WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final

8/14/2019 WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final

1/249

SDI 2008 1 of 249WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

1AC Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................... 6

ADV U.S. Nuclear power leadership .......................................................................................... 12

ADV Global Warming ................................................................................................................. 19

ADV Brownouts/Blackouts ......................................................................................................... 24

ADV Dependency ......................................................................................................................... 26

ADV Legal obligation .................................................................................................................. 28

ADV US-Australian relations ..................................................................................................... 30

ADV US-Russian Relations ......................................................................................................... 31

ADV Competitiveness .................................................................................................................. 33

ADV Coal ...................................................................................................................................... 35

ADV Energy security ................................................................................................................... 36

ADV Hydrogen ............................................................................................................................. 37ADV Kazakhstan ......................................................................................................................... 38

Inherency ..................................................... ................................................................................. 40

CA Dry Cask storage is safe ........................................................................................................ 43

CA Companies want to build nuclear power plants ................................................................. 46

AT CA Public opposes nuclear power ........................................................................................ 47

AT CA Nuclear power is too expensive ...................................................................................... 48

AT CA they say No uranium will stop a resurgence of nuclear energy .............................. 50

AT CA they say Yucca will run out of room .......................................................................... 52

AT T Generic ............................................... ................................................................................. 53

AT T waste storage isnt an incentive ...................................................................................... 55

AT T waste storage isnt an incentive ext. Waste storage key to NP .................................... 56

AT T they say Nuclear isnt an alternative energy ................................................................ 58

AT T Only renewables are topical .............................................................................................. 59

AT T substantially ........................................................................................................................ 60

AT DA Generic nuclear power expanding now ...................................................................... 61

AT DA Generic Lots of incentives to do nuclear power now ................................................ 66

AT DA Dry Casks ......................................................................................................................... 67

AT DA Generic nuclear power is unsafe ................................................................................. 68

AT DA proliferation ..................................................................................................................... 71

AT DA Yucca mountain is unsafe ............................................................................................... 72

AT DA Yucca will contaminate ground water ........................................................................... 76


2/249


AT DA Yucca mountain earthquakes ......................................................................................... 78

AT DA Yucca Mountain volcanoes ............................................................................................. 80

AT DA Nuclear plant meltdowns ................................................................................................ 81

AT DA Nuclear waste is dangerous ............................................................................................ 85

AT DA Radiation .......................................................................................................................... 87

AT DA Reprocessing .................................................................................................................... 90

AT DA Pebble Bed reactors ......................................................................................................... 93

AT DA Russian dependency ........................................................................................................ 94

AT DA Economy ........................................................................................................................... 95

AT DA Price Volitility .................................................................................................................. 97

AT DA Spending ........................................................................................................................... 98

AT DA Terrorism .......................................................................................................................... 99

AT DA Terrorism dry cask extensions .................................................................................. 101

AT DA Terrorism Yucca extensions ....................................................................................... 102

AT DA Terrorism Nuclear plants protected extensions ....................................................... 103

AT DA Terrorism Oil revenue fuels terrorism extensions ................................................... 105

AT DA Terrorism no transportation risk extensions ........................................................... 106

AT DA Terrorism terrorists cant run planes into plants .................................................... 107

AT DA Natural Gas you stop it .............................................................................................. 108

AT DA Uranium prices .............................................................................................................. 109AT DA Politics they say Nuclear power is unpopular ...................................................... 110

AT DA Politics they say Obama will do the plan (DA turns the case) ............................ 111

AT CP States ............................................................................................................................... 112

AT CP Other alternative energies ............................................................................................. 113

AT CP Biofuels ............................................................................................................................ 114

AT CP Hydroelectric .................................................................................................................. 115

AT CP Solar ............................................................................................................................... 116

AT CP Wind ................................................................................................................................ 119

AT CP Natural Gas .................................................................................................................... 121

AT CP Tidal power ..................................................................................................................... 123

AT CP Cap and Trade ................................................................................................................ 124

AT CP Carbon Taxes .................................................................................................................. 125

AT CP PIC out of Yucca Mountain .......................................................................................... 126

AT CP International repository ................................................................................................ 130


3/249


AT CP Siberian International Repository ............................................................................... 134

AT CP Reprocessing ................................................................................................................... 135

AT K Discursive ......................................................................................................................... 136

AT K Nuclear power is unnatural ............................................................................................ 137

AT K Capitalism ......................................................................................................................... 138

AT K You hurt the poor ............................................................................................................. 139

Fear mongering .......................................................................................................................... 140

Centrifuge technology ................................................................................................................ 144

Uranium suppliers ..................................................................................................................... 145

SMART Act ................................................... ............................................................................. 147

GNEP .......................................................................................................................................... 149

Sub-seabed disposal ................................................................................................................... 154

Reprocessing ............................................................................................................................... 155

Space disposal repository .......................................................................................................... 156

Loan Guarantees ........................................................................................................................ 160

Pebble bed reactors .................................................................................................................... 161

Integral Fast Reactors ............................................................................................................... 162

Lieberman-Warner link to nuclear power bad DAs .............................................................. 163

SHARED NEGATIVE ............................................................................................................... 164

Inherency takeouts ..................................................................................................................... 165Solvency takeouts ....................................................................................................................... 166

Solvency takeouts China and India ....................................................................................... 168

Solvency takeouts Yucca ......................................................................................................... 169

Solvency takeouts Uranium ................................................................................................... 170

Solvency takeouts Fast expansion of nuclear power impossible extensions ...................... 173

AT ADV Brownouts/Blackouts ................................................................................................. 175

AT ADV Coal .............................................................................................................................. 176

AT ADV Competitiveness .......................................................................................................... 177

AT ADV Dependency ................................................................................................................. 178

AT ADV Global Warming ......................................................................................................... 179

AT ADV Kazakhstan ................................................................................................................. 181

AT ADV Proliferation ................................................................................................................ 182

AT ADV Russian Relations ....................................................................................................... 184

AT ADV Waste storage .............................................................................................................. 185


4/249


T Nuclear power isnt an alternative energy ........................................................................ 186

T Lack of waste repository doesnt stop expansion of nuclear power. .................................. 187

Nuclear power is very expensive ............................................................................................... 188

Breeder Reactors are expensive ................................................................................................ 190

DA Uniqueness generic Nuclear power decreasing now. ..................................................... 191

DA Politics Uniqueness ........................................................................................................... 193

DA Politics links Dry cask storage is popular ...................................................................... 194

DA Politics links global warming key election issue ............................................................ 195

DA Politics links Yucca mountain unpopular ....................................................................... 196

DA Politics links - Waste Storage is unpopular ....................................................................... 198

DA Politics links Nuclear power unpopular ......................................................................... 199

DA Politics links Nuclear power is popular .......................................................................... 201

DA Politics links Nuclear power has a powerful congressional lobby ............................... 202

DA Politics links McCain and Bush would be tied to nuclear power ................................. 203

DA Politics links Obama opposes nuclear power to get Nevadas votes ............................ 204

DA Politics links Reprocessing ............................................................................................... 205

DA Politics McCain supports nuclear power ....................................................................... 206

DA Politics Obama supports nuclear power ........................................................................ 209

DA Politics Obama opposes Yucca ........................................................................................ 210

DA Politics McCain supports Yucca ...................................................................................... 211DA Politics Turns the case global warming ....................................................................... 212

DA Politics Turns the case Bipartisan support is necessary for sustained nuclear power ...................................................................................................................................................... 213

DA Spending links ...................................................................................................................... 214

DA Terrorism - links .................................................................................................................. 216

DA Terrorism Impacts ............................................................................................................ 218

DA Terrorism source indicts .................................................................................................. 219

DA Yucca Mountain - Uniqueness ............................................................................................ 220DA Yucca Mountain Links ..................................................................................................... 222

DA Yucca Mountain Reprocessing links ............................................................................... 223

DA Yucca Mountain Internal links ........................................................................................ 224

DA Yucca Mountain Impacts - Volcanoes ................................................................................ 225

DA Yucca Mountain Impacts Groundwater contamination ............................................... 226

DA Yucca Mountain Impacts Transportation ...................................................................... 227


5/249


DA Reprocessing proliferation impacts ................................................................................ 228

DA Reprocessing doesnt solve the waste problem .............................................................. 230

DA Reprocessing costs too much ........................................................................................... 232

DA Nuclear Waste ...................................................................................................................... 233

DA Meltdowns ............................................................................................................................ 234

DA Natural gas - Links .............................................................................................................. 236

DA Russian dependency - Links ............................................................................................... 237

DA Uranium Mining - Impacts ................................................................................................. 238

CP States ..................................................................................................................................... 239

CP PIC Just do dry cask storage ........................................................................................... 240

CP International repository ...................................................................................................... 241

CP Australian International Repository .................................................................................. 242

CP Siberian International Repository ...................................................................................... 243

K Free Market Environmentalism ........................................................................................... 244

K You Jack the Poor .................................................................................................................. 247

K Native Americans ................................................................................................................... 248

..................................................................................................................................................... 249


6/249


1AC Waste DisposalInherency

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

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 20 08 , Nuclear Fuel 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 emissionsfrom burning fossil fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies andinsurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loanguarantees. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want? Just one thing: aplace to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed, the lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging overthe entire enterprise. The projected opening of a federal waste storage repository in Yucca Mountain in

Nevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest) has already slipped by two decades, and the coolingpools 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 wastestorage 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 20 07 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 openingup a permanent repository and in parallel store as much spent fuel as possible in dry casksthat are hardened against attack at existing reactor sites. The combination of interimstorage and commitment to a permanent repository would provide the assurances neededby the public and the investment community for continued use of nuclear power .


7/249


New technology makes nuclear power more effective and safer.James M. Taylor 12/1/06 MIT Scientists Find a Nuclear Fuel Design that Is Safer and More EfficientPublished in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20260&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241

A new fuel design created by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) promises toincrease nuclear power output by 50 percent at existing plants, MIT announced on September 20.

After three years of research and testing of next-generation fuel technology, MIT scientists discovered thatforming uranium into the shape of hollow tubes rather" than solid cylinders allows for more efficientenergy exchange and safer operations . Currently, uranium is formed into solid, cylinder-shaped pellets of less than an inch in diameter. In a nuclear reactor, fission releases a tremendous amount of energy in the formof heat that turns water into steam. The steam is then captured and funneled to power turbines that generateelectricity. Lower Temperatures Possible The MIT scientists discovered that forming uranium intohollow tubes prior to fission allows more efficient energy exchange by allowing water to interact with agreater uranium surface area. The new design also increases safety because it requires an operatingtemperature of only 700 degrees Celsius, as compared to 1,800 to 2,800 degrees Celsius under thecurrent design. Currently, a single pickup-truck load of uranium fuel is sufficient to run an entire cityfor a year. Under the new design, the same amount of uranium fuel will power that city for an extra sixmonths. Promising Nuclear Future According to Pavel Hejzlar and Mujid Kazimi, the MIT scientists whomade the discovery, the new fuel design should be available commercially within 10 years. The discovery is

expected to form an important bridge to new technologies, such as pebble bed reactors, which areroughly 20 years away from commercial use in the United States. "Nuclear power already was one of themost promising energy sources of the future," observed Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director for TheHeartland Institute. "This breakthrough adds still more momentum to our most affordable clean-burning fuel source. "Pebble bed reactors are the exciting future of nuclear power," Lehr added, "butincreasing energy output by 50 percent in existing reactors certainly bridges nuclear power's present toits future. Nuclear power makes more and more economic and environmental sense with each passingday."


8/249


Advantage 1 Global Warming

The only way to reduce greenhouse gases is to use nuclear energyUnited 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 theclimate change solution , said Domenici, who is the author of A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling thePromise of Nuclear Energy.

Even when the full fuel cycle is accounted for nuclear power is the best way to reducegreenhouse gas emissions.Micheal Totty , news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 20 08 , The Wall Street Journal, Energy (a specialreport); The case forand againstNuclear Power, Proquest, AB

Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- and no sulfur or mercuryeither. Even when taking into account "full life-cycle emissions" -- including mining of uranium,shipping fuel, constructing plants and managing waste -- nuclear's carbon-dioxide discharges arecomparable to the full life-cycle emissions of wind and hydropower and less than solar power. But wehave to be realistic about the limits of these alternatives. As it is, the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S.generate about a fifth of the nation's energy. Wind accounts for about 1%, and solar even less than that. Anyincrease in the number of nuclear power plants can help -- even if they won't solve the whole problem. Moreimportant from the standpoint of displacing fossil fuel, nuclear can meet power demand 24 hours aday. Solar and wind can't do that. Nuclear is the only current technology that fits the bill.


9/249


Global warming causes disease spread, environmental damage, and escalating regional conflictsPodesta, Stern, and Batten 2007 (John, Todd, and Kit, President, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy, and Senior Fellow 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, for

example, increased border stress resulting from the impact of climate change-induced storms and droughts in Mexico and theCaribbean. Or consider the complications posed by ever-scarcer water supplies to political progress in theMiddle East . Perhaps the greatest climate change-induced geopolitical challenge in the shortterm , though, willarise in the developing countries in the earths low latitudes. In these countries, even a relatively smallclimatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, the spread of disease, and naturalresource competition. Such conditions fuel political turmoil, drive already weak states toward collapse, andthreaten regional stability . According to a recent report by 11 former Army generals and Navy admirals, climate change isa 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 andherdsmen 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 the

severe 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, water shortages 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 entireHorn of Africa remains threatened by a failed Somalia and other weak states. Beyond Africa, the IPCC warns thatcoastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East and Southeast Asia, will be atgreatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some mega-deltas, flooding from the rivers.22 In SouthAsia, 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, thecombination 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 regionaland potentially global consequences. 23

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 warmertemperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasinglypoints to runaway global warming leading to human extinction . If impossibly Draconian security measures are notimmediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are lookingat 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.


10/249


Advantage Two U.S. Nuclear energy leadership

Nuclear Power Requires Global Cooperation To Solve Climate Change, Proliferation, AndEconomic ObjectivesChristina 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 speechon 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 weightof 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. He

suggested 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 of non-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. He

asserted that "such international engagement is increasingly vital in reducing proliferation risks, including that of terrorists gaining access to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons andtheir 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 ManmohanSingh 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.

Proliferation is the greatest threat to humans.Brian Toon 12/11/06 Regional nuclear war would trigger mass death, devastating climate changehttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/uoca-rnw121106.php

The current combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics "formsperhaps the greatest danger to the stability of human society since the dawn of man," said Toon. "Thecurrent buildup of nuclear weapons in a growing number of states points to scenarios in the next fewdecades that are even more extreme than those considered in this analysis."


11/249


Advantage Three Competitiveness

Revitalizaing uclear energy is key to sustaining the long term growth of the U.S. economy.Oxford Economics 2007. Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA. September 2007.www.oxfordeconomics.com VF

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 tozero by the 2050s. The jobs it supports will also gradually disappear. In this study, we assess theeconomic benefits of a reinvestment program for the nuclear energy 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 three

phases 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 to

be 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 arehigh-tech, high-value-added jobs that reflect high spending on R&D and fixed investment: jobs thatthe US economy can ill afford to lose. Alternative ways of meeting US electricity generation needswould be unlikely to create so many high-value-added manufacturing jobs.

Maintaining U.S. economic growth prevents World War Three.Mead, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 98 (Walter Russell Mead, The Houston

Chronicle, August 30, 1998, p. 1, twm)The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace in60 years. Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. Its the financial markets, not the terroristtraining camps, that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace . How can this be? Think about themother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse inOctober, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow Jones IndustrialAverage had lost 90 percent of its value. Wages plummeted, thousands of banks and brokerages went

bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggestimpact of the Depression on the United States- and on world history- wasnt money. It was blood:World War II, to be exact . The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, undermined theability of moderates to oppose Josef Stalins power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that thecountry had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States andBritain. Thats the thing about depressions. They arent just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy

crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing the Price is Right and start up a new round of Saving Private Ryan.
http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/


12/249


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 Studies

Washington, D. C. 3/2/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000302ebel.pdf The ability of the U nited 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 nuclearpower 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. nuclearpower leadership.Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International StudiesWashington, D. C. 6/8/20 00 . AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf

Clearly, 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, tosupply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear poweras a viable option in the developed world . Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-lookingplan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russia n? Yes, the Minister of 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 nuclear option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our

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

Russia and China will take our nuclear energy leadership.James M. Taylor 7/1/06 , WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp o.z.http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619

Pointing out that nuclear plants produce more than three-quarters of France's power, and that nationssuch as Russia and China are rapidly expanding their nuclear power supply utilizing the latesttechnological advances, McCain said nuclear roadblocks in the United States are "a NIMBY [not in mybackyard] problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem." "The potentialfor growth in the United States is positive," Heymer agreed. "Ten years ago, when natural gas was $1.75, if you had mentioned new nuclear power plants, people would not have taken the idea seriously. Now, withCO2 concerns, environmental concerns, and natural gas prices floating around $7.00, nuclear is a verysensible option. We need to build our base load power generation in a manner that minimizes pollution andCO2 emissions.

Reliance on Nuclear power increases U.S.s international leadership role.Mark Clayton , February 28, 2008 , Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor LChttp://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do"Energy Solutions does not believe the U nited States should be responsible for the world's nuclear waste ,"company spokesman Mark Walker writes in response to e-mailed questions from a reporter. But as reliance onnuclear power grows worldwide, "the US is in a leadership role to provide technical solutions."


13/249


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 far much 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 energyleadership. 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 supplier

position. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become 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 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 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 ensureAmericas nuclear leadership is restored.


14/249


Investors need a clear signal that the federal government will allow nuclear power toflourish.Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies atThe Heritage Foundation, November 15, 20 07 , The Heritage Foundation, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment:Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes, nnahttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm

Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. Itcan generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offsetAmer ica's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However,the commercial nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embracenuclear power fully, despite significant regu latory relief and economic incentives. This reluctance isnot due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead,investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both inencouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise . Investors doubt that federal, state, and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in the long term . They have already lost bil-lions of dollars because of bad public policy . The United States once led the world in commer cial nucleartechnology. Indeed, the world's leading nuclear companies continue to rely on American technologies.However, in the 1970s and 1980s, federal, state, and local governments nearly regu lated the U.S. commercial nuclear industry out of existence. U.S. companies responded by reallocating their assets,consolidating or selling their commercial nuclear capabilities to foreign companies in pro-nuclear countries.This paper reviews how overregulation largely destroyed the nuclear industry and why it remains an obstacleto investment in the industry. This dynamic must be understood and mitigated before the true economics of nuclear power can be harnessed for the benefit of the American people.

U.S. Nuclear power growth would result in a stronger Nuclear Proliferation Treaty andsafer worldWilliam C. Sailor 2001 How to Think About Proliferation and Nuclear Powerhttp://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/april/ap3.html

To date, the commercial nuclear industry has played very little, if any, role as a bridge to nationalentry into the nuclear arms race, nor are there any known cases in which individuals or sub-nationalgroups have stolen materials from nuclear power facilities for use in weapons. However, this does notmean that there is nothing to worry about. It is important to address the need of developing countries forincreased energy supplies. To reduce the reliance of these countries on fossil fuels, it is desirable for thedeveloped world to share nuclear technology with them, under proper safeguards , as stipulated inArticle IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now is the time to cautiously consider the greater use of nuclear energy under the most stringent safeguards standards. Power reactors could be provided (below cost) torecipient nations under a "clean development mechanism" within the UN framework on ClimateChange. Other forms of energy production could also be exported under this mechanism, with thechoice of technology left to bilateral agreement. However, the recipient would be required to ratify theNPT and accept the most recent IAEA safeguards in order to receive subsidized reactors. Acomprehensive set of initial inspections would be required. Fuel cycles which produce weapon-usablematerial anywhere in process would be disallowed from receiving the financial incentives. If there is tobe growth of nuclear power in the US it could also be focused in ways to prevent nuclear proliferationor theft of nuclear materials in other countries. The US should welcome imports of nuclear powercomponents and systems from manufacturers throughout the world, but constrain the imports so thatthey originate only in countries that will allow comprehensive IAEA inspections . Peaceful cooperationbetween nations is a potential benefit that has been recognized since the Atoms for Peace era. Theseexperiences and changes should be integrated into a new program, one that is centered onstrengthening the NPT and promoting a comprehensive safeguards regime.


15/249


The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure can have an importantbearing in a variety of ways on the ability of the United States to advance itsnonproliferation objectives. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

Today due to its political, military and economic position in the world, the United States continues to exercisegreat weight in nonproliferation matters. However, the ability of the United States to promote itsnonproliferation objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries has declined.The fact that no new nuclear power plant orders have been placed in over three decades has led toerosion in the capabilities of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, during the same period, theU.S. share of the global nuclear market has declined significantly, and several other countries havelaunched their own nuclear power programs and have become major international suppliers in their own right. It is highly significant that all but one of the U.S. nuclear power plant vendors and nuclear fueldesigners and manufactures for light water reactors have now been acquired by their non-U.S. basedcompetitors. Thus, while the U.S. remains a participant in the international market for commercialnuclear power, it no longer enjoys a dominant role as it did four decades ago. To the extent that U.S.nuclear plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers and manufacturers are able to reassert themselves on atechnical and commercial basis, opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferationcan be expected to increase. However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide plantsand nuclear fuel technology and services on a competitive commercial basis suggests that the U.S. willhave to work especially hard to maintain and , in some cases, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, if itwishes to exercise its influence in international nuclear affairs.

American solvency of the issue of nuclear waste disposal is key to maintaining theinternational credibility necessary to enacting non-proliferation initiatives.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

Finally, the ability of the U nited States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclearwastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital toimplementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitivenuclear facilities to other countries.

U.S. federal government participation is key for the U.S. Enrichment Company to raise thenecessary capital to complete technological project.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

Today the U.S. enrichment company , USEC, has a world market share of less than 30% of the uraniumenrichment market. In addition, USEC only supplies about half of total U.S. requirements forenrichment services , the vast majority of which are actually obtained under contract with an arm of theRussian government for down-blended HEU. Furthermore , the U.S. Government's gas diffusion enrichmenttechnology that is currently being used at the Paducah, Kentucky plant by USEC is over 50 years old and usesvast quantities of electricity which puts it at an increasing cost disadvantage. Although USEC plans toreplace this aging plant with an advanced U.S. centrifuge enrichment technology during the next several

years, the company has recently noted that it will need some form of investment or other participation bya third party and/or the U.S. Government to raise the capital required in 2008 and beyond to completethe project Further, the centrifuge enrichment facility being constructed in New Mexico by LES,Inc. uses Urenco centrifuge technology.


16/249


U.S. needs to add nuclear power plants to internationally extend its influence and stopproliferation.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

The influence of the U nited States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able toachieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decadeand beyond. There is a clear upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world.[Thus] , if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are mostconducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the Americannuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shapingthe nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an activesupplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. Concurrent with the prospective growth inthe use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that areunprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of developments underscore theimportance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied

by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintain in effective policies toachieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. isperceived as a major technological leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As

the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the internationalnonproliferation regime , regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market.However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure has begun to weaken the ability of the U.S. toparticipate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes more dependent onforeign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the abilityof the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish. It is , therefore, essential that the UnitedStates have vibrant nuclear reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposalindustries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States topromote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclearcooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states nuclearprograms through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-calledconsent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclearmaterials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced

from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. Further, the ability of the U.S. todevelop improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistentand vigorous support for nuclear R&D programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support inorder that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As the U.S. Government expendstaxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, theGeneration IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and toU.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and source selection where possible.

The U.S. is no longer dominant in the market for commercial nuclear power.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

Thus, while the U.S. remains a participant in the international market for commercial nuclear power, itno longer enjoys a dominant role as it did four decades ago. To the extent that U.S. NSSS and nuclear fuel

designers and manufacturers are able to reassert themselves on a technical and commercial basis,opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferation might be expected to increase.However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide NSSS and nuclear fuel technologyand services on a competitive commercial basis suggests that the U.S. will have to work especially hard tomaintain and , in some cases, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, if it wishes to exercise its influence ininternational nuclear affairs.


17/249


Strength of U.S. nuclear infrastructure is key to enhancing non-proliferation agenda.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

However, a policy that significantly strengthens the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will not only help theUnited States to build new nuclear power plants, but will also enhance its ability to advance itsnonproliferation agenda.

The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will be crucial to thesuccess of U.S. efforts to play a significant role as a nuclear supplier andadvance its nonproliferation objectives .American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

There is a clear and compelling upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world that isindependent of U.S. policy and prerogatives. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in theseprograms and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promotethe health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes toexert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so moreeffectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs.

Preventing the spread of nuclear fuel facilities by establishing fuel leasing and cradle-to-grave programs is the most effective way of discouraging the spread of enrichment andreprocessing facilities.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

In this connection, one the of the most severe challenges facing the nonproliferation regime in the yearsahead is to prevent the spread of sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities such as enrichment andreprocessing plants. The goal of establishing fuel leasing or cradle-to-grave programs by the U.S. is animportant component of GNEP , and, if achieved, it could prove to be far more effective than otherapproaches in discouraging the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities. The countries that arelikely to have the greatest interest in a cradle-to-grave program will be those with small or modest-size nuclear

power programs that would likely face serious technical, economic and political problems in managing their spent fuel or disposing of their nuclear wastes.

U.S. international power and influence over the nuclear power industry is key tononproliferation.A American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

If the United States hopes to continue to exercise strong and specific influence internationally innonproliferation matters in the future, it can best achieve this objective by remaining an active player ininternational nuclear affairs by providing advanced nuclear power systems, uranium enrichment servicesand nuclear fuel to other countries; and by maintaining its ability to develop and apply advanced nuclear technologies . A revival of nuclear power in the U nited States with new nuclear power plant ordersshould greatly help enhance U.S. power and influence in international nuclear affairs, but we must also

seek to once again be a major supplier of nuclear power technology and equipment world-wide.Conversely, if the U.S. nuclear power program starts to diminish significantly through the retirement of old nuclear power plants without new replacements, then its voice in civil nuclear matters andnonproliferation will decline internationally, even though the U.S. may remain a superpower on thepolitical level.


18/249


The impact is nuclear proliferation. Only U.S. collaboration can effectively solve.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness , May 20 07 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

It is easy to exaggerate the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation associated with the use of civil nuclear power programs and peaceful nuclear cooperation. States with civil nuclear power programs could divert nuclearmaterial to nuclear weapons; they could exploit a civil nuclear power program as a cover for acquiring

materials, equipment and technology for a nuclear weapons program; they could also try to use peacefulnuclear cooperation as a means of acquiring skills for developing nuclear weapons. There have beeninstances in which states have misused civil nuclear programs and peaceful nuclear cooperation in these ways.However, these abuses of peaceful nuclear power programs have been few in number, while the vast majorityof states have adhered faithfully to their nonproliferation obligations. In addition, it is easy to overstate the rolethat civil nuclear cooperation can play in advancing nonproliferation goals. U.S. collaboration in the peacefuluses of nuclear energy with other states has been a crucial catalyst for the acceptance of theinternational safeguards system as well as other aspects of the nonproliferation regime. However,peaceful nuclear cooperation is only one of several tools that the United States and other states haveused to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the orderly growth of nuclear power andthe pursuit of nonproliferation objectives must go hand in hand and can be made mutually reinforcing.


19/249


ADV Global Warming

Nuclear Power is THE solution to global warmingMicheal Totty , news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 20 08 , The Wall Street Journal, Energy (a specialreport); The case forand againstNuclear Power, Proquest, AB

The argument for nuclear power can be stated pretty simply: We have no choice. If the world intendsto address the threat of global warming and still satisfy its growing appetite for electricity, it needs anambitious expansion of nuclear power. Scientists agree that greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide,are building up in the atmosphere and contributing to a gradual increase in global averagetemperatures. At the same time, making electricity accounts for about a third of U.S. greenhouseemissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels to produce power.

Nuclear Energy is the best solution to carbon dioxide emissionsPamela 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.FAustralian 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 paper should be available from Climate Minister Penny Wong's department a little later. Without nuclear power, Australiastands 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 atreasonable cost is through the comprehensive acceptance of nuclear power. Fifty years ago Australia was set to

become the first nation south of the equator to embrace civilian nuclear power. Sadly, political vacillation, poor education, 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 OECD

countries".

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 gasesin order to avert the much-dreaded global warming, the group continues spreading fear aboutgreenhouse gas-free nuclear power plants the only practical alternative to burning fossil fuels forproducing electricity.


20/249


Nuclear Power Is Best Weapon To Solve Global Warming While Maintaining EconomicDevelopmentBen 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 nuclear energy 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 will

be 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 againstglobal 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 of nuclear power ,'' he said. ''After all, nuclear power 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 the

policy makers to set clear rules,'' said Mark Johnson, chairman of retailer AGL Energy Ltd and head of a business 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 of development . The US had managed to curb its own greenhouse emissions last year while growing itseconomy , he said. A government-endorsed report earlier this year found Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors 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.


21/249


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 withthe 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 dependingincreasingly on fossil plants and fickle renewables, we would most likely be meeting our Kyoto Treatylimits for carbon dioxide emissions.

Nuclear Energy is the best solution to carbon dioxide emissionsPamela 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 arestepping forward to suggest that nuclear energy -a form of energy that Americans had largely rejected by the1980s- is the best 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 featuringinterviews with well-known environmentalists like Patrick Moore, co-founder oh Greenpeace, who hold uplow-carbon nuclear power as the answer to global warming.

Nuclear Power On Brink Of Growth.

John Dyson and Matt Bennett , board member of the group Third Way, former chairman of the New York State Power Authority. vice president for public affairs of Third Way, 9-16- 07 , Boston Globe, Just say `oui' tonuclear power, lexis, bc

Whether or not Democrats like it, the nuclear industry, which was once in decline, is on the brink of substantial growth for the first time in 30 years. Demand is one reason - our growing population,combined with the rise in thirsty electric products, will mean an estimated 45 percent increase indemand for power by 2030. That new iPhone, the always-on lights on the television, the computer monitor displaying a screen-saver - all that takes power, and more such products are on the way. And it's not justconsumer demand - one IBM data center in Boulder, Colo., accounts for about half of the electricity use inthe entire city. We'll need massive new generating capacity to meet that demand. And while we must do

better at conservation and invest in renewable energies, nuclear power is the only mature, large scalesource of power that is essentially carbon-free .

Nuclear Power Is The Only Viable Alternative EnergyOtherwise Fossil Fuels WillDominate PowerJohn Dyson and Matt Bennett , board member of the group Third Way, former chairman of the New York State Power Authority. vice president for public affairs of Third Way, 9-16- 07 , Boston Globe, Just say `oui' tonuclear power, lexis, bc

In 2005, nuclear power produced 19 percent of all US electricity; solar made up one-30th of 1 percent .If we don't build substantial new nuclear capacity, the alternative isn't going to be wind farms andsolar arrays - it's going to be fossil-fueled, carbon-spewing plants. Those are the truths facing Democrats,however inconvenient. The real question facing our leaders is how to shape the future of nuclear power tomake it as sustainable as possible, both environmentally and economically.


22/249


Even when you account for the full fuel cycle nuclear powers CO2 emissions aresubstantially lower than fossil fuel.NEI , Nuclear Energy Institute, No Date givenhttp://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/lifecycleemissionsanalysis/

Nuclear power plants do not emit criteria pollutants or greenhouse gases when they generateelectricity. Numerous studies demonstrate that nuclear energys life-cycle emissions are comparable torenewable forms of generation, such as wind and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- ornatural gas-fired power plants . Although nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases whengenerating electricity, certain processes used to build and fuel the plants do. This is true for all energyfacilities. Nuclear energy life-cycle emissions include emissions associated with construction of the plant,mining and processing the fuel, routine operation of the plant, disposal of used fuel and other waste

byproducts, and decommissioning. Nuclear Comparable to Renewables Numerous studies demonstrate thatnuclear energys life-cycle emissions are comparable to renewable forms of generation, such as windand hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. For example, aUniversity of Wisconsin study (PDF) found that nuclear energys life-cycle emissions are 17 metric tonsof carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour. Only wind and geothermal sources ranked lower, at14 and 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour, respectively . In May 2005,British Energy completed a study into the life cycle impacts of generation from its Torness nuclear power station. The assessment covered the entire fuel cycle and included nuclear waste, spent fuel and CO2 , SO2

and NOx emissions. The total emissions of CO2 from electricity generated at Torness power station,calculated on a lifecycle basis, are estimated to be just over 5 g/kWh. This compares to emissions of CO2from a typical UK coal plant of around 900 g/kWh, based upon the operational stage alone. Typical gas

power station CO2 emissions are around 400 g/kWh. Many nuclear critics have claimed that new nuclearplants would need to use lower ore uranium, which requires more energy to extract, and thereforewould have higher emissions. In response, British Energy conducted a follow-up study that showedeven with a very low uranium ore grade, CO2 emissions would remain very small . If Torness used thisore for all its fuel, its emissions would only rise from 5.05 g/kWh to 6.85 g/kWh. An International EnergyAgency ( IEA) analysis found that nuclear powers life-cycle emissions range from 2 to 59 gram-equivalents of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Only hydropowers range ranked lower , at 2 to 48 gramsof carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear energys life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions arelower than wind (7 to 124 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents) and solar photovoltaic (13 to 731 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents), according to the agency. The life-cycle emissions from natural gas-fired plants

ranged from 389 to 511 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour.


23/249


Global warming leads to extinction.John Roach 7/12/04 By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species Study Says for National Geographic Newshttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html

By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases could send more than a million of Earth's land-dwelling plants and animals down the

road to extinction, according to a recent study . "Climate change now represents at least as great athreat to the number of species surviving on Earth as habitat-destruction and modification," saidChris Thomas, a conservation biologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. Thomas isthe lead author of the study published earlier this year in the science journal Nature. His co-authors included18 scientists from around the world, making this the largest collaboration of its type. Townsend Peterson, anevolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and one of the study's co-authors, said the

paper allows scientists for the first time to "get a grip" on the impact of climate change as far as naturalsystems are concerned. "A lot of us are in this to start to get a handle on what we are talking about," he said."When we talk about the difference between half a percent and one percent of carbon dioxide emissions whatdoes that mean?" The researchers worked independently in six biodiversity-rich regions around the world,from Australia to South Africa, plugging field data on species distribution and regional climate into computer models that simulated the ways species' ranges are expected to move in response to temperature and climatechanges. "We later met and decided to pool results to produce a more globally relevant look at the issue,"

said Lee Hannah, a climate change biologist with Conservation International's Center for AppliedBiodiversity Science in Washington, D.C. Study Results According to the researchers' collective results,the predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied atrisk of extinction. The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentiallydooming more than a million species. "These are first-pass estimates, but they put the problem in theright ballpark I expect more detailed studies to refine these numbers and to add data for additionalregions, but not to change the general import of these findings," said Hannah. Writing in anaccompanying commentary to the study in Nature, J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reservein Costa Rica, and Robert Puschendorf, a biologist at the University of Costa Rica, say these estimates"might be optimistic." As global warming interacts with other factors such as habitat-destruction,invasive species, and the build up of carbon dioxide in the landscape, the risk of extinction increaseseven further, they say. In agreement with the study authors, Pounds and Puschendorf say taking immediatesteps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to constrain global warming to the minimum

predicted levels and thus prevent many of the extinctions from occurring. "The threat to life on Earth isnot just a problem for the future. It is part of the here and now, " they write. Climate Scenarios Theresearchers based their study on minimum, mid-range, and maximum future climate scenarios based oninformation released by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.According to the IPCC, temperatures are expected to rise from somewhere between 1.5 and more than 4degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 and more than 2 degrees Celsius) by the year 2050. "Few climate scientists aroundthe world think that 2050 temperatures will fall outside those bounds," said Thomas. "In some respects, wehave been conservative because almost all future climate projections expect more warming and hence moreextinction between 2050 and 2100." In addition, the researchers accounted for the ability of species todisperse or successfully move to a new area, thus preventing climate change-induced extinction. Theyused two alternatives: one where species couldn't move at all, the other assuming unlimited abilities formovement. "We are trying to bracket the truth," said Peterson. "If you bracket the truth and look atthe two endpoints and they give the same general message, then you can start to believe it." Outside of the small group of researchers working directly on the impacts of climate change to species diversity, "thenumbers will come as a huge shock," said Thomas. Extinction Prevention The researchers point out thatthere is a significant gap between the low and high ends of the species predicted to be on the road toextinction by 2050. Taking action to ensure the climate ends up on the low end of the range is vital to preventcatastrophic extinctions. "We need to start thinking about the fullest of costs involved with ouractivities, the real costs of what we do in modern society," said Peterson. Thomas said that since theremay be a large time lag between the climate changing and the last individual of a doomed species dyingoff, rapid reductions of greenhouse gas emissions may allow some of these species to hang on. "Theonly conservation action that really makes sense, at a global scale, is for the international communityto minimize warming through reduced emissions and

Documents

WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final