverty, living

standards, and economic growthBen Packham, 9-6-07, Herald Sun, PM feels heat as nuke deal struck, lexis, bc

JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday, announcing a jointnuclear energy action plan with the US. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on globalwarming. They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible, sayingaction on climate change was ''urgently needed''. The Prime Minister said Austral ia and the US had agreedto tackle climate change as a priority. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change

that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies,

reduce poverty, and improve living standards,'' Mr Howard said. Under the deal, the USwill backAustralia's membership of a global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors.Nuclear and clean coal technology will be shared directly with the US under the pact. US PresidentGeorge Bush said the PM had been an international leader on climate change. ''Now, I know some say, 'Well,since he's against Kyoto he doesn't care about climate change','' Mr Bush said. ''That's urban legend. That ispreposterous.''

Australia and the US are currently forming a nuclear energy allianceBarlow, Karen, 2007. Reporter for ABC. ABC, . July 20, 2007. Govt leak confirm Australia-US nuclear

plan. Lexis VF

TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Government is taking steps to move Australia further down the nuclearpower track. Australia could soon be working much more closely with the United States in developingan Australian nuclear energy industry. A leaked draft letter from the Foreign Affairs Minister and theResources Minister to John Howard talks about cooperating with the United States. The letter, seen by AM,appears to be from senior Australian ministers, Alexander Downer and Ian Macfarlane. It proposes that thePrime Minister announce an Australian-American plan on nuclear energy during the APEC leaders summit inSeptember. Karen Barlow reports. KAREN BARLOW: The letter, marked confidential, is unsigned andundated but the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, and the Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane,indicate they're seeking action before the end of this month. EXCERPT FROM LETTER: "We are writing toseek your approval for officials to begin discussions on a joint nuclear energy action plan with the United

States. The US Department of Energy has suggested Australia and the United States conclude such aplan to provide an overall framework for nuclear energy cooperation." KAREN BARLOW: IanMacfarlane's office says Australia and the United States have had a nuclear energy cooperation agreementsince 1982. The sending of spent nuclear fuel rods to the US earlier this year could be seen as anexample of that agreement. But this letter talks of technical and engineering cooperation relevant to theinternational groupings known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and the Generation IV InternationalForum. EXCERPT FROM LETTER: "While some areas of the action plan proposal require clarification, webelieve there would be an advantage in commencing discussions with US officials. The proposed actionplan could help open the way for valuable nuclear energy cooperation with the United States."


15/49


ADV US-Russian Relations

Nuclear energy programs provide a framework for US-Russian cooperation but those

frameworks need to be implemented.Daniel Horner, 7-16-07, Nuclear Fuels, Bush-Putin statement pledges increased effort on nuclear issues, lexis, bc

The US and Russia this month announced "a new format for enhanced cooperation" on nuclear energyand nonproliferation, pledging to work together to promote the global expansion of nuclear energy,

particularly in developing countries, while controlling proliferation. The statement was issued July 3 byUS President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, after their July 1-2 meeting in Maine.At a July 3 briefing in Washington, US Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Robert Joseph said a"model" for the initiative is the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which the US and Russialaunched a year ago (Nucleonics Week, 27 July '06, 9) and now has more than 50 members. The newinitiative, Joseph said, shows how the US and Russia can "work together when our interests intersect."

The declaration, he said, "reflects a shared vision of the future in which nuclear power plays a central

role." Analysts said the Bush-Putin statement contained little policy language that went beyond

previous statements on nuclear energy and nonproliferation. A US official familiar with the issue did

not dispute that point and characterized the document as a "broad statement of intent." One section

that drew the attention of some analysts speaks of "facilitating and supporting financing to aid

construction of nuclear power plants through public and private national and multinational

mechanisms, including international financial institutions" and of "providing assistance to states todevelop the necessary infrastructure to support nuclear energy , including development of appropriate

regulatory frameworks, safety and security programs to assist states in meeting international

standards, and training of personnel." The US official described those provisions as "down-the-roadstuff" that would not require US government expenditures for at least the next several years. For now, theIAEA's technical cooperation programs are sufficient to provide the needed assistance, he said. Thedeclaration specifically pledges support for expansion of the technical cooperation programs. Bush and Putinalso said they want to ensure that the IAEA "has the resources it needs to meet its safeguards responsibilitiesas nuclear power expands worldwide." In a July 9 interview, Henry Sokolski, the executive director of theNonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, said "there is an awful lot of government in thisdocument, and not much of markets." The statement indicates the two presidents would be willing to providefinancial support to projects that private industry would not be willing to finance, he said. It seems "weird"to "pay extra for nuclear," Sokolski said. It could make more sense to provide government support for non-

nuclear energy options and thus avoid the risks of nuclear proliferation, he said. At the same time, he said,the declaration suggests that Bush and Putin might be willing to interfere with the nuclear fuel market, theone part of the nuclear marketplace that "looks to be commercially viable on its own terms," Sokolski said.One section of the document deals with nuclear fuel assurances, a key part of separate but similar

proposals by Bush and Putin to provide enriched uranium as an incentive to countries to refrain from

pursuing indigenous enrichment programs. According to the document, US and Russian efforts will

include "taking steps to ensure that the commercial nuclear fuel market remains stable and that states areassured of reliable access to nuclear fuel and fuel services for the lifetime of reactors."


16/49


ADV Competitiveness

Nuclear energy provides more jobs and secures an increase in industryOxford Economics 2007. Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA. September 2007.www.oxfordeconomics.comVF

With a substantial program of new investment, the US nuclear energy industry could support a large

number of new jobs and value added - a peak of up to 400,000 jobs and $30 billion of value added.Without this investment, this opportunity will be lost, and the capacity of the industry could dwindle to

zero by the 2050s. The jobs it supports will also gradually disappear. In this study, we assess theeconomic benefits of a reinvestment program for the nuclearenergy industry. This program wouldinvolve two overlapping phases of work: o The investment phase the construction and manufacture of anew fleet of nuclear reactors and nuclear recycling plants o The operation phase - when the reactors and therecycling plants start generating electricity The economic benefits of the investment program have threecomponents: o Direct employment and value added how many people are employed in the construction,manufacturing and operation of the new nuclear energy industry as a result of the reinvestment program, andhow much value added to they create? o Indirect employment and value added how many jobs and howmuch value added are supported down the supply chain to the nuclear energy industry, in each of the threephases of the project? o Induced employment and value added how much do the direct and indirectemployees of the nuclear energy industry spend in the US economy, and how many jobs and how much value

added is supported by that spending? The three kinds of economic benefit (peak effects) in each of thephases are set out in the charts below. Without investment in the nuclear industry, these benefits wouldbe lost. Of course, demand for electricity would be unlikely to change, so generation capacity would have tobe created or expanded in other ways, for instance with coal power, and that would imply an associatedquantity of direct, indirect and induced jobs and value added, as above. Crucially, however, a largeproportion of the jobs that would be supported by the nuclear investment program are manufacturing

jobs in the production of the capital goods necessary to support the nuclear energy industry. These are

high-tech, high-value-added jobs that reflect high spending on R&D and fixed investment: jobs that

the US economy can ill afford to lose. Alternative ways of meeting US electricity generation needs

would be unlikely to create so many high-value-added manufacturing jobs.

Nuclear energy expansion helps the economy jobs and exports.Oxford Economics 2007. Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA. September 2007.

www.oxfordeconomics.comVF An investment program to maintain the US nuclear energy industrys current generationcapacity into the long term would secure these vital manufacturing jobs, and would position

the US economy to regain the lead in nuclear reactor technology globally, and claim the lead

in recycling technology, both of which potentially represent major sources of export earnings

into the long term.
http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/


17/49


Reviving the nuclear industry key to the U.S. economy it could create a million jobs.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008

Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come.Thus farmuch of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmentalbenefits offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but its not the whole story. What has been missing

from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that canaccrue if the U.S. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United Statesgreatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to theearly 1990s. At that time, U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global useof nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy

leadership. In the ever-expanding global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry beable to compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred

supplier position. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosperwe can not become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as business-as-usual.

The Unites States invented nuclear energy, and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design,

manufacturing, service and supply improves, our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear

technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is workingto promote a revived domestic nuclear design, manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in:

o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories;o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; ando greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns.Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity more than

one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of

the growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay closeattention to the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designersand operators, as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will beneeded to build, operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greatereducation on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging

our nations political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs

that will help ensure Americas nuclear leadership is restored.


18/49


Inherency

Yucca Mountain Too Expensive With 21% Budget Shortfallopening in 2017 will be

delayed.

Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08,Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without lawchange, lexis, bc

The Yucca MountainProject is bogged down in uncertainty roughly 21 years after former PresidentRonald Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which established the DOE repositoryprogram, into law and nearly a decade after the department was supposed to begin disposing of utility spentfuel. Under standard contracts DOE signed with nuclear utilities in 1983, the DOE repository was to havebegun disposal operations by January 30, 1998. Instead, the department is wrestling with a 21% budgetshortfall that threatens to delay the program further. Meanwhile, the country's inventory of utility spentfuel tops 56,000 metric tons and grows at a rate of roughly 2,000 mt a year, according to industry estimates.Unless Congress lifts the current 70,000 mt cap on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository, theexisting US fleet of power reactors will have generated enough spent fuel by 2010 to fill the facility, Sproatsaid. Any spent fuel generated over the 70,000 mt limit would have to be disposed of in a second repository,and many believe that efforts to site and build a second facility won't be easier. DOE and industry officials

have maintained that technically the Yucca Mountain site could accommodate at least twice the amount ofspent fuel permitted under the existing cap. DOE's ability to submit a repository license application bythe department's self-imposed June deadline will remain up in the air until senior managers report in sixto eight weeks on the impact of its fiscal 2008 budget cut, according to Sproat. But he reiterated he is"cautiously optimistic" an application can be sent to NRC sometime this calendar year (NW, 17 Jan., 3).Sproat also told industry officials that the department won't meet its previous goal of having a repositoryready to operate in 2017, which the department has described as the "best achievable" date for

repository operations. That date, which many program observers called overly optimistic, could be met onlyif the program received adequate funding, wasn't delayed by lawsuits, and was licensed by NRC in threeyears. Meanwhile, there are quiet informal discussions under way at DOE, which Sproat described ashallway talk, about what kind of changes should be made to the program to help ensure its success. Optionsaren't limited to shifting the program to a government corporation, he said.


19/49


CA Dry Cask storage is safe

Dry cask storage is safe.

Inside Energy With Federal Lands, 3-3-08, NRC still sure of waste rule: Klein, lexis, bcNuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein on Monday said his agency remains confidentthat at-reactorstorage of spent nuclear fuel will pose no safety risk, despite new delays in the schedule foropening a geological repository. In remarks to a nuclear waste conference in Phoenix, Arizona, Klein saidspent fuel stored in dry casks at manynuclear 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, NRChas stated it believes spent fuel can be safely stored until permanent storage is available. In the rule, theagency said it is confident a repository will be available to begin accepting shipments by 2025.Klein saidlater that a "significant or unusual change" in the Energy Department's repository program would need tooccur to trigger a new rulemaking. "Clearly, just a minor delay isn't significant," he said.

Light,dry storage casks best prevent terrorism

Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of


Would such storage be dangerous? I would argue that keeping older fuel produced by the once-throughsystem in dry storage casks represents a negligible addition to the existing nuclear hazard to the

surrounding population. The 10 kilowatts of radioactive heat generated by the 10 tons of 20-year-old

fuel packed in a dry storage cask is carried off convectively as it warms the air around it. Terrorists

intent on doing harm might attempt to puncture such a cask using, say, an antitank weapon or the

engine of a crashing aircraft, but under most circumstances only a small mass of radioactive fuel

fragments would be scattered about a limited area. In contrast, if the coolant in the nearby reactor

were cut off, its fuel would overheat and begin releasing huge quantities of vaporized fission products

within minutes. And if the water were lost in a storage pool containing spent fuel, the zirconium

cladding of the fuel rods would be heated up to ignition temperature within hours. Seen in this light,

dry storage casks look pretty benign.

Dry casks are a safe storage option.

Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of


In the meantime, spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor sites in dry casks. And even after it isplaced in a geologic repository, it would remain retrievable for at least a century. So in the unlikely

event that technology or economic circumstances change drastically enough that the benefits of

reprocessing exceed the costs and risks, that option would still be available. But it makes no sense now

to rush into an expensive and potentially catastrophic undertaking on the basis of uncertain hopes that

it might reduce the long-term environmental burden from the nuclear power industry.


20/49


CA Companies want to build nuclear power plants

There are companies interested in building nuclear power plants.

United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, DomeniciApplauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application,http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629-4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM

It is clear that momentum for nuclear energy in America is continuing to grow. After 30 years with noaction, we have now seen three applications to build new plants in the last three months, with even

more possible in the near future. This is an exciting time for nuclear, and for those that want cleaner

energy in our nation, Domenici said. It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any seriouseffort to address global climate change must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is

clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must

continue to support nuclear energy just as other nations have done , he continued.


21/49


AT CA Public opposes nuclear power

Public perception against nuclear power has changed.Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program atUMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc

When "The Simpsons" first aired in 1989, Matt Groening created the perfect hometown for his satirical

family - Springfield. It was Anywhere, America, with a convenience store, a pub, a prison, and a nuclearplant that would become a setting for regular and profound social commentary on American industrialism.Nuclear energy production is depicted by the infamous, gushing green ooze. Some speculate that the show'swriters often hint that this uncontained, carelessly handled by-product of the nuclear facility is to blame forSpringfield's idiosyncrasies, including Marge's blue hair and the fact that Springfield's inhabitants never age.However, the evolution of the nuclear industry in the public eye is a marked departure from the Simpsons'debut. Just as it had its place in the premise of "The Simpson's" television show, nuclear must have its placein the national dialogue about the animated family's movie premiere. Thankfully, the nuclear industry isn'tfrozen in time like it is in Springfield and the show provides a great benchmark to measure how much

improvement in plant performance and in public perception of nuclear has occurred over nearly two

decades. There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of thenation's electricity. Finally, nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe, economical source of energy.And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change,

environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. Unlike the '90swhen energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life, energy conservation is now the hot topic in theUnited States. A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority forWashington, coming in behind only Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy. As some of theworld's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet thegrowing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more andmore Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather

used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances,over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again . A survey

conducted by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition last year found that the more people learn about

nuclear, the more supportive they are of it. After a quick lesson about energy issues and nuclear'scapabilities, 73 percent of respondents said that they felt favorably or somewhat favorably about the use ofnuclear. Similarly, Bisconti Research found that 86 percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important

part of meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent agree that utilities should prepare now to build newnuclear plants in the next decade. Even some policy makers who have been lukewarm to nuclear seem to becoming around to its merits. People like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barack Obama arebeginning to understand that nuclear energy needs to be part of the energy mix if we are going to meet ourfuture energy demands safely and cleanly. "The Simpsons" is almost 20 years old. Although time maystand still in Springfield, it certainly hasn't for the nuclear industry which is experiencing a reported"renaissance" in this country. Nuclear perceptions are finally catching up with nuclear reality as

Americans accept nuclear power as a reliable, efficient, and safe source of energy that is also kind to

the environment. It's clear that nuclear does, in fact, belong in Anywhere, America.


22/49


AT CA Nuclear power is to expensive

Nuclear power costs going down.

Kemeny, Leslie,2008. Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy,Canberra Times, July 4, 2008, p.15/A. Lexis V.F

As well it cites the remarkable performance of nuclear power in the United States in 2007. In that year,America's 104 nuclear power stations established a high average capacity factor of 91.8 per cent and

produced a massive 807 billion kilowatt hours of energy at a record low cost of 1.68c per kilowatt hour. Some10 years after Kyoto, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has published its Cool Earth 50program. It is a detailed road map of energy related technologies that will halve the level of global greenhouse gasemissions by 2050. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has prioritised advanced nuclear power for thisproject.


23/49


AT T waste storage isnt an incentive

1. counter definition incentives must be positive.

Knowler, 99 - UN Food and Agricultural Organization (D., Incentive Systems for Natural Resource

Management: The Role of Indirect Incentives, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x2247e/x2247e00.pdf)

1.8 Incentives may be broadly defined, as in everything that motivates or stimulates people to act (Giger 1996).What is important about such a broad definition is that it allows for incentives to be of either a passive or an activenature. In the former case, we can think of incentives as signals in the producers environment which influencedecision-making about farming practices, whether intended or otherwise. Many macroeconomic policies, beingremote from the producer and targeted at objectives other than promoting sustainable farming practices, would fitinto this category. In contrast, the notion of active refers to a governments ability to actually design or modifypolicies with a desire to bring about certain conservation outcomes. McNeely (1988), for example, refers to thisconcept of incentive when he defines incentives as any inducement which is specifically intended to incite ormotivate governments, local people, and international organizations (p.38-39). We draw this distinction because ofthe need to consider both active and passive aspects when assessing the importance of incentives for NRM. Whilegovernments may be most concerned with the design of good policies aimed at improving NRM, they need to becognizant of the sometimes counterproductive influence exerted by a poor incentive structure, in the passive sense.

1.9 McNeely (1988) also makes the useful distinction between incentives, disincentives and perverse incentives. Incontrast to incentives, which we have described above, disincentives are purposely designed to discourageparticular behaviours and can include taxes, fines and various other penalties or moral suasion. For purposes of thisstudy, we will not consider disincentives as distinct from incentives per se, but it is useful to be aware of thedistinction. In contrast, perverse incentives incite resource users to damage or deplete the resources in question in asocially inefficient manner and are closely related to the concept of policy failure, which is discussed in Chapter 2.

2. superior interpretation our interpretation substantially narrows the topic since it

excludes regulation affs and prevents a bidirectional topic.

3. we meet the counter interpretation industry wants waste storage before doing nuclear

power.

4. Its not a voting issue this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing

nuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to

debate it.

United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, DomeniciApplauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application,http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629-4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM

It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate changemust have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on

policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as

other nations have done, he continued.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x2247e/x2247e00.pdfftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x2247e/x2247e00.pdf


24/49


AT T waste storage isnt an incentive ext. Waste storage key to NP

Opening Yucca is an incentive to increasing nuclear power.Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc

Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma last week introduced nuclear waste legislation aimed at fast-

tracking DOE's beleaguered repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and at making DOE's obligationto dispose of utility spent fuel the basis for an NRC declaration of waste confidence. Five other Republicansenators co-sponsored the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2008 that Inhofe introduced January 24.Inhofe, who has supported nuclear power as a vital component of the country's energy mix, last weekexpressed concern that continuing delays in opening a repository at Yucca Mountain would "hinder theresurgence of nuclear energy in the US." Speaking on the Senate floor, Inhofe noted that the location ofthe country's sole repository site was decided in 2002 when President George W. Bush recommended thatYucca Mountain be developed as a high-level waste repository and Congress adopted that recommendation.


25/49


AT T ext. Nuclear power is the only true alternative energy

Only true alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power.Waste News, 10-1-07, Revisiting the nuke debate,lexis, bcIt's back! After some 30 years, applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the UnitedStates. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. NRG Energy is seeking to build two new

facilities in Texas, the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accident atThree Mile Island in 1979. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since then.What may be different now is that the nation is willing to take a more serious look at alternative forms ofenergy, as imperfect as they all are. Probably the biggest thing nuclear power has going for it right now isthat, at this point in time, it is the only real large-scale alternative to fossil-fuel generated energy. But towhat extent its pros outweigh its cons, if at all, continues to be heatedly debated. But the current energyportfolio needs to change, and quickly. Part of that means throwing away some of our preconceptions of thepast. This is a crucial crossroad for the nuclear power industry, and we hope they are up to the challenge.A solid, viable alternative energy source such as nuclear would be a badly needed shot in the arm for

America's energy game plan.


26/49


AT DA Generic nuclear power expanding now

Nuclear power is increasing worldwide thats the first card in our 1AC that says nuclear

power is flourishing in Europe and Asia.

Non-unique 197 Reactors In Europe In Squo With China, Russia, And India Building

more.

Elisabeth Bumiller,Nytimes media group, 6-20-08, International Herald Tribune, McCain sets target of 45new nuclear reactors, lexis, bc

''China, Russia and India are all planning to build more than a hundred new power plants among them in

the coming decades,'' McCain said in this pocket of Missouri that is reliably Republican. ''Across Europe,there are 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their

electricity from nuclear power. And if all of these nations can find a way to carry out great goals in energypolicy, then I assure you that the United States is more than equal to the challenge,'' he said. Although there hasbeen a shift of opinion in the industry and among some environmentalists toward more nuclear power - it is cleanand far safer than at the time of the nuclear accident in 1979 at Three Mile Island, in Pennsylvania - mostenvironmentalists are skeptical of the most recent claims by advocates of nuclear energy. They also say that no

utility will put its own financing into building a plant unless the U.S. government lavishly subsidizes it. ''WallStreet won't invest in these plants because they are too expensive and unreliable,'' said Daniel Weiss, who headsthe global warming program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal research group. ''SoSenator McCain wants to shower the nuclear industry with billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts.''

U.S. using Nuclear Energy Now

Gilbert J. Brown,professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at

UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bcThere are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's

electricity. Finally, nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe, economical source of energy. And because itproduces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change, environmental groupsare taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. Unlike the '90s when energy consumption wasan unquestioned way of life, energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States. A recent Gallup

poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington, coming inbehind only Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy. As some of the world's greatestconsumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing

demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030 .

Nuclear Impacts InevitableUK, Germany, and France Using Nuclear in Squo

MacerHall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bcMINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations tohelp secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactorswill not be subsidised by taxpayers - but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in anemergency. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commonsyesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half acentury." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable." Thedecision follows an

acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources, including wind turbines and solar panels, cannotguarantee the nation's energy supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors tobe built. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "nationalinterest". "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of thecountry and one of these decisions is that we have safe, secure energy. "We do not want to be dependenton other countries and we want a low-carbon form of energy, " Mr Brown said. Foreign energy firmsincluding the French-owned EDF, German power company E.On and British Gas parent Centrica

have all showed their eagerness to take part. EDF is hoping to build four nuclear power stations in the

UK. Industry insiders predict new atomic power stations could be under construction over the next decade,with EDF ready to open a new generator by 2017. Tory frontbencher Alan Duncan welcomed thecommitment to nuclear power.


27/49


Nuclear Energy is inevitable worldwide.Dipka Bhambhani, 2-11-08, Inside energy with federal lands, Spending for DOE nuclear programs up 40%in fiscal 2009 budget request, lexis, bcVienna, 18 September: Making a strong pitch for international nuclear energy cooperation with India, AtomicEnergy Commission [AEC] chairman Anil Kakodkar made it clear on Tuesday [18 September] that nuclearpower was an "inevitable option" and pressed for "reformation" of global thinking on it. "There is a

need for reformation of global thinking that is necessary and consensus on closed fuel cycle has to bereached by those going to participate in the future nuclear renaissance," Kakodkar said. He wasspeaking at the scientific forum, an integral part of the General Conference of the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) being attended by more than 500 participants. "The world has to move forwardwith nuclear power as an inevitable option based purely on partnership on objective, reliable and

predictable basis with holistic mutual understanding and trust as a pre-requisite," he said. Kakodkar'scarefully-worded comments come amidst a raging political debate on the India-US nuclear deal in India withLeft parties and the opposition closely watching his approach at the IAEA. The Left parties have warned theUPA government of a "political crisis" if it went ahead with operationalising the deal. An India-specificsafeguards agreement and changes in guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group are required toput the deal into force.

Nuclear energy inevitable, strong nations already pursuing it

Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, Nuclear energy now our only option, p.17/A. Lexis VFThey appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safetystandards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiationrisks are very low. Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of powerfrom nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be

managed. We agreed, Switkowski said. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclearwaste, which takes 50 years to decay. Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. Australia would need to invest inresearch and development, and in education and training across a range of fields. Australia can only benefit from thegreat impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. Concerted effort aroundthe world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during thepast four years. We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly knownelsewhere by green activism, by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political

implications, rather than on their merits. It is time to put it behind us.


28/49


AT DA Generic Lots of incentives to do nuclear power now

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a number of incentives to increase nuclear power

resulting in 30 nuclear power plants being on the drawing board.

United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, Domenici Praises

Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report,http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a-4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM

Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. Most importantly, its available right now. Many countriesaround the world have already realized this, which is why nuclear power is flourishing in Europe andAsia. The good news is that thanks to the Energy Policy Act we passed in 2005, it is beginning to flourishhere as well and we now have more than 30 nuclear power plants on the drawing board in the United

States, Domenici said. The Energy Policy Act provided loan guarantee authority, production taxcredits, and insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation for nuclear power projects. The

Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the

Department of Energys Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost

sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced

nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. If all the proposed nuclear

power plants come online, an additional 38,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020enoughto power 28 million American households.


29/49


AT DA Yucca mountain is unsafe

No link the plan creates the opportunity to reopen discussions about where waste should

be stored.

Frank N. vonHippel

, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's

Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of


Part of the problem is the view in Nevada that the Reagan administration and Congress acted unfairly

in 1987 when they cut short an objective evaluation of other candidate sites and designated Yucca

Mountain as the location for the future nuclear waste repository. To overcome this perception, it may

be necessary to reopen deliberations for choosing an additional site. Such a move should not be

difficult. Indeed, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 requires the secretary of energy to report to

Congress by 2010 on the need for a second storage facility. Given the disastrous record of the DOE indealing with radioactive waste, however, consideration should also be given to establishing a morespecialized and less politicized agency for this purpose.

Yucca Mountain Is SafeEPA and State Of Nevada AgreesNuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bcIn addition, DOE's obligation to dispose of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste would be declaredsufficient to support an NRC finding thatspent fuel generated by new reactors will be disposed of in asafe and timely manner. The bill also names the US Environmental Protection Agency the permittingagency for air permits needed forwork at Yucca Mountain. The state of Nevada, which has spentdecades fighting the planned repository, now is the permitting entity . In addition, the bill would eliminatethe existing 70,000 metric ton limit on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository. It also calls forphased licensing of the repository, with the first phase being a 300-year operations phase. During that period,the bill says, waste would be retrievable and the facility would be "actively monitored." It added thatnew information on the site and technological innovations could be incorporated into the license through alicense amendment process every 50 years. If NRC authorizes DOE to construct a repository at Yucca

Mountain, 90 days later the department would have to file a license amendment request with NRC seekingauthorization to receive and possess spent fuel and HLW at the site.

Yucca Mountain InevitableNo matter who wins the election.Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08,Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without lawchange, lexis, bcThe next administration, whether Democratic or Republican, cannot unilaterally kill the DOE

repository project inNevada, DOE waste program director Edward Sproat said January 22. Instead, a newadministration would have to convince Congress to change the federal law governing it, he said.Responding to an audience question following his address at the Nuclear Energy Institute fuel supply forumin Washington, DC, Sproat said the next administration would have three options. Under the Nuclear WastePolicy Act, DOE is to site and build, if licensed by NRC, a repository at Yucca Mountain. The nextadministration, Sproat said, can comply with the law, ignore it, or change it. Still, the next

administration also could withdraw a repository license DOE submitted to NRC, Sproat later told reporters.However, he added that the administration would have to show some basis for taking such action,especially if NRC had already deemed the application acceptable for review.


30/49


AT DA Nuclear plant meltdowns

The health risks of nuclear reactor accidents are highly exaggerated claims made by

fearmongers

Steven J. Milloy 4/13/06 Twenty Years After Chernobyl o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/019,05270.cfm

April 26 marks the 20th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Anti-nuclearactivists are still trying to turn Chernobyl into a bigger disaster than it really was. Although theNumber Four nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded just before dawn on April 26, 1986, Soviet secrecyprevented the world from learning about the accident for days. Once details began to emerge, however, theanti-nuclear scare machine swung into action. Three days after the accident Greenpeace scientistspredicted the accident would cause 10,000 people to get cancer over a 20-year period within a 625-mileradius of the plant. Greenpeace also estimated that 2,000 to 4,000 people in Sweden would develop cancerover a 30-year period from the radioactive fallout. At the same time, Helen Caldicott, president emeritus ofthe anti-nuclear Physicians for Social Responsibility, predicted the accident would cause almost 300,000cancers in 5 to 50

Documents

WHAM Nuclear Power Aff 2.0