Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

1

NUCLEAR POWER GOOD / BAD
You need this file – it has a nuclear power good disad and a nuclear power bad disad in it. But, to eliminate duplication, it is also necessary to use a lot of these cards as a case neg to the nuclear power aff or as impacts for the nuclear power aff. NUCLEAR POWER BAD DISAD nuclear power good / bad............................................................................................................................................................1 nuclear power bad – 1nc.............................................................................................................................................................6 uniqueness – global nuclear power decreasing...........................................................................................................................7 Uniqueness – global nuclear power decreasing .........................................................................................................................8 uniqueness – u.s. nuclear power decreasing...............................................................................................................................9 uniqueness – u.s. nuclear power decreasing.............................................................................................................................10 at: nonunique – nuclear power now..........................................................................................................................................11 nuclear power isn’t cost competitive........................................................................................................................................12 link – carbon regulations..........................................................................................................................................................13 link – carbon regulations..........................................................................................................................................................14 link – carbon regulations..........................................................................................................................................................15 link – carbon regulations..........................................................................................................................................................16 link – cap and trade...................................................................................................................................................................17 link – carbon tax.......................................................................................................................................................................18 link – carbon tax.......................................................................................................................................................................19 link – coal regulations...............................................................................................................................................................20 at: no link – will shift to renewables or energy efficiency.......................................................................................................21 nuclear power bad – extinction.................................................................................................................................................22 nuclear power bad – meltdowns shell.......................................................................................................................................23 nuclear power bad – meltdowns shell.......................................................................................................................................24 meltdown risk high - earthquakes.............................................................................................................................................25 meltdown risk high - warmng...................................................................................................................................................26 at: nuclear power is safe – safety regulations...........................................................................................................................27 at: nuclear power is safe – safety regulations...........................................................................................................................28 xt – safety standards aren’t enforced........................................................................................................................................29 at: technical safeguards prevent meltdowns.............................................................................................................................30 at: new reactor designs solve accidents....................................................................................................................................31 AT: Generation IV reactors solve safety...................................................................................................................................32 at: generation iv reactors solve safety.......................................................................................................................................33 at: pebble bed reactors solve safety..........................................................................................................................................34 at: empirically – there’s never been an accident.......................................................................................................................35 aging reactors make accidents possible....................................................................................................................................36 at: nonunique – nuclear power now..........................................................................................................................................37 risk of terrorist attack high........................................................................................................................................................38 risk of terrorist attack high........................................................................................................................................................39 airplane attacks risk meltdowns................................................................................................................................................40 airplane attacks risk meltdowns................................................................................................................................................41 at: technology protects against terrorist attacks........................................................................................................................42 at: security upgrades prevent terrorism....................................................................................................................................43 at: security upgrades prevent terrorism....................................................................................................................................44 meltdowns impact – massive death..........................................................................................................................................45 meltdowns impact – economy..................................................................................................................................................46 xt – meltdowns kill the economy..............................................................................................................................................47 meltdowns bad – turn electricity advantages............................................................................................................................48 meltdowns bad - environment .................................................................................................................................................49 meltdown impact - destroys nuclear power..............................................................................................................................50 2nc – proliferation / terrorism impact shell..............................................................................................................................51 nuclear power bad – proliferation.............................................................................................................................................52 nuclear power bad – proliferation.............................................................................................................................................53 at: nuclear power decreases co2...............................................................................................................................................54 xt 1 – can’t solve warming fast enough....................................................................................................................................55

Michigan 7 weeks 2 Nuclear power good / bad disads xt 1 – can’t solve warming fast enough....................................................................................................................................56 xt 2 - construction of nuclear power releases co2....................................................................................................................57 xt 3 – uranium mining difficulty increases co2 emissions.......................................................................................................58 at: nuclear power good – key to leadership..............................................................................................................................59 at: nuclear power good – key to leadership..............................................................................................................................60 at: nuclear power good – key to leadership..............................................................................................................................61 xt 1 – hypocrisy undermines leadership...................................................................................................................................62 uniqueness - Reprocessing decreasing now..............................................................................................................................63 links – u.s. nuclear leadership means it will push reprocessing...............................................................................................64 reprocessing bad – proliferation / terrorism.............................................................................................................................65 reprocessing bad – proliferation...............................................................................................................................................66 reprocessing bad – proliferation...............................................................................................................................................67 purex processing increases proliferation risks..........................................................................................................................68 AT: Pyroprocessing Solves Prolif.............................................................................................................................................69 AT: Innovation Solves Reprocessing Costs..............................................................................................................................70 AT: Generation IV reactors solve prolif....................................................................................................................................71 breeder reactors fail..................................................................................................................................................................72 at: gnep solves problems with reprocessing.............................................................................................................................73 at: gnep solves waste................................................................................................................................................................74 at: reprocessing solves waste siting issues...............................................................................................................................75 Reprocessing Bad---Oceans.....................................................................................................................................................76 reprocessing bad – accidents....................................................................................................................................................77 reprocessing isn’t cost competitive...........................................................................................................................................78 u.s. nuclear leadership high now .............................................................................................................................................79 u.s. nuclear leadership high now..............................................................................................................................................80 nuclear leadership alternate causalities.....................................................................................................................................81 Nuclear power bad – waste ......................................................................................................................................................82 Waste bad - radiation................................................................................................................................................................83 Waste impact – water contamination........................................................................................................................................84 Nuclear waste bad – risks proliferation....................................................................................................................................85 nuclear power bad – water contamination................................................................................................................................86 nuclear power bad – water contamination................................................................................................................................87 ext - nuclear power bad – water................................................................................................................................................88 at: nuclear power key to desalination.......................................................................................................................................89 nuclear power bad – food chain contamination........................................................................................................................90 at: there won’t be a meltdown so no contamination.................................................................................................................91 at: scientific studies prove radiation has no impact..................................................................................................................92 nuclear power bad – ozone.......................................................................................................................................................93 xt – nuclear power destroys the ozone......................................................................................................................................94 nuclear power bad – native americans......................................................................................................................................95 nuclear power bad – native americans......................................................................................................................................96 nuclear power bad - patriarchy.................................................................................................................................................97 at: nuclear power solves energy dependence............................................................................................................................98 at: nuclear power decreases oil demand...................................................................................................................................99 indict – nei evidence...............................................................................................................................................................100 No link – Carbon pricing doesn’t trigger nuclear power........................................................................................................101 nuclear power good - 1nc.......................................................................................................................................................102 nuclear power good – 1nc.......................................................................................................................................................103 uniqueness – nuclear power investment increasing................................................................................................................104 Uniqueness – nuclear power investment increasing ..............................................................................................................105 uniqueness – nuclear power investment increasing................................................................................................................106 uniqueness – nuclear power investment increasing................................................................................................................107 Uniqueness – Nuke power winning over coal........................................................................................................................108 at: lack of incentives blocks nuclear power............................................................................................................................109 reactor technology increasing now.........................................................................................................................................110 Nuclear power increasing globally.........................................................................................................................................111 nuclear power increasing globally..........................................................................................................................................112 nuclear power increasing globally..........................................................................................................................................113

Michigan 7 weeks 3 Nuclear power good / bad disads nuclear power increasing – asia..............................................................................................................................................114 at: public opposition to new construction...............................................................................................................................115 at: construction costs too high................................................................................................................................................116 at: environmental activists block nuclear power.....................................................................................................................117 at: current loan guarantees don’t cover enough of the debt....................................................................................................118 at: lack of loan guarantees block new construction................................................................................................................119 at: lack of loan guarantees block construction........................................................................................................................120 at: uranium shortages block nuclear power............................................................................................................................121 at: regulatory uncertainty blocks expansion...........................................................................................................................122 uniqueness – renewables low.................................................................................................................................................123 links – decreasing electricity demand kills nuclear power.....................................................................................................124 links – renewable energy tradesoff with nuclear power.........................................................................................................125 nuclear power links – rps........................................................................................................................................................126 nuclear power links - rps........................................................................................................................................................127 nuclear power tradesoff with renewables...............................................................................................................................128 nuclear power tradesoff with renewables...............................................................................................................................129 generation iv reactors tradeoff with renewable energy...........................................................................................................130 at: renewables solve energy demand......................................................................................................................................131 at: renewables solve energy demand......................................................................................................................................132 at: renewables solve energy demand......................................................................................................................................133 at: renewables solve energy demand......................................................................................................................................134 at: renewable energy more sustainable / infinite energy........................................................................................................135 nuclear power good – terrorism impact addon.......................................................................................................................136 Uniqueness – no u.s. nuclear power leadership now..............................................................................................................137 new construction key to nuclear leadership............................................................................................................................138 new construction key to nuclear leadership............................................................................................................................139 new construction key to nuclear leadership............................................................................................................................140 substantial increase key to u.s. nuclear leadership.................................................................................................................141 nuclear power leadership key to solve proliferation...............................................................................................................142 nuclear power leadership key to solve proliferation...............................................................................................................143 nuclear power leadership key to solve proliferation...............................................................................................................144 expanding nuclear power key to competitiveness..................................................................................................................145 nuclear power leadership key to nuclear safety......................................................................................................................146 nuclear power leadership key to nuclear safety......................................................................................................................147 u.s. nuclear power leadership key to gnep credibility............................................................................................................148 nuclear power leadership solves – reprocessing impacts.......................................................................................................149 nuclear power key to soft power.............................................................................................................................................150 AT: nuclear power increases the risk of prolif – tech transfer / reprocessing.........................................................................151 at: increasing nuclear power is modeled – increases prolif....................................................................................................152 at: nuclear power causes reprocessing....................................................................................................................................153 Reprocessing good – solves proliferation and waste..............................................................................................................154 reprocessing good – solves proliferation................................................................................................................................155 at: reprocessing risks diversion of fuel...................................................................................................................................156 Reprocessing key to prolif leadership ...................................................................................................................................157 Reprocessing key to prolif leadership....................................................................................................................................158 reprocessing solves waste storage..........................................................................................................................................159 reprocessing solves waste storage..........................................................................................................................................160 reprocessing solves waste storage..........................................................................................................................................161 at: reprocessing bad – terrorism..............................................................................................................................................162 MOX doesn’t Solve Prolif......................................................................................................................................................163 Nuclear power solves warming .............................................................................................................................................164 Nuclear power solves warming .............................................................................................................................................165 Nuclear power solves warming .............................................................................................................................................166 Nuclear power solves warming .............................................................................................................................................167 solvency - substantial increase in nuclear power key to solve warming................................................................................168 AT: Lifecycle carbon costs prove nuclear power doesn’t decrease c02.................................................................................169 coal reliance increasing..........................................................................................................................................................170 Coal Bad – Environment........................................................................................................................................................171

Michigan 7 weeks 4 Nuclear power good / bad disads Coal bad – Environment.........................................................................................................................................................172 coal bad – environment...........................................................................................................................................................173 AT: Clean Coal........................................................................................................................................................................174 air pollution impacts...............................................................................................................................................................175 air pollution impacts...............................................................................................................................................................176 Nuclear power solves air pollution.........................................................................................................................................177 Nuclear power solves air pollution.........................................................................................................................................178 Nuclear power solves air pollution ........................................................................................................................................179 nuclear power solves disease..................................................................................................................................................180 nuclear power key to hydrogen..............................................................................................................................................181 Nuclear power key to hydrogen .............................................................................................................................................182 Nuclear power key to hydrogen..............................................................................................................................................183 Hydrogen good impacts .........................................................................................................................................................184 Hydrogen trades off with renewables ....................................................................................................................................185 nuclear power prevents oil wars - shell..................................................................................................................................186 oil solvency – nuclear power decreases oil consumption.......................................................................................................187 oil solvency – nuclear power decreases oil consumption.......................................................................................................188 nuclear power decreases lng imports......................................................................................................................................189 at: uranium supply disruptions...............................................................................................................................................190 at: expanding nuclear power increases uranium prices..........................................................................................................191 nuclear power good – desalination shell.................................................................................................................................192 nuclear power good – desalination shell.................................................................................................................................193 global energy consumption increasing...................................................................................................................................194 nuclear power key to desalination..........................................................................................................................................195 nuclear power key to desalination..........................................................................................................................................196 us key to nuclear power globally............................................................................................................................................197 nuclear power key to solve global poverty.............................................................................................................................198 nuclear power key to solve global poverty.............................................................................................................................199 nuclear power key to solve global poverty.............................................................................................................................200 at: nuclear power causes water pollution / thermal pollution.................................................................................................201 at: nuclear power increases water consumption.....................................................................................................................202 AT: Uranium mining impacts.................................................................................................................................................203 at: nuclear power bad – radiation...........................................................................................................................................204 AT: nuclear power bad - radiation .........................................................................................................................................205 AT: nuclear power bad - radiation..........................................................................................................................................206 at: radiation destroys the environment....................................................................................................................................207 AT: Food contamination from nuclear accident.....................................................................................................................208 Caldicott Indicts .....................................................................................................................................................................209 meltdown risk low..................................................................................................................................................................210 meltdown risk low..................................................................................................................................................................211 meltdown risk low..................................................................................................................................................................212 xt 1 – safer than other industries.............................................................................................................................................213 xt 3 – new reactor designs solve.............................................................................................................................................214 at: aging reactors risk accidents..............................................................................................................................................215 at: natural disasters risk meltdowns........................................................................................................................................216 at: regulations are lax..............................................................................................................................................................217 AT: meltdowns – no health impact.........................................................................................................................................218 at: meltdowns – no health impact...........................................................................................................................................219 AT: New designs not subject to regulations ...........................................................................................................................220 at: terrorism impacts...............................................................................................................................................................221 at: terrorism impacts...............................................................................................................................................................222 xt 1- security measures prevent terrorism...............................................................................................................................223 xt 1 – security measures prevent terrorism.............................................................................................................................224 xt 3 – terrorists won’t target....................................................................................................................................................225 at: guards are asleep at their posts..........................................................................................................................................226 AT: Aircraft Strikes.................................................................................................................................................................227 AT: Aircraft Strikes.................................................................................................................................................................228 renewable energy solves better than nuclear power...............................................................................................................229

Michigan 7 weeks 5 Nuclear power good / bad disads renewable energy solves better than nuclear power...............................................................................................................230 renewable energy solves better than nuclear power...............................................................................................................231 at: nuclear power tradesoff with renewables..........................................................................................................................232

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

6

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – 1NC
Unique link – nuclear power is failing now – new regulations on carbon will drive its expansion Cochran, 08 - Senior Scientist, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council (Thomas, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH 1. New-build nuclear power plants are not economical in the absence of strong carbon controls, and even with such controls they
may not compete effectively against electricity supplied by renewable sources and energy efficiency programs. Existing nuclear plants that have been largely or fully depreciated, or that acquired a new cost basis via a change in ownership at a deep discount to their original cost, are now economical to operate. The forward cost (fuel and operating and maintenance costs) average less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh), and thus these plants produce some of the lowest cost electricity. In strong contrast to existing plants, new plants are uneconomical due to their high cost of construction. In late- 2003, the MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Power" estimated that the cost of electricity generated by a new merchant nuclear plant would be some 60 percent higher than the cost of energy generated by a fossil-fueled plant. See MIT, "The Future of Nuclear Power," 2003, Table 5.1, p. 42. Since that report was published in 2003, the cost of fossil fuels and the capital cost of electricity generating plants have both increased significantly. In June 2007, the joint industry and non-profit Keystone Center report found that the levelized cost of electricity from new nuclear power plants was estimated to be in the range 8.3-11.1 c/kwh, up from the 6.7 to 7.0 c/kwh estimate in the 2003 MIT study. See the Keystone Report, "Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding," at 11. Based on more recent data supplied by utilities and energy generating companies pursuing new nuclear plants, the low end of the Keystone estimate is no longer valid. Current cost estimates for several new reactors are in the range of 14 to 18 c/kwh (in 2007 dollars).

Electricity from new nuclear power plants in this cost range is not competitive with fossil-fueled baseload generation in today's marketplace, nor even with electricity supplied by waste heat co- generation, wind turbines, or freed-up by continuing pursuit of end-use
efficiency programs. By the time the earliest of these new nuclear plants begin delivering power to the grid, several forms of solar power are also likely to be cheaper on a retail delivered-cost basis, and concentrating solar thermal plants will likely be competitive in the wholesale power market as well.

Implementation of a carbon cap that internalizes the true cost of burning fossil fuels is the single policy that would most benefit the nuclear industry, not because new-build nuclear power will necessarily be cheaper than other sources, but rather because it will make polluting fossil-fueled power more expensive. EPA has modeled the effect of the current version of the LiebermanWarner climate bill to predict CO2 prices using two different models. One model forecasts prices starting at $22/ton CO2 in 2015, rising to $28 in 2020 and $46 in 2030 and continuing up from there; the other model's prices start at $35/ton in 2015 and hit $45 and $73/ton in 2020 and 2030 respectively. See http://www.epa.gov.proxy.lib.umich.edu/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html In short, enacting a carbon cap could increase the value of generating electricity from nuclear plants by 2.2 -3.4 c/kwh in the near term and more in later years.

This causes extinction Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //DH Sometime toward the end of the industrial revolution, western industrial countries discovered a new way to power their steam engines, which had previously been powered by burning wood and coal. This energy source promised to power the machines of civilization and progress far into the future. This energy source seemed at the time to be cheap and limitless, and contained an energy density (energy potential per unit weight) far exceeding those of fuels previously used to power steam engines. 1 Unfortunately for the generations that would follow, the early proponents of this energy source simply ignored the waste by-product of this fuel cycle. The wastes produced by this fuel will likely, at a minimum, render currently populated places in the world uninhabitable, and, at worst, threaten the survival of the human species. These impacts will affect generations far into the future. Although this paragraph could well describe the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels, I am not talking about the carbon cycle and global warming. I am talking about the impacts of nuclear energy production. Proponents of nuclear energy tout the energy source as the most promising offset to greenhouse gases produced in electricity generation. These proponents eagerly await the additional direct and indirect subsidies for new nuclear power plants that would flow from various carbon tax and emissions trading schemes. Carbon [*228] emissions trading and offset schemes will subsidize the nuclear energy industry indirectly, by making competing fossil fuel based energy more expensive, and by potentially offering marketable offset credits for new nuclear energy generation projects that displace existing carbon-based energy generation. This essay explains that such encouragement of nuclear energy production as a "solution" to fossil fuel-induced climate change will create environmental problems equally as grave as those posed by a carbon-based energy economy. Both nuclear energy and fossil energy impose enormous environmental externalities that are not captured by the economics of energy production and distribution. While emissions trading schemes seek to harness market-based efficiencies to accomplish pre-determined reductions, they neither seek to nor succeed in capturing the environmental externalities of energy generation. By creating a set of incentives without capturing all of the externalities, these trading schemes will simply distort the market, possibly leading to a worse overall damage to the environment than global warming by itself.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

7

UNIQUENESS – GLOBAL NUCLEAR POWER DECREASING
Nuclear power is dead – growth is slow and leveling off Hanley, 08 (Paul, “Nuclear industry spins new mythology”, 6/24, The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan), lexis) //DH A second myth is that nuclear is now gaining worldwide acceptance, that it is experiencing a kind of renaissance. The reality is quite different. Global nuclear capacity stands at 372,000 megawatts, but its growth rate is lower than any other energy source. Growth was just 0.5 per cent in 2007, compared to 27 per cent for wind energy. In total, global nuclear power capacity grew by less than 2,000 megawatts in 2007, a figure equivalent to just one-tenth of the new wind power installed globally that year. By the end of 2007, reports the Worldwatch Institute, 34 nuclear reactors were being built worldwide. Twelve have been under construction for 20 years or more. Meanwhile, more than 124 reactors have been retired by the commercial nuclear industry since 1964, reducing capacity by 36,800 megawatts. A recent Time magazine article, Is Nuclear Viable?, reports that the American nuclear industry is so unattractive that it is unable to attract private investment. While the red-hot renewable industry, including wind and solar, attracted $71 billion in private investment last year, the nuclear industry attracted nothing. Global nuclear power is leveling off Riccio, 08 - Nuclear Policy Analyst at Greenpeace (Jim, World Watch, “Nuclear Power Crawling Forward,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5447) In 2007, global installed capacity of nuclear power grew by less than 2,000 megawatts to 372,000 megawatts.1 (See Figure 1.) The slight growth in nuclear power is attributable to the addition of three new reactors in India, China, and Romania.2 The new nuclear capacity is equivalent to just one tenth of the new wind power installed globally in 2007.3 Rising gas prices and concern about the carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants have fueled growing interest in nuclear power in many nations.4 But only four countries began building new nuclear reactors in 2007: China, France, Russia, and South Korea.5 The seven new reactors being built in those countries will account for 5,190 megawatts of new nuclear capacity-about 100 megawatts less than was added in 2006.6 (See Figure 2.) No nuclear reactors were permanently shut down in 2007.7 Since 1964, however, the commercial nuclear industry has retired 124 reactors, amounting to a total of 36,800 megawatts of generating capacity.8 (See Figure 3.) By the end of 2007, some 34 reactors were under construction worldwide, but 12 of these units have been under construction for 20 years or more.9 In the Americas, only two reactors are being built, in the United States and Argentina; both began construction in the 1980s.10 In Western Europe two reactors are being built, in Finland and France.11 In Eastern Europe, reactors are under construction in Bulgaria and Ukraine (two each), Slovakia (two), and Romania (one).12 In Russia, seven reactors-totaling 4,585 megawatts of electric capacity-are being built; four of these have been in construction for two decades.13 Russia is completing a fast-breeder reactor, which produces more nuclear fuel that it consumes and which uses plutonium, highly enriched uranium, or even mixed oxide fuel rather than the conventional fuel, uranium.14 In addition, construction has begun on two 30-megawatt reactors that will be placed on barges to provide power to remote regions.15 Global nuclear power decreasing now Flavin, 6 –Christopher, President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK Globally, nuclear power is more likely to decline than to increase in the coming years, because more than half the world's nuclear power plants are over 20 years old. At least 70 nuclear plants would have to be built in the next decade just to replace those that are projected to be closed. This is virtually inconceivable, given that only 14 are now under construction. Meanwhile, world electricity demand is projected to grow by more than 30 percent (the equivalent of more than 500 nuclear power plants) during this same period.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

8

UNIQUENESS – GLOBAL NUCLEAR POWER DECREASING
Europe is rejecting nuclear power Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//DH Attitudes are mixed in Europe, where only France, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Romania are currently going against the "Green" tide. France has publicly announced plans to build a new generation of nuclear plants, and recently extended the lifetimes of their reactors by 10 years or 33 percent, from 30 years to 40 years. 68 The nuclear industry in Finland, already with legislative approval, plans to build a fifth reactor at the Olkiluoto plant with scheduled operation beginning in five years. 69 The Finnish are also currently building an underground repository for permanent disposal of used nuclear fuel. 70 In the Czech Republic the commissioning of two new reactors is progressing, with both operating at 100 percent power. 71 In Romania, one reactor is under construction with Canadian financing and Italian partnership, another is in the approval process for beginning construction, and the Romanians recently [*54] commissioned a nuclear waste storage facility. 72 Although Germany is in the midst of a phase-out of nuclear energy, 73 few outside observers expect it to stand when it comes time, in the distant future, to actually shut down all but a couple of small, poor performing, uneconomical nuclear plants. In addition, four German states are assessing whether to challenge the constitutionality of the phase-out agreement in court. 74 Belgium is also in the midst of a phaseout, with the first plant shutdown scheduled for 2015. 75 However, Sweden has called a halt to its phase-out, and a survey in 2003 showed that pro-nuclear opinions had risen to 84 percent of the public. 76 In Switzerland, two referenda against nuclear energy were handily defeated this summer. 77 Despite the mixed attitudes, the European Commission (EC) formally recognized the need to keep nuclear's 35 percent share of electricity generation to meet goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. 78 A European Commission Green Paper stated that nuclear power is an important factor for achieving carbon emission reductions in developed countries: If existing nuclear plants were phased out and replaced with other conventional generating plants, the Green Paper states that it would become impossible to achieve Kyoto [emissions-reduction] objectives. 79 The Green Paper also stresses the role of nuclear power in European Union (EU) security, and the EC concluded that they must reverse the downward trend in nuclear power in the EU. 80

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

9

UNIQUENESS – U.S. NUCLEAR POWER DECREASING
The nuclear industry won’t expand on its own Van Namen, 08 - Senior Vice President, Uranium Enrichment USEC Inc. (Robert, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) Those are some of the positives, but the need for government action remains. Despite legislation passed by Congress to encourage the expansion of nuclear power, the implementation of legislative directives at the agency level has often been out of step with real-world timeframes. The delay in implementing the Loan Guarantee program, for instance, may prevent new nuclear facilities from coming online as soon as possible because companies may have to delay or cancel their projects. The NRC also faces a funding shortfall from its budget request that may force it to defer or delay the review of applications for new projects. Specifically in nuclear fuel, domestic producers need legislative support to backup the Russian Suspension Agreement Amendment to ensure that the U.S. government can enforce recently agreed terms that allow measured Russian access to the U.S. market while permitting our domestic industry time to secure contracts needed to secure financing for new mines and production facilities. Additionally, near- and medium-term support for the Paducah plant with a contract to enrich DOE's high-assay tails would ensure that it remains available to meet the needs of domestic utilities past 2012, a period when the new centrifuge facilities will be starting up operations. As mentioned before, DOE needs to complete its plan for managing and selling its uranium inventories to provide the market, and specifically miners and enrichers, clarity on how DOE's inventory will affect supply and demand during the next decade. Finally, any assistance with education, job development, and infrastructure improvements in the next few years will go a long way to assisting us with creating a stable, long-term nuclear fuel industry in the United States. Wall Street is not investing in nuclear power now Gelinas, 07-- Chief Executive “Is Wall Street Ready to Go Nuclear?” Nicole.. New York: Sep 2007. , Iss. 228; pg. 42, 5 pgs CEOs across the economy are feeling the squeeze of higher power prices, and these prices likely will rise even more if the US government enacts a law to control domestic greenhouse gas emissions. However, high power prices and a push toward power sources that release fewer such emissions mean opportunity for one sector of the economy: nuclear power. Although no company has opened a new nuclear power plant on American soil in 30 years, at first glance, there are good reasons to believe in a resurgence. Today, companies can apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a single license to build and operate a plant, an improvement over the old two-step process. But skepticism abounds, particularly within the financing community. So far, Wall Street is not biting. The markets are not going to support it, said one veteran from Wall Street who attended a recent Manhattan Institute conference on nuclear power. Only external factors that alter the perception of nuclear competitiveness can attract new investment Numark and Terry, 03 – Neil and Michael, *President @ Numark Associtates and **member @ Sustainable Energy Institute + Senior Associate @ Numark Associates (“New Nuclear Construction: Still On Hold”, December 2003, http://www.pur.com/pubs/4310.cfm)/AK Despite the greatly improved operational efficiency of existing plants, and the improved economies of scale resulting from industry restructuring, the investment community remains generally skeptical of new projects in competitive electricity generation. Wall Street is shying away from construction of any type of new plant until debts from the recent merchant energy fiasco are paid off. Power industry stocks have suffered major losses, especially those companies relying heavily on natural gas. Most of the failures to date have been in the merchant energy sector and were a result of over-investment in gas-fired units. However, Wall Street does have some special concerns about nuclear investment, based on uncertain construction costs and risks to company earnings during potentially protracted construction of the first new nuclear plants. Moreover, the investment community views the potential for accidents, and concerns about nuclear waste and terrorism directed at the nuclear industry, as risks that must be taken into account. The companies that could build the new nuclear units also remain skeptical, concerned that in a competitive environment they cannot afford to tie up a large investment for several years before any earnings on that investment will materialize.
Thomas Capps, chairman of Dominion Resources, put it the most bluntly, in recent comments to Public Utilities Fortnightly: "Right now I don't think anyone in this country is going to build another nuclear plant. We certainly are not. There is too much risk."11

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

10

UNIQUENESS – U.S. NUCLEAR POWER DECREASING
Little to zero new development of nuclear power – high costs block Public Utilities Fortnightly 7, 2025: A Murky Mix;Which power technologies will dominate? PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY December, 2007 Some experts estimate even higher per-kilowatt costs for new nuclear power plants. Additionally, the issue of long-term storage of spent fuel and nuclear waste likely will require resolution before any substantial investment in new nuclear projects. A report issued by Moody's on Oct. 10, 2007, highlights risks associated with cost, permit requirements and politics, and forecasts only one or two new nuclear plants will be brought into the power generation capacity mix by 2015. n6 Nuke power production stalling in the US Lewis, 6 - University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law, J.D. candidate, former Navy engineer specializing in pure water chemistry on naval nuclear reactors (Neal H, “INTERPRETING THE ORACLE: LICENSING MODIFICATIONS, ECONOMICS, SAFETY, POLITICS, AND THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE UNITED STATES,” 16 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 27, 2006)//markoff <The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 began with grand statements about nuclear power, but there is little doubt that the promise of nuclear power as a limitless, clean, cheap energy source has not been satisfied ... yet. In the twenty years prior to 1990, one hundred licenses were issued to operate nuclear reactors. 2 A license for a new nuclear facility in the United States has not been issued since the Watts Bar 1 facility was permitted in 1996. 3 Only four operating licenses have been issued since 1990. 4 Over one hundred permits that were issued for the construction of nuclear facilities were withdrawn during the 70's and 80's. 5 Furthermore, there has been a resounding silence in the nuclear power industry for the last decade, but all things change.> Nuclear Power Use Decreasing Now UCS, 05 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “How Nuclear Power Works”, 8/16, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/offmen-how-nuclear-power-works.html) //DT America's aging fleet of nuclear plants are now encountering the unfriendly world of utility restructuring. Utilities faced with impending competition have balked at the high repair costs of aging plants, and have shut down plants in Illinois, Maine, New Jersey and Connecticut. In Canada, Ontario Hydro decided to shut down seven of their 19 reactors, at a cost of $8 billion. Studies have shown that between 5 and 37 nuclear plants are at risk from competition. Although all power plants will be under increased competitive pressure to cut costs and raise profits, these pressures will be extreme for plants that are economically marginal. And extreme pressure to cut costs at marginal nuclear plants has one very serious possible consequence: it could reduce safety margins. Although reactors are licensed for 40 years of operation by the NRC, only two plants have lasted more than 30 years. The Big Rock Point plant in Charlevoix, Michigan, attained criticality in 1962 and began commercial operation in 1965. It was closed in August 1997. Yankee Rowe was shut down in 1991 after 30 years. Within five years, 15 more plants will reach the age of 30. Five years after that the number will rise to 55, fully half of the current fleet. Nuke power industry is dead Tomain, 5 - Dean Emeritus and the Wilbert & Helen Ziegler Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati
(Joseph P, “BIOETHICS SYMPOSIUM: BIOFUELS AND THE NEW ENERGY ECONOMY: Smart Energy Path: How Willie Nelson Saved the Planet,” 36 Cumb. L. Rev. 417, 2005)

<The accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 was the most important event signaling the end of the nuclear power industry. n48 No new nuclear plant has come on line since 1996 and the country has not ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978. n49 In short, the Three Mile Island catastrophe sounded the death knell for that industry as safety, waste disposal, and costeffectiveness became and remain concerns about the future of the nuclear industry. n50 With these events came new energy initiatives from the White House and Congress.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

11

AT: NONUNIQUE – NUCLEAR POWER NOW
The impact is linear – the risk gets greater with every new plant Makhijani, 4 - President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs,” 2004, http://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html)// NHH If the world continues to use oil for transportation (and oil accounts for about forty percent of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use today, most of it in the transport sector),15 a very large number of nuclear power plants will have to be built in the next four decades to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Most existing coal-fired power plants would have to be replaced with nuclear ones, and present-day nuclear power plants (over 400 in all) will have to be retired and replaced with new ones. In order to make a significant dent in CO2 emissions, at least one-third, and perhaps one-half or more of the global growth in electricity demand must be supplied by nuclear power. In any scenario involving two percent or greater global electricity growth, the use of nuclear power will mean the construction of thousands of nuclear power plants in the next four decades. Consider for instance, an electricity growth rate of two percent, which is far less than that occurring in China and India, but more or less typical of recent U.S. trends. To make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we might hypothesize that (i) all present day nuclear power plants will be replaced by new ones, (ii) half the electricity growth will be provided by nuclear power, and (iii) half of the world's coal-fired plants will be replaced by nuclear power plants. This would mean that about two thousand large (1,000 megawatts each) nuclear power plants would have to be built over the next four decades. That is a rate of about one per week. If small plants, like the proposed Pebble Bed Modular Reactor were built instead, the required rate of construction would be about three reactors every two days. The proliferation implications of building so many plants and supplying them with fuel are stupendous. Inspecting them, enriching the uranium, ensuring that materials are not diverted into weapons programs would present challenges that would make today's proliferation concerns look like the proverbial Sunday school picnic. We already have confrontations between the United States and other countries over alleged nuclear weapons aspirations from far more modest programs involving a handful of power plants. The risk of losing a city once in a while to nuclear bombs should be an unacceptable part of an energy strategy. Similarly, it would be difficult to inspect, regulate and maintain such a vast number of plants properly. Even the U.S. regulatory system is currently under considerable strain. In fact, oversight and safety are deteriorating. There have been unexpected leaks and severe corrosion problems missed by inadequate regulation. Nuclear power plant owners are operating their plants at very high capacity factors, churning out profits, while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows them to service some safety backup equipment while the power plants are still running.16 That makes no sense from a safety point of view. Backup systems are there in case the normal systems break down. If a break down occurs while the back system is being maintained, it will not be available in case of emergency.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

12

NUCLEAR POWER ISN’T COST COMPETITIVE
Arguments that nuclear power is cheap rely on flawed logic- it ignores capital costs of construction Levi, 2006 - Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations (Michael, New Republic Online, April 18, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10473/wasted_energy.html, REQ) Moore claims to refute those who say that nuclear power is expensive, retorting that it “is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources” and noting, to support this point, that “the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States [is] less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric.” While literally true, that’s a specious claim. The marginal cost of producing an additional kilowatt-hour of nuclear power using existing plants is indeed less than two pennies. But that ignores the capital costs involved in building nuclear power plants, which exceed the costs of building coal-fired facilities. Including those expenses, an MIT report (which made an honest argument for nuclear power) prices nuclear at 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, in contrast with only 4.2 cents for coal, nearly 40 percent lower. To be logically consistent, Moore would also have to believe that buying a house is always cheaper than renting (because property taxes and maintenance cost less than rent) and that owning a car is always cheaper than riding a bus (because gas costs less than bus fare). Nuclear power isn’t cost competitive Maize, 08 (Kennedy, Power Magazine, “Super Tuesday, Super Bowl XLII, and the nukes”, April, lexis) //DH Hopes for a nuclear renaissance are based on the assumption that new nukes make economic sense. That isn’t clear, even with federal kick-starts. For example, at the end of January, MidAmerican Energy Holdings said it has lost interest in building a new nuclear plant in eastern Idaho. The Omaha-based company, owned by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, said the Idaho plant would cost too much. Buffett would have financed the project, using his stellar credit rating, but he decided the financial risk had become unbearable. According to Nucleonics Week, MidAmerican was looking at a Mitsubishi 1,700-MW advanced pressurized water reactor for the site but recoiled at the hefty capital costs for the plant, which could exceed $3,000/kW. The same figure of $3,000/kW of capacity repeatedly came up at the Platts meeting, with some noting that costs are climbing rapidly, particularly for steel. Constellation has said its estimate for the Calvert Cliffs addition is about $3,000/kW, but it also acknowledged that the figure is two or three years old. The announcement by MidAmerican prompted the anti-nuclear group Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) to comment: “If Warren Buffet cannot figure out how to make money from a new nuclear reactor, who can?” NIRS noted, “Even before any new nuclear construction has begun in the U.S., cost estimates have skyrocketed and are now 300-400% higher than the industry was saying just two or three years ago.”

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

13

LINK – CARBON REGULATIONS
Cap and trade and carbon taxes increase nuclear power investment – prefer accurate models Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pgs. 17-18) Nuclear power will succeed in the long run only if it has a lower cost than competing technologies. This is especially true as electricity markets become progressively less subject to economic regulation in many parts of the world. We constructed a model to evaluate the real cost of electricity from nuclear power versus pulverized coal plants and natural gas combined cycle plants (at various projected levels of real lifetime prices for natural gas), over their economic lives. These technologies are most widely used today and, absent a carbon tax or its equivalent, are less expensive than many renewable technologies. Our “merchant” cost model uses assumptions that commercial investors would be expected to use today, with parameters based on actual experience rather than
engineering estimates of what might be achieved under ideal conditions; it compares the constant or “levelized” price of electricity over the life of a power plant that would be necessary to cover all operating expenses and taxes and provide an acceptable return to investors. The comparative figures given below assume 85% capacity factor and a 40-year economic life for the nuclear plant, reflect economic conditions in the U.S, and consider a range of projected improvements in nuclear cost factors. (See Table.) We judge the indicated cost improvements for nuclear power to be plausible, but not proven. The model results make clear why electricity produced from new nuclear power plants today is not competitive with electricity produced from coal or natural gas-fueled CCGT plants with low or moderate gas prices, unless all cost improvements for nuclear power are realized. The cost comparison becomes worse for nuclear if the capacity factor falls. It is also important to emphasize that the nuclear cost structure is driven by high up-front capital costs, while the natural gas cost driver is the fuel cost; coal lies in between nuclear and natural gas with respect to both fuel and capital costs.

Nuclear does become more competitive by comparison if the social cost of carbon emissions is internalized, for example through a carbon tax or an equivalent “cap and trade” system. Under the assumption that the costs of carbon emissions are imposed, the accompanying table
illustrates the impact on the competitive costs for different power sources, for emission costs in the range of $50 to $200/tonne carbon. (See Table.) The ultimate cost will depend on both societal choices (such as how much carbon dioxide emission to permit) and technology developments, such as the cost and feasibility of large-scale carbon capture and long-term sequestration. Clearly, costs in the range of $100 to $200/tonne C would significantly affect the relative cost competitiveness of coal, natural gas, and nuclear electricity generation.

Perception of Carbon regulations will rapidly increase nuclear power generation HOLT 7 -CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, (Mark, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: "AMERICAN
NUCLEAR ENERGY IN A GLOBALIZED ECONOMY" SESSION II: WHAT IS THE INVESTMENT CLIMATE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY?; June 18, L/n rday

The CO2 effects -- we did analyze that too; although a lot of assumptions are required there -- you know, what, with the carbon tax or carbon credits cost and all of that. But based on some standard assumptions of carbon -- or -- not standard, but some widely bandied about cost estimates that, you know, it certainly looked like those would be effective in helping nuclear power be competitive also. And of course, the prospect of any kind of serious regulation of CO2 emissions has been one of the hopes of the nuclear industry for many, many years. It didn't really seem to be getting anywhere, but now recently it does appear that that is a factor in the thinking of a lot of the utilities and other entitles that are looking at nuclear power that maybe, you know, we need to have a non-carbon option out there just in case something happens, which it does look like something will happen.
And whether it will be severe enough to change the economics is yet to be seen.

Carbon regulations will spur nuclear power Totty, 08 (Michael Energy “(A Special Report); The case for -- and against -- Nuclear Power.” 2008, June 30) Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.1. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of "cheaper" fossil fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Add those costs, and suddenly, nuclear power will look like a bargain. That's likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to greenhouse gases, through either a direct tax (based on the carbon content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which would set a limit on emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower than the cap to sell or trade credits to companies whose pollution exceeds the cap. Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coal-produced electricity are going to look a lot more expensive compared with lowcarbon sources -- in particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower. It's estimated that a carbon "price" of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal. That should be enough to ease investor concerns about utilities that build new nuclear plants.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

14

LINK – CARBON REGULATIONS
Nuclear power is on the brink of expansion but current subsidies aren’t enough – mandatory climate regulations are vital to making it cost competitive Greenwald, 06 - Pew Center on Global Climate Change (Judi, Transcript of an AEI Conferency, 10/6, http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1394/transcript.asp) //DH We now have several industry consortia who will [indiscernible] to test the construction and operating license process with actual funding from the federal government to get through that, so this is a pretty policy firmly environmental, at least on the cost side. These industry consortia are seriously looking towards the possibility of building plants, as growing interest in investment community, at least some part because of these generous subsidies. So there are people at least seriously looking at building another
generation [indiscernible]. Nobody has broken ground, so this is not for sure. So our view is that we want to keep the nuclear option open; we have to be frank about both the challenges and the benefits of nuclear power. We ask the questions that are similar to how Ernie Moniz and his folks at MIT ask it, which is, despite its significant risks and challenges, how can nuclear power be made to work in the context of a carbon-constrained world? We see both environmental groups and conservative groups re-thinking their views on this. I think conservative groups may be focusing more now on the dangers of global warming, and many environmental groups are now focusing more on the potential for nuclear power to be a solution to climate change, and then what can you do to solve nuclear power’s other problems. We see the path forward … we will see how the implementation of these and [indiscernible]. We will see how the private sector responds. We do really think we need a broader set of waste disposal solutions, such as interim [sounds like] storage. We think that a lot of more work is needed on that. We are not sure what we think about GNUP [phonetic], although we are not actually sure we understand what GNUP is. The goal has been described to us as enhancing energy security and promoting non-proliferation. Certainly we would agree with that goal, but we are pretty worried about this emphasis on re-processing both on a cost basis, as well as a proliferation basis. If it is true that the only way we can have nuclear power is that we do reprocessing based on what we know now, then it is really not feasible. It is just much, much more expensive than a lot of other options. In a post-9/11 world, just based on what we know, this would probably be considered intolerable. I am just feeling this even more since last week. I got my toothpaste confiscated on my way back from a trip to Columbus, Ohio. I am thinking, you know, nuclear power in this environment better be awfully, awfully safe and not subject to diversion of materials. And I am saying this in part to be provocative, but this is actually what we think.

What the nuclear industry really need is a mandatory climate policy that will give important cost advantage to nuclear power and other low-carbon options over high-carbon options and that will provide incentives for investors on the private sector to invest in this technology to make it work. It will provide a long-term stable view, or stable situation, for nuclear power if you know that overtime we are going after carbon that is probably a more stable and [indiscernible] some of the tax breaks that can go away. So, in conclusion, climate change is a real problem. Nuclear power can be an important part of the solution to climate change but it has to solve serious problems of its own. Carbon regulations will spur nuclear power Numark and Terry, 03 – Neil and Michael, *President @ Numark Associtates and **member @ Sustainable Energy Institute + Senior Associate
@ Numark Associates (“New Nuclear Construction: Still On Hold”, December 2003, http://www.pur.com/pubs/4310.cfm)/AK

It is increasingly clear that under deregulation, a federal role is necessary to ensure a sufficient overall level of generation nationwide as well as a diversity of new generation facilities, including baseload capacity. Federal action also will probably be necessary to provide sufficient incentives for this new capacity to be clean burning. The most effective policy solution to achieve these goals would be an across-the-board stimulus to develop and install clean energy technologies. A carbon policy of some form would be the best means of accomplishing this. Further incentives may take the form of the reserve adequacy requirement in the FERC SMD, and other incentives to build, such as production tax credits, or portfolio standards specifying minimum levels of generation from desired technologies. Without such intervention, deregulated markets will continue to yield only the type of new plants having the quickest payback.
A national carbon policy would have the advantage of simplicity, in contrast with a complex regime of different production incentives for different electricity generation sources. The energy bill recently under debate in Congress cobbled together a patchwork of production incentives-not necessarily a bad approach as long as there is an emphasis on clean technologies, diversity, and long-term reliability. Carbon constraints, or financial incentives for non-carbon technologies, would significantly improve the future of nuclear power generation. Clearly, the Bush administration's decision to scuttle new source review for aging coal plants will not help nuclear power's prospects in the near term, as power companies will be able to continue operating these plants inexpensively without installing costly pollution control equipment. Nonetheless, carbon constraints will become a reality as the decade progresses, based on state if not federal policies, as well as consumer pressure.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

15

LINK – CARBON REGULATIONS
Nuclear power isn’t competitive yet- only heavier regulations on fossil fuels cause a shift to the nuclear market Nivola, 2004 - Senior fellow, Governance studies, Brookings (Peitro, “The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States”, September http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2004/09environment_nivola.aspx, REQ) A plausible way to slow emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is to generate a larger share of electricity through nuclear power stations. Thanks to the stations currently operating, carbon emissions by the OECD countries are about onethird lower than they otherwise would be. Given that straightforward proposition, however, one might suppose that by now the climate-change issue would have boosted nuclear projects more than it has. It would seem logical, in other words, that nations formally committed to cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases would be the most pro-nuclear. Conversely, America, with its apparent high tolerance for fossil-fuel effluents, renders its nuclear industry uncompetitive. In practice, matters are not so simple. Many of the countries that officially accepted the Kyoto Protocol's mandatory greenhouse-gas reductions have nonetheless declined to install more nuclear capacity as a means of meeting emissions targets. True, the European Union, unlike the United States, is on track to create a tradable permits market for carbon emissions. Also true is the fact that most European countries have long restrained the consumption of (certain) fossil fuels in ways that America has never tried. For example, the minimal U.S. tax rates on oil products, particularly gasoline, contrast sharply with the much higher rates throughout Europe. However, while this difference can help explain the comparatively high American level of carbon dioxide emissions per capita, it has little bearing on the question at hand—the relative promise of nuclear power. Heavily taxing motor fuel, or any of oil's other refined products, is not the kind of carbon-curbing policy that might enhance the competitive position of nuclear power producers. The reason is plain: petroleum is no longer used to propel many electric generators in the industrial world. This, by the way, also means that soaring oil prices scarcely alter the nuclear equation. Only taxes that cover the main competitors to nuclear-generated electricity—coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas— would help put the nukes back in contention. To do so decisively, moreover, a broad-based carbon tax would have to be steep—indeed, much steeper than any OECD member has come close to levying. The same goes for emissions trading. Allowances per ton of carbon emitted would have to fetch a very high price in order for a trading system to substitute for the kind of hefty carbon tax that would be needed to put builders of nuclear plants back in business. (If, when the EU's system takes effect, its allowances trade at only, say, seven or eight Euros per ton of carbon emitted, it will represent, at best, a very distant substitute.) High startup costs block nuclear power – regulations on carbon will make it competitive CFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy”, April 25, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ) Shaky economics. Nuclear power has enormously high capital and start-up costs, in addition to the added costs of decommissioning plants and disposing of nuclear waste, say economists. They often point to the British government's repeated bailout of British Energy. Also, nuclear power's cost competitiveness depends on the global price of oil and gas, which fluctuates unpredictably. And for countries with ample supplies of coal, including the United States and China, it is far cheaper—but less environmentally friendly—to run coal-run plants than nuclear-power stations, experts say. But some nuclear advocates say advances in technology will make the cost of nuclear power, already down to less than two cents per kilowatt hour, more competitive with coal in the future. Carbon taxes, emissions-trading schemes, and government subsidies—which in America could reach $6 billion, if Bush's latest energy bill passes—may also enhance nuclear energy's competitiveness.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

16

LINK – CARBON REGULATIONS
Carbon pricing is critical to nuclear power E&E News 4-2 Environment and Energy Publishing (NUCLEAR ENERGY: Price on carbon emissions key to industry renaissance – CBO, 2008, L/n, rday) A resurgence of U.S. nuclear power hinges on the capping of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and a carbon-emission price of $45 per metric ton, the Congressional Budget Office said today. The CBO report says incentives for nuclear power provided by the 2005 energy law could support a few projects, but not enough to green-light the number of reactors being proposed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received license applications for 15 reactors and expects applications for 15 more reactors. "Ultimately ... the longer-term competitiveness of nuclear technology as a source of electricity is likely to depend on policymakers' decisions regarding carbon dioxide constraints," the report stated. The 2005 energy law provides the nuclear industry with an $18-per-megawatt-hour production tax credit up to $7.5 billion, limited liability insurance for regulatory delays and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. But it would be legislation that leads to a CO2 price of $45 per metric ton that would make nuclear energy an attractive investment, CBO said. With CO2 at $20 to $45 per metric ton, nuclear energy would be preferable to coal-fired generation but not to natural gas, the report says. If there is no price on carbon emissions, coal and natural gas would be the preferred baseload generators, the report says. Increased pricing of Carbon triggers a shift to nuclear Carbon Control News 8, (CBO NUCLEAR POWER REPORT OFFERS NEW BENCHMARKS IN CLIMATE DEBATE, May 19, L/n, rday) The CBO report, "Nuclear Power's Role In Generating Electricity," was released May 6. The report comes to different conclusions about whether nuclear power is a good investment compared with fossil-fuel energy sources such as coal and natural gas, based on multiple scenarios that assume low and high future prices of carbon spurred by new regulations. The report was requested by Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM), in part to discern how the prospects for nuclear power expansion may have been affected by nuclear loan guarantees and other financial incentives approved in the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPAct). One of report's key conclusions is that if the price of carbon reaches $45 a ton, nuclear power becomes more economically attractive than fossil fuels. The higher the price goes, the more cost-effective nuclear becomes over fossil fuels. However, this conclusion is based on several major assumptions in other areas, including future construction costs and the price of natural gas. Carbon regulations substantially benefit the nuclear power industry Electricity Journal 6 (Nuclear Power and Climate Change: Aspects of the Current Debate, July, L/n, rday) A group of environmental groups objected to this decision to provide a "subsidy to Seabrook on the grounds that the plant does not release NOx pollution," and the Nuclear Energy Institute responded, tellingly, that the program is "not a subsidy, but an appropriate incentive that serves the public interest."15 This strong and technically unjustified aversion to the use of the word "subsidy" by the nuclear industry supports the following observation: Because they are less likely to provoke explicitly anti-nuclear opposition, strategies that fight global warming by imposing costs on carbon polluters may be more likely to result in the construction of new nuclear power plants than those that directly subsidize non-emitters.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

17

LINK – CAP AND TRADE
Cap and trade legislation will spur substantial investment in nuclear power Ackley, 08 (Kate, Roll Call, 6/9, “Nuclear Energy Poisons Legislative Environment”, lexis) //DH David Holt, who serves as executive director of the Consumer Energy Alliance, also argues that the expansion of nuclear energy is essential. "If climate change legislation eventually happens, which I think some form will in the next 18 months, there certainly will be restrictions on coal, and if that is to occur then we are looking for power-generation capacity," said Holt, whose group represents oil and gas, nuclear, manufacturing, chemical and alternative energy interests. "This country needs up to 100 new nuclear power facilities to help meet demand." While nuclear opponents such as Kamps say nuclear power carries many dangers, including a target for terrorists, Holt said it's much safer than in the past. "Modern nuclear power in the world is not your grandfather's nuclear power," Holt said. Lobbyists for the larger business community say that without nuclear as a viable alternative, the United States simply will not have the energy it needs to keep the economy afloat if carbon emissions are severely restricted. "The environmentalists say it's a poison pill, but if you don't have nuclear you can't reduce CO2 or you don't have much energy," said Bill Kovacs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "There is no way in the world that you can even consider addressing the reductions in CO2 without large-scale deployment of nuclear energy." Otherwise, he said, a carbon cap would "devastate our economy." Cap and trade incentivizes nuclear power Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //markoff <In addition to these potential direct subsidies to nuclear power, a carbon cap and trade scheme also provides other direct and indirect subsidies to nuclear power. By raising the cost of competing fossil fuel based power, nuclear generators enjoy a competitive price advantage and can raise their own prices. 26 Even more directly, because of the way that electrical generation capacity is allocated and priced by the Independent Systems Operator for each state, any increase [*233] in the price for fossil fuel based electricity provided by the lowest marginal cost supplier is automatically passed on to the nuclear generators, which are usually base-load generators. 27>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

18

LINK – CARBON TAX
A carbon tax will jumpstart nuclear power Murray, 08 - senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (Ian, National Review, “Nuclear Power? – Yes please”, 6/16, lexis) //DH In all the hysteria about global warming, environmentalists have, for the most part, agreed on one thing above all -- that the use of fossil fuels must be made more expensive. Every proposal currently under consideration for the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions seeks to raise prices as a brake on emissions, through either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. Once this expense is included in the calculations, nuclear power becomes extremely competitive, and remains considerably cheaper than wind power. The Congressional Budget Office found that nuclear power is the most attractive source of electricity once the price of carbon emissions reaches $45 a ton. If natural-gas prices increase as rapidly as they have done recently, then that figure will come down even further. The British-government review found that nuclear provides "economic benefit regardless of the carbon price." Moreover, it provides carbon reductions much more cheaply than wind power does. Using nuclear power, it costs 60 cents to eliminate a ton of CO2 emissions, as opposed to a staggering $100 per ton for onshore wind power. It is true that a carbon tax amounts to a subsidy for nuclear power. But if carbon emissions are to be taxed, then that is the only subsidy that nuclear power will ever need. Carbon tax stimulates nuclear power Nunn, 04- Senator of the United States, chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (Sam, “A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy”. Pg. 197-198) //DG Another way to level the playing field for new nuclear power plants is through the imposition of carbon taxes on coal and gas plants. MIT's analysis shows that if the government enacted a policy of reducing carbon emissions through a tax, nuclear power becomes an economically competitive baseload option. The MIT study reaches the conclusion that even at the far end of its range for nuclear power costs (6.7 cents/ Jwh), nuclear starts to be economic when the carbon tax on coal or gas reaches the level of $100 per ton of carbon. If we assume the costs of new nuclear power plants will be less than the high forecast because of improvements in the licensing and construction processes, then nuclear would be the preferable option at a tax level of $50/tC.36 Nuclear power isn’t profitable, carbon tax increases viability Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 31) Unfavorable economics. Most operating nuclear plants are economical to operate when costs going forward are considered, i.e. when sunk capital and construction costs are ignored. However, new plants appear to be more expensive than alternate sources of base load generation, notably coal and natural gas fired electricity generation, when both capital and operating costs are taken into account. Coal plants have capital costs intermediate between those of gas and nuclear. Even with SO2 and NOx controls that meet U.S. new source performance standards, new coal plants are widely perceived to be less costly than nuclear plants. However, if CO2 emissions were in the future to become subject to control and a significant “price” placed on emissions, the relative economics could become much more favorable to nuclear power.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

19

LINK – CARBON TAX
Carbon tax leads to nuclear power investment Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 51) From a societal cost perspective, all external social costs of electricity generation should be reflected in the price. Here we consider the cost of CO2 emissions and not other externalities; for example we ignore the costs of other air pollutants from fossil fuel combustion and nuclear proliferation and waste issues (except for including the costs of new coal plants to meet new source performance standards). Nuclear looks more attractive when the cost of CO2 emissions is taken into account. Unlike gas and coal-fired plants, nuclear plants produce no carbon dioxide during operation and do not contribute to global climate change. Accordingly, it is natural to explore what the comparative social cost of nuclear power would be, if carbon emissions were “priced” to reflect the marginal cost of achieving global carbon emissions stabilization and reduction targets.15 Future United States policies regarding carbon emissions are uncertain at the present time. Carbon taxes will incentivize nuclear power Tomain, 5 - Dean Emeritus and the Wilbert & Helen Ziegler Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati (Joseph P, “NUCLEAR FUTURES,” 15 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 221, Spring 2005)//markoff <In order to make nuclear power cost competitive with either coal or natural gas, government financial support is necessary. The Chicago Study argues that through a combination of government loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation, investment tax credits, and production tax credits, together with some aggressive assumptions about [*242] construction and management, nuclear power can become cost competitive. 103 The necessary financial support is significant. Production tax credits alone could provide $ 6 billion to $ 19.5 billion to the nuclear industry. 104 These tax credits were proposed in the energy legislation that failed in Congress in 2003. 105 More specifically, in that legislation, nuclear plant operators would be given 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity generating capacity in new nuclear plants. 106 The Chicago Study concludes, however, by noting that "no single financial policy alone can definitely be counted on to bring about nuclear competitiveness by 2015." 107 Another form of financial incentive is, in effect, a reverse subsidy, through which a carbon tax is levied on fossil fuels for the purpose of making nuclear power cost competitive with coal and natural gas as those prices rise. 108 In addition to the financial incentives listed in the Chicago Study, the federal government has also been urged to assist the RDD&D - research, design, development, and demonstration - of new nuclear technologies such as advanced and standardized reactor designs at a suggested $ 2 billion over the next ten years. 109>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

20

LINK – COAL REGULATIONS
Coal regulations encourage nuclear power Kriz, 03 (Margaret, National Journal, 10/4, “Still Radioactive,” lexis) //DH Coal is nuclear power's main competitor when it comes to providing the massive amounts of "base-load" electricity that now fuels industries and lights up the cities. About 50 percent of the nation's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. Little wonder, then, that some nuclear-industry analysts are pinning their hopes on global warming. Coal-fired power plants are the chief artificial source of carbon dioxide, which scientists have tied to climate-change problems. If the federal government were to regulate those emissions -- something Bush has promised not to do -- the price of electricity from coal plants could rise, making nuclear power more competitive.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

21

AT: NO LINK – WILL SHIFT TO RENEWABLES OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Current subsidies make nuclear power more cost effective than renewables or efficiency Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884) Achieving greater energy efficiency, however, also requires ending the lopsided system of taxpayer nuclear subsidies that encourage the myth of inexpensive electricity from atomic power. Since 1949, the U.S. government has provided about $165 billion in subsidies to nuclear energy, about $5 billion to solar and wind together, and even less to energy-efficiency programs. All government efficiency programs—to encourage use of fuel-efficient cars, for example, or to provide financial assistance so that low-income citizens can insulate their homes—currently receive only a small percentage of federal energy monies. Subsidies to nuclear power mean the debate is about fossil fuels vs. nuclear power – renewables and energy efficiency won’t happen Cochran, 08 - Senior Scientist, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council (Thomas, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH Subsidizing new nuclear plants through direct federal cost sharing, a production tax credit, and tens of billions in federally subsidized and guaranteed debt will not remove new- build nuclear's cost disadvantage vis-a-vis other energy sources. Rather it will tend to disguise and even prolong these cost disadvantages, thereby penalizing and slowing investments in less costly demand-side energy management programs energy efficiency, and an array of electricity supply options that can provide carbon offsets more quickly, cheaply and safely than nuclear power. Unlike the wind and solar industries, after fifty years of operations, the nuclear reactor industry displays no consistent trend toward lower unit costs in manufacturing and construction, so it seems unlikely that further subsidies at this late date will serve to catalyze major cost reductions.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

22

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – EXTINCTION
Nuclear power risks extinction Oda, 2000 – Lecturer at the United Nations NGO Forum and Women of Vision Conference in Washington, D.C. as well as founder of the organization Plutonium Free Future (Mayumi, “From Nuclear Patriarchy to Solar Community” from “Learning to Glow”, ed. John Bradley, pg. 292-293) General Charles Horner, head of the U.S. Aerospace Defense Command, has admitted to the world at large that nuclear weapons are obsolete. No civilized nation would use them on the cities of an adversary. But we all know that small bands of fanatics or terrorists might. After more than fifty years of the Nuclear Age, and now that the Cold War is over, we are truly facing nuclear terror. In 1941, American scientist Glenn Seaborg succeeded in isolating plutonium, an element whose nucleus can be split. Splitting the atom created extremely toxic by- products and released tremendous power. At that moment something happened to us. A thorn of violence stuck in the flesh of our Earth and started to infect us. Gaining the power of gods, we left a lethal legacy to our children and future generations, just as King Midas inadvertently sacrificed his daughter to his greed. This lethal legacy is about to become out of control. Children have been living under the fear of the possibility of not being survived by anybody. We face the extinction of our species. Fear of total nuclear death is the source of the violence of our time. Until we remove the thorn of plutonium from the world, that wound of violence will fester and never heal. Out of guilt, the scientists felt there had to be some peaceful use, some way to redeem the horror they had created. Thus, nuclear energy came to the world. Decades of research led finally to fuel reprocessing and prototype fastbreeder reactors that forever produce more fuel than they use. In Japan this is called "the dream energy." It is a dream of unending wealth and power, the oldest dream of mankind, an alchemy transmuting common lead into unlimited quantities of gold, the myth of Midas and of Faust.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

23

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – MELTDOWNS SHELL
An accident is inevitable – more power plants increase the probability of catastrophic meltdowns Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //markoff <Every operating nuclear power plant poses some risk of a severe accident, including an uncontrolled nuclear reaction that leads to core meltdown and potentially huge releases of radioactivity into the environment. The nuclear industry estimates the chances of a severe reactor accident to be about one out of every 10,000 reactor years of operation. 98 While this may sound like a small risk, it means that with 100 operating nuclear power plants in the United States, we can expect one severe accident every 100 years. If these 100 plants keep operating indefinitely into the future, or are replaced in kind to mitigate global carbon emissions, a severe reactor accident is virtually certain in this country in the future. Moreover, if we were to construct the 200 additional nuclear power plants in this country necessary to meet the Phase I carbon [*244] reductions contemplated by the Kyoto Protocol, 99 that same one-in-ten thousand chance of a severe reactor accident would turn into an expectation of one severe reactor accident every thirty years. Combined with all the other nuclear reactors around the world - and assuming that all such reactors are at least as safe and well operated as those in the United States - severe nuclear reactor accidents would be expected to occur ever few years.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

24

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – MELTDOWNS SHELL
Meltdowns could also occur from terrorism – either way it would cause extinction Wasserman, 01 - Senior Editor – Free Press (Harvey, “America's Terrorist Nuclear Threat to Itself”, October, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2001/10/00_wasserman_nuclear-threat.htm) The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest anywhere on the planet. So are the hellish levels of radioactivity.
Because Indian Point has operated so long, its accumulated radioactive burden far exceeds that of Chernobyl, which ran only four years before it exploded. Some believe the WTC jets could have collapsed or breached either of the Indian Point containment domes. But at very least the massive impact and intense jet fuel fire would destroy the human ability to control the plants' functions. Vital cooling systems, backup power generators and communications networks would crumble. Indeed, Indian Point Unit One was shut because activists warned that its lack of an emergency core cooling system made it an unacceptable risk. The government ultimately agreed. But today terrorist attacks could destroy those same critical cooling and control systems that are vital to not only the Unit Two and Three reactor cores, but to the spent fuel pools that sit on site.

The assault would not require a large jet. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible. One or more could be wiped out with a wide range of easily deployed small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the operating work force. Dozens of US reactors have repeatedly failed even modest security tests over the years. Even heightened wartime standards cannot guarantee protection of the vast, supremely sensitive controls required for reactor safety. Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson.
Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds from the north and west might initially drive these clouds of mass death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds ultimately shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery torrent. At Indian Point, thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. In nearby communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Virtually all pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions. A terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by the fliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and by victims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description.

Indeed, those

who survived the initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not.

Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and highways would become killing fields for those attempting to escape to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian Point, such missions would be a sure ticket to death. Their

the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing ever more devastation into the ecosphere. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up. They are dying in droves. Who would now volunteer for such an American
utility would be doubtful as task force? The radioactive cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast Ukraine and Belarus landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, surging through the west coast of the United States within ten days, carrying across our northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back again.

The radioactive clouds from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. The World Trade Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet crash at Indian Point
than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital would be forever lost. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural eco-systems on which human and all other life depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed,

Spiritually, psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover.
This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New York City on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this.

There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse now operating in the United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity,
just 8% of our total energy. As with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact on life in New York. Already an extremely expensive source of electricity

, the cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put nuclear energy even further off the competitive

scale.
Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually with increased efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect. Yet, as the bombs fall and the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass destruction, and then shielding from liability the companies that insist on continuing to operate them? Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so,

the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.

This shields us from impact turns - one major accident will destroy all investment in nuclear power Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. ix)CP
Nuclear power is exorbitantly expensive, and notoriously unreliable. Wall Street is deeply reluctant to re-involve itself in any nuclear investment, despite the fact that in the 2005 Energy Bill the U.S. Congress allocated $13 billion in subsidies to revive a moribund nuclear power industry. To compound this problem, the global supplies of usable uranium fuel are finite. If the entire world's electricity production were replaced today by nuclear energy, there would be less than nine more years of accessible uranium. But even if certain corporate interests are convinced that nuclear power at the moment might be a beneficial investment, one major accident at a nuclear reactor that induces

a meltdown would destroy all such investments and signal the end of nuclear power forever.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

25

MELTDOWN RISK HIGH - EARTHQUAKES
Earthquakes in the United States threaten nuclear melt downs and environmental disasters Gunter, 07- Staff writer for beyond nuclear (Linda “Beyond Nuclear” JULY 18, 2007, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0718-14.htm) MARYLAND — JULY 18— The extensive damage at a seven-reactor nuclear power plant in Japan after an earthquake this week is stoking concern that U.S. reactors and other nuclear facilities may also be vulnerable to releases of deadly radioactivity into the environment due to earthquakes.
Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa atomic power plant, the largest in the world in terms of electricity output, suffered 50 cases of “malfunctioning and trouble” after a 6.7 tremor struck nearby two days ago. Radioactively contaminated water, now calculated at more than 600 gallons, leaked into the Pacific Ocean and an estimated 400 barrels containing radioactive waste tipped over, with 10% of the lids falling off. Hazardous radioactive isotopes, cobalt-60 and chromium-51, were emitted into the atmosphere from an exhaust stack. Concerns that a similar event could happen here are confirmed by an incident in August 2004, when an earthquake in Illinois broke an underground pipe attached to one of the Dresden nuclear power plant’s radioactive waste condensate storage tanks. The broken pipe was leaking tritium (a harmful, radioactive form of hydrogen) into groundwater, creating an expanding underground plume of hazardous radioactive contamination.

Several U.S. atomic reactors may be especially vulnerable to earthquakes. The twin reactor Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, California was already built before it was discovered that an earthquake fault line associated with the infamous San Andreas Fault lay just offshore in the Pacific Ocean. Fires, such as the one that broke out in Japan, are also a legitimate U.S. concern. “Earthquakes are notorious for sparking fires, which could spell disaster at U.S. nuclear power plants given that many are not in compliance with safety regulations for fire protection and reactor shutdown systems,” said Paul Gunter, the nuclear industry watchdog at Beyond Nuclear, and an expert on nuclear plant fire protection. “An earthquake-sparked inferno, or failure to safely shut down a reactor, could lead to a meltdown, catastrophic release of radioactivity, and deadly fallout hundreds of miles downwind and downstream,” Gunter added.
A 1982 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report, known as CRAC-2, shows that a major accident at a U.S. atomic reactor could cause tens to hundreds of thousands of radiation-related deaths and injuries, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of property damage. Risks extend to the radioactive wastes stored on-site at U.S. reactors as well. Environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit last month against the NRC for failing to enforce its earthquake safety regulations for outdoor storage of high-level radioactive wastes at the Palisades atomic reactor on the shores of Lake Michigan. The lake supplies drinking water for Chicago and millions downstream.“An earthquake could bury the containers under sand

causing the nuclear fuel rods to overheat, or could even submerge them under the waters of Lake Michigan,” said Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Watchdog at Beyond Nuclear. “This could initiate a nuclear chain reaction in the wastes making emergency response a suicide mission. In either case, it would amount to a radiological disaster for Lake Michigan and the millions who depend on it for drinking water.” Earthquake risks also plague the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada dumpsite for commercial and military high-level radioactive wastes. Nearly three dozen earthquake fault lines are in the vicinity, and two faults actually intersect the proposed burial spot. Many hundreds of tremors larger than 2.5 on the Richter scale have struck within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain since 1975. One
jolt, measuring 5.4 on the Richter scale, struck just ten miles from Yucca Mountain in 1992, doing extensive damage to the U.S. Department of Energy’s field office at the site. Critics fear that a major earthquake at the dump site could cause a radiological catastrophe by damaging

waste handling surface facilities planned for the site, or could cause tunnel collapses that would breach waste burial containers, spilling their deadly contents into the drinking water aquifer below. Natural Disasters pose an enormous threat to nuclear reactors, tsunamis and earthquakes have the potential to set off nuclear meltdowns. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 87-88)CP Many nuclear power plants around the world are susceptible to the effects of tsunamis because they are located by the sea, from whence they extract their cooling water. In 2004, a tsunami struck a reactor in India; although it did not induce a major
accident, it did cause a degree of damage. The height of the tsunami that originated off the coast of Thailand in December 2004 was a massive ninety-eight feet. In California, the reactor at Humbolt Bay is only twelve feet above sea level. Although it is now closed down, it still contains much of its highly radioactive fuel. Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, both also in California, are similarly vulnerable to tsunamis and are also located adjacent to earthquake faults.

Although nuclear reactors are designed to withstand serious earthquakes, a quake large enough could trigger a very severe accident. This is true as well for many of the reactors in Japan, a country ridden with earthquake faults, and for many other earthquake-prone countries. Pacific Gas and Electric, the company that owns the Humboldt Bay reactor, decided to close it down because of the risk that an earthquake could trigger a severe accident.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

26

MELTDOWN RISK HIGH - WARMNG
Global warming increases the risk of reactor meltdowns Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 86-87)CP The impact of global warming presents a very serious situation for nuclear energy for several reasons: Global warming can induce unpredicted and extreme weather events that could heat up the rivers and lakes from which nuclear power plants extract their cooling water. An adequate supply of water itself may also cease to exist as drought conditions take over. Nuclear power plants were designed thirty to forty years ago, before the advent of global warming was considered, and nuclear regulations are not cognizant of global warming. Current regulators tend to minimize the risk. For instance, Scott Burnell, a spokesman at NRC, said new power plant guidelines were unnecessary, because "global warming occurs on such a slow scale that we would be able to deal with any changes at an operational level as opposed to a policy level." 19 The extrusion of very hot water from reactors poses an enormous risk to aquatic life already feeling the stresses of global warming. Five or six years of water temperatures lethal for salmon could induce extinction in certain areas . As temperatures rise, so the human need for more airconditioning and more electricity to drive air conditioners increases. This then becomes a vicious cycle: more heat, more air conditioners, more electricity, more CO2 production, and more stress upon nuclear power plants and their associated environment.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

27

AT: NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE – SAFETY REGULATIONS
Your models are flawed – nuclear power is dangerous and safety regulations aren’t enforced Tomain, 5 - Dean Emeritus and the Wilbert & Helen Ziegler Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati (Joseph P, “NUCLEAR FUTURES,” 15 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 221, Spring 2005)//markoff <The Union of Concerned Scientists has for decades served as the watchdog group over matters of reactor safety. Not surprisingly then, their recent study concentrates on the safety features of nuclear power and concludes that "by failing to consistently enforce the regulations, the NRC exposes millions of Americans to greater risk than necessary." 126 The UCS argues that one must not think about the safety of nuclear power plants in a linear way. Instead, safety assumptions [*245] must be made along what they term a "bathtub curve." 127 By this term, the UCS means that risk starts high in the initial years of a plants life as they are coming online, abating for a period of time until the plant's become older, during which time safety concerns increase. In other words, for those advocates of nuclear power, their assertions that plants are enjoying good safety records is true along the low flat part of the bathtub curve, which is the part of the curve most plants are experiencing today. 128 Safety risks will increase, according to the study, as nuclear plants age. 129 The UCS then urges that NRC safety inspections must be increased, as must public participation in the relicensing process. They argue, further, that risk analyses for nuclear power are inadequate, and that if nuclear power is to be given a true market test, then Price-Anderson Act protection must be eliminated, at least for new plants. In other words, UCS takes the position that nuclear power cannot pass a market test and, therefore, further subsidies in the face of safety concerns are not warranted. The UCS then makes a series of recommendations, all aimed at improving NRC performance throughout the life cycle of a nuclear plant. 130> Nuclear accidents are inevitable due to poor maintenance Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK Despite objections from the Vermont Public Service Board and one of its own commissioners, the NRC recently granted a 20-percent power uprate to the 33-year-old Vermont Yankee reactor. Stuart Richards, deputy director of the NRC's Division of Inspection, says the
commission approved the power uprate after a first-time pilot engineering inspection that included an 11,000-manhour technical review failed to find any significant safety issues. "It's not the age of the plant but the physical condition of the components and how well the facility

maintains the plant" that is important, he says. In addition, the power is being increased in NRC-monitored stages. But none of this reassures Lochbaum, who points out that this single-unit plant was badly maintained for much of its operating life, making it an especially poor candidate for a practice known to stress reactors. Applications for extended power uprates at six reactors are pending, and the NRC expects nine more through 2011. The NRC says it is doing a smarter job of regulating the industry today by pinpointing areas likely to need more attention. "The agency and the industry as a whole over the last 10 to 15 years have developed better and better tools to determine what is risk-significant and what is less risk-significant," Richards explains. "So in some cases where in the past we have required more maintenance or surveillance, now those requirements are less stringent, because the components have been demonstrated to be less significant." In other cases, he says, performing too much maintenance can be detrimental, because the components are needed to do their job, and they can be tested "to the point where it causes them to have degradation."
Lochbaum says the flaw in that logic is well illustrated by a near miss at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio. In 2002 it was discovered that boric acid escaping from the reactor for several years had eaten a 15-centimeter hole in the reactor vessel's steel lid, leaving a thin layer of stainless steel bulging outward from the pressure. Boric acid had been observed on the vessel head in 1996, 1998, and again in 2000, and NRC staff drafted an order in November 2001 to shut Davis-Besse down for a safety inspection. NRC nevertheless allowed the reactor to continue operating until February 2002, when plant workers almost accidentally found the hole. If the reactor head had burst, the reactor would likely have melted down. Lochbaum and former NRC commissioner Peter Bradford say the Davis-Besse incident and numerous others indicate that the agency seems to be more interested in the short-term economic interest of the nuclear industry than in carrying out its mission to protect public health and safety. Bradford points to an internal NRC survey in 2002 revealing that nearly half of all NRC employees thought they would be retaliated against if they raised safety concerns, and that of those who did report problems, one-third said they suffered harassment as a result. Several critics say the safety culture of the commission changed after Senator Pete Domenici-perhaps the nuclear industry's biggest champion in Congress-told the NRC chairman in 1998 that he would cut the agency's budget by a third if it didn't reverse its "adversarial attitude" toward the industry.

Given the regulatory environment and an aging fleet of reactors, Lochbaum fears that another serious accident is inevitable. He uses the analogy of a slot machine, but instead of oranges, bananas, and cherries, the winning combination is an initiating event, like a broken pipe or a fire; equipment failure; and human error. "As the plants get older, we're starting to see the wheels come up more often, which suggests it's only a matter of time before all three come up at once," he says.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

28

AT: NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE – SAFETY REGULATIONS
Lax nuclear oversight and aging reactors means U.S. accident risk is high Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK The U.S. nuclear fleet has substantially increased its "capacity factor" (for a given period, the output of a generating unit as a percentage of total possible output if run at full power) since 1980. However, David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), points out that since the Three Mile Island accident in central Pennsylvania in 1979,45 reactors (out of 104 operating U.S. units) have been shut down longer than one year to restore safety margins. A nuclear engineer by training, Lochbaum left the industry after 17 years when he and a co-worker were unable to get their employer or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to address safety issues at the Susquehanna plant in northeastern Pennsylvania. (The problem at that plant and others across the country was corrected after they testified before Congress.) For the last 10 years Lochbaum has been at UCS monitoring the safety of the nations nuclear power plants and raising concerns with the NRC. He does not share the industry's confidence in the safety of the current fleet. Nuclear power plants are incredibly complex systems that perform a relatively simple task: heating water to create steam that spins a turbine and generates electricity. Lochbaum explains that nuclear plant safety problems tend to follow a bathtub curve: the greatest number come at the beginning of a reactor's life, then after a few years when the plant is "broken in" and staff are familiar with its specific needs, problems drop and level off until the plant begins to age. Most of the current U.S. fleet is either in or entering its twilight years, and since the late 1990s the NRC has allowed reactors to increase the amount of electricity they generate by up to 20 percent, which exceeds what the plants were designed to handle. Such "power uprates" push greater volumes of cooling water through the plant, causing more wear and tear on pipes and other equipment. The agency has also granted 20year license extensions to 39 reactors, and most of the rest are expected to apply before their initial 40-year licenses expire. At the same time, Lochbaum says, the NRC is cutting back on the amount and frequency of safety tests and inspections. Tests that were carried out quarterly are now performed annually,
and once-annual tests are now done when reactors are shut down for refueling, about every two years.

The NRC maintains that it is providing adequate oversight to keep the public safe and prevent serious reactor accidents.
Gary Holahan, an official in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, explains that extended power uprates, which raise the power output of a reactor between 7 and 20 percent, require modifications to the plant that involve upgrading or replacing equipment like high pressure turbines, pumps, motors, main generators, and transformers. Before a power uprate is granted, he says, the NRC must make a finding that it complies

with federal regulations and that there's "a reasonable assurance" that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. Lochbaum says the NRC's handling of the large power uprates illustrates the problems with its oversight. In an issue brief entitled "Snap, Crackle, & Pop: The BWR Power Uprate Experiment," he says the Quad Cities Unit 2 reactor in Illinois "literally began shaking itself apart at the higher power level" after operating for nearly 30 years at its originally licensed power level. After the uprate was approved, the steam dryer developed a 2.7 meter crack, and the component was replaced in May 2005. In
early April of this year, he says Quad Cities staff found a 1.5 meter crack in the new steam dryer, and they still don't know exactly what is causing the problem. After the problem was first reported, manufacturer General Electric (GE) surveyed 15 of its other boiling water reactors around the world that had been granted 20-percent power uprates and reported problems-all vibration related-in 13.

Nuclear regulation failures ensure meltdowns – we’re on the brink Makhijani, 4 - President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Arjun, “Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 61, 2004) //markoff Similarly, it would be difficult to inspect, regulate and maintain such a vast number of plants properly. Even the U.S. regulatory system is currently under considerable strain. In fact, oversight and safety are deteriorating. There [*67] have been unexpected leaks and severe corrosion problems missed by inadequate regulation. Nuclear power plant owners are operating their plants at very high capacity factors, churning out profits, while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows them to
service some safety backup equipment while the power plants are still running. 16 That makes no sense from a safety point of view. Backup systems are there in case the normal systems break down. If a break down occurs while the back system is being maintained, it will not be available in case of emergency. Consider an analogy with commercial aircraft. Commercial airlines in the United States have a reasonably good safety record. It would be unacceptable for commercial airlines to service backup equipment while in the air (if it could be arranged to save money). Yet, the present regulatory system for

nuclear power allows on-line servicing of backup equipment, even though many more lives are at stake. If that is the situation today in the wealthiest country in the world, one might imagine and shudder at the problems of nuclear safety with one large plant a week coming on line around the world. Such a world might not be a pleasant place even for nuclear boosters.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

29

XT – SAFETY STANDARDS AREN’T ENFORCED
The NRC doesn’t enforce safety standards in the U.S. Cochran, 08 - Senior Scientist, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council (Thomas, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH We concur with the findings and recommendations in the excellent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "Nuclear Power in a Warming World" (December 2007). As noted by UCS, "The United States has strong nuclear power safety standards, but serious safety problems continue to arise at U.S. nuclear power plants because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not adequately enforcing the existing standards." (p. 3) Since the United States will continue to rely on nuclear power for substantial base load electricity generation into the foreseeable future, it is essential that the safety of U.S. nuclear plants be improved. The biggest barrier to significant improvement of U.S. nuclear plant safety is the poor safety culture of the NRC. The Congress should establish an unbiased outside commission, similar to the Kemeny Commission, to report on ways to improve the NRC's safety culture. This commission should investigate failures to enforce regulations, staff deferral of safety inspections and upgrades so as not to impinge upon reactor operating schedules, pro-nuclear bias in the selection of Commissioners, senior NRC staff management and advisory committee members, the revolving door practice of NRC staff being hired from the industry it regulates and industry hiring of NRC staff, the curtailment of public's ability to engage in discovery and cross-examination during reactor licensing hearings, and other issues identified in the UCS report. Nuclear plant risk assessments are flawed – safety regulations are repeatedly violated UCS, 07(Union of Concerned Scientists, “Nuclear Reactor Air Defenses”, 2/21, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/nuclear-reactor-air-defenses-1.html //DT The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) examined how nuclear plant risk assessments are performed and how their results are used. We concluded that the risk assessments are seriously flawed and their results are being used inappropriately to increase -- not reduce -- the threat to the American public. Nuclear plant risk assessments are really not risk assessments because potential accident consequences are not evaluated. They merely examine accident probabilities -- only half of the risk equation. Moreover, the accident probability calculations are seriously flawed. They rely on assumptions that contradict actual operating experience: The risk assessments assume nuclear plants always conform with safety requirements, yet each year more than a thousand violations are reported. Plants are assumed to have no design problems even though hundreds are reported every year. Aging is assumed to result in no damage, despite evidence that aging materials killed four workers. Reactor pressure vessels are assumed to be fail-proof, even though embrittlement forced the Yankee Rowe nuclear plant to shut down. The risk assessments assume that plant workers are far less likely to make mistakes than actual operating experience demonstrates. The risk assessments consider only the threat from damage to the reactor core despite the fact that irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pools represents a serious health hazard. The results from these unrealistic calculations are therefore overly optimistic. Furthermore, the NRC requires plant owners to perform the calculations, but fails to establish minimum standards for the accident probability calculations. Thus, the reported probabilities vary widely for virtually identical plant designs. Four case
studies clearly illustrate the problem: The Wolf Creek plant in Kansas and the Callaway plant in Missouri were built as identical twins, sharing the same standardized Westinghouse design. But some events at Callaway are reported to be 10 to 20 times more likely to lead to reactor core damage than the same events at Wolf Creek. The Indian Point 2 and 3 plants share the same Westinghouse design and sit side by side in New York, but are operated by different owners. On paper, Indian Point 3 is more than 25 percent more likely to experience an accident than her sister plant. The Sequoyah and Watts Bar nuclear plants in Tennessee share the same Westinghouse design. Both are operated by the same owner. The newer plant, Watts Bar, was originally calculated to be about 13 times more likely to have an accident than her sister plant. After some recalculations, Watts Bar is now only twice as likely to have an accident. Nuclear plants designed by General Electric are equipped with a backup system to shut down the reactor in case the normal system of control rods fails. On paper, that backup system is highly reliable. Actual experience, however, shows that it has not been nearly as reliable as the risk assessments claim.

To make matters worse, the NRC is allowing plant owners to further increase risks by cutting back on tests and inspections of safety equipment. The NRC approves these reductions based on the results from incomplete and inaccurate accident probability assessments.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

30

AT: TECHNICAL SAFEGUARDS PREVENT MELTDOWNS
It is impossible to gain the amount of operating experience necessary to run a nuclear plant safely, safety systems only add to the problem. Grimston & Beck, 2 - *Director of Talks for UK Atomic Energy Authority, Adviser to British Nuclear Industry Forum, and Senior Research fellow at Imperial College, University of London. **Chemical Engineer, retired planning director for Shell UK Ltd and former president of European Strategic Planning Federation. (Malcolm C. Grimston and Peter Beck, Double or Quits?: The Global Future of Civil Nuclear Energy, p.172 ) However, although reactor safety has almost certainly been improved in recent years, the possibility of large-scale off-site emissions cannot be eliminated entirely. Nor can calculated levels of safety be checked against operating experience, because enough operating experience can never be gained. Some commentators argue that increasing the complexity of the hierarchy of engineered safety systems may even introduce extra hazards. For example, the safety systems themselves might interact in unexpected ways, there could be unrevealed faults within them or the ability of operators to understand what is happening may be compromised by increasing complexity. Organizational inadequacies at plants lead to failure to comply with safety mechanisms Grimston & Beck, 2 - *Director of Talks for UK Atomic Energy Authority, Adviser to British Nuclear Industry Forum, and Senior Research fellow at Imperial College, University of London. **Chemical Engineer, retired planning director for Shell UK Ltd and former president of European Strategic Planning Federation. (Malcolm C. Grimston and Peter Beck, Double or Quits?: The Global Future of Civil Nuclear Energy, p.158-159 ) An intermediate class of errors can be identified that is 'organizational' in character. Organizational inadequacies might involve excess pressure on operators to ignore safety procedures (or indeed inadequate safety procedures in the first place); poor management or other factors leading to low morale; poor supervision of operations; and a poor flow of information through the operating utility. These factors can result in operators quite deliberately acting contrary to safety and other operating codes or being unaware of them. (This collection of managerial and operational attitudes is often called the 'safety culture', a term that stresses the need for all concerned to regard safety as the highest priority.) In cases of organizational shortcomings, the term human 'error' would not seem to be appropriate.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

31

AT: NEW REACTOR DESIGNS SOLVE ACCIDENTS
New reactor designs rely on theoretical modeling that overlooks real world cost cutting measures Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK Nuclear proponents claim the new advanced designs are much safer. Unlike current plants with their multiple back-up systems, the new "passive safety" designs, such as Westinghouse's AP1000 pressurized water reactor (PWR) and GE's ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor) and ESBWR (Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor), rely on gravity rather than an army of pumps to push the water up into the reactor vessel and through the cooling system. Because the systems are smaller, there are fewer components to break. Physicist Ed Lyman, a colleague of Lochbaum's at UCS who has been studying the new designs, is skeptical of the safety claims of the passive designs. He explains that slashing costs, particularly of piping and the enormously expensive steelreinforced rebar concrete, motivated the new LWR designs, not safety. It was thought that if the power output of the reactors was lower, a gravity-driven system could dump water into the reactor core without the need for forced circulation and its miles of pipes and accompanying equipment. Numerous tests of the gravity-driven water system for the AP600, the smaller predecessor to the AP1000, showed the 1 system worked, and NRC certified the design. However, the current trend in reactors is for larger units with higher output. The cost of the AP600 wasn't low enough to offset the loss in generation capacity, so none sold. The AP600 then morphed into the AP1000. GE's new "passive safety" designs followed a similar trajectory beginning with a 600-megawatt design, the SBWR (Simplified Boiling Water Reactor). The company's next design, the ABWR, was 1,350 megawatts, and its ESBWR is 1,560. The NRC recently certified the AP1000. Lyman is concerned the agency is relying on computer modeling rather than experimental data to demonstrate that gravity-driven cooling will work in these much larger designs. He's also troubled that the containment structures of the new PWRs are less robust than those in the current fleet. NRC's Gary Holahan acknowledges that the agency relied on the tests from the AP600 and computer modeling for the AP1000, but says that after extensive review by the commission's technical staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, it determined that additional testing was not necessary. Nor does the NRC have any concerns about the thickness of the AP1000's containment dome compared to those of existing PWRs. Modeling for new designs is never adequate Makhijani and Saleska, 96 - * President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California
at Berkeley **NASA Global Change Fellow, NSF Doctoral Dissertation Grantee (Arjun, Scott, The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “The Nuclear Power Deception,” April 1996, http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd7.html)//NHH

These cautionary statements raise another crucial concern: the possibility that in designing to eliminate certain nowcommonly recognized accident possibilities, new accident scenarios will be unwittingly introduced. As a survey of advanced designs by Britain's Atomic Energy Agency concluded, Safety arguments, in many cases, are very underdeveloped, making it difficult to gauge if the reactor is any safer than traditional systems. [Advanced reactor] designers tend to concentrate... on one particular aspect such as a [loss-of-coolant accident], and replace all the systems for dealing with that with passive ones. In so doing, they ignore other known transients or transients possibly novel to their design.216 This is an important warning. Nuclear technology is complex, and it has taken many years of analysis and experience to even recognize the existence or the possibility of some accident possibilities for the four-decade-old light water reactor. The history of nuclear power development is replete with instances of incidents occurring at operating power plants which had not previously been thought possible. This is even true of the meltdown scenario discussed above, which was not even recognized as a safety issue until the mid-1960s -- over a decade after the decision to build the Shippingport reactor. In view of this history
and the complexity of reactors, it would be prudent to anticipate that similar unexpected discoveries may be encountered in the development of a new generation of reactors based on any new design.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

32

AT: GENERATION IV REACTORS SOLVE SAFETY
Breeder and Fast Reactors are extremely volatile and could conceivably release a deadly radioactive cloud during an accident Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 124-125)CP Nuclear power reactors are prone to two types of accidents: (1) loss of coolant accidents, and (2) reactivity excursion accidents. Loss of coolant accidents occur when the heat produced by the reactor core cannot be removed, causing the nuclear fuel to overheat and melt. Reactivity excursion accidents occur when control of the reactor core is lost, causing a runaway nuclear reaction and the release of considerable amounts of energy. The 1957 accident at Windscale in the United Kingdom occurred because of operator error, when the reactor overheated and the graphite moderator caught fire.27 The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in the United States was also a loss of coolant accident, while the 1961 accident at SL-l at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in the United States and the 1986 accident at Chernobyl in the Ukraine were reactivity excursion accidents. As indicated below, breeder and fast reactors can increase both the probability and the consequences from loss of coolant and reactivity excursion accidents. Breeder reactors are designed to manufacture large quantities of plutonium. They are usually cooled with liquid sodium that removes the heat but does not slow down the fast neutrons. However liquid sodium metal burns and explodes when exposed to water or air. Great care (i.e., cost) must be taken to ensure zero leakage from vessels, piping, valves, and pumps containing liquid sodium because the resulting explosion can trigger a loss of coolant accident. In addition, it is dangerous to use fast neutrons rather than slow neutrons. Slow neutrons provide greater response time for equipment and operators, in the event of a reactivity excursion accident, which could possibly be stopped before reaching a tragic release of radiation. Fast neutrons, on the other hand, provide very little time or margin for error. And finally, the operation of a reactor core with higher concentrations of plutonium also means that the combined fission products and plutonium are a nastier brew than produced from today's reactor cores, permitting a deadlier radioactive cloud to be released during an accident at a breeder or fast reactor. Generation IV nuclear reactor designs will only increase the price and lower the safety levels. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 121)CP Whereas the Generation III and III+ reactor designs represent evolutionary changes from their Generation I and II predecessors, the Generation IV reactors are revolutionary. The Generation IV reactor designs rely on fuel and plant performance that have not been tested, yet alone proven to be achievable. For example, many of these designs require metals to resist corrosive conditions far more challenging than those experienced to date. It seems doubtful that the Generation IV designs will successfully meet these daunting challenges and will instead experience higher costs and lower safety levels than anticipated by the nuclear industry.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

33

AT: GENERATION IV REACTORS SOLVE SAFETY
Generation IV nuclear reactor designs simply don’t pan out. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 121-123)CP Hand in glove with the call for new nuclear power reactors has been the renewed call for "closing" the nuclear fuel cycle. The United States uses an "open" fuel cycle in which uranium is mined from the ground, enriched to the concentration needed for Generation II light water reactors, and then discarded with its waste products. Closing the fuel cycle involves "mining" the spent fuel from reactors for its plutonium, which will then be re-utilized in nuclear power reactors. This concept is called the Plutonium Economy. Plutonium is produced as a byproduct from the generation of electricity by all nuclear power reactors. Approximately 95% of the uranium in nuclear reactor fuel is the isotope U-238. When U-238 atoms capture neutrons bouncing around the reactor core, they are converted into the plutonium Pu-239 isotope, which can then be used to fuel nuclear power reactors. It can also be used to make nuclear weapons. The physical process for extracting and using plutonium, however, is complicated and very dangerous. First, spent fuel rods are chopped into small pieces and dissolved in a vat of concentrated nitric acid. Plutonium and unused uranium are then recovered from this radioactive cauldron. This is called reprocessing. Approximately 94% of the spent fuel from a light water reactor is composed of unused uranium, 1 % is plutonium, while intensely radioactive fission products account for 5%. The plutonium and some recovered uranium are fashioned into ceramic pellets, which are then packed into fuel rods and placed into a reactor core. However, contrary to its name, a closed fuel cycle does not eliminate the need for disposal of highly radioactive wastes. A closed fuel cycle incorporates a reprocessing plant and fuel fabrication plant at the reactor site, to reprocess the spent fuel, to extract plutonium and uranium, and to recycle these elements back into the reactor core. Reprocessing, as we have discussed, is the most dangerous part of the nuclear fuel cycle, besieged by dangerous environmental radioactive releases, worker contamination, and terrible problems implicit in the disposal of millions of gallons of intensely corrosive acidic radioactive liquid waste, which remain after the uranium and plutonium extraction. An MIT study estimated the cost of a closed fuel cycle would be 4.5 times higher than that of an open, non-reprocessing cycle.26 Apart from the higher expense, it is terribly dangerous to reprocess spent fuel to obtain plutonium that can then also be used by countries to make nuclear weapons. Although plutonium is produced as a byproduct from operation of Generation I and II nuclear power reactors, the majority of these reactors are light water reactors, which are also called "thermal reactors" because they require "slow" or "thermal" neutrons. When atoms fission, or split, they release energy and fast neutrons. The uranium fuel used in Generation I and II reactors is not designed to handle fast neutrons, so water or graphite is used to slow down or "moderate" the fast neutrons. This moderation enables the "slow" neutrons to interact with uranium fuel atoms to cause additional fissions, which produces more therrnal and electrical generation. But moderation impedes the efficient conversion of U-238 atoms into plutonium, since those atoms prefer fast neutrons. Some of the Generation IV reactors are "breeders" while others are "fast reactors." Such reactors were specifically designed to use fast neutrons to promote the conversion of U-238 atoms into Pu-239 atoms. These reactors therefore do not use water or graphite to slow or moderate neutrons. In the breeders, the conversion process is designed to be self-sustaining, so that the problem of scarce supplies of uranium will be mitigated. Plutonium would be harvested from the spent fuel, placed in reactors, and fissioned producing electricity, thus solving the energy problem that confronts the human race. But this utopian dream did not eventuate, because major problems developed with breeder and fast reactors.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

34

AT: PEBBLE BED REACTORS SOLVE SAFETY
PBMR reactors leak radioactive helium, and contain the potential to create graphite fires similar to the Chernobyl meltdown. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 119-121)CP One of the potentially more dangerous Generation III reactors on the drawing board is' the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), sometimes referred to as Generation III+. This PBMR is another attempt to reduce capital costs by an "inherently" safe design that requires fewer safety features. These reactors were contemplated during the 1970s into the late 1980s, and prototype plants were developed, which operated for short periods of time in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Then the nuclear industry became plagued by cost over-runs and two dreadful accidents. The Pebble Bed Reactor is a high temperature, gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), which operates at 900 degrees centigrade and is cooled by helium gas circulating at high pressures. The fissionable fuel consists of billions of microspheres or kernels of enriched uranium oxycarbide, which is coated with two layers of pyrolytic carbon and one layer of silicon carbon; this combination is sealed in graphite spheres. Each reactor will contain up to 10 billion uranium fuel kernels covered by the graphite or carbon coating, which is supposed to prevent fission products escaping from the radioactive kernels. A total of 400,000 of these tennis ball-sized graphite fuel assemblies or "pebbles" will be fed continuously from a fuel silo into the reactor core. The nuclear industry postulates that the slow circulation of the pebbles through the core will produce a small core size, which will reduce excessive reactivity in the core, while lowering the power density, thus minimizing the danger of a meltdown. These conditions/they say, will make the PBMR so safe that it will not be necessary to construct a containment building. (Conveniently, this means that the reactor will also be much cheaper to build.) It is even claimed by prospective reactor operators that this particular power plant is "walk-away-safe," meaning that operators could leave the site and the reactor would never enter a critical condition or crisis. Should the core temperatures for any reason-during an unexpected accident triggered by human or mechanical error-exceed 1,600 degrees centigrade, however, the carbon coating would fail (at the same temperature that zirconium would oxidize and burn, as in most other currently operating reactors) thus initiating the release of massive quantities of radioactive isotopes.'? The radioactive kernels themselves would melt if temperatures went above 2,000 degrees centigrade. This situation would induce a graphite fire similar to Chernobyl. Other problems include the design of the cooling system. If air were to enter the primary helium circuit, the carbon coating of the kernels could spontaneously ignite, causing a severe graphite fire with catastrophic radioactive releases similar to Chernobyl. And although the reactors themselves will be located underground, the two steam turbine generators and the reactor cavity cooling system will be above ground, making them extremely vulnerable to sabotage and fires.21 Other problems beset the PBMR: • It is difficult to prevent radioactive helium leaking from the PBMR reactor. 22 • It is difficult to fabricate hundreds of thousands of fuel pebbles without imperfections. • The PBMR creates less low-level waste but a greater volume of high-level waste. • PBMRs achieve their economic advantages by replacing the steel-lined, reinforced-concrete containment structures with a far less robust enclosure building. Even the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards calls this "a major safety tradeoff.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

35

AT: EMPIRICALLY – THERE’S NEVER BEEN AN ACCIDENT
Nuclear power risks accidents – empirically probable Sovacool, 07 - Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech (Benjamin, “What's Really Wrong With Nuclear Power?,” 11/30, http://scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2007/11/What-s-Really-Wrong-With-Nuclear-Power/) //DH As if this wasn’t enough, the safety record of nuclear plants worldwide is extremely questionable. More than 90 nuclear accidents, defined as incidents that either resulted in death or more than $50,000 of property damage, have occurred worldwide since the 1970s, according to data from the Union of Concerned Scientists and International Energy Agency. That’s more than two incidents every year, including dozens this past decade. Nuclear Power Plants are prone to malfunction – current unplanned shutdowns prove UCS, 6 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Improving Long Shutdowns Prove Nuclear Power More Dangerous and Expensive than Necessary,” 9/18, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-report-long-shutdowns.html)//DT WASHINGTON, DC, Sept. 18—A new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) shows that severe problems have caused U.S. nuclear reactors to shut down 51 times for a year or longer. More than 70 percent of those outages were caused by programmatic breakdowns that led to cumulative, systemic degradation of reactor components. Basically, the owner's failure to find and fix problems caused safety margins to deteriorate to levels so low that reactor operations could not continue. The study finds that the year-plus outages resulting from this poor management and ineffective regulatory oversight have cost ratepayers and stockholders nearly $82 billion in lost revenue. "Nuclear power is clearly not safe enough when so many reactors have to be shut down for a year or more," said David Lochbaum, author of the new report and director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tolerated unsafe conditions until they became too serious to ignore. Regulators must address the safety problems in the current generation of nuclear plants before allowing utilities to build new ones." The UCS report, Walking a Nuclear Tightrope: Unlearned Lessons of Year-plus Reactor Outages, is the first study to analyze every U.S. nuclear power outage lasting a year or longer. According to the study, 36 of the 51 year-plus outages were caused by "excessive tolerance" by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of plant owners who did not identify problems early enough or address them effectively. Twenty-two percent were necessitated by the replacement and repair of large components, while eight percent were the result of events that caused extensive damage to the plants. Year-plus outages account for nearly 135 reactor years (or 3.4 reactor lifetimes) of downtime at nuclear power plants. "A one-in-three chance of incurring a year-plus outage was not supposed to be part of the bargain when these plants were built and licensed," said Lochbaum. "Some proponents of nuclear power have justified all these safety problems by arguing that no U.S. nuclear plant has experienced a meltdown since 1979. That's as fallacious as arguing that the levees protecting New Orleans were fully adequate prior to Hurricane Katrina by pointing to the absence of similar disasters between 1980 and 2004." Federal regulations require nuclear plant owners to have quality assurance (QA) programs that find and fix problems promptly. But the recurring theme of year-plus outages has been inadequate QA programs. An accompanying theme has been the NRC either being unaware of the QA program deficiencies or knowing but not requiring improvements. "In the weeks and months leading up to the start of a year-plus outage, the people living nearby face an unnecessarily high risk of an accident that could release radiation," said Lochbaum. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must undergo fundamental change or it will only be a matter of time before additional reactors will suffer through year-plus outages—or worse, a nuclear accident." The report includes six recommendations to protect public safety. Among them, UCS calls on the NRC to follow federal regulations to identify and fix problems in a timely manner. The NRC must also alert plant owners about non-hardware problems and expand its oversight efforts when programmatic breakdowns are identified.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

36

AGING REACTORS MAKE ACCIDENTS POSSIBLE
Aging reactors make accidents inevitable Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 83-85)CP Even though today's reactors were designed for a forty-year life span, the NRC, acceding to industry pressure, is currently approving twenty-year extensions to the original forty-year licenses for nuclear power plants." But as David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer from the Union of Concerned Scientists, points out, nuclear power plants are like people: they have numerous problems in their infancy and youth, they operate relatively smoothly in early-to middle life, and they start to show signs of stress and manifest pathology as they age." Every U.S. nuclear power plant is moving into the old-age cycle, and the number of near-misses is increasing. In a thirteen month period from March 7,2000, to April 2,2001, eight nuclear power plants were forced to shut down because of potentially serious equipment failures associated with aging of their mechanical parts-one shut down on average every sixty days. The NRC aging-management programs are thus failing to head off the equipment failures these programs are designed to prevent. 8
Specific examples include the Oconee Unit 3 in South Carolina where, on February 19, 2001, boric acid was found on the exterior surface of the reactor vessel head around two control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles. Further investigation found circumferential cracks that went right through the reactor vessel head wall above the weld areas where the nozzles were attached to the reactor vessel head. On January 9,2002, at Quad Cities Unit 1, in Illinois, operators shut down the reactor when one of the jet pumps inside the reactor vessel had failed. Further investigation found that the hold-down beam for jet pump 20 had cracked apart, and pieces had damaged the impeller of the recirculation pump, causing it to shut off. On October 7, 2000, workers found boric acid on the containment floor at the Summer nuclear plant in South Carolina, and this finding led to the discovery of a through-wall crack where a major pipe was welded to the reactor vessel nozzle. This area had been previously inspected in 1993, but the crack was missed because an air gap between the pipe weld area and the inspection detector had created a "noisy" output, which masked the indications of the crack. And on February 15,2000, a steam generator at Indian Point Unit 2 plant in New York, thirty-five miles from the center of Manhattan, released 19,197 gallons of intensely radioactive water from the primary coolant into the atmosphere," The owner of the plant had detected indications of degradation during steam generator inspections in 1997 but had failed to do anything about the problem. As the Union of Concerned Scientists notes, "These examples illustrate two fundamental flaws in current aging management programs: looking in the wrong spots with the right inspection techniques (as happened at the Oconee and Quad Cities plants) looking in the right spots with the wrong inspection techniques (as happened with the Summer and Indian Point plants)."!' Although aging management programs should find these problems before they become self revealing, they have not. Serious problems associated with metal fatigue and aging in re-actors occur within the steam generators, with many experiencing cracked and broken steam generator tubes. Steam generator tubes are very important because they constitute more than 50% of the barrier between the primary coolant and secondary coolant in a pressurized water reactor. And there is no containment vessel over the steam generator or any other mechanism to prevent fission products from entering the environment. Most importantly, leakage of primary coolant from the steam generator in the event of a rupture could seriously deplete the primary coolant, leading to a meltdown. Yet the NRC for the last ten years, although they have been aware of this problem, have allowed many nuclear power plants to operate with thousands of cracked steam generator tubes. 13

The NRC is also allowing plant owners to test their emergency equipment less frequently than required by law and to operate degraded equipment. Furthermore, the NRC does not make public its risk assessment studies on nuclear power plants, even though by law it is obliged to do so. David Lochbaum says this "agency continues to make regulatory decisions affecting the lives of millions of Americans in a vacuum. Aging reactors risk meltdowns Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 85-86)CP It is impossible to know whether an aging plant can operate safely for another twenty years. As Lochbaum points out, "There needs to be strong aging management programs at all reactors to ensure failures are found before it is too late." The best way to prevent recurrent problems at aging reactors, Lochbaum argues, "would be for the NRC to suspend the issuance of license renewals until the nuclear industry has demonstrated that it takes plant safety seriously. Plant owners will continue to follow lax aging management programs and allow failures to reveal themselves unless the NRC imposes stronger standards." Construction of new reactors is enormously expensive, whereas reactors that have been operating for many years are relatively inexpensive to maintain, and the profits to their owners are large. Right now, as Lochbaum points out, the owners have few economic incentives to retire their aging plants voluntarily.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

37

AT: NONUNIQUE – NUCLEAR POWER NOW
Expanding nuclear power linearly increases the risk of meltdowns Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884) Myth 5. Nuclear Energy Is Safe Proponents of nuclear energy, like Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, and the former Argonne National Laboratory adviser Steve Berry, say that new reactors will be safer than current ones—“meltdown proof.” Such safety claims also are myths. Even the 2003 M.I.T. energy study predicted that tripling civilian nuclear reactors would lead to about four coremelt accidents. The government’s Sandia National Laboratory calculates that a nuclear accident could cause casualties similar to those at Hiroshima or Nagasaki: 140,000 deaths. If nuclear plants are as safe as their proponents claim, why do utilities need the U.S. Price-Anderson Act, which guarantees utilities protection against 98 percent of nuclear-accident liability and transfers these risks to the public? All U.S. utilities refused to generate atomic power until the government established this liability limit. Why do utilities, but not taxpayers, need this nuclear-liability protection? Severe nuclear accidents are one in 3,000 per year at current levels – the aff increases the risk Makhijani and Saleska, 96 - * President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley **NASA Global Change Fellow, NSF Doctoral Dissertation Grantee (Arjun, Scott, The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “The Nuclear Power Deception,” April 1996, http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd7.html)//NHH <The safety question is a central one, since public skepticism of industry claims grew greatly after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. But the road will be a hard one, perhaps impossible due to the choices that were made in the initial development of nuclear power. The safety issues surrounding nuclear power are especially difficult not only because of the technological complexity of the plants, but also because of the potentially catastrophic and irreversible consequences of severe accidents. For instance, after the accident at Three Mile Island, one of the investigators made the following comment: If there is one thing that I have learned through the [Three Mile Island] investigation, it is this: Nuclear power plants are very large, very complex systems that cannot be completely accurately modeled. Dangerous transients cannot be incurred deliberately so that the actual plant response to all events can be experienced and tested....Current plant performance statistics must not be accepted as "good enough" because they may not be good enough for the future, and one accident is one too many.178 The NRC also re-evaluated its position on the safety of LWRs; there was a general realization that despite all the studies and analyses that had been done, nuclear plants were not nearly as safe as had been assumed. In the mid-1970s, some believed that the probability of an accident at an LWR involving severe core damage was on the order of one in one million per year of reactor operation. The experience of the Three Mile Island accident, along with subsequent plant-specific probabilistic risk assessments in the mid-1980s led to a revision. The reassessment indicated that, on average, the likelihood of a severe accident at existing reactors may be closer to one in 3,000 per year of reactor operation, or about 300 times more likely than previously thought.179>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

38

RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACK HIGH
Several 100% probability of success scenarios for terrorist induced meltdowns within close proximity to Manhattan. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 92-94)CP Let's consider the two large Indian Point reactors located in the town of Buchanan in Westchester County, thirtyfive miles from midtown Manhattan. Indian Point 2 is a 971-megawatt reactor and Indian Point 3 is a 984megawatt reactor; the licensed operator for both plants is Entergy Nuclear. Both reactors are aging and adjacent to a very large population base: More than 305,000 people live within a ten-mile radius of the plants, and 17 million live within fifty miles. They are in close proximity to a reservoir system that waters 9 million people and to the financial capital of the world. Apart from natural disaster, an Indian Point meltdown caused by a small group of people intent on wreaking disaster could readily be achieved in one of several ways. Terrorists with suicidal tendencies could easily disrupt the external electricity supply of the reactors, or obtain one small speed boat, pack it with Timothy McVeigh fertilizer explosives, and drive it full tilt into the two adjacent intake pipes that suck almost two million gallons of Hudson River cooling water per minute into the reactors. The plant could be shut down immediately, but this would not help because of the intensity of the heat already in the reactor. Within several hours the meltdowns would be in full swing. (Several years ago, I was in a boat, owned by the antinuclear group River keeper, on the Hudson opposite the huge intake pipes of the two Indian Point reactors. Although the Coast Guard was supposed to be protecting them from terrorist intrusion, there was no sign of a Coast Guard boat during two early afternoon hours we were within view of the pipes.) Alternatively, a terrorist could drive a truck packed with similar explosives into a strategic area of the plant, triggering a critical situation. Concrete barriers have been erected at several nuclear power plants, but not many, and, as stated in the previous chapter, an inadequate number of guards are protecting against terrorist intrusion. A paper written by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, published in a 2004 technical journal and available on the Internet, indicates that truck bombs of various sizes would have 100% probability of success. Or yet again, after a few basic flying lessons, a novice pilot could commandeer a large passenger plane loaded with fuel and fly it into the reactor itself, destroying strategic safety systems and/ or emptying the reactor of its cooling water. Or a patient individual bent on destruction could sign up for training as a nuclear power plant operator, obtain a job at Indian Point, and at a ,certain strategic moment, press the wrong switches and valves, removing the cooling water and initiating a meltdown from the inside. Lack of preparation makes a terrorist attack on nuclear reactors inevitable Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //markoff <The one-in-ten-thousand-reactor-years estimate of operating reactor risk is an estimate of risk based on the normal operation of a nuclear reactor. 104 These estimates simply do not take into account the risk of intentional sabotage causing radioactive dispersal. In the wake of the September 11th attacks, the National Research Council performed an assessment of the chances of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility in the United States, and concluded that "the potential for a September 11th-style surprise attack in the near term using U.S. assets, such as airplanes, appears to be high." 105 These risks are not easily quantified, but must be at least as great - or greater - than the risk of accidental reactor mishap. Shockingly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) takes no account of these terrorism risks whatsoever in licensing and regulatory decisions affecting nuclear power generation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission long ago adopted a policy that terrorism risks were too uncertain to quantify, and thus could not be considered in assessing the siting and potential impacts of nuclear generation and waste storage facilities. 106 The NRC continues to adhere to this policy even in the wake of the September 11th attacks. 107>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

39

RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACK HIGH
Even biased industry security tests prove nuclear power is substantially at risk of terrorism Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 89-92)CP Time magazine recently examined the degree of security available nuclear power plants post 9/11. Although security at civilian airports has been enormously improved, security at nuclear power plants is virtually unchanged, even though these facilities constitute potential weapons of mass destruction and, as such, are inviting targets for terrorists. In truth, terrorists do not need their own weapons of mass destruction, as such weapons are conveniently deployed all over the world next to large and strategically important populations. Time magazine opens its article with an attack scenario that like this: The first hint of
trouble probably would be no more than shadows flitting through the darkness outside one of the nation's nuclear reactors. Beyond the fencing, black-clad snipers would take aim at sentries atop guard towers ringing the site. The guards tend to doubt they would be safe in their bullet-resistant enclosures; they call such perches iron coffins, which is what they could become if the terrorists used deadly but easily obtainable .50 caliber sniper rifles. The saboteurs would break through fences using bolt cutters or Bangalore torpedoes, pipe-shaped explosives developed by the British in India nearly a century ago. The terrorists would blast through outer walls using platter charges, directed explosives developed during World War II, giving them access to the heart of the plant. They would use gun-mounted lasers and infra-red devices to blind the plant's cameras, and electronic jammers to paralyze communications among its defenders. They would probably be armed with hand-drawn maps, drawings of control panels, weak spots in the site's defenses-provided by a covert comrade working inside the plant. Once inside the plant with access to the control room they would and could easily flip a few well-learned switches, shutting pumps and operating key valves to cause a deadly loss of coolant. As the nuclear engineer David Lochbaum says, it may sound farfetched, but "it's irreversible once that last switch. is flipped."31 Many of the scenarios above were taken from a DOE training video for guards at nuclear power plants. As Paul Blanch, a nuclear safety expert, writes,

"A knowledgeable

terrorist inside a control room can cause a meltdown in fairly short order."32
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in its Design Basis Threat (DBT)-a scenario projecting the maximum threat that nuclear plant security systems are required to protect against-has always insisted that nuclear plants need only be protected against an attack by a maximum of three people outside with the help of one insider. They also have assumed that the attackers

after 9/11, the NRC requires that guards can protect against up to eight attackers. Yet nineteen highly organized men made the attack on 9/11. 33 The security guards at nuclear power plants complain of low morale, inadequate training, exhaustion from excessive overtime, and poor pay. They often are expected to work seventy-two hours a week, and not infrequently they go to sleep
would act as a single team and be armed only with hand-held automatic rifles. Now,

on the job.34 They state that they would not be prepared to die to save the reactor, considering their poor compensation and the treatment they routinely receive from rnanagernent. The NRC defends the poor state of security at nuclear reactors by saying that a force as large as the 9/11 team constitutes an enemy of the state, rendering the protection of nuclear power plants the job of the Pentagon and the federal government (who would never get to the reactor in time). 36

Wackenhut Corporation, the huge security firm contracted to guard half the country's reactors, is the same company that has been contracted to test the security at the reactors. Since, by law, each plant must be tested once every three years, Wackenhut must conduct simulated test attacks an average of twice a month. In 2003, Wackenhut "attackers" tipped off Wackenhut guards about the details of the drill Wackenhut employee Kathy Davidson at Pilgrim Nuclear Station in Massachusetts was fired from her job because she complained that security was inadequate at the plants. Davidson later told Time magazine that, of the twenty-nine classroom exercises Wackenhut conducted to prove that guards could defend against terrorists, the attackers won twenty eight. According to Edwin Lyman, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a terrorist-induced meltdown could kill more than half-a-million people. Yet Marvin
Fertel from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's research institute, continues to insist that only about one hundred people would be killed in such an attack, and the chances of terrorists achieving this goal are "so incredibly low it is not credible.

The large number of possible targets makes nuclear power extremely vulnerable Makhijani, 01 - President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Securing the Energy Future of the United States: Oil, Nuclear, and Electricity Vulnerabilities and a post-September 11, 2001 Roadmap for Action, November 2001, http://www.ieer.org/reports/energy/bushsumm.html)//NHH In 1980, the Federal Emergency Management Agency commissioned a report on the security vulnerabilities associated with the energy system.17 This study identified a host of security vulnerabilities associated with the energy system, with oil imports and nuclear power plants being identified as the ones with the potential for the most severe negative impacts in case of war, attack, or disruption. For instance, in regard to nuclear power plants it noted: Since nuclear power plants constitute less than 200 potential targets (including near-term and proposed additions) and have the added risk in some cases of being very close to population centers, they are prime candidates for strategic nuclear targeting or conventional bombing.18 The report also discusses sabotage of nuclear power plants, or using threats of attacks on nuclear power plants "as a means of coercion."19 The Paley Commission had also been very critical of nuclear energy and took a dim view of its potential.20 Like the Paley Commission, the FEMA report recommended greater reliance on renewable energy sources of security reasons. (Global warming was not yet a major policy concern in 1980 though the problem was getting greater attention in some scientific circles.)

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

40

AIRPLANE ATTACKS RISK MELTDOWNS
Airplane attacks risk reactor meltdowns Wasserman, 01 - Senior Editor – Free Press (Harvey, “America's Terrorist Nuclear Threat to Itself”, October, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2001/10/00_wasserman_nuclear-threat.htm) Yet as the bombs and missiles drop on Afghanistan, the certainty of terror retaliation inside America has turned our 103 nuclear power plants into weapons of apocalyptic destruction, just waiting to be used against us. One or both planes that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, could have easily obliterated the two atomic reactors now operating at Indian Point, about 40 miles up the Hudson. The catastrophic devastation would have been unfathomable. But those and a hundred other American reactors are still running. Security has been heightened. But all are vulnerable to another sophisticated terror attack aimed at perpetrating the unthinkable. Indian Point Unit One was shut long ago by public outcry. But Units 2 & 3 have operated since the 1970s. Back then there was talk of requiring reactor containment domes to be strong enough to withstand a jetliner crash. But the biggest jets were far smaller than the ones that fly today. Nor did those early calculations account for the jet fuel whose hellish fire melted the critical steel supports that ultimately brought down the Trade Center. Had one or both those jets hit one or both the operating reactors at Indian Point, the ensuing cloud of radiation would have dwarfed the ones at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The risk of airplane attacks on reactors is high Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 88-89)CP The report of the 9/11 Commission revealed that al Qaeda had considered plans to attack nuclear power plants. The commission thought that scenario was unlikely, however, because of their mistaken belief that the airspace around nuclear power plants was "restricted" and that planes violating that air space would be shot down before impact They were wrong. No-fly zones around reactors do not exist on a standard basis, even today; they are imposed only at times of heightened threat. No surface-to-air missiles are deployed around nuclear power plants. (Many such missiles are deployed around Washington, DC, however, since 9/11.22 Evidently, politicians have decided that it is more important to protect their own lives than those of the millions of people who could die lingering, painful deaths after a terrorist-induced nuclear meltdown.) According to John Large, a UK consulting engineer, in an article in Global Health watch, "Nuclear power plants are almost totally ill-prepared for a terrorist attack from the air" because nuclear reactors were designed and constructed more than fifty years ago, well before the large airplanes in common use today were ever conceived. According to Large, a full-sized passenger plane travelling at great speed with a full load of fuel could significantly damage a nuclear reactor, while injecting large quantities of burning fuel into vulnerable areas of the building. This, in turn, could induce enough damage that a meltdown would occur, leading to the release of large quantities of radiation. Most nuclear reactors are not required by the NRC to be able to withstand attacks from planes or boats.25 Large points out that designs of relevant nuclear power plants are easy to obtain in the open literature,26 and he says that there are no practical measures to take to ensure reactors will not be severely damaged." Others, however, have recommended that the vulnerable aspects of a nuclear power plant could be protected by a series of steel beams set vertically in deep concrete foundations connected with bracing beams, a web of high strength cables, wires, and netting linking the vertical beams to form a protective screen. This so-called Beamhenge would act to slow down an attacking aircraft, fragmenting it into smaller pieces and dispersing the mass of jet fuel, thereby protecting the vulnerable containment vessel, the spent fuel pool, and other vital pieces of equipment. The NRC has yet to implement any such protective measure. The external electricity supply to reactors and the emergency diesel generators upon which the safe operation of a nuclear reactor depends are also susceptible to terrorist attack, as is the intake of cooling water from the nearby sea, river, or lake.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

41

AIRPLANE ATTACKS RISK MELTDOWNS
Nuclear Power Plants are vulnerable to Suicide Airplanes UCS, 6 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Improving Long Shutdowns Prove Nuclear Power More Dangerous and Expensive than Necessary,” 9/18, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-report-long-shutdowns.html)//DT Both sentences strain credibility. Study after study conducted by the NRC and for the NRC consistently concluded that reactor meltdowns can occur if aircraft hit nuclear power plants, but consistently accepted that outcome on the low probability that aircraft would accidentally hit a nuclear plant. Clearly, that acceptability is undermined when terrorists intentionally target nuclear plant sites with hijacked aircraft. The Chairman's second sentence is equally inconsistent with the facts. NRC inspection after NRC inspection identify that nuclear power plants are not in compliance with pre-9/11 fire regulations. The NRC's response to such findings has been to waive sanctions for the violations and to give plant owners indefinite periods of time to restore compliance. In other words, the NRC's actions (and inactions) have left nuclear power plants vulnerable to pre-9/11 fire hazards—hazards only increased by the post-9/11 threat. Nuclear Plants Are Vulnerable to Air Attack UCS, 07(Union of Concerned Scientists, “Nuclear Reactor Air Defenses”, 2/21, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/nuclear-reactor-air-defenses-1.html //DT None of the 103 nuclear power plants operating in the United States were designed to withstand suicide attacks from the air, such as we tragically experienced on September 11, 2001. This vulnerability prompted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish no-fly zones around nuclear plants in the fall of 2001. This response was largely symbolic since FAA sanctions would probably not deter a suicide bomber, but it marked an implicit concession by the federal government that nuclear plants were vulnerable to air assault. Nuclear lobbyists are wrong – international studies prove plants are very vulnerable to airborne attack – triggering catastrophic damage LA Times 7 (The Nation; Idea to 'cage' atomic plants is rejected; A California group had asked that steel shields and other anti-terrorism measures be mandated. January 30, L/n, rday) Representatives of the nuclear power industry had opposed reactor cages as costly and unnecessary. They said studies by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade organization and lobbying arm for the industry, indicated that crashes of airliners into power plants were unlikely to cause significant harm to the public. "We are comfortable that our nuclear power plants and spent fuel ponds are robust and can withstand significant impacts though they are not designed specifically for aircraft impacts," said Tony Pietrangelo, vice president of regulatory affairs for the Nuclear
Energy Institute.

In a German government study, however, researchers used flight simulators and computer analysis to show that airliners were able to hit nuclear reactors roughly half the time, occasionally triggering large fires and radiation release into the atmosphere. NRC standards don’t safeguard against airplanes – and don’t even apply to new reactor designs NYT 7 (New York Times, “U.S. Takes Step to Address Airliner Attacks on Reactors,” April 25, L/n, rday) New nuclear reactors need not be designed to withstand suicide attacks by big airplanes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided Tuesday. Instead, the commission proposed that designers be required to analyze how their reactors can be built to mitigate the effects of such an attack, ''to the extent practicable.'' The commission's staff characterized the vote, which was 4 to 1, as an additional step to improve plant security in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The chairman, Dale Klein, said in a statement, ''This proposal gives us the chance to assess and make practicable changes to new reactor designs early in the design process.'' In fact, however, the commission has already approved two designs, one by General Electric and one by Westinghouse, for which no such analysis was required.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

42

AT: TECHNOLOGY PROTECTS AGAINST TERRORIST ATTACKS
Technology can’t protect reactors from terrorist attacks Makhijani, 01 - President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Securing the Energy Future of the United States: Oil, Nuclear, and Electricity Vulnerabilities and a post-September 11, 2001 Roadmap for Action, November 2001, http://www.ieer.org/reports/energy/bushsumm.html)//NHH Sodium-cooled reactors can have explosive accidents if there is contact between water and the liquid sodium. Liquid sodium catches fire on contact with air. These reactors are designed to contain far more plutonium as a fuel than current reactors, which generate plutonium in the course of their operation, but in which the percentage of plutonium is generally under 1 percent at any time (unless they are fueled with plutonium fuel - see below). As a result, the consequences of an attack on such reactors could be even more catastrophic than with current commercial reactors. It is possible to build nuclear reactors underground, but the cost, safety, and siting issues related to such proposals are largely unknown. The only long-term practical experience with large underground reactors is in Russia, where three reactors that produced power as well as plutonium for military purposes were built inside a mountain in Siberia (Krasnoyarsk-26).27 New vulnerabilities would likely be created, for instance to groundwater resources, in case of accidents, natural disasters, or attacks. Resistance to siting may lead to large number of reactors at a few sites, reviving old nuclear energy "park" proposals. Moreover, such highly centralized underground facilities would be attractive targets because of the scale of potential damage. For the same reason, the surface transmission facilities associated with such plants would also be vulnerable. Interconnected power sources that are less centralized are essential to increasing electricity system security and decreasing economic vulnerability to attack.28 In sum, the number of operating nuclear reactors, the variety of attacks that can result in catastrophic releases of radioactivity, and the degree of concentration of generation and key transmission facilities are crucial vulnerability criteria. Attacks could occur against nuclear power infrastructure even if the plants are secured Sovacool, 07 - Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech (Benjamin, “What's Really Wrong With Nuclear Power?,” 11/30, http://scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2007/11/What-s-Really-Wrong-With-Nuclear-Power/) //DH While nuclear power plants themselves can be relatively well-secured, guarding the transmission and distribution grid through which they distribute their power is difficult. In Britain during the coal-miner strikes of 1976, a leader of the power engineers famously remarked that “the miners brought the country to its knees in 8 weeks, but we could do it in 8 minutes". This is because the infrastructure needed to distribute nuclear power is brittle, and subject to cascading power failures easily induced by severe weather and small animals, to say nothing of accidental or intentional human interference. Wall Strength is irrelevant, Terrorists can strike the Control Room UCS, 07(Union of Concerned Scientists, “Nuclear Reactor Air Defenses”, 2/21, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/nuclear-reactor-air-defenses-1.html //DT But what the nuclear industry asserts as confidence appears more like a confidence game. The thick, reinforced walls do not surround all vital parts of a nuclear power plant—as the industry knows very well. One study of aircraft hazards, jointly prepared by the owners of two similar nuclear power plants more than 20 years ago, concluded, "The control building is the only single building which, if hit, could lead to core melt."[2] The control buildings at every nuclear plant in the United States are located outside the robust structures described by the industry. Thus, the nuclear industry’s proclamations about the robustness of thick, reinforced walls may be accurate, but they fail to tell the entire story.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

43

AT: SECURITY UPGRADES PREVENT TERRORISM
Nuclear security standards are lax and have been coopted by industry – the risk of terrorist attacks on reactors is high Brian 06, - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT (Danielle, HEARING OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EFFORTS TO SET SECURITY STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES, April 4th, L/n, rday)

The GAO report that you commissioned is shocking and confirms what POGO has been alarmed about for the past three years. It details the inappropriate influence of the nuclear industry on the NRC's design basis threat process. They essentially get two bites of the apple. The nuclear industry is allowed to lobby the NRC security staff to lower the security standards recommended to the commission and
then the NRC commissioners removed weapons that were recommended despite that lobbying, including what we understand included -- the two weapons in question were RPGs, rocket propelled grenades, and 50 caliber rifles with armor piercing rounds, because industry claimed it was too expensive for them to protect against such a threat.

The result of this process is a completely unrealistic DBT that reflects not what intelligence estimates dictate, but instead what industry is willing to pay for. Because of the lowering of these security standards, at one site the GAO found some or all of the attackers during the force-on-force were able to enter the protected areas in each of the three exercise scenarios. At another, the mock attackers were able to destroy three out of four targeted components, and at another site they didn't even include spent fuel pools among the targets to be protected. It should be understood these failures occurred even though there remain significant artificialities in the tests in the first place. They are still scheduled and announced eight to 12 weeks before they occur, giving the security force ample time to prepare. Furthermore, the GAO found the security force can tell within minutes at what time the test will begin. And counter to what we were hearing in the last panel, while I certainly agree these tests are far better than they were when we first started talking about this a few years ago, the GAO also found that the controllers, who are essentially the referees in these tests, were sometimes volunteers from the plant, just like we'd seen before, who had no security experience at all. And they're the people who essentially get to decide who was living or dying in a particular exchange. At approximately half the sites, the mock attackers and security force they're testing are employed by the same company -this came up before -- Wackenhut. Whether those tests are honest or not, how can the public have faith in a system with such an obvious conflict of interests? Even with these weaknesses, the GAO also found evidence of behavior that some might call cheating. In one case, a site employee made motions that may have alerted the security officers to the targets the adversaries would be trying to reach that evening. Now, imagine, these are the tests where they know the GAO's watching them. Nuclear Plants Vulnerable to Terrorist Assault despite security upgrades Lyman, 4 - PHD, Union of Concerned Scientists (Edwin S. Lyman, “Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at Indian Powint Nuclear Power Plant”) 9/04 (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/impacts-of-a-terrorist-attack-at-indian-pointnuclear-power-plant.html) //DT
Since 9/11, the specter of a terrorist attack at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, thirty-five miles upwind from midtown Manhattan, has caused great concern for residents of the New York metropolitan

Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ordered modest security upgrades at Indian Point and other nuclear power plants in response to the 9/11 attacks, the plants remain vulnerable, both to air attacks and to ground assaults by large terrorist teams with paramilitary training and advanced weaponry. Many question whether the NRC’s security and emergency planning requirements at Indian Point are adequate, given its attractiveness as a terrorist target and the grave consequences for the region of a successful attack. This report presents the results of an independent analysis of the health and economic impacts of a terrorist attack at Indian Point that results in a core meltdown and a large radiological release to the environment. We find that, depending on the weather conditions, an attack could result in as many as 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation syndrome or as many as 518,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within fifty miles of the plant. These findings confirm that Indian Point poses a severe threat
area. to the entire New York metropolitan area. The scope of emergency planning measures should be promptly expanded to provide some protection from the fallout from an attack at Indian Point to those New York area residents who currently have none. Security at Indian Point should also be upgraded to a level commensurate with the threat it poses to the region. A 1982 study by Sandia National Laboratories found that a core meltdown and radiological release at one of the two operating Indian Point reactors could cause 50,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation syndrome and 14,000 long-term deaths from cancer. When these results were originally disclosed to the press, an NRC official tried to reassure the public by saying that the kind of accident the study considered would be less likely than "a jumbo jet crashing into a football stadium during the Superbowl."

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

44

AT: SECURITY UPGRADES PREVENT TERRORISM
Security standards are unenforced UCS, 7 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Global Warming Solutions, Nuclear Power in a Warming World.) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclearandclimate.html) //DT The life cycle of nuclear power results in relatively little global warming pollution, but building a new fleet of plants could increase threats to public safety and national security. Nuclear power is riskier than it should—and could—be. The United States has strong safety regulations on the books, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not enforce them consistently. Current security standards are inadequate to defend nuclear plants against terrorist attacks. A major accident or successful attack could kill thousands of people and contaminate large regions for thousands of years. NRC Tests Prove Nuclear Plants are vulnerable to sabotage UCS, 07(Union of Concerned Scientists, “Nuclear Reactor Air Defenses”, 2/21, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/nuclear-reactor-air-defenses-1.html //DT Security tests conducted since 1991 under the NRC’s Operational Safeguards Readiness Evaluation (OSRE) program detail why the nuclear industry’s current assurances are incomplete. Each OSRE involved force-on-force exercises with a small group of mock intruders going up against the facility’s armed responders. As the NRC individual responsible for the OSRE program testified to Congress last year: "Eighty-one OSREs have been conducted to date. At 37 of them, the expert NRC team identified a significant weakness; significant being defined as the adversary team simulating sabotaging a target set, which would lead to core damage and in many cases, to a probable radioactive release."[3]

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

45

MELTDOWNS IMPACT – MASSIVE DEATH
Even one meltdown kills hundreds of thousands Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //markoff <The consequences of a severe nuclear reactor accident can be hard to predict. However, using the most recent models and making optimistic assumptions about the success of evacuation efforts and evacuation travel times, the Riverkeeper organization has estimated that a reactor meltdown at one of the Indian Point nuclear power units fifty miles north of New York City would result in as many as 44,000 short term fatalities from radiation exposure, 518,000 latent cancer fatalities, $ 2 trillion in property damage, and the relocation of eleven million people. 100 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 1982 report estimates the consequences of a severe reactor accident at Indian Point as 46,000 Peak Early Fatalities, 141,000 Peak Early Injuries, and 13,000 Peak Deaths from cancer, along with $ 274 billion (1982 dollars) in property damage. 101> Health damages resulting from nuclear reactor explosions are worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima-causing cancer, thyroid diseases and affect tens of millions of people. Makhijani and Saleska, 96 - * President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley **NASA Global Change Fellow, NSF Doctoral Dissertation Grantee (Arjun, Scott, The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “The Nuclear Power Deception,” April 1996, http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd7.html)//NHH Some indication of the potential health damage can be obtained by looking at the radiation doses. The range of exposures of the people who lived in the exclusion zone was generally of the same order of magnitude as the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- that is, about one rem to several tens of rems external gamma radiation. In addition, people were exposed to beta radiation and internal doses from various radionuclides such as iodine-131 and cesium-137. The officially estimated cumulative population dose for the 135,000 people who were initially evacuated (with delays) is estimated at 1.6 million person-rem. Applying a risk factor of 0.0004 cancers per person-rem to this dose yields an estimate of 640 fatal cancers.226 Medvedev has pointed out that the official dose estimate includes only external radiation. It does not include doses from consuming contaminated food, such as milk continuing cesium isotopes and iodine-131. It is now clear that internal exposures are a significant factor in long-term effects of the accident. Thyroid diseases, including thyroid cancer in children, generally attributed to the consumption of milk contaminated with iodine-131, have registered huge increases in the fallout areas. Ten to one hundred-fold increases in thyroid cancer among children in the affected region have been reported.227 Over the decades tens of millions of people will have been put at significantly increased risk, and it is reasonable to assume that many will die as a result. The poor state of both medical monitoring as well as curative medicine in the former Soviet Union means that medical systems are not likely to record many of these deaths as having been related to the Chernobyl accident. But that cannot negate the documented magnitude of the immense contamination and risk to which the present and future generations living in tens of thousands of square kilometers of highly contaminated land are being, and will continue to be, exposed.> Reactor accidents could kill hundreds of thousands Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884) Atomic energy is among the most impractical and risky of available fuel sources. Private financiers are reluctant to invest in it, and both experts and the public have questions about the likelihood of safely storing lethal radioactive wastes for the required million years. Reactors also provide irresistible targets for terrorists seeking to inflict deep and lasting damage on the United States. The government’s own data show that U.S. nuclear reactors have more than a one-in-five lifetime probability of core melt, and a nuclear accident could kill 140,000 people, contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania, and destroy our homes and health.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

46

MELTDOWNS IMPACT – ECONOMY
Terrorists want to attack power plants – results would destroy the economy and environment Makhijani, 4 - President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Arjun, “Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 61, 2004) //markoff The vulnerability of nuclear power plants, spent fuel storage, and plutonium storage facilities to terrorist attack, were revealed by the violent tragedy of September 11, 2001, as never before. Studies in the past had hypothesized the potentially catastrophic effects of accidents, war, or terrorist attacks on certain portions of the nuclear energy infrastructure. 17 They can no longer be ignored as they have been. The crash of one of the airliners in Pennsylvania, not far from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, as well as statements by a prisoner held in Afghanistan showing his awareness of nuclear power plants as potential targets, 18 should greatly heighten serious concerns about nuclear vulnerabilities. Most spent fuel storage sites as well as storage sites of other nuclear materials, notably plutonium, have serious vulnerabilities to terrorist attack. A breach of spent fuel containment or a meltdown in a nuclear reactor could cause catastrophic releases of radioactivity and immense disruption of energy, environmental, and financial systems. [*68] Despite these vulnerabilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been lax and has not required hardened storage of spent fuel on site. It has not required power plant owners to postulate a September 11 type attack in evaluating where the public might be safe from catastrophic radioactivity exposure in case of attack. It is extending the licenses of power plants without allowing consideration of terrorism risks. This causes global nuclear war Mead, 1992 (Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Summer 1992, p. 28.) But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

47

XT – MELTDOWNS KILL THE ECONOMY
Nuclear power plants are terrorist targets – it would destroy the world’s finanical center Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. ix-x)CP In this day and age, nuclear power plants are also obvious targets for terrorists, inviting assault by plane, truck bombs, armed attack, or covert intrusion into the reactor's control room. The subsequent meltdown could induce the death of hundreds of thousands of people in heavily populated areas, and they would expire slowly and painfully, some over days and others over years from acute radiation illness, cancer, leukemia, congenital deformities, or genetic disease. Such an attack at the Indian Point reactors, thirty-five miles from Manhattan, for instance, would effectively incapacitate the world's main financial center for the rest of time. An attack on one of the thirteen reactors surrounding Chicago would wreak similar catastrophic medical consequences. Amazingly, security at U.S. nuclear power plants remains at virtually the same lax levels as prior to the 9/11 attacks. Damage From a Meltdown will be catastrophic and collapse the economy UCS, 07(Union of Concerned Scientists, “Nuclear Reactor Air Defenses”, 2/21, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/nuclear-reactor-air-defenses-1.html //DT An accident at a US nuclear power plant could kill more people than were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.1 The financial repercussions could also be catastrophic. The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant cost the former Soviet Union more than three times the economical benefits accrued from the operation of every other Soviet nuclear power plant operated between 1954 and 1990.2

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

48

MELTDOWNS BAD – TURN ELECTRICITY ADVANTAGES
Terrorist attacks will shut down plants, threatening overall electricity supplies Grimston & Beck, 2 - *Director of Talks for UK Atomic Energy Authority, Adviser to British Nuclear Industry Forum, and Senior Research fellow at Imperial College, University of London. **Chemical Engineer, retired planning director for Shell UK Ltd and former president of European Strategic Planning Federation. (Malcolm C. Grimston and Peter Beck, Double or Quits?: The Global Future of Civil Nuclear Energy, p.154 ) A further aspect of nuclear safety, distinct from concerns about design flaws, concerns the fate of reactors in politically or technologically unstable regions or times. Unlike many energy technologies, nuclear reactors, especially if the spent fuel has not been removed, represent a long-term health, environmental and security risk. The decommissioned Soviet submarines in the Barents Sea are a notable example, and it is believed that a number of reactors in the former Soviet Union pose similar risks. A related issue, which gained extra prominence following the events of 11 September 2001, is the potential vulnerability of nuclear installations to suicide terrorist attacks. The danger could be twofold - either the risk of radioactive releases or the risk of having to close down a number of large power plants indefinitely as a precautionary measure, with threats to secure supplies of electricity.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

49

MELTDOWNS BAD - ENVIRONMENT
Nuclear energy empirically destroys the environment at an immeasurable rate- Chernobyl proves Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK By any measure, Chornobyl was a horrific catastrophe and has become the icon of nuclear power's satanic side. Yet controversy has dogged the environmental and health impacts of Chornobyl from the beginning. The Soviet leadership first hoped nobody would notice the accident and then did their, best to conceal and minimize the damage. As a result, a full and accurate assessment of the consequences has proved impossible. Historian and Chornobyl expert David Marples wrote that authorities in the former Soviet Union classified all medical information related to the accident while denying that illnesses among cleanup workers resulted from their radiation exposure. Independent researchers have had difficulty locating significant numbers of evacuees and those who worked on the cleanup, and they have had to piece together their conclusions from interviews with medical providers, citizens, officials in the contaminated areas, others involved, and those cleanup workers they could find. In September 2005, a report on the health impacts of Chornobyl by the UN Chernobyl Forum (seven UN agencies plus the World Bank and officials from Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia) said only 50 deaths could be attributed to Chornobyl and ultimately 4,000 will die as a result of the accident. The Chernobyl Forum report acknowledges that nine children died from thyroid cancer and that 4,000 children contracted the disease, but puts the survival rate at 99 percent. It denies any link with fertility problems and says that the most significant health problems are due to poverty, lifestyle (e.g., smoking, poor diet), and emotional problems, especially among evacuees. Marples notes that the overall assessment of the Chernobyl Forum is "a reassuring message."
The reality on the ground offers a different picture. In Gomel, a city of 700,000 in Belarus less than 80 kilometers from the destroyed reactor and one of the most severely contaminated areas, the documentary film Chernobyl Heart reports the incidence of thyroid cancer is 10,000 times higher than before the accident and by 1990 had increased 30-fold throughout Belarus, which received most of the radioactive fallout. Chernobyl.info states that congenital birth defects in Gomel have jumped 250 percent since the accident, and infant mortality is 300 percent higher than in the rest of Europe. A doctor interviewed in Chernobyl Heart says just 15 to 20 percent of the babies born at the Gomel Maternity Hospital are healthy. Chernobyl Children's Project International executive director Adi Roche says it's impossible to prove that Chornobyl caused the problems: "All we can say is the defects are increasing, the illnesses are increasing, the genetic damage is increasing." Referring to a facility for abandoned children, she adds, "places like this didn't exist before Chornobyl, so it speaks for itself." Marples, who has made numerous trips to the Chornobyl region over the past 20 years, reports the health crisis in Belarus today is so serious that there are open discussions of a "demographic doomsday."

The long-lived nature of the radionuclides and the fact that they are migrating through the contaminated regions' ecosystems into the groundwater and food chain further complicate the task of predicting the full impact of the disaster. But as the global campaign to build new reactors gains momentum, it bears asking whether a Chornobyl could happen elsewhere. Nuclear reactors will explode and destroy the environment. Makhijani and Saleska, 96 - * President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley **NASA Global Change Fellow, NSF Doctoral Dissertation Grantee (Arjun, Scott, The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “The Nuclear Power Deception,” April 1996, http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd7.html)//NHH In this context it is useful to note that the principal original safety concern when nuclear reactor technology was under development was not that they might melt down, but that they might explode due to heating caused by a runaway nuclear reaction. This could result from an inadvertent increase in the multiplication factor causing the reactor to become supercritical (see Chapter 2). Neutrons are what cause the fission reaction, and in some cases, the neutron spike accompanying a sudden supercriticality can lead to an explosion of the reactor core. It is this sort of event which occurred at the Chernobyl reactor unit 4 in the Soviet Union on April 26, 1986, resulting in a catastrophic release of fission products to the environment (see below).> Nuclear meltdowns risk plutonium spread Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 133)CP 1. Plutonium could be mixed with uranium as MOX, or mixed oxide fuel, to be fissioned in light water civilian power reactors. This is not a good idea because it increases the amount of plutonium in civilian reactors, and, should there be a meltdown, there will be a large and very dangerous dispersal of plutonium to the four winds. Furthermore, the production of MOX fuel requires reprocessing of plutonium from weapons material, a very dangerous and dirty process.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

50

MELTDOWN IMPACT - DESTROYS NUCLEAR POWER
Any accident globally will cause a backlash against all nuclear power Totty, 08 (Michael Energy “(A Special Report); The case for -- and against -- Nuclear Power.” 2008, June 30) Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.1. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. The safety of nuclear plants has certainly improved, thanks to changes adopted in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident. But safety problems persist, because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't adequately enforcing existing safety standards. What's more, countries where nuclear power is likely to expand don't have a strong system for regulating nuclear safety. The important thing to remember about safety is this: The entire nuclear power industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst performers, because an accident anywhere in the world would stoke another antinuclear backlash among the public and investors. A single meltdown will destroy all nuclear power investment Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 22)CP Before we examine the true economic realities of nuclear power it must be clearly stated to those investing millions of dollars in this technology that they will lose all, should there be a catastrophic nuclear meltdown in the United States or any other part of the world. Such an event would signal the end of nuclear power forever. A very experienced nuclear engineer, David Lochbaum, who works for the Union of Concerned Scientists is deeply concerned about the current lack of safety standards in U.S. reactors and is convinced there will be a nuclear catastrophe within the near future. He said to me, "It's not if but when." It seems, therefore, that it is a very risky business indeed to invest in nuclear power no matter what the industry or the government is currently saying. Nuclear accidents turn the case – they’ll cause a backlash against all nuclear power UCS, 7 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Global Warming Solutions, Nuclear Power in a Warming World.) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclearandclimate.html) //DT Minimizing the risks of nuclear power is simply pragmatic. Nothing would undermine public acceptance of a new generation of nuclear power plants as much as a serious accident, a terrorist strike on a reactor or spent fuel pool, or the detonation of a nuclear weapon made from stolen reactor materials. Empirically – Three Mile Island wrecked nuclear power for 30 years Tomain, 5 - Dean Emeritus and the Wilbert & Helen Ziegler Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati (Joseph P, “BIOETHICS SYMPOSIUM: BIOFUELS AND THE NEW ENERGY ECONOMY: Smart Energy Path: How Willie Nelson Saved the Planet,” 36 Cumb. L. Rev. 417, 2005) <The accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 was the most important event signaling the end of the nuclear power industry. n48 No new nuclear plant has come on line since 1996 and the country has not ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978. n49 In short, the Three Mile Island catastrophe sounded the death knell for that industry as safety, waste disposal, and costeffectiveness became and remain concerns about the future of the nuclear industry. n50 With these events came new energy initiatives from the White House and Congress.> An attack on a nuclear plant would derail nuclear power globally Ferguson, 06 – Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations (Charles, Christian Science Monitor, “Nuclear lessons for today”, 4/26, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10543/nuclear_lessons_for_today.html) //DH Industry should now build on the success of WANO to address security and proliferation problems. It should form a peer review organization to assess and improve the security of nuclear plants against attack or sabotage. Such an organization would identify best security practices and then perform comprehensive and confidential security reviews of all nuclear reactors. Once needed security improvements are identified, the question becomes who will pay for the work. Of course, industry wants to minimize security costs to maximize profits. But there is also a growing realization among industry officials that an act of nuclear terrorism would likely torpedo the nuclear power renaissance under way in the US and other parts of the world.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

51

2NC – PROLIFERATION / TERRORISM IMPACT SHELL
Raising the price of carbon increases the risk of proliferation and nuclear terrorism Pascual, 2008 - Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution (Carlos, “The Geopolitics of Energy: From Security to Survival”, January, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/01_energy_pascual.aspx, REQ) Ironically, high oil and gas prices and the actions that must be taken to address climate change – namely, pricing carbon at a cost that will drive investment, new technology and conservation to control its emission – will drive another existential threat: the risk of nuclear proliferation. Higher energy and carbon prices will make nuclear power a more attractive option in national energy strategies, and the more reliant that countries become on nuclear power, the more they will want to control the fuel cycle. The risk of breakout from civilian power to weaponization would increase dramatically, as well as the risk of materials and technology getting into the hands of terrorists. Proliferation leads to extinction. Victor A Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis, Summer 2002, Survival, p.87-90 In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed towards a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear “six shooters” on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather together on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. Nuclear terrorism will cause extinction Sid-Ahmed, 4 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

52

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – PROLIFERATION
Expanding nuclear power increases the risk of terrorism and proliferation Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884) Myth 4. Nuclear Energy Will Not Increase Weapons Proliferation Pursuing nuclear power also perpetuates the myth that increasing atomic energy, and thus increasing uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing, will increase neither terrorism nor proliferation of nuclear weapons. This myth has been rejected by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. More nuclear plants means more weapons materials, which means more targets, which means a higher risk of terrorism and proliferation. The government admits that Al Qaeda already has targeted U.S. reactors, none of which can withstand attack by a large airplane. Such an attack, warns the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, could cause fatalities as far away as 500 miles and destruction 10 times worse than that caused by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986. Nuclear energy actually increases the risks of weapons proliferation because the same technology used for civilian atomic power can be used for weapons, as the cases of India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan illustrate. As the Swedish Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alven put it, “The military atom and the civilian atom are Siamese twins.” Yet if the world stopped building nuclear-power plants, bomb ingredients would be harder to acquire, more conspicuous and more costly politically, if nations were caught trying to obtain them. Their motives for seeking nuclear materials would be unmasked as military, not civilian. Nuclear energy is too vulnerable to misuse towards prolif Arms Control Today, 8 (Peter Crail and Jessica Lasky-Fink, “Middle Eastern States Seeking Nuclear Power”, May 2008. Vol. 38, Iss. 4; pg. 40, Proquest)/AK In addition to the concern that an expansion of nuclear energy may lead to state proliferation, the development of a nuclear industry in states with little regulatory capacity and a history of illicit trafficking points to a vulnerability for the smuggling of nuclear materials and technology. A September 2007 study commissioned by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories on the expansion of nuclear energy in the region claimed that, in the case of several states in the region, the threat from illicit nuclear trafficking is a greater proliferation concern than the potential development of nuclear weapons by states. The study cites in particular Egypt's defense collaboration with states such as Russia and North Korea, and the UAE's history as a transshipment point for illicit nuclear technology aiding nuclear weapons programs in Libya and Iran. Nuclear powerplants are vulnerable to diversion to proliferation- Japan proves Assadourian, 03 - research associate at Worldwatch Institute (Erik, “The new clear threat”, World Watch, May/Jun 2003, Vol. 16, Iss. 3; pg. 30, World Watch @ Proquest)/AK While proponents of nuclear power argue that it is a cheap and clean alternative to fossil fuels because it does not produce air pollution, nuclear energy is not a viable alternative to renewable energy. Besides creating waste that remains lethal for millennia, nuclear power costs two to three times more than wind power (10-14 cents per kilowatthour, compared to 4-6 cents). It is also a massive environmental and security threat. In 2002, at the Davis-Besse power plant in Ohio, boric acid ate a hole through the 17-cm thick reactor vessel head. Just half a centimeter of stainless steel prevented the escape of pressurized coolant, which could have triggered a reactor meltdown. In addition, nuclear plants are often unsecured against terrorist attack. In January, 19 Greenpeace activists stormed the U.K.'s Sizewell power plant, scaling the reactor without resistance. The goal was simply to expose the plant's vulnerability, but if the intruders had been actual terrorists the result would have been catastrophic. Finally, nuclear materials have also been known to disappear, and not just in Russia; early this year, the Japanese government admitted that it could not account for 206 kilograms of plutonium-enough to make 30 to 40 bombs.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

53

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – PROLIFERATION
Nuclear power plants are bomb factories risking prolif Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. x)CP Adding to the danger, nuclear power plants are essentially atomic bomb factories. A 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 500 pounds of plutonium a year; normally ten pounds of plutonium is fuel for an atomic bomb. A crude atomic bomb sufficient to devastate a city could certainly be crafted from reactor grade plutonium. Therefore any nonnuclear weapons country that acquires a nuclear power plant will be provided with the ability to make atomic bombs (precisely the issue the world confronts with Iran today). As the global nuclear industry pushes its nefarious wares upon developing countries with the patent lie about "preventing global warming," collateral consequences will include the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a situation that will further destabilize an already unstable world. Nuclear energy provides the perfect cover for nuclear weapons development by militarizing states. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 141-142)CP As for those nations currently vying to add nuclear capability to their arsenals, nuclear power plants offer the perfect cover. It is only a short step from uranium enrichment for energy to the production of highly enriched uranium suitable for atomic bomb fuel, or even to reprocessed plutonium from spent fuel, suitable for bomb fuel. Most nuclear technology associated with nuclear power can be diverted for use in weapons production: North Korea has almost certainly built at least two nuclear weapons using plutonium obtained from its research nuclear reactors. Many countries are angry about the paternalism and arrogance displayed over the years by the nuclear-haves. As the new president MahmoudAhmadinejad of Iran, which is now actively developing uranium enrichment facilities, said recently when referring to the United States, "Who do you think you are in the world to say you are suspicious of our nuclear activities? ... What kind of right do you think you have to say Iran cannot have nuclear technology? It is you who must be held accountable."! Hugo Chavez of Venezuela displayed similar feelings when he said recently, "It cannot be that some countries that have developed nuclear energy prohibit those of the third world from developing it. We are not the ones developing atomic bombs, it's others who do that. In addition to Iran and North Korea, this chapter will look at three of the nuclear-haves who built their nuclear weapons arsenals using various components of the nuclear fuel cycle. Israel developed a very large nuclear arsenal from plutonium created in a reactor specifically designated for that purpose, India created a nuclear arsenal from heavy water nuclear power plants, and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons largely from uranium enrichment facilities.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

54

AT: NUCLEAR POWER DECREASES CO2
1. Nuclear power can’t solve warming – it would require one reactor a week for 52 years Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 16-17)CP Setting aside the energetic costs of the whole fuel cycle, and looking just at the Nuclear Industry's claim that what transpires in the nuclear plants is "clean and green," the following conditions would have to be met for nuclear power actually to make the substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that the industry claims is possible (this analysis assumes 2% or more growth in global electricity demand): •All present-day nuclear power plants-441-would have to be replaced by new ones. •Half the electricity growth would have to be provided by nuclear power. •Half of all the world's coal fired plants would have to be replaced by nuclear power plants.28 This would mean the construction over the next fifty years of some 2,000 to 3,000 nuclear reactors of 1,000 megawatt size-one per week for fifty years! Considering the eight to ten years it takes to construct a new reactor and the finite supply of uranium fuel, such an enterprise is simply not viable. 2. Nuclear power plant construction and uranium mining emits as much carbon as a natural gas plant Sovacool, 07 - Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech (Benjamin, “What's Really Wrong With Nuclear Power?,” 11/30, http://scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2007/11/What-s-Really-Wrong-With-Nuclear-Power/) //DH Third and finally, nuclear power plants are not carbon neutral. The Oxford Research Group concludes that the nuclear fuel cycle is responsible for emitting 84 to 122 grams of carbon dioxide per every kWh, mostly from uranium mining, plant construction, and plant decommissioning. The report also notes that these emissions are around half of that as natural gas plants (so we are talking about some serious carbon). In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency notes that uranium is getting harder to mine, meaning that the carbon emissions related to nuclear will get worse as more uranium gets depleted, not better. This is because mining uranium ores of relatively low grades and greater depth is much more energy intensive. If world nuclear generating share remains what it is today, the Oxford Research Group concludes that by 2050 nuclear power would generate as much carbion dioxide per kWh as a comparable gas-fired power station. 3. Nuclear power produces no net energy – the difficulty of uranium extraction means CO2 emissions are the same Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. viii-ix)CP While currently the creation of nuclear electricity emits only one-third the amount of CO2 emitted from a similarsized, conventional gas generator, this is a transitory statistic. Over several decades, as the concentration of available uranium ore declines, more fossil fuels will be required to extract the ore from less concentrated ore veins. Within ten to twenty years, nuclear reactors will produce no net energy because of the massive amounts of fossil fuel that will be necessary to mine and to enrich the remaining poor grades of uranium. (The nuclear power industry contends that large quantities of uranium can be obtained by .reprocessing radioactive spent fuel. However, this process is extremely expensive; medically dangerous for nuclear workers, and releases large amounts of radioactive material into the air and water; it is therefore not a pragmatic consideration.) By extension, the operation of nuclear power plants will then produce exactly the same amounts of greenhouse gases and air pollution as standard power plants. Contrary to the nuclear industry claims, smoothly running nuclear power plants are also not emission free. Government regulations allow nuclear plants "routinely" to emit hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. Thousands of tons of solid radioactive waste are presently accumulating in the cooling pools beside the 103 operating nuclear plants in the United States and hundreds of others throughout the world. This waste contains extremely toxic elements that will inevitably pollute the environment and human food chains, a legacy that will lead to epidemics of cancer, leukemia, and genetic disease in populations living near nuclear power plants or radioactive waste facilities for many generations to come.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

55

XT 1 – CAN’T SOLVE WARMING FAST ENOUGH
Nuclear power can’t be built fast enough to solve warming Makhijani, 4 - President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Arjun, “Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 61, 2004) //markoff <If the world continues to use oil for transportation (and oil accounts for about forty percent of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use today, most of it in the transport sector), 15 a very large number of nuclear power plants will have to be built in the next four decades to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Most existing coal-fired power plants would have to be replaced with nuclear ones, and present-day nuclear power plants (over 400 in all) will have to be retired and replaced with new ones. In order to make a significant dent in CO[su'2'] emissions, at least one-third, and perhaps one-half or more of the global growth in electricity demand must be supplied by nuclear power. In any scenario involving two percent or greater global electricity growth, the use of nuclear power will mean the construction of thousands of nuclear power plants in the next four decades. Consider for instance, an electricity growth rate of two percent, which is far less than that occurring in China and India, but more or less typical of recent U.S. trends. To make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we might hypothesize that (i) all present day nuclear power plants will be replaced by new ones, (ii) half the electricity growth will be provided by nuclear power, and (iii) half of the world's coal-fired plants will be replaced by nuclear power plants. This would mean that about two thousand large (1,000 megawatts each) nuclear power plants would have to be built over the next four decades. That is a rate of about one per week. If small plants, like the proposed Pebble Bed Modular Reactor were built instead, the required rate of construction would be about three reactors every two days.> The expansion of nuclear power would have to be more rapid and substantial than possible to dent warming Mariotte, 2007 - Executive Director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (Michael, “Nuclear Power in Response to Climate Change”, November 9, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html, REQ) Environmental advocates considering “reconsidering” nuclear power in light of climate change are too late. The accelerating pace of the climate crisis and the dawning realization that we no longer have the luxury of a few decades to address the crisis already have made nuclear power an irrelevant technology in terms of climate. Even if the nuclear industry had solved the safety, radioactive waste, proliferation, cost, and other issues that ended its first generation—and it hasn’t solved any of those problems—it wouldn’t matter. What nuclear power can offer for climate is simply too little, too late. The major studies that have looked at the issue—MIT, the National Commission on Energy Policy, etc.—generally agree that for nuclear to make a meaningful contribution to carbon emissions reduction would require reactor construction on a massive scale: 1,200 to 2,000 new reactors worldwide, 200 to 400 in the United States alone. And that would have to be done over the next 40 to 50 years. Pity poor Japan Steel Works, the world’s major facility for forging reactor pressure vessels (there is one other, smallcapacity facility in Russia): working overtime it can produce twleve pressure vessels per year. Do the math: That’s less than half of what is needed. Even if someone put in the billions of dollars and years necessary to build a new forging facility, it’s still not enough, not fast enough. There are 104 operable reactors in the United States today. In November 2017, no matter how much taxpayer money is thrown at the nuclear industry, there will be 104—or fewer. Even with streamlined licensing procedures and certified reactor designs, it will take ten, twelve years or more to license, build and bring a single new reactor online. And since most of the reactor designs being considered are first or second of a kind, count on them taking even longer. Our energy future ultimately will be carbon-free and nuclear-free, based primarily on solar and wind power, energy efficiency, and distributed generation. What is perhaps less obvious is that the future is now. In the years we’d be waiting for that first new reactor to come online, we can install ten times or more solar and wind capacity, and save twenty times or more that much power through increased efficiency while building the mass production that reduces costs, especially for photovoltaics. By the time that first reactor could come online, solar could already be cost-competitive, while wind and efficiency already are cheaper than nuclear. We no longer have ten years to begin reducing carbon emissions. Waiting around for a few new reactors won’t help our climate, but it would waste the funds needed to implement our real energy future.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

56

XT 1 – CAN’T SOLVE WARMING FAST ENOUGH
Nuclear power would have to be built on a massive scale to effect warming IEER, 6 (Press Release, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, National Press Club News Briefing, “Nuclear Power Is Risky Solution for Addressing Climate Change: New Book Documents Accident, Proliferation, Contamination Dangers, Details Safer Carbon Dioxide Reduction Alternatives, June 20, 2006, http://www.ieer.org/reports/insurmountablerisks/pressrel.html)//NHH *Brice Smith- Ph.D., Project Scientist, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Building more nuclear power plants is a hazard-filled strategy for reducing global warming, according to a book released today. Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change, produced by the non-profit Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), documents accident, proliferation and contamination threats associated with reviving the nuclear industry as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The book also details economically competitive alternative fuel sources which can address U.S. and world electricity needs. Dr. Brice Smith, senior scientist at IEER and author of the book, explained, "Nuclear power is a very risky and unsustainable option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Trading one potentially catastrophic health, environmental and security threat for another is not a sensible energy policy." Dr. Smith holds a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Smith continued, "Nuclear power plants are a uniquely dangerous source of electricity that will create serious risks, particularly if deployed on a large scale. These include the potential of catastrophic reactor accidents on the scale of Chernobyl, the difficulties of managing long-lived radioactive waste, and increased likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. For nuclear power to make a meaningful contribution to reducing CO2 emissions, 1,000 to 2,500 reactors would have to be operating globally by mid-century. That means commissioning a new plant every one to two weeks"

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

57

XT 2 - CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER RELEASES CO2
Nuclear power releases large amounts of CO2 Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884) While nuclear reactors themselves do not release greenhouse gases, reactors are only part of the nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle. This cycle includes mining uranium ore, milling it to extract uranium, converting the uranium to gas, enriching it, fabricating fuel pellets, generating power, reprocessing spent fuel, storing spent fuel at the reactor and transporting the waste to a permanent storage facility. Because most of these nine stages are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, nuclear power thus generates at least 33 grams of carbon-equivalent emissions for each kilowatt-hour of electricity that is produced. (To provide uniform calculations of greenhouse emissions, the various
effects of the different greenhouse gases typically are converted to carbon-equivalent emissions.) Per kilowatt-hour, atomic energy produces only oneseventh the greenhouse emissions of coal, but twice as much as wind and slightly more than solar panels.

Nuclear energy releases large amounts of CO2 Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. viii)CP Nuclear power is not "clean and green," as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process. Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide (C02)-the primary "greenhouse gas"-into the atmosphere. In addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper ("greenhouse gas") than CO2, but it is a classic "pollutant" and a potent destroyer of the ozone layer. Nuclear power releases CO2 during the harvesting of uranium used to fuel the power plants Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 4-6)CP They were wrong. Although a nuclear power plant itself releases no carbon dioxide, the production of nuclear electricity depends upon a vast, complex, and hidden industrial infrastructure that is never featured by the nuclear industry in its propaganda, but that actually releases a large amount of carbon dioxide as well as other global warming gases. One is led to believe that the nuclear reactor stands alone, an autonomous creator of energy. In fact, the vast infrastructure necessary to create nuclear energy, called the nuclear fuel cycle, is a prodigious user of fossil fuel and coal. The production of carbon dioxide (C02) is one measurement that indicates the amount of energy used in the production of the nuclear fuel cycle. Most of the energy used to create nuclear energy-to mine uranium ore for fuel, to crush and mill the ore, to enrich the uranium, to create the concrete and steel for the reactor, and to store the thermally and radioactively hot nuclear wastecomes from the consumption of fossil fuels, that is, coal or oil. When these materials are burned to produce energy, they form CO2 (reflecting coal and oil's origins in ancient trees and other
organic carboniferous material laid down under the earth's crust millions of years ago). For each ton of carbon burned, 3.7 tons of CO2 gas are added to the atmosphere, and this is the source of today's global warming.

Nuclear power emits CO2 from uranium enrichment and reprocessing Sovacool, 07 - Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech (Benjamin, “What's Really Wrong With Nuclear Power?,” 11/30, http://scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2007/11/What-s-Really-Wrong-With-Nuclear-Power/) //DH Environmental costs abound as well. The reprocessing and enrichment of uranium and plutonium, needed for fuel, often necessitate fossil-fueled generators that emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. At an earlier stage in the nuclear fuel cycle, the
mining and milling of uranium and the operation of nuclear reactors also present grave dangers to the environment. Abandoned mines, for example, can pose radioactive risks for as long as 250,000 years after closure. Let’s not forget that nuclear plants produce prodigious amounts of waste that remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years—longer than our civilization has practiced Catholicism, or, more important for some, cultivated agriculture.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

58

XT 3 – URANIUM MINING DIFFICULTY INCREASES CO2 EMISSIONS
The extraction of uranium from graphite rocks will eventually consume 30 times the energy produced Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 7-8)CP There is a point at which the concentration of uranium becomes so low that the energy required to extract and to refine a dilute uranium ore concentration from the ground is greater than the amount of electricity generated by the nuclear reactor. For example, 162 tons of natural uranium must be extracted from the earth's crust each year to fuel one nuclear power plant. If the uranium is in granite ore, with a low-grade uranium concentration of 4 grams per ton of rock (0.0004%), then 40 million tons of granite will need to be mined. This rock will need to be ground into fine powder and chemically treated with sulphuric acid and other chemicals to extract the uranium from the rock (milling). Assuming an extraction capacity of 50% (an unrealistically high estimate), 80 million tons of granite will therefore need to be treated. The dimensions of this mass of rock are one hundred meters high and three kilometers long. The extraction of uranium from this granite rock would consume over thirty times the energy generated in the reactor from the extracted uranium.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

59

AT: NUCLEAR POWER GOOD – KEY TO LEADERSHIP
1. U.S. nuclear leadership fails – overall nuclear hypocrisy makes prolif and terrorism inevitable Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 134-135)CP In light of terrorist attacks using conventional weapons, it is only a matter of time before someone steals enough plutonium to make an adequate nuclear weapon. Then we proceed into the age of nuclear terrorism. Meanwhile, with the world awash in plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the Bush administration pursues its own nuclear armament development policy that makes it increasingly likely that a rogue nation will procure and possibly use nuclear weapons. The United States has adopted three contradictory stances at the same time: It is aggressively forging ahead to build more nuclear weapons, stating that it will use them preemptively even against nonnuclear nations. It is instrumental in denying the right to build nuclear weapons to all but a handful of countries. In the context of promoting nuclear energy, it has offered dozens of countries nuclear technology and access to nuclear power fuel. The fission process makes plutonium, which can then be separated by reprocessing and converted to fuel for nuclear weapons. While the Bush proposal includes taking the spent fuel back to the United States, it is not clear that that process can be undertaken with no cheating. Thus, even as there is much hand-wringing at the United Nations about the possibility that Iran and North Korea may be developing nuclear weapons, eight nation-states-Russia, the United States, France, China, Britain, India, Israel, and Pakistanpossess their own nuclear arsenals, and others are free to develop weapons without the admonitions that the United States and the United Nations are imposing upon Iran and North Korea. This strange juxtaposition of opposing attitudes needs to be examined in the context of the sixty-five-year history of nuclear fission and related weapons development. 2. Turn - expanding nuclear leadership increases tech transfer – this increases prolif Keeny, 07 - former deputy director of the U.S Arms Control and Disarmament agency (Spurgeon, PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18, L/n, rday) MR. KEENY: I'd just like to add one point. Going back half a century, President Eisenhower had a well-intentioned unfortunate initiative and that his "Atoms for Peace" proposal and it was well- intentioned and was based on a thesis that nuclear power would be so commonplace that it had to be accepted as a worldwide phenomenon, and by encouraging it on our terms we would have a better role. And I think that with based on a misunderstanding status for nuclear power at that time that led to a different -- a very foolish program of spreading nuclear reactors all over the world to people who hadn't the remotest idea what to do with them -- how to use them. And -- (inaudible) -- last couple of decades trying to retrieve the remnants of that program, I think we should -- not totally analogous but should carefully examine what we do in introducing -- (off mike) -- because we're going to have to subsidize it. These really poor undeveloping countries can't afford the capital costs of any kind of nuclear program. We should be very careful in thinking it through as to whether we can control the inevitable by doing things at our initiative that will soon get out of -- (inaudible) -- not necessarily stay under our control because I think -- I sort of see that theme emerging again and themes that are strangely reminiscent of that -- (off mike) -- fast -- (inaudible).

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

60

AT: NUCLEAR POWER GOOD – KEY TO LEADERSHIP
3. Turn – reprocessing a. new nuclear construction is vital to advancing the U.S. reprocessing agenda Bowman 6- President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, 9-3-06, Speech to House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended //VR)
This worldwide nuclear expansion also suggests that the once-through or “throw-away” nuclear fuel cycle now used in the United States is not a prudent or sustainable course for the long-term future.

—reprocessing used nuclear fuel, recovering the fissile materials that can produce more energy, fabricating those fissile materials into fresh fuel, and recycling that fuel into advanced nuclear reactors designed to handle these fuels without creating concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—is a global imperative in the long term. This vision underpins the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which combines nuclear fuel supply, used nuclear fuel
Closing the nuclear fuel cycle management and non-proliferation policies into a single, integrated initiative. The U.S. nuclear energy industry strongly supports research and development of advanced fuel cycle technologies, like those incorporated in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. Given the prospect of major expansion of nuclear power in the United States and globally, it is appropriate to continue the long-term research and technology development necessary to realize this longer-term vision of a nuclear fuel cycle optimized to extract maximum value from nuclear fuel and reduce the radiotoxicity and volume of the waste products requiring long-term isolation. Any such program must, however, have at least two defining characteristics. First, a reprocessing/recycle program must be sustainable over the relatively long period of time necessary to develop advanced fuel processing technologies and advanced reactor systems. Continuity is essential. In order to be sustainable, any such program must enjoy broad-based, bipartisan support and endorsement within the policy community and among our nation’s political leaders. That policy and political support must proceed from a clear-eyed and realistic understanding of the investment and time required to develop advanced fuel cycle technologies, which is measured in tens of billions of dollars and decades. It is not clear to the U.S. nuclear industry that the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or other similar initiatives now being discussed, have achieved the degree of sustainable support necessary to ensure long-term continuity and success. Second, a reprocessing/recycling program must be flexible enough to accommodate technological successes and failures (and there will be both), with clearly-defined success criteria, decision points and exit strategies. The nuclear energy industry fully supports an aggressive, continuing effort to define, develop and finance the technology development program necessary to close the nuclear fuel cycle, including deployment of appropriate technologies that meet policy goals, in order to position nuclear energy as a sustainable source of energy. But, again, regardless of reprocessing technologies and the fuel cycle selected, Yucca Mountain is needed for the waste by-product. The industry’s major priority, however, is the immediate imperative to address the significant challenges facing construction of the next nuclear power plants in the United States The nuclear energy renaissance depends on the industry’s success in working with the U.S. Congress, the executive branch and state governments to address the significant challenges described above. These challenges include timely completion of the joint government-industry NP 2010 program to develop detailed designs and firm cost estimates for advanced reactors; ensuring an efficient, stable licensing process, and demonstrating our ability to finance these capital-intensive projects, including workable implementation of the loan guarantee program created by the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

.

new nuclear plant construction is, and must remain, job one. If we do not succeed with this nearterm task, discussions of longer-term reprocessing and recycle strategies are largely irrelevant. If the United States does not build new nuclear power plants, the policy basis and technological rationale for a reprocessing and recycle program quickly erodes, because a single repository at Yucca Mountain is clearly capable of handling all the used nuclear fuel that will be produced by all existing U.S. nuclear reactors.
Addressing these near-term challenges to

b. Reprocessing increases the risk of proliferation and use Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //DH As noted, spent nuclear fuel contains Plutonium 239. 109 If nuclear fuel is recycled back into uranium, the plutonium must be separated from the uranium. 110 Plutonium 239 is fissionable material for a simple nuclear bomb, requiring only nine pounds. 111 Separating the uranium from the plutonium is the most challenging technical aspect of developing a nuclear weapon. 112 If more Plutonium 239 is made available, the more source material for nuclear weapons will be at risk of diversion. 113 In addition, the same technologies needed to enrich uranium to the point where it is suitable for nuclear power generation can be used to enrich uranium to the point where it is suitable for bomb-making as well. 114 Like the risk of terrorism, this risk of proliferation is very difficult to quantify, but in the long term can be assumed to reach a level of probability. One consequence of increased nuclear power generation worldwide would be the increased availability of nuclear weapons and their likely use in an international conflict at some time in the future.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

61

AT: NUCLEAR POWER GOOD – KEY TO LEADERSHIP
This facilitates the global spread of plutonium stocks – increasing proliferation Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 131-133)CP Because of the coming "renaissance" of the nuclear power industry, twenty-five countries and consortia will have access over a period of two decades to Generation IV reactors fuelled by plutonium. Some will also have "closed nuclear fuel cycles," with
their very own reprocessing plants to produce plutonium, since the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in their wisdom, have involved these countries in their Generation IV International Forum-the International Projects on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). This diverse collection of states includes Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the consortiums of Euratom and the European Community. So at the same time that the

IAEA and the U.S. government profess extreme concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, they are actively promoting and encouraging the dissemination of technology, expertise, and materials that make proliferation likely. With sophisticated technology the minimum amount of plutonium required to make a bomb is 1 to 3 kilograms 2.2 to 6.6 pounds however the generally accepted amount is 5 kg of weapons grade plutonium and 8 kg for reactor grade plutonium. The design is available on the Internet; the essential materials can be bought at any hardware store. A homemade plutonium bomb would be difficult to make but a bomb using highly-enriched uranium would be less so. And the world is awash in plutonium. Russia and the United States each have 34 metric tons of plutonium accrued from the
dismantling of nuclear weapons. If they continue dismantling more old nuclear weapons, they will accrue another 100 metric tons of free weapons-grade plutonium, while hundreds more tons of plutonium will remain in the nuclear arsenals of the world.'

Apart from the military plutonium, over 1,500 tons of plutonium has been produced by civilian nuclear power plants globally" Although much of this material remains locked up in spent fuel rods mixed with highly toxic radioactive materials, countries such as Japan, France, India, Russia, and other European countries have been busily extracting their civilian plutonium from spent fuel rods by reprocessing their spent fuel. These countries have
stockpiled over 200 metric tons at three large reprocessing plants: the Cogema facility in La Hague, France; British Nuclear Fuel's Limited Sellafield plant in Cumbria, England; and Mayak in Russia. The Japanese are constructing a new reprocessing complex at Rokkasho on the northern island of Hokkaido and Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, and the United States are among the other countries that already possess commercially separated plutonium." If, as proposed by some, 2,000 new nuclear power plants are

constructed over the next decades on the fallacious grounds of combating global warming, commercially produced plutonium could increase to 20,000 metric tons by 2050, dwarfing present inventories. This is plutonium madness. Only one millionth of a gram is a carcinogenic dose, and plutonium has a half-life of
24,400 years. In 1994, a report by the National Academy of Sciences described the Russian and U.S. military-derived stockpiles of plutonium as " a clear and present danger to national and international security," and a report by the British Royal Society in 1998 addressing the British stockpiles of plutonium concluded that "the chance that the stocks of (civil) plutonium might, at some stage, be accessed for illicit weapons production is of extreme concern.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

62

XT 1 – HYPOCRISY UNDERMINES LEADERSHIP
US nuclear hypocrisy undermines nonproliferation credibility Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 139-140)CP With this situation as background, the Bush administration has adopted some very provocative and dangerous policies-all of them in direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which inevitably have led and will continue to lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries. For example, although the Cold War is over, a new semi-autonomous agency, the National Nuclear Security Administration, was established by Congress in the year 2000 within the Department of Energy to oversee the development and production of new nuclear weapons. Los Alamos National Labs has just produced its first trigger for an atomic bomb since the Cold War ended, a sphere of finely honed and lathed plutonium that nuclear scientists call a "pit." Los Alamos Labs have the capacity to produce 30-40 pits a year, and the plan of one DOE study is to make 500 new American hydrogen bombs annually, comparable to Cold War rates. Because hydrogen bombs need tritium radioactive hydrogens for their fusion mechanism, the United States is also now proceeding to manufacture tritium at the Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Barr commercial nuclear power plant in Tennessee, which is then sent to the Savannah River site in South Carolina to be extracted by a new Tritium Extraction Facility. This is the first time
since 1992 that tritium for nuclear weapons has been produced in the United States, and this is one of the few times that commercial and military enterprises have been combined in the United States.

On the strategic front, the Bush administration has drafted a revised plan allowing military commanders to request presidential approval to use nuclear weapons to pre-ernpt an attack by a nation or terrorist group deemed to be planning to use weapons of mass destruction. These military commanders will also be permitted to use nuclear weapons to destroy known enemy stockpiles of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The document says that preparations must be made to use nuclear
weapons and to show determination to use them "if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use." The United States has always had a "first-use" policy against nuclear-armed nations, but now this strategy is also being applied to non-nuclear nations for the first time. The "revised plan" reflects a preemptive nuclear strategy first enunciated by the White House in 2002.22 Had this strategy been in place before the invasion of Iraq, a

nuclear attack could have been justified to "take out" Iraq's imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Other disturbing features of this document include authorization of the use of nuclear weapons against states without WMDs to counter potentially overwhelming conventional adversaries, to secure a rapid end of a war on U.S. terms, or to "ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations." The draft document also gives the Pentagon permission to deploy nuclear weapons-in
parts of the world where their future use is considered most likely, and it urges troops to train constantly for nuclear warfare. Although Congress voted in 2004 to discontinue research on the earth-penetrating nuclear bunker buster, this draft document calls for its continued development, and the U.S. Senate voted in July 2005 to revivify the bunker buster.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

63

UNIQUENESS - REPROCESSING DECREASING NOW
Reprocessing is decreasing globally – only a revival of U.S. influence could reverse this Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK Thus, three decades after the United States adopted an anti-reprocessing policy, one nuclear-weapon state is quitting, another is starting, three non-nuclear-weapon states have quit, and 12 non-nuclear-weapon states that were having their spent fuel reprocessed abroad have quit or will quit soon. Japan, which had completed a pilot reprocessing plant in 1974 before the United States reversed its pro-reprocessing policy, remains the only non-nuclear-weapon state that reprocesses. Its reprocessing program has been a major source of suspicion and envy in South Korea. In this context of declining international interest in reprocessing, the Bush administration in 2006 proposed building a U.S. reprocessing plant (with an unspecified mix of public and private financing) and is urging other countries to have their fuel reprocessed. Congress is blocking funding for reprocessing now Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK In 2007, Congress became alarmed about the Energy Department's proposal to commit quickly tens of billions of dollars to the construction of a huge reprocessing plant in the United States. The House Appropriations energy and water development subcommittee was particularly concerned and stated bluntly in the report on its proposed fiscal year 2008 energy and water appropriations bill that the "aggressive program proposed by the Department is at best premature" and that "before the Department can expect the Committee to support funding for a major new initiative, the Department must provide a complete and credible estimate of the life-cycle costs of the program."28 A few months later, a review of the Energy Department's nuclear energy research and development program by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council came to a similar conclusion when it reported that "[a]ll committee members agree that the GNEP program should not go forward and should be replaced by a less aggressive research program."29 Finally, in the House-Senate conference report that accompanied the consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year 2008, Congress instructed the Energy Department that "no funds are provided for facility construction for technology demonstration or commercialization."30 Accordingly, in its fiscal year 2009 budget request, submitted in February 2008, the Bush administration postponed plans to select sites for construction of a commercial-scale reprocessing plant and a fastneutron reactor and only sought funds for research and development. It still proposes, however, to build a smaller facility at a national lab site to develop reprocessing techniques on a pilot-plant scale.31 The decision on whether to push forward beyond the research and development stage will be left to the next administration and Congress.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

64

LINKS – U.S. NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP MEANS IT WILL PUSH REPROCESSING
The US is gathering support to switch to reprocessing strategies now Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK At U.S. urging, 20 other countries, including South Korea (see page 12), have now joined the United States in signing a GNEP Statement of Principles that embraces the development and use of reprocessing technology and contains no commitments on the part of its members to limit the spread of sensitive fuel cycle facilities such as reprocessing plants. In promoting the development of pyroprocessing and other experimental separations technologies, the Bush administration says it hopes to persuade those countries that currently use conventional PUREX reprocessing to switch to these other technologies eventually, thereby ending the production of pure plutonium. Yet through GNEP, the administration is promoting reprocessing primarily to countries that do not reprocess at all but rather store their spent fuel. Spent fuel storage is a far more proliferationresistant management strategy than any form of reprocessing. Expanding nuclear power creates political support for reprocessing Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //DH Nevertheless, faced with a Yucca Mountain repository that is already booked solid with the last forty years of nuclear waste, an Administration that supports nuclear power is taking a new look at fuel reprocessing as a way to increase the disposal capacity of Yucca Mountain while promoting new nuclear reactors. The DOE issued a report to Congress recommending the development
of new reprocessing technologies that would generate uranium that is sufficiently pure for re-use in nuclear generating facilities, while also leaving the plutonium bound up with even more hazardous radionuclides that would make the plutonium unattractive to bomb-makers. 82 The reduction in volume of the wastes to be disposed would extend the life of the Yucca Mountain waste repository. 83 The plutonium fuel would run through a new generation of "fast" electron reactors, which would destroy the plutonium and other dangerous radionuclides while generating heat for electricity generation. 84

U.S. nonproliferation leadership will promote reprocessing – reversing global trends Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor
of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK

This change in the U.S. attitude toward reprocessing is at odds with the welcome, recent global trend of countries abandoning reprocessing because it is costly and complicates waste disposal rather than facilitating it. The net result of even a partial success of the Bush administration's policy would be a reversal in the decline in the number of countries with stockpiles of separated plutonium, thereby undermining the nonproliferation regime. The U.S. is pushing reprocessing now through GNEP Sell, 07 – Deputy Secretary of Energy (Clay, Prepared Remarks to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 6/26, lexis) //DH GNEP seeks to address and minimize those two challenges by developing technologies to recycle the spent fuel in a proliferation- resistant manner and support a reordering of the global nuclear enterprise to encourage the leasing of fuel from fuel cycle states in a way that presents strong commercial incentives against new states building their own enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. This is a major change in U.S. civilian nuclear policy. And no longer will the U.S. government be casting a baleful eye on the rest of the world's reprocessing activities, but instead seek international cooperation to foster the growth of global nuclear power, including improved methods of recycling. The useable material in spent civilian nuclear fuel and excess weapons fissile material will now be recognized as potential valuable assets, to
be developed and used, and not just liabilities to be buried. This approach was heartily endorsed just last month, when Secretary Bodman met with ministers from China, Russia, Japan and France, along with observers from the United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency to discuss ways to enhance cooperation within the GNEP framework.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

65

REPROCESSING BAD – PROLIFERATION / TERRORISM
Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 191-192) CP What certainly is not desirable as a supposed solution to the waste problem is reprocessing and recycling of nuclear fuelsan approach the nuclear industry has promoted in many countries, partly to create an impression that the disposal problem is solved, partly to stretch fuel resources. Extraction of re-burnable uranium and plutonium from spent fuels, it is argued, greatly reduces the physical quantity of waste that must be permanently stored, and it would open the door to a so-called "plutonium economy" in which breeder reactors would run on the recycled fuel, producing more energy than they consume. But recycling does not really solve the disposal problem: it merely reduces the volume of waste that has to be permanently stored (and that volume is relatively small to begin with), while in some ways complicating the whole situation by creating more streams of different radioactive materials that all have to be specially handled. As for the stretching of nuclear fuels, that benefit comes at the cost of having to widely transport fuels consisting of pure fissile material that could be ripe targets for terrorists seeking to build bombs. Spent fuel from reactors, left alone, is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang, and extracting weaponsusable material from it would be beyond the capabilities of even an organization like AI Qaeda in the days before its large training camps were broken up. When plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially, however, it can be handled quite easily and could be used directly by a terrorist group or be stolen and sold to a government seeking to obtain nuclear weapons quickly and surreptitiously. This is why President Jimmy Carter was right to terminate all US work on reprocessing and breeder reactors in 1977 a policy that should be rigorously upheld. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is more expensive and creates additional risks of proliferation and terrorist use. Zwann, 8 – senior scientist as the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands and Columbia University’s Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy and also worked at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Bob van der, The Bulletin, “Nuclear waste repository case studies: The Netherlands,” May 19, 2008, http://www.thebulletin.org/webedition/reports/nuclear-waste-repository-case-studies/nuclear-waste-repository-case-studies-the-)// NHH The main arguments against reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and recycling the resulting uranium and plutonium for use as fresh fuel in nuclear power plants include: The amount of globally available separated military and civilian plutonium is large and rapidly increasing because global separation activity largely exceeds the amount used as MOX fuel in civilian reactors; A closed fuel cycle is more expensive than a once-through fuel cycle; Separating plutonium creates additional risks of proliferation and terrorist use; Global reserves of uranium will most likely last well into the twenty-first century even under optimistic nuclear energy growth scenarios.7 These arguments outweigh the modest benefits recycling promises in terms of reducing waste volumes, decreasing radiotoxicity and half-lives of portions of the waste, and optimizing natural-resource use, meaning that reprocessing technologies can probably be postponed for at least the next 50 years.8

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

66

REPROCESSING BAD – PROLIFERATION
Reprocessing creates risks of diversion and proliferation Makhijani, 4 - President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs,” 2004, http://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html)// NHH Surplus commercial plutonium extracted from spent fuel rods is piling up in enormous quantities at several nuclear sites. The largest stores are at the sites in Britain and France where plutonium is separated chemically from the rest of spent fuel in vast factories known as reprocessing plants, to the point that the separated commercial plutonium stock now rivals the military one and is in more locations. The Sellafield site in Britain and the La Hague site in France each store about eighty metric tons of separated commercial plutonium stored. The combined stock is enough to make more than twenty thousand nuclear bombs. More than thirty metric tons of commercial plutonium is stored at the Mayak site in the Southern Urals in Russia, where both military and commercial nuclear activities take place. The United States and Russia have worked together to improve security at Mayak, but the weak economic conditions in Russia, including at the nuclear weapons sites, the rapidly fluctuating tensions in an unstable world, and the spread of the idea that nuclear weapons can change a power equation all by themselves, has resulted in a situation where the dangers of diversion of plutonium into the non-state terrorist arena are now considerably higher than they were during the Cold War. While nuclear weapon states may not use commercial plutonium to make weapons (since most also have military plutonium, which nuclear weapons designers prefer for its somewhat different mix of plutonium isotopes), separated commercial plutonium is an ever-present temptation for non-nuclear states that want to make weapons. For instance, the leader of the Liberal Party in Japan said in April 2002 that "if (China)gets too inflated, the Japanese people will become hysterical in response," and that "we have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, so it's possible for us to produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads."20 Japan owns enough plutonium to accomplish this, though some of it is currently stored at the British and French reprocessing sites, where almost all Japanese commercial reprocessing takes place. Japan is also building a large new reprocessing plant at home. Expanding reprocessing increases the risk of prolif Totty, 08 (Michael Energy “(A Special Report); The case for -- and against -- Nuclear Power.” 2008, June 30) Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.1. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. By far the greatest risk is the possibility that an expansion of nuclear power will contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Plants that enrich uranium for power plants can also be used to enrich for bombs; this is the path Iran is suspected of taking in developing a weapons program. An ambitious expansion of nuclear power would require a lot more facilities for enriching uranium, broadening this risk. Facilities for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for reuse pose the danger that the material can be diverted for weapons.
Expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. doesn't pose a great proliferation risk, but a nuclear renaissance will put a strain on the current anti-proliferation system. Most of the growth world-wide is expected to be in countries -- such as those in the Middle East and Africa -- where a nuclear-energy program could give cover to surreptitious weapons development and create the local expertise in handling and processing nuclear materials.

The dangers of nuclear proliferation would be heightened if a nuclear revival turned to reprocessing of spent fuel to reduce the amount of high-level waste that builds up and to maintain adequate fuel supplies. Reprocessing is a problem because it can produce separated plutonium -- which is easier to steal or divert for weapons production, as North Korea has done, than plutonium contained in highly radioactive fuel. And commercial reprocessing plants produce so much plutonium that keeping track of it all is difficult, making it easier to divert enough for weapons without the loss being detected. Reprocessing Fuel Will Lead to Nuclear Proliferation UCS, 6 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “What Bush Means When He Says Nuclear Power.” 1/31, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/what-bush-means-when-he-says.html) //DT
In his State of the Union speech tonight, President Bush is expected to call for more nuclear power. While he is unlikely to delve into details, his plan includes the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from U.S. power reactors—a controversial plan that will overturn 30 years of U.S. practice and make it easier for terrorists to acquire plutonium to make nuclear weapons. While avoiding specifics, Bush may hint at reprocessing in his speech by using other terms. Reprocessing separates the plutonium

from the highly radioactive components of spent reactor fuel, so it is no longer deadly to handle. It removes the plutonium from the large and heavy spent fuel assemblies, so it is no longer impossible to steal. It puts the plutonium into forms that make it difficult to precisely measure and account for. And reprocessing just the spent fuel produced by U.S. reactors in one year would result in some 20 metric tons of plutonium—enough to build over 3,000 nuclear weapons.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

67

REPROCESSING BAD – PROLIFERATION
Reprocessing decreases the break-out time required to proliferate Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK Finally, the stockpiling of large quantities of separated plutonium in a fuel cycle involving reprocessing would result in a breakout time for nuclear weapons production far shorter than for the once-through fuel cycle case. The same would be true for a pyroprocessing plant. Indeed, a 1992 study commissioned jointly by the Departments of Energy and State showed a variety of ways to use a pyroprocessing plant to produce relatively pure plutonium.15 Reprocessing increases risks of proliferation Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK Matthew Bunn, acting director of Harvard University's Project on Managing the Atom, has laid out a number of additional arguments against reprocessing. First, reprocessing spent fuel doesn't negate the need for or reduce the space required in a permanent repository, because a repository's size is determined by the heat output of the waste, not its volume. second, reprocessing would substantially increase the cost of managing nuclear waste and wouldn't make sense economically unless uranium topped US$360 per kilogram, a price he says is not likely for several decades, if ever. Third, in this new era of heightened violence and terrorism, the proliferation risks which would not be addressed by the new reprocessing technologies-take on even greater urgency. Fourth, reprocessing is also a dangerous technology with a track record of terrible accidents, including the world's worst pre-Chornobyl nuclear accident (a 1957 explosion at a reprocessing plant near Khystym in Russia) and other incidents in Russia and Japan as recently as the 1990s. Fifth, the new "advanced" reprocessing technologies, UREX+ and pyroprocessing, are complex, expensive, in their infancy, and unlikely to yield substantial improvements over existing reprocessing methods. Finally, Bunn argues, the Bush administration's rush to embrace reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is premature and unnecessary, since the spent fuel can remain in dry casks at nuclear power plants for decades while better solutions are sought. New commitment to reprocessing makes proliferation inevitable Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //markoff <Given these impracticalities of large scale expansion of nuclear generation capacity, one might ask where the harm lies in increased nuclear generation to the extent possible, in at least partial mitigation of greenhouse gas impacts. If worldwide nuclear generation capacity is ultimately limited by the accessible uranium supply, then, one could argue, the impacts of nuclear power will be self-limiting. Unfortunately, however, resources diverted into nuclear energy development are taken away from other energy technologies more likely to prove sustainable in the long term. 121 A widespread international commitment to nuclear energy as a substantial means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will increase international pressure to engage in high proliferation risk activities such as plutonium-generating "breeder reactors." 122 And even the short-term use of nuclear power production continues to pile up spent fuel waste at insecure sites throughout the world, where it will be vulnerable to climate change impacts as well as the global social unrest that will likely accompany such impacts. 123>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

68

PUREX PROCESSING INCREASES PROLIFERATION RISKS
PUREX reprocessing increases the risk of prolif Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK In contrast, plutonium that has been separated from spent fuel by the PUREX process emits such a low level of penetrating radiation that a person could carry a bomb's worth (less than eight kilograms) in lightweight containers without incurring a radiation dose high enough to cause severe injury in the near term. (Even a small radiation dose brings with it a slightly increased chance of cancer in the long term.) The IAEA currently considers nuclear material "self-protecting" if the radiation dose rate one meter away is at least one Sievert per hour (100 rems/hour).12 The gamma and neutron dose rate from a 50-year-old spent fuel assembly containing five kilograms of plutonium would be about 10 Sieverts/hour while that from a kilogram of separated plutonium is about one million times lower. It is therefore far easier to divert separated plutonium to a national or subnational weapons program than it is to divert and separate the plutonium in a spent fuel assembly. GNEP increases proliferation risks through PUREX reprocessing Bunn 7 DR. MATTHEW, BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS HEARING OF THE SENATE ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP, November 14, L/n, rday

DR. BUNN: Alright, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it's an honor to be here today to discuss the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. I'm a supporter of nuclear energy and of a strong nuclear R&D program, and there are several concepts in the GNEP umbrella which would reduce proliferation risks and deserve support. But building a commercial scale reprocessing plant in the near term would be a costly mistake that would increase proliferation risks rather than reducing them. Since 1976, the U.S. message to other countries has been that reprocessing is unnecessary. Now with GNEP the message is reprocessing is essential to the future of nuclear energy, but we're going to keep the technology away from you. I think that will make it more difficult to meet President Bush's goal of limiting the spread of reprocessing technology. DOE argues, on the contrary, that GNEP will provide assured fuel services that will give countries incentives not to build their own enrichment and reprocessing facility. This is a worthwhile objective, but U.S. reprocessing is irrelevant to providing assured supply of fresh fuel, and is not necessary for taking back limited quantities of spent fuel from countries developing nuclear power for the first time. And DOE argues that the new processes, such as the UREX-Plus (family ?) will be proliferation resistant. But having other countries pursue UREX-Plus or pryo-processing would be only a modest improvement over the traditional PUREX reprocessing technology because deploying these processes would also give states experience and infrastructure that would be extremely helpful to a nuclear weapons program. SEN. BINGAMAN: Would you state that again? DR. BUNN: I would say that having a UREX-Plus plant would give them experience and infrastructure that would be extremely helpful for producing plutonium for a nuclear weapons program. It would make that program cheaper and quicker for them to accomplish. With respect to potential theft and diversion, DOE emphasizes that GNEP processes will not produce pure separated plutonium. This is a slogan, not an analysis. Pure plutonium is not needed for a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons could be made directly from the roughly 50-50 plutonium/uranium mix proposed in the COEX process, for example, or the plutonium could be separated in a simple glove box. Any state or group capable of doing the technically challenging job of making a nuclear bomb from pure plutonium would likely be able to the much simpler job of getting pure plutonium from this plutonium-uranium mix. Keeping the minor actinides and possibly some of the lanthanides with the plutonium, as proposed in UREX-Plus and its variants, would make the product more radioactive, but the radioactivity would be far less than needed to deter theft, particularly by suicidal terrorists. The UREX-Plus process and PUREX processing both take away the great mass of the uranium and most of the radioactivity from the fission products, and thus results in a product that's much easier to get plutonium out of than is spent fuel that has not been reprocessed. These processes may be somewhat better than PUREX, but there can be no confidence that other countries will pursue more complex and expensive technology just because we do.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

69

AT: PYROPROCESSING SOLVES PROLIF
Pyroprocessing doesn’t emit enough radiation to deter proliferation Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK Keeping the transuranic elements americium and curium mixed with plutonium in pyroprocessing would increase its radiation dose a hundred-fold but only to a level that would still be one thousand times lower than the IAEA's selfprotection standard.13 Pyroprocessing decreases nuclear accounting – making theft harder to detect Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK It is also relatively easy in the once-through fuel cycle to keep track of spent fuel assemblies. In contrast, the IAEA has conceded that material accountancy alone cannot effectively detect national diversion of weapons-useable quantities of plutonium at large reprocessing facilities because of the huge throughputs of plutonium involved and the inaccuracies of plutonium measurement. Pyroprocessing is even more problematic in this regard because the higher radiation levels and inhomogeneous mixture being processed render it even more difficult to measure accurately the plutonium in the process.14

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

70

AT: INNOVATION SOLVES REPROCESSING COSTS
Technological innovation won’t bring down the costs of reprocessing Lester, 6 – Richard, professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center of MIT (Richard K., “New Nukes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2006, Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 39, Proquest)/AK Could technological advances reduce the cost of full actinide recycle below the conventional MOX cycle cost? This cannot be ruled out, but common sense suggests that it is unlikely. FuU actinide recycle is inherently more demanding than the current version of the closed fuel cycle, which seeks only to recover and reuse plutonium in the spent fuel. The GNEP vision entails a complex large-scale extension of the existing nuclear power industry, with scores of burner reactors and associated reprocessing and fuel fabrication facilities and major additional stocks and flows of nuclear materials. Reducing the costs of all this should be an important R&D objective. But the only sensible assumption today is that this add-on will not be economically viable on its own, which means that it would require a much more active government role in the nuclear industry than at present. It is difficult to reconcile this vision with the goal of maximizing the economic viability of nuclear power in an increasingly competitive electric power industry. Small wonder that the nuclear industry has greeted the GNEP initiative politely, but coolly.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

71

AT: GENERATION IV REACTORS SOLVE PROLIF
Generation IV reactor promises are not based in fact Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 125-126)CP "Closing" the nuclear fuel cycle obviously will contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation. The total amount of plutonium required to operate the fuel cycle at a breeder reactor, its reprocessing plant, and fuel fabricating facilities is a massive 15 to 25 tons." Since plutonium is the fuel of choice for nuclear weapons, these reprocessing facilities are very dangerous sources. The minimum amount of plutonium necessary to make an atomic bomb is only 1 to 3 kilograms or 2.2 to 6.6 pounds. Breeder reactors and reprocessing plants therefore are a standing invitation for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The actual breeding of new plutonium fuel at nuclear reactors has never eventuated because of the extraordinary safety and waste management regimes required to handle plutonium and because these reactors never operated successfully. Instead, the cost of reprocessing and fabricating the fuel has increased dramatically over the past three decades, making it cheaper and safer to simply mine natural uranium than recycle plutonium Fast reactors are similar to breeder reactors because neutrons in the reactor core are not moderated. Fast reactors typically do not contain as much U-238 in the reactor cores for conversion into Pu-239, so they do not produce as much plutonium as breeder reactors. Fast reactors are an excellent way, says the nuclear industry, to get rid of very long-lived plutonium, while at the same time generating electricity. This technique is called "actinide management." If a fast neutron reactor operates without the U-238 blanket installed in a breeder reactor core, five additional tons of plutonium can be placed in its reactor core, 10% of which will be converted to fission products. This is called "waste burnup" or "transmutation" of plutonium. But only 10% of the plutonium is converted to deadly, long-lived fission products such as strontium and cesium, which last for 600 years, while 90% of the longer lived plutonium remains. Fast neutron reactors are twice as expensive as light water reactors, which themselves are 60% more expensive than coal and gas fired plants and wind energy, and these "waste burn-up" reactors will have no impact upon the hundreds of tons of plutonium already stockpiled around the world. The nuclear industry loves the concept of fast reactors because they say they can get rid of plutonium, which is a lode stone around their necks because it is a) so toxic, b) lasts for 500,000 years, and c) is fuel for atomic bombs. But as noted above only 10% of plutonium is fissioned in a fast reactor and that 10% is converted to deadly fission products-cesium and strontium, which themselves last for 600 years. The industry is pulling a fast one on an unsuspecting public. Despite these extraordinarily expensive and dangerous plans, the nuclear industry egregiously claims that its Generation IV nuclear reactors will be the dream fuel providers: safe, proliferation resistant, economically competitive, and producing no greenhouse emissions. They even call these reactors "sustainable," a term applicable only to renewable energy sources and conservation. Such claims are as baseless today as "too cheap to meter" was fifty years ago.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

72

BREEDER REACTORS FAIL
“Breeder reactors” fail – reprocessed fuel isn’t used Makhijani, 4 - President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Arjun, “Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 61, 2004) //markoff III. Commercial Plutonium <The problems with nuclear power don't stop there. The romance with nuclear power has, from the start, been strongly associated with the use of plutonium as a fuel. This is because the most abundant uranium isotope in nature is uranium-238 - more than ninety-nine percent of natural uranium is U-238, which cannot sustain a chain reaction and is therefore not useful as a reactor fuel. The starting reactor fuel must necessarily be uranium-235, which is fissile but constitutes only about 0.7 percent of natural uranium. But U-238 has another property - when placed in a reactor, it absorbs a neutron, undergoes nuclear reactions, and gets transmuted into plutonium-239, which is fissile. Like uranium-235, plutonium-239 can be used to make bombs and fuel reactors. Converting uranium-238 into plutonium-239, in a kind of reactor called a "breeder reactor," can create more fuel than the reactor uses in its power generation mode. This is the "magical" aspect of nuclear power that has fascinated physicists and propagandists alike. About $ 100 billion have been spent worldwide over half a century in the effort to commercialize plutonium fuel and reactors that will "breed" it from uranium-238. 19 The effort has been a vast economic and technical failure. Plutonium fuel is used to supply part of the fuel of less than three dozen reactors, most of them in France, out of a world total of more than 400 commercial reactors. The fuel is subsidized by ratepayers and taxpayers to the tune of about one billion dollars per year in France alone.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

73

AT: GNEP SOLVES PROBLEMS WITH REPROCESSING
GNEP relies on COEX reprocessing that makes proliferation easy Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK Spurgeon – Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy When GNEP was first announced, the Energy Department planned to build an engineering-scale facility to demonstrate the UREX+ technology. However, UREX+ was not ready for deployment on the department's ambitious schedule. As a result of industry feedback, department officials eliminated the demonstration step and decided instead to seek proposals from industry to construct a more conventional, commercial-scale plant large enough to reprocess the 2,000 tons of spent fuel being discharged annually by U.S. power reactors and perhaps start digging into the backlog. It was to be the largest reprocessing plant in the world23 and cost at least $20 billion.24 In May 2007, the United States withdrew its opposition to the indefinite continued use of PUREX reprocessing by other countries.25 In an August 3, 2006, telephone press conference, scheduled to answer questions about the Energy Department's request for expressions of interest in building a reprocessing plant, Spurgeon indicated that he was willing to consider any proposal to build a reprocessing plant in the United States as long as it did not involve the separation of pure plutonium. In response to a follow-up question, he indicated that he was specifically willing to consider a minor variant of PUREX known as COEX (co-extraction) that was being offered by France's nuclear conglomerate, Areva. With COEX, the plutonium would be left mixed with an equal amount of uranium.26 This product would be little different from pure plutonium, however, with regard to the length of time required to convert it to nuclear weapons use. As a recent Argonne National Laboratory report has acknowledged, the plutonium could be separated out using a well-known chemical process.27 GNEP is a 20-30 year effort before it will have proliferation benefits Record, 08 – acting assistant secretary of State of the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (Frank, “HEARING OF THE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES”, 6/20, lexis) //DH MR. RECORD: Well, these are countries that have indicated that they want to participate -- and France is one; I think the U.K.; there are others. We've had lots of discussions with -- some with the Japanese and others that we're working ahead. Now, what -- in the GNEP in particular -- but I want to also quickly note that this isn't just a partnership for developed countries. This is -- also has an element where we can work with proliferation resistant reactors in a small scale that will benefit developing countries. And some of the proliferation-related meetings I have attended and discussed, I have had very serious interest from the part of -- for example, from Indonesia, which doesn't always see eye to eye with us on some issues. But it has expressed strong support for the GNEP proposal, and we are going to send a team to brief them. So I just wanted to make sure that that is understood -- that this is an initiative that can actually have proliferation benefits for a wide range of countries over time. But it's not going to produce results right away. I don't want to over-sell it because it's a 20- to 30-year effort. But we'd be glad to give you some more details about how it would benefit developing countries. GNEP reprocessing will take 50 years to develop Domenici 07 Pete, Senator from New Mexico, HEARING OF THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP, November 7th, L/n rday First of all, I think the problem with GNEP is that it's a 50- year program, and the United States can't wait 50 years for what we need. We need something that GNEP would provide us with, but it's going to take way too long, and it has ingredients that are far too controversial for us to base the entire future of nuclear power on it. Now, it's well thought out. It's terrific if you had all the money in the world and if you could produce all of the technical machines that you're talking about. It would be wonderful.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

74

AT: GNEP SOLVES WASTE
GNEP won’t resolve waste storage problems Lester, 6 – Richard, professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center of MIT (Richard K., “New Nukes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2006, Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 39, Proquest)/AK Would GNEP affect prospects for the Yucca Mountain project? Once again, the answer is probably not. Predicting the containment performance of the repository over hundreds of thousands of years, as the regulations require, will be enormously challenging. So, in principle, eliminating longlived actinide isotopes from the waste could lighten the regulatory burden substantially. But much work remains to figure out whether developments envisaged by GNEP are feasible, work that will take far more time than the estimated 10 years it will take to license Yucca Mountain. During the licensing period, the possibility of achieving major reductions in the actinide inventory will remain just that, a possibility. Even if these timing problems could be overcome, a significant technical problem would remain. The most optimistic advocates of actinide extraction and transmutation suggest that it will cut the time required for waste disposal to only a few hundred years. But no extraction scheme is perfect. Small quantities of long-lived actinides will inevitably find their way into the waste. Moreover, significant quantities of actinides are present in waste that has already been generated, much of it from defense programs, which is also scheduled for disposal at Yucca Mountain. And actinides are not the only long-lived constituents of nuclear waste. A small number of fission products also have very long half-lives, notably technetium-99 (212,000 years) and iodine-129 (16 million years.) Some repository risk studies suggest that these isotopes would contribute more than most actinides to the radiation dose that could be received by the repository's neighbors in the far future. Why go to the trouble of removing actinides from the waste if these fission product isotopes are still there? No credible scheme for separating and transmuting them has yet been proposed. Thus, although GNEP promises significant reductions in long-lived isotopes in the repository, some will remain. The biggest regulatory challenge at Yucca Mountain-demonstrating compliance with radiation protection standards for up to a million years-will not be much different with or without GNEP.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

75

AT: REPROCESSING SOLVES WASTE SITING ISSUES
Reprocessing doesn’t reduce the volume of nuclear waste Levi, 2006 - Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations (Michael, New Republic Online, April 18, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10473/wasted_energy.html, REQ) That argument ignores two critical things. First, it is cheaper to simply mine and use new uranium than to extract the remaining “95 percent of the potential energy” Moore refers to. More importantly, recycling used fuel does little to cut down the volume of nuclear waste. When the remaining “potential energy”—locked up in uranium and plutonium—is extracted from used nuclear fuel, the bulk of the radioactivity in that nuclear fuel remains. As a result, that material must still be protected in large, radiation-shielding casks—and disposed of, meaning that the waste problem does not disappear.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

76

REPROCESSING BAD---OCEANS
Reprocessing increases nuclear waste and leads to ocean dumping Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK UCS's Ed Lyman says it is "a myth" that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel reduces the volume of nuclear waste: "All reprocessing does is take spent fuel that's compact, and it spreadssmears-it out into dozens of different places." Current reprocessing technology uses nitric acid to dissolve the fuel assemblies and separate out plutonium and uranium. But it also leaves behind numerous extremely radioactive fission products as well as high-level liquid waste that is typically solidified in glass. In the process, a lot of radioactive gas is discharged into the environment, and there is additional liquid waste that's too expensive to isolate, he says: "So, that's just dumped into the ocean-that's the practice in France and the U.K." This causes extinction Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND ** Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatestdying) In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans
depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber.

Life as we know it would be

impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

77

REPROCESSING BAD – ACCIDENTS
Reprocessing reactors make accidents more likely Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 61) We are concerned about the safety of reprocessing plants,13 because of large radioactive material inventories, and because the record of accidents, such as the waste tank explosion at Chelyabinsk in the FSU, the Hanford waste tank leakages in the United States and the discharges to the environment at the Sellafield plant in the United Kingdom. Releases due to explosion or fire can be sudden and widespread. Although releases due to leakage may take place slowly, they can have serious long-term public health consequences, if they are not promptly brought under control. Although the hazards of reprocessing plants differ from those of reactors, the concepts and methods and practices of reactor safety are broadly applicable to assuring the safety of reprocessing plants. We do not see the need for commercial reprocessing in the global growth scenario, but we believe the subject requires careful study,14 and action, if and when reprocessing becomes necessary.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

78

REPROCESSING ISN’T COST COMPETITIVE
Companies will choose once-through reactors, reprocessing isn’t cost-competitive even assuming disposal Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 54) The fuel cycle cost model presented in Appendix 5.D shows that the closed cycle PUREX/MOX option fuel costs are roughly 4 times greater than for the open cycle, using estimated costs under U.S. conditions. The closed cycle can be shown to be competitive with the once-through option only if the price of uranium is high and if optimistic assumptions are made regarding the cost of reprocessing, MOX fabrication, and high level waste disposal. As explained in Appendix 5.D, the effect of the increased MOX fuel cycle cost on the cost of electricity depends upon the percentage of MOX fuel in the entire fleet if fuel costs are blended. The case is often advanced that disposing of reprocessed high level waste will be less expensive than disposing of spent fuel directly. But there can be little confidence today in any estimate of such cost savings, especially if disposal of nonhigh-level waste contaminated with significant quantities of long-lived transuranic radionuclides (TRU waste) associated with recycle facilities and operations is taken into account. Furthermore, our cost model shows that even if the cost of disposing of reprocessed high-level waste were zero, the basic conclusion that reprocessing is uneconomic would not change. Reprocessing isn’t cost competitive – it will hinder overall nuclear industry development Lester, 6 – Richard, professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center of MIT (Richard K., “New Nukes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2006, Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 39, Proquest)/AK
Economic competitiveness. Unfavorable economics has been one of the main barriers to new nuclear power plant investment in the United States for nearly three decades, and it remains a major concern.

Keeping generating costs down will be crucial for future nuclear power plants selling their electricity into competitive wholesale power markets. The costs of reprocessing and recycling envisaged by GNEP are uncertain, because several component technologies are still undefined. But a useful benchmark is conventional PUREX reprocessing and recycling of MOX fuel, for which cost information is available. This information makes clear that the conventional MOX fuel cycle is more costly than the alternative of not reprocessing. There is no dispute about this, although opinions differ about how large the cost penalty really is.
Much of the disagreement hinges on arguments about who should pay the penalty. The French argue that the MOX cycle cost penalty is too small to worry about. Not coincidentally, they assume that the cost will be borne by the entire fleet of power plants, not just the ones that are using MOX fuel. With that assumption, together with optimistic but not implausible assumptions about the costs of PUREX reprocessing and MOX fuel fabrication, the impact on the overall costs would indeed be fairly modest: The fleet-average fuel cycle cost would increase by about 40% and the total nuclear electricity cost would increase by about 4%. In effect, the nuclear industry would have to pay a recycle tax of about 0.25 cent per kilowatt hour, on top of the tax of 0.1 cent per kilowatt hour it currently pays to the federal government for (yet to be delivered) waste disposal services. In France, with its single national utility, it is reasonable to assume a cross-subsidy in which all commercial nuclear power plants pay for the higher fuel cycle costs of the relatively small number that would

in the United States, unless this requirement were imposed by regulatory fiat, nuclear plant operators opting for recycling would either have to absorb the entire cost increase themselves or pass part or all of it on to their customers. That cost increase would likely be prohibitive. If we again use the conventional MOX cycle as the benchmark, it would mean a 300% increase in the
be doing the recycling. But nuclear fuel cycle cost, or roughly a 20% increase in the total cost of electricity. Given the choice, a private nuclear generator would not shoulder such a burden on its own; a government subsidy would be needed. The total subsidy would amount to roughly $2 billion per year for a nuclear power plant population the size of the current U.S. fleet.

Reprocessing significantly increases the cost of nuclear power Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK In a February 2008 speech, Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary of energy for nuclear energy, argued that "closing the fuel cycle is essential for expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world." This assertion is highly questionable because reprocessing is 10 times more costly than spent fuel storage. If nuclear power is to become more widely competitive, its cost must decrease, not increase. Spurgeon's view, however, reflects the belief of GNEP supporters in the need to bypass the political logjams that block permanent spent fuel storage, which they see as a chief impediment to a major global increase in nuclear power. In the absence of geological repositories, reprocessing plants provide an alternative destination for the spent fuel accumulating at nuclear power plants.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

79

U.S. NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP HIGH NOW
US leadership high now- Yucca management proves Bowman, 8 –CEO at Nuclear Energy Institute (Skip, PR Newswire, “Filing of Yucca Mountain Application Marks Historic Day in Global Use of Nuclear Energy”, June 3, 2008, Proquest)/AK "This is a historic day for nuclear energy use worldwide. The filing of a license application for a geologic repository underneath a desert ridge at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, demonstrates that the United States is at the forefront of international efforts to safely manage used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the manner that the scientific community has recommended for decades. "Symbolically, the significance of this undertaking of environmental stewardship cannot be overstated. "The license application filing means that after two full decades of scientific study, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's independent technical evaluation of the repository site and the Department of Energy's repository design finally will begin.
While the development of a geologic repository is national policy dating back to 1982, the fact remains that the planned repository cannot be built or operate without explicit permission from the NRC. The nuclear energy industry commends the Energy Department and its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for an endeavor of world-class science. "This begins a licensing process that will be significant, unprecedented and transparent to the public, with the state of Nevada, several affected units of local government and Indian tribes among its active

Given the national importance of the safe disposal of the radioactive byproducts from used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and U.S. defense programs, all stakeholders should support the licensing process being carried through to its final conclusion so that the NRC decision is based upon a thorough and objective evaluation of the facts. "The nuclear energy industry views the repository as a key element of an integrated used fuel management program. This integrated strategy also should include interim storage of used fuel until reprocessing of used fuel or permanent disposal is available, although even with advanced reprocessing technologies being developed, there still will be some quantity of final waste products that will require long-term geologic
participants. The Nuclear Energy Institute plans to take part as well. disposal.

Americans can and should be proud of our international leadership with regard to management of used fuel. Nuclear energy has more than proven its worth to our society by reliably generating vast amounts of the baseload electricity that undergirds our economy and uplifts Americans' standard of living. The filing of this license application continues down a path to properly meet our obligation to future generations to safely and reliably manage the byproduct of this highly efficient form of electricity production."
"As this process unfolds,

U.S. nuclear power leadership is high now Sell, 07 – Deputy Secretary of Energy (Clay, Prepared Remarks to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 6/26, lexis) //DH The DOE was not abolished, and has instead enjoyed some remarkable successes that bear on our discussion here. Let me cite a few examples: * Four new world class Office of Science user facilities have been constructed - on time and within budget - and are now operating. The billion dollar class Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge having opened most recently. * All the buildings, equipment and material have been safely removed from Rocky Flats - it is now becoming a wildlife preserve. * Stockpile Stewardship has been an astonishing success. All the weapons in the U.S have been certified without nuclear testing, in large measure because of the deep understanding of the nuclear explosive process brought about by a reinvigorated weapons laboratory complex.
* The stockpile stewardship simulation program has driven the high performance computing revolution: performance on real, difficult problems has improved by a factor of almost 10,000 during this period. The United States is now by far the world leader in high performance computation, having been led there by the DOE national laboratories, which run six of the 11 fastest computers in the world.

* WIPP has been licensed and has safely disposed of some 50,000 cubic meters of radioactive material. * The Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Generation IV International Forum, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and now the GNEP programs all represent DOE's renewed commitment to civilian nuclear power. * The Department's Nuclear Nonproliferation program will complete its work at 123 sites by the end of 2008, securing hundreds of tons of fissile material in Russia and other former Soviet States, and has converted 48 reactors in 27 countries from HEU to LEU.
* It has trained thousands of U.S. and foreign customs officials, equipped over 100 sites with radiation detection equipment and engaged thousands of former foreign weapon scientists at 180 institutes across the former Soviet Union, Iraq and Libya. * We are on schedule to shut down two of the last three plutonium production reactors in Russia by 2008, with the last one shutting down by the end of 2010.

* The Megatons to Megawatts program has blended down some 300 metric tons of Russian HEU to make fuel to generate 2.5 trillion kilowatt hours of U.S. electricity...about 10% of our consumed electricity since the inception of the program.
* And finally, the Office of Secure Transportation, has transported nuclear weapons and special nuclear material over 116 million miles since it creation in 1975 without a fatal accident, or the loss, release, or damage to its cargo.

the DOE is an organization with a solid accomplishment, and is poised to provide the technical leadership for the global nuclear renaissance.
In short, while hardly without problems,

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

80

U.S. NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP HIGH NOW
The U.S. is the global leader in nuclear power Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//DH Today's nuclear power industry is performing at an incredible level. A consolidated, streamlined, and efficient U.S. nuclear industry now leads the world in economic production of electricity. 25 The United States is the world leader with 103 of the world's 441 operating power plants (as of 2002). 26 Whereas 17 percent of global electricity is produced by nuclear power, it supplies more than 20 percent of that used by Americans and 35 percent in the European Union. 27 The U.S. is not constructing new plants, but production has been growing as fast as electricity demand because the industry has increased performance as well as increased capacity through plant upgrades and uprates. In 2002, U.S. nuclear power industries generated more than 780 billion kilowatt-hours, which was worth more than $ 50 billion. 28 Last year, the reliability of nuclear plants averaged more than 90 percent, compared to less than 60 percent just 20 years ago. 29 Compare that to the capacity factors for other sources of electricity: coal (69 percent), natural gas (between 14 and 50 percent depending on the type of plant), heavy oil steam turbine (26 percent), hydro (29 percent), wind (29 percent), solar (21 percent), and geothermal (77 percent). 30 Fuel cycle, operations, and maintenance costs dropped again, so that nuclear power now has a lower marginal production cost than 90 percent of our electricity supply. 31 An existing plant that has been amortized can produce electricity 24 hours a day at less than two cents per kWh. 32 The median total production cost in 2002, including fuel cycle, operations, maintenance, and waste disposal, was just $ 16 per megawatt hour (MWh) (1.6 cents per kWh, compare that to the wholesale cost on your electric bill). 33

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

81

NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP ALTERNATE CAUSALITIES
The failure to accept spent fuel undermines U.S. nuclear leadership BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH During the last several decades, the U.S. has been struggling to implement a national policy for management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, independently of whether it will result in direct disposal of the spent fuel or reprocessing and recycle. In fact, the U.S. Government is presently in protracted litigation with most U.S. utilities for monetary damages associated with DOE's inability to accept their spent fuel and dispose of it as called for in contracts that it has with each of these customers. One adverse implication that this may have on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is that it seriously undermines the ability of the U.S. to offer fuel leasing or cradle- to-grave fuel cycle services to foreign countries. The ability to make such offers could be a valuable tool for discouraging the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies. Addressing nuclear waste is a prerequisite to nuclear leadership BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH Importance of Resolving the Nuclear Waste Issue In this connection, one the of the most severe challenges facing the nonproliferation regime in the years ahead is to prevent the spread of sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities such as enrichment and reprocessing plants. The goal of establishing fuel leasing or cradle-to-grave programs by the U.S. is an important component of GNEP, and, if achieved, it could prove to be far more effective than other approaches in discouraging the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities. The countries that are likely 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. The ability of the United States to offer nuclear fuel leasing or cradle-to grave fuel cycle services to other states on a broad basis faces formidable hurdles. The U.S. Government is already in breach of its contract with domestic owners and operators of nuclear power plants to have begun acceptance of their commercial spent nuclear fuel in 1998 in fulfillment of its obligations under the National Waste Policy Act. The Yucca Mountain Project continues to face formidable legal, regulatory and budgetary obstacles that must be overcome if spent fuel is ever to be shipped to that site for disposal. In addition, the statutory limit that was established by Congress of 70,000 metric tons of uranium for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository is significantly less than the amount of spent fuel that will be discharged by the nuclear power plants that are presently operating in the U.S. during their lifetimes. Materially reducing the volume of waste that will have to be disposed of in the U.S. has been one of the major motivating forces behind the R&D objectives of GNEP to develop new advanced closed fuel cycles. However, even though Yucca Mountain may have the physical capacity to store more than 130,000 tons of spent fuel, Congress must take a separate action to authorize it to go beyond its present statutory limit. Aside from capacity limits, there remain numerous legal, technical and regulatory issues that must be resolved before the Yucca Mountain repository will become operational even for domestic spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. In the absence of legislative changes by Congress, the present statutory capacity of Yucca Mountain will be fully utilized to accommodate domestic civilian and government spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. All this suggests that the ability of the United States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital to implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitive nuclear facilities to other countries.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

82

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – WASTE
Standard U.S. reactors create thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK In the light-water reactors that make up the majority of the world's reactor fleet, uranium fuel is loaded into the reactor, then bombarded by neutrons to trigger the nuclear fission chain reaction. After awhile all of the fissionable material in the uranium fuel is used up, or "spent." But the neutron bombardment makes the fuel two-and-a-half million times more radioactive, according to Marvin Resnikoff, a nuclear physicist with Radioactive Waste Management Associates in New York. By 2035, American nuclear power plants will have created an estimated 105,000 metric tons of spent fuel that is so deadly it must be completely isolated from the environment for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. A Nevada state agency report put the toxicity in perspective: even after 10 years out of the reactor, an unshielded spent fuel assembly would emit enough radiation to kill somebody standing a meter away from it in less than three minutes. Nuclear waste will destroy human evolution Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //DH By contrast, nuclear power generation waste impacts will last many thousands of years, and even into the millions of years. 131 The greatest impacts may not be felt for tens of thousands of years. 132 Given that no human civilization has lasted longer than 10,000 years, at least some of the impacts of nuclear power will be imposed on future peoples and political systems we cannot even contemplate. Indeed, given the long persistence of these wastes even in comparison with the timeframe of human evolution, these impacts may even be suffered by other species of humans yet to evolve. 133 The impacts of nuclear waste are thus "intercivilizational."

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

83

WASTE BAD - RADIATION
Spent fuel releases large amount of radioactivity into the environment and is vulnerable to a variety of attacks. Makhijani, 01 - President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Securing the Energy Future of the United States: Oil, Nuclear, and Electricity Vulnerabilities and a post-September 11, 2001 Roadmap for Action, November 2001, http://www.ieer.org/reports/energy/bushsumm.html)//NHH Spent fuel pools are large pools of water where the discharged used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors is stored. All commercial U.S. nuclear reactors use ordinary water as a coolant and moderator ("Light water reactors, or LWRs) and require spent fuel pools. Releases of long-lived radionuclides radioactivity from a massive spent fuel pool accident of or attack can be larger than those from a reactor. This is because the inventory of log-lived radionuclides in spent fuel pools is typically far larger than in reactors. For instance, Gordon Thompson, a physicist, has calculated that a fire at a spent fuel pool of the Millstone power plant in Connecticut could result in a release of cesium-137 larger than the estimated release from the Chernobyl accident.29 The length of time for which spent fuel must be stored in pools is at least three years. Spent fuel pools in the United States contain most of the 40,000 metric tons or so of spent fuel discharged so far from U.S. power reactors, though increasing amounts of spent fuel are now in on-site dry storage casks. Most spent fuel pools are not inside reactor secondary containment buildings. As a result they are vulnerable to a variety of potential attacks, unlike the reactors, which are vulnerable only to the most severe ones. Dry storage is less vulnerable for several reasons. First, it is not subject to meltdown in case of containment breach since only relatively cool fuel can be stored in dry casks. The consequences of an attack can still be very severe however, especially in case of the dispersal of radioactivity that would be attendant on a petroleum fire in case of an aircraft attack. Above surface dry storage of spent fuel also is a vulnerable form, but this can be addressed by on-site or near to site subsurface
storage. We assume that whatever the policy in relation to nuclear power that retrievable subsurface storage of dry casks will be implemented.30 Therefore the main vulnerability arising from spent fuel will be associated with the spent fuel stored in the pools. We assume that reactors will be of the light water reactor design, the only one licensed to date in the United States, and that, on average only about 5

economic pressures will be great to store more of the fuel in spent fuel pools in order to avoid the costs of dry cask storage. We assume that dry casks will be stored in subsurface silos, so that this would be a relatively small source of vulnerability within the context of a nuclear energy system.
years of spent fuel discharges will be stored in pools. In practice,

Human exposure to nuclear waste results in cell deterioration, cancer, and death Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //markoff <Dangerous human exposure can occur either by proximity to the spent fuel or by release of constituents into the biosphere, resulting in human exposure through ingestion or respiration, or by simple [*235] proximity to places where these radionuclides collect. 39 Ionizing radiation causes human health effects by attacking human cells. 40 In high doses, ionizing radiation will kill human cells, causing internal organ failure and death. 41 In low to moderate doses, ionizing radiation causes cell mutation and disruption of DNA, which causes cancers, birth defects, and improper development. 42>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

84

WASTE IMPACT – WATER CONTAMINATION
Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources. Makhijani, 4 - President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs,” 2004, http://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html)// NHH Nuclear power brings its own severe vulnerabilities that are not related to climate change or the severe routine pollution often associated with coal mining and oil production. These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. Nuclear power plants create weapons usable materials - plutonium in current designs. Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear power plants, even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design, care of construction, and degree of independent oversight and regulation. Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power, from mill tailings to spent fuel, are very long-lived and threaten essential resources, notably water resources.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

85

NUCLEAR WASTE BAD – RISKS PROLIFERATION
Global stocks of fissile material are making proliferation inevitable IPFM, 7 – an independent group of arms control and nonproliferation experts from nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states (International Panel on Fissile Materials, The Bulletin, “Global Fissile Material Report 2007: Summary Findings,” October 9, 2007, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/global-fissile-material-report-2007-summary-findings) //NHH There are now seven other nuclear weapon states, including North Korea, which carried out its first nuclear test on October 9, 2006. Their arsenals range from a few simple warheads to several hundred high-yield thermonuclear weapons. There are growing concerns about a loss of momentum in the nuclear disarmament process, additional states acquiring nuclear weapons, and the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Fissile materials, ordinarily plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU), are the essential ingredients in all nuclear weapons. Securing, consolidating, and eliminating fissile material stocks worldwide are the common imperatives in the overlapping efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons in the countries where they exist, halt their spread to still more countries, and prevent terrorists from obtaining them. Highly enriched uranium. As of early 2007, the global stockpiles of HEU totaled between 1,400 and 2,000 metric tons. (NOTE: In this report, the term "tons" denotes metric tons.) The uncertainty reflects mostly the fact that Russia has not revealed how much HEU it has made. During 2006, Russia downblended 30 metric tons of weapon-grade uranium to low-enriched uranium (LEU) and shipped it to the United States. This met about half the fuel requirement of U.S. nuclear power plants. Thus far, almost 300 tons of Russian weapon-grade uranium have been disposed of in this way. This program is expected to continue until 2013, by which time 500 tons of HEU, enough for 20,000 weapons, will have been downblended. In the United States, a total of 87 tons of excess HEU had been downblended as of mid-2007. None of this HEU was weapon-grade. The United States plans to downblend or otherwise dispose of 147 additional tons of HEU, some from weapons, over the next few decades. Russia and the United States retain for weapons a combined total of 600 to 1,200 tons of HEU--sufficient for 25,000 to 50,000 nuclear warheads. The United States has set aside almost all of its excess weapon-grade uranium for use as naval-reactor fuel--enough for 5,000 more nuclear warheads. Russia and Britain also have large reserves of HEU for naval fuel. These naval HEU stockpiles, and
their vulnerable processing and transport links, would be eliminated if the three countries followed France's example and moved to naval reactors fueled with LEU. HEU also has been used as a fuel for research reactors worldwide since the 1960s. The United States is leading a global effort to clean out often insecure civilian HEU. Thus far, HEU in both fresh and spent fuel has been completely removed from 16 countries. Twenty-eight, however, still have enough civilian HEU to make at least one nuclear weapon. Russia, which has half of the world's 140 HEU-fueled research reactors, has no policy with regard to HEU cleanout at home. Separated plutonium. The current global stockpile of separated plutonium is about 500 tons. During 2006, Russia and the United States made no progress toward implementing their agreement to each dispose of a minimum of 34 tons of excess weapon-grade plutonium. These programs, launched in 2000, have experienced slipping schedules and rising cost estimates. Russia's intention to use its excess plutonium to fuel a breeder reactor indicates that it expects eventually to separate the plutonium again.

India, Pakistan, and probably, Israel continue to produce more plutonium for weapons. Both India and Pakistan are expanding their production capabilities but, on July 14, 2007, North Korea shut down its plutonium production reactor-hopefully permanently. As of 2007, the global stock of civilian plutonium is approximately 250 metric tons--our central estimate of the amount of plutonium that was made for weapons in the Cold War. Stocks of separated plutonium continue to build up at reprocessing plants in India, Japan, Russia, and Britain. About 8 kilograms of this "reactor-grade" plutonium is sufficient to make a simple nuclear weapon.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

86

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – WATER CONTAMINATION
Nuclear power water requires massive amounts of water consumption Sovacool and Cooper, 07 - *Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a national non- profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), June, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdf) B. Water Conservation If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors, America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming. Perhaps the most important—and least discussed—advantage
to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that is extremely water-intensive. The nation’s oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities consume about 3.3 billion gallons of water each day.244 In 2006, they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface- or ground-water source), roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States.245 A conventional 500 MW coal plant, for instance, consumes around 7,000 gallons of water per minute, or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.246 Older, less efficient plants can be much worse. In Georgia, the 3,400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9,913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. 247 Data from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also confirms that every type of traditional power plant consumes and withdraws vast amounts of water. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel, and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. Newer technologies, while they withdraw less water, actually consume more. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating, closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source. Thus, while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent, they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity.248

Nuclear reactors, in particular, require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods. Because much of the water is turned to steam, substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. One nuclear plant in Georgia, for example, withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River, but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply, enough to service more than 196,000 Georgia homes,.249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years, continuing to rely on fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis. In 2006, the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030, to 7.3 billion gallons per day, if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995.250 This causes thermal pollution that will cause ecosystem collapse Sovacool and Cooper, 07 - *Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a national non- profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), June, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdf) The Argonne National Laboratory has documented how power plants have withdrawn hundreds of millions of gallons of water each day for cooling purposes and then discharged the heated water back to the same or a nearby water body. This process of “once-through” cooling presents potential environmental impacts by impinging aquatic organisms in intake screens and by affecting aquatic ecosystems by discharge effluent that is far hotter than the surrounding surface waters.259 Drawing water into a plant often kills fish and other aquatic organisms, and the extensive array of cooling towers, ponds, and underwater vents used by most plants have been documented to severely damage riparian environments. In some cases, the thermal pollution from centralized power plants can induce eutrophication—a process where the warmer temperature alters the chemical composition of the water, resulting in a rapid increase of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Rather than improving the ecosystem, such alterations usually promote excessive plant growth and decay, favoring certain weedy species over others and severely reducing water quality. In riparian environments, the enhanced growth of choking vegetation can collapse entire ecosystems. This form of thermal pollution has been known to decrease the aesthetic and recreational value of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and complicate drinking water treatment.260

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

87

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – WATER CONTAMINATION
This causes extinction Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND ** Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatestdying)
Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one,

We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay.
however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens. To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat.

with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans
Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber.

Life as we know it would be

impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.
Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

88

EXT - NUCLEAR POWER BAD – WATER
Nuclear energy risks contaminating the surrounding water tables Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 58-59)CP Radioactive corrosion or activation products that are not the result of uranium fission are also produced, as neutrons bombard the metal piping and the reactor containment. These elements, which are powerfully radioactive, include cobalt 60, iron 55, nickel 63, radioactive manganese, niobium, zinc, and chromium. These materials slough off from the pipes into the primary coolant. Officially called CRUD, it is so intensely radioactive that it poses a severe hazard to maintenance workers and inspectors in certain areas of the reactor. 36 According to David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, during shutdowns of reactors, the utilities not uncommonly flush out pipes, heat exchangers, etc., to remove highly radioactive CRUD build-up. Some of the CRUD is sent to radioactive waste dumps while some is released to the river, lake, or sea nearest the reactor. 37 Although the nuclear industry claims it is "emission" free, in fact it is collectively releasing millions of curies annually. Reports documenting gaseous and liquid radioactive releases vary enormously depending upon accidental and larger-thannormal routine releases. The Millstone One reactor in Connecticut alone released a remarkable 2.97 million curies of noble gases in 1975, whereas Nine Mile Point One released 1.3 million curies in 1975. In 1974, the total release from all reactors in the United States was 6.48 million curies, and in 1993 it ranged between 96,600 curies to 214,000 curies Releases vary according to equipment failure, which is variable and fickle. By contrast, coal plants release some uranium and uranium daughter products in their smoke but very little radiation compared to atomic plants, and certainly no fission products. The utilities also admit that about 12 gallons of intensely radioactive primary coolant leaks daily into the secondary coolant via the steam generator through breaks in the pipes. Some of these emissions, which occur when the steam is released to the air, are not even monitored? Likewise, about 4,000 gallons of primary coolant water are intentionally released to the environment on a daily basis, while some just leaks out unplanned. Many other emissions are simply not monitored.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

89

AT: NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO DESALINATION
Corporate control of nuclear power will privatize water – increasing shortages The American Prospect, 8 (Maude Barlow, “Where has all the Water Gone?”, Vol. 19, Iss. 6, pg. A2, June 2008, Proquest)/AK THREE SCENARIOS COLLUDE TOWARD disaster. Scenario one: The world is running out of freshwater. It is not just a question of finding the money to hook up the 2 billion people living in water-stressed regions of our world. Humanity is polluting, diverting, and depleting the Earth's finite water resources at a dangerous and steadily increasing rate. The abuse and displacement of water is the ground-level equivalent of greenhouse-gas emissions and likely as great a cause of climate change. Scenario two: Every day more and more people are living without access to clean water. As the ecological crisis deepens, so too does the human crisis. More children are killed by dirty water than by war, malaria, HIV/AIDS, and traffic accidents combined. The global water crisis has become a powerful symbol of the growing inequality in our world. While the wealthy enjoy boutique water at any time, millions of poor people have access only to contaminated water from local rivers and wells. Scenario three: A powerful corporate water cartel has emerged to seize control of every aspect of water for its own profit. Corporations deliver drinking water and take away wastewater; corporations put massive amounts of water in plastic bottles and sell it to us at exorbitant prices; corporations are building sophisticated new technologies to recycle our dirty water and sell it back to us; corporations extract and move water by huge pipelines from watersheds and aquifers to sell to big cities and industries; corporations buy, store, and trade water on the open market, like running shoes. Most important, corporations want governments to deregulate the water sector and allow the market to set water policy. Every day, they get closer to that goal. Scenario three deepens the crises now unfolding in scenarios one and two. Imagine a world in 20 years in which no substantive progress has been made to provide basic water services in the Third World; or to create laws to protect source water and force industry and industrial agriculture to stop polluting water systems; or to curb the mass movement of water by pipeline, tanker, and other diversions, which will have created huge new swaths of desert. Desalination plants will ring the world's oceans, many of them run by nuclear power; corporate-controlled nanotechnology will clean up sewage water and sell it to private utilities, which will in turn sell it back to us at a huge profit; the rich will drink only bottled water found in the few remaining uncontaminated parts of the world or sucked from the clouds by corporate-controlled machines, while the poor will the in increasing numbers from a lack of water.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

90

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – FOOD CHAIN CONTAMINATION
Radiation emissions and leaks will contaminate the food chain Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. viii-ix)CP While currently the creation of nuclear electricity emits only one-third the amount of CO2 emitted from a similarsized, conventional gas generator, this is a transitory statistic. Over several decades, as the concentration of available uranium ore declines, more fossil fuels will be required to extract the ore from less concentrated ore veins. Within ten to twenty years, nuclear reactors will produce no net energy because of the massive amounts of fossil fuel that will be necessary to mine and to enrich the remaining poor grades of uranium. (The nuclear power industry contends that large quantities of uranium can be obtained by .reprocessing radioactive spent fuel. However, this process is extremely expensive; medically dangerous for nuclear workers, and releases large amounts of radioactive material into the air and water; it is therefore not a pragmatic consideration.) By extension, the operation of nuclear power plants will then produce exactly the same amounts of greenhouse gases and air pollution as standard power plants. Contrary to the nuclear industry claims, smoothly running nuclear power plants are also not emission free. Government regulations allow nuclear plants "routinely" to emit hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. Thousands of tons of solid radioactive waste are presently accumulating in the cooling pools beside the 103 operating nuclear plants in the United States and hundreds of others throughout the world. This waste contains extremely toxic elements that will inevitably pollute the environment and human food chains, a legacy that will lead to epidemics of cancer, leukemia, and genetic disease in populations living near nuclear power plants or radioactive waste facilities for many generations to come. This risks extinction Caldicott, 94 - Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Madness, p. 21-22) //DH As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced. Unknowingly exposed to these radioactive poisons, some of us may be developing cancer right now. Others may be passing damaged genes, the basic chemical units that transmit hereditary characteristics, to future generations. And more of us will be inevitably affected unless we bring about a dramatic reversal of the world’s pronuclear policies.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

91

AT: THERE WON’T BE A MELTDOWN SO NO CONTAMINATION
Our impact is independent of meltdowns – radiation leakage is inevitable regardless of accidents Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 47-48)CP The radiation given off by isotopes is insidious and cryptogenic (hidden). Various radioactive elements become incorporated into specific organs of the body. For instance, if you inhale one millionth of a gram of the alpha emitter plutonium, a very small volume of cells in the lung is irradiated because of the very short distance travelled by the alpha particle. Because alpha radiation is so deadly, most of the cells within the radiation field will be killed, but as radiation decreases with the square of the distance, cells on the periphery of the radiation field remain viable. Some of them almost certainly will suffer mutation of their regulatory genes, and cancer will later develop in one of these damaged cells. There are many routes of exposure to man-made radiation from the nuclear industry. Relatively small but significant amounts of radiation are released on a daily basis into the air and water during the course of mining, milling, and enriching uranium for fuel to create the nuclear energy. Additionally, a nuclear power plant cannot operate without routinely releasing radioactivity into the air and water through the normal operation of nuclear reactors. Finally, and most frighteningly, accidental releases of even more radiation are commonplace in the nuclear industry.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

92

AT: SCIENTIFIC STUDIES PROVE RADIATION HAS NO IMPACT
The Federal government and large corporations use science as a mechanism of exclusion in which the first hand accounts of communities are neglected to justify harmful actions. Kuletz, 2000 – Award winning author of works dealing with technology and humanism as well as a lecturer at the University of Canterbury on American Studies (Valerie, “Tragedy at the Center of the Universe” from “Learning to Glow”, ed. John Bradley, pg. 148-150) Today-seemingly as invisible as the Rio Puerco accident-the uranium mines and tailings are, for the most part, left unreclaimed. Although a 1983 Environmental Protection Study confirmed that the Navajo Reservation alone had approximately 1,000 significant nuclear waste sites, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deemed them all "too remote" to be of "significant national concern. "A 1978 study by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) concerning rehabilitation of land and water contaminated by uranium mining and milling offered one solution: to zone such areas as forbidden to human habitation." A report in 1972 by the National Academy of Sciences suggested that the Four Corners area be designated a "national sacrifice area," Other scientific accounts, as noted below, were completely contrary to these findings and denied that any significant pollution problems existed or that adverse health effects could be associated with living in the region. Though seemingly different in content, all these reports belie the same prejudice: The land and by implication the people living on the land were better left ignored. That is, neither was worth saving. To understand how an entire society could ignore an environmental disaster on the scale of the Rio Puerco incident or the open-pit uranium mines, it is necessary to examine some of the ways scientific discourse can be used as a mechanism of exclusion, particularly when it is marshaled against anecdotal evidence presented by nonscientists (evidence like that offered by Dorothy Purley, quoted at the beginning of this essay). In the case of the Grants uranium district, anecdotal statements from Native speakers may be in themselves incontestable-but they carry no weight in establishing a causal link between the reported illnesses and the existence of radioactive mine tailings or unreclaimed pits. Although anecdotal testimony has sometimes been accepted in court cases regarding other issues, the history of anecdotal statements in this region is one marked by what social scientists call delegitimation. Anecdotal statements about the health risks associated with unreclaimed uranium mines and tailings are gathered in preliminary studies or as testimony in open hearings and may be incorporated into draft environmental impact statements but do not constitute scientific evidence. They are simply reported; any claim they may have on the truth can be and in some cases has been-diminished by the overwhelming weight of contrary "scientific" evidence. The statements are, in effect, excluded from consideration, and the people who speak them are, by extension, excluded from any decisionmaking process bearing on their welfare. Many "preliminary studies" suggested serious health risks to children in communities near abandoned uranium districts. One "preliminary" study showed "a twofold excess of miscarriages, infant deaths, congenital or genetic abnormalities, and learning disabilities among uranium-area families," compared with Navajo families in non-uranium areas. Even after being informed of these and other findings, no federal or state agencies provided funding for further study. In fact, in 1983, one agency, the Indian Health Service (a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) had sent a report to Congress ("Health Hazards Related to Nuclear Resources Development on Indian Land," 1983) stating that there was "no evidence of adverse health effects in Indians in uranium development areas and that there is no need for additional studies or funding for such studies,'?" The one "official" scientific investigation of birth defects that was funded, primarily by the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, was too "small" to render "significant" results. Its conclusion states: "It was unlikely that our small study population would have demonstrated a real effect in terms of statistical significance." Since statistical significance in epidemiological studies generally requires large study populations, Indian communities are disadvantaged because they are usually quite small. Thus, inadequate funding and the shortcomings of statistical analyses for small populations can result not only in a lack of "official" documentation to support the "preliminary" and "anecdotal" knowledge of health risks, but also in the production of official documentation that is contrary to the preliminary studies. For the communities living in uranium districts, a little (underfunded) science is not better than no science at all. What gets circulated, and what has credibility, is the "official" report -even if that report is based on inadequate foundations. Scientific knowledge in this contested terrain is deeply influenced by state and federal agencies, by funding, as well as many other nonscientific factors. Epidemiological studies are costly, as are the "experts" who administer them. Poor communities do what they can, but their findings have little purchase when it comes to lawsuits against state agencies or private companies. In the end, we must look seriously at the discrepancies between communitysponsored "preliminary" studies and federally funded "expert" accounts of health risks.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

93

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – OZONE
Nuclear power production releases CFCs, destroying the ozone layer Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. viii)CP Nuclear power is not "clean and green," as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process. Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide (C02)-the primary "greenhouse gas"-into the atmosphere. In addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper ("greenhouse gas") than CO2, but it is a classic "pollutant" and a potent destroyer of the ozone layer. This risks extinction United Nations, 2k (Office of the Secretary General, “MESSAGE ON THE OCCASION OF THE INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE OZONE LAYER”, http://ozone.unep.org/pdfs/ozoneday2000_sg-address-en.doc) //DH Promoting better standards of life for all human beings is one of the values on which the United Nations was built. As we move into the 21st century, it becomes clearer that in order to improve living conditions, we must protect the natural environment and resources that allow us to survive on earth. By permitting environmentally-devastating practices to continue, we are handing our children a bleak and hazardous future. Today we have an opportunity to focus global attention and action on the conservation of the ozone layer. This natural, protective gift of the earth screens out the sun’s ultraviolet rays that are harmful to people, animals, and plants. Maintaining this barrier between the sun and the earth is essential to human survival. The Beijing Declaration, adopted during the meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in December 1999, reaffirmed the commitment of 175 governments, international organizations, industries, and other relevant groups to achieve the phase-out of the chemicals that destroy our stratospheric ozone layer. The agreement has been successful since its inception; many countries have made impressive progress in phasing out the consumption of ozone-depleting substances. Without this strong adherence to the Protocol, the levels of ozone-damaging substances would have been five times higher than they are today. The success of the Montreal Protocol shows clearly what can be accomplished when nations and international organizations cooperate and work together towards a common goal. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. The remarkable progress achieved so far must continue until we are absolutely certain that the ozone layer will be protected. Attention must now shift from industrialized countries, which have led the way in lowering chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) output, to developing countries, which must phase out the production of CFC emissions by 2010, the deadline imposed by the Montreal Protocol. Only the full and continued compliance of both developed and developing nations with the Protocol will ensure complete recovery of the ozone layer.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

94

XT – NUCLEAR POWER DESTROYS THE OZONE
CFC 114 gas leaks out of cooling pipes at uranium plants, destroying the stratospheric ozone layer Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 10-11)CP Enrichment of uranium 235 from 0.7% to 3% is also a very energetic process. Specific energetic expenditures for enrichment include construction, operation, and maintenance of the enrichment plant. Uranium can be enriched using one of two basic methods gaseous diffusion and ultracentrifuge-both of which require very large amounts of energy. (Enrichment by ultracentrifuge has a lower direct energy cost, but the financial costs of the operation and maintenance of ultracentrifuge enrichment are much higher than gaseous diffusion because of the short technical life of the centrifuges.) In the United States, enrichment facilities have historically been located at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, with a discarded facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In 2001, however, the privately owned and operated United States Enrichment Corp. consolidated its operation in Paducah. The Paducah enrichment facility uses the electrical output of two dirty, old 1,000 megawatt coal-fired plants for its operation contributing significant carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It has also recently been revealed by the U.S. Department of Energy that CFC 114 gas-a compound that is a potent global warmer and that destroys the stratospheric ozone layer-leaks unabated from the hundreds of miles of cooling pipes used in the uranium enrichment operation at Paducah, Kentucky, and its sister facility in Ohio.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

95

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – NATIVE AMERICANS
Uranium mining, with the justification of national security brings about exploited communities, environmental degradation, and a radioactive plague of cancers and disease. Kuletz, 2000 – Award winning author of works dealing with technology and humanism as well as a lecturer at the University of Canterbury on American Studies (Valerie, “Tragedy at the Center of the Universe” from “Learning to Glow”, ed. John Bradley, pg. 145-147) Indian lands under uranium mining and milling development were, extensive, with the Navajo Reservation, Laguna Pueblo, and Acoma Pueblo carrying some of the heaviest burden and consequently suffering some of the most severe health repercussions. Though the uranium booms helped the destitute Indian economy to some extent and for a brief time they also transformed these Indian lands (almost overnight) from a pastoral to a mining-industrial economy, resulting in a miningdependent population. Indians did not get rich off the uranium development their lands because they lacked the capital and the technical knowledge to develop them and, at least initially, they were kept ignorant of the value of their land. Instead, development was contracted out to large energy companies. Because "national security" and energy consumption needs (read "national competitiveness") were at stake, Indians were given the right to stipulate conditions for development and reclamation for decades-and then the right was never sufficient. Unchecked and unmonitored production was excused during World War II and the Cold War: on the grounds of national security and, in the 1970s, on the basis of the energy crisis and the ongoing arms escalation that mushroomed in the 1980s. Throughout the postwar period, American Indian populations were exploited as a cheap source of labor. For example, Indian miners were paid at a rate two-thirds that of offreservation employees. In addition, Indians were not compensated adequately for the uranium taken from their lands. "As of 1984, stateside Indians were receiving only an average of 3-4 percent of the market value of the uranium extracted from their land." The median income reported in 1970 (at a boom time for uranium mining) at the Laguna Pueblo was only $2,661 per year-a little more than $220 a month, or $50 per week. And Indians paid a high price for the right to work the mines. Uranium development's legacy has been one of a severely polluted environment, human and nonhuman radiation contamination, cancers, birth defects, sickness, and death. Health risks associated with uranium mining and milling have been identified and examined by different investigators, and reported in a variety of sources including the Southwest Research and Information Center publications and the New England Journal of Medicine as well as others. Since large amounts of water are used in the mining process and mountains of uranium tailings are produced as a by-product, uranium pollution poisons the earth, air, and water. Radioactive particulates (dust particles containing uranium-238, radium-226, and thorium-230) blow in the desert winds, and radioactive elements travel in both surface and ground water. Radioactive materials from the mining of uranium produce radon and thoron gases, which combine with the molecular structure of human cells and decay into radioactive polonium and thorium. The dust irritates cells in the lining of the respiratory tract, causing cancer. Radioactive materials can also damage sex cells, causing such birth defects as cleft palate and Down's syndrome." In seeking federal assistance to study the effect of low-level radiation on the health of their children, Navajo health officials called attention to at least two preliminary studies-one conducted by the March of Dimes (principal investigator Dr. L. Shields) and the other by the Navajo Health Authority (principal investigator Dr. D. Calloway). Calloway's study suggested that Navajo children may have a five times greater rate of bone cancer and a fifteen times greater rate of ovarian and testicular cancer than the U.S. average." However, despite these preliminary findings, no funding was granted for extended epidemiological studies of the impact on Navajos living near uranium tailings and mines. IS Further extending the nuclear landscape and causing harm to those who live there, millions of gallons of water in the Four Corners area were subjected to radiation pollution by the extractive processes of uranium mining. Accidents, such as the Rio Puerco incident, cause serious water pollution in an already water-scarce environment.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

96

NUCLEAR POWER BAD – NATIVE AMERICANS
Millions of tons of radioactive material are dumped onto native American land simply because it requires too much energy to dispose of them properly Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 9)CP If the mill tailings that remain after the extraction of the uranium were to be subject to remediation, as they should be, massive quantities of fossil fuel would be required for this process as well. Millions of tons of radioactive material that is currently dumped on the ground, often on native Indian tribal land, emitting radioactive elements to the air and water, need instead to be buried deeply in the ground where the uranium originally emanated. This single remediation process, which should be scrupulously observed, by itself makes the energetic price of nuclear electricity unreasonable. Nuclear power plants located on Native American Land continue, unabated, leaking radiation into the air and water poisoning the native American people. The lack of attention this has received is rooted in racism. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 49-50)CP As the uranium ore is mined and the uranium is extracted, large quantities of radioactive dirt and soil are discarded and left lying in huge heaps adjacent to the mine, exposed to the air and the rain. This material is called tailings. Most tailings in North America are situated on indigenous tribal land of the Navajo nation and the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico and on the Serpent River First Nation in Ontario, Canada. By 1980, the sovereign Navajo nation had forty-two uranium mines and seven mills located on or adjacent to reservation or trust land. Millions of tons of radioactive dirt constantly leak radon 220 into the air, exposing the indigenous populations who live nearby. As they inhale the radon, many of these people have developed or are developing lung cancer. Rain also leaches soluble radium 226 through the tailings piles into the underground water.!" which is often the source of drinking water. When radium enters streams and rivers, it bio-concentrates tens to hundreds of times at each step in the food chain of the aquatic life and terrestrial plants. Because it is tasteless and odorless, people in these contaminated populations cannot tell whether they are drinking radioactive water, breathing radioactive air, or eating fish or food that will induce bone cancer or leukemia. Hundreds of mines and tailings heaps lie exposed to the air and wind on Navajo land: Thousands of Navajos are still affected by uranium-induced cancers and will continue to be so for thousands of years unless remediation takes place. In total, 265 million tons of uranium tailings pollute the American Southwest. Neither the government nor the nuclear industry has ever attempted to clean up this massive radioactive pollution of tribal land. It is hard to imagine, however, similar piles of radioactive tailings lying adjacent to the well-heeled town of New Canaan, Connecticut, or near the Rockefeller estate in the Adirondacks.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

97

NUCLEAR POWER BAD - PATRIARCHY
Discussions of nuclear power are fraught with psychosexual language Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. xvi)CP Nuclear power is often referred to behind closed doors in the U.S. Department of Energy as "hard" energy whereas wind power, solar power, hydropower, and geothermal energy are referred to as "soft" energy pathways. Clearly the same psychosexual language used by the Pentagon generals to describe various aspects of nuclear weapons and nuclear war has been translocated into the nuclear power vocabulary of some very powerful and influential men in the electricity generating field.25 As a physician, I contend that unless the root cause of a problem can be ascertained there can be no cure. So too the pathology intrinsic in the nuclear power gang needs to be dissected and revealed to the cold light of day. Patriarchy, secrecy, and centralization are key in the rise of nuclear endeavors Oda, 2000 – Lecturer at the United Nations NGO Forum and Women of Vision Conference in Washington, D.C. as well as founder of the organization Plutonium Free Future (Mayumi, “From Nuclear Patriarchy to Solar Community” from “Learning to Glow”, ed. John Bradley, pg. 293-294) At this moment, Japan is the last country still clinging to its Faustian bargain, causing tensions over nuclear proliferation throughout Asia, especially North and South Korea and China. Japan holds an important key to whether or not Asia goes nuclear. In addition, the world nuclear energy industry sees Japan as its only hope for survival. Japan's plutonium dream is the last clinging image of a crumbling patriarchal paradigm, which still seeks and believes in unlimited growth of power and wealth. Patriarchical power, the control of the many by the few, and of women by men, requires control over information. Secrecy was key to the development of nuclear weapons and energy. Secrecy was the way patriarchy held the power over us. We know now that we can go to your spiritual sources directly, to the goddesses, without going through any religious institution. There are no more secrets, and we can hear the voices of the goddesses without fear. Nuclear patriarchy provided us our electricity at the price of high centralization, high fences, armed guards; it required an army of male experts who disregarded the safety of the future generations, without a thought of how to clean up the toxic mess- as if they never had to clean up their own rooms.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

98

AT: NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES ENERGY DEPENDENCE
Nuclear power reinforces energy dependence Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884) From an economic perspective, atomic power is inefficient at addressing climate change because dollars used for more expensive, higher-emissions nuclear energy cannot be used for cheaper, lower-emissions renewable energy. Atomic power is also not sustainable. Because of dwindling uranium supplies, by the year 2050 reactors would be forced to use low-grade uranium ore whose greenhouse emissions would roughly equal those of natural gas. Besides, because the United States imports nearly all its uranium, pursuing nuclear power continues the dangerous pattern of dependency on foreign sources to meet domestic energy needs. Nuclear power is vulnerable to uranium price spikes Sovacool, 07 - Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech (Benjamin, “What's Really Wrong With Nuclear Power?,” 11/30, http://scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2007/11/What-s-Really-Wrong-With-Nuclear-Power/) //DH From a political standpoint nuclear plants degrade energy security in three ways. First, they make countries more dependent on imported and interruptible fuels that have large price spikes. The cost of uranium, for instance, jumped from $7.25 per pound in 2001 to $47.25 per pound in 2006, and the Nuclear Energy Agency reports that fuel counts for 15 percent of the lifetime costs of a nuclear plant.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

99

AT: NUCLEAR POWER DECREASES OIL DEMAND
Oil doesn’t power the electricity grid Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. xi-xii)CP When nuclear proponents say that nuclear power can be used to reduce the United States's insatiable reliance on foreign oil, they are simply wrong. Oil and its by-product gasoline are used to fuel the internal combustion engines in automobiles and trucks. Oil is also used to heat buildings. But oil does not power the electric grid. The grid, which is used to power electric lights, computers, VCRs, fans, hair dryers, stoves, refrigerators, air conditioners, and for industrial needs, is powered primarily through the burning of coal, other fossil fuels, and, currently, through nuclear power. (Oil does generate an infinitesimal amount of electricity-2% in the United States.) How exactly is electricity generated? In the case of hydropower (which accounts for 7% of the electricity generated in the United States) the momentum of falling water is converted into electricity. For most of the remaining 93%, coal (50%), natural gas (18%), nuclear power (20%), and oil (2%) are used to produce immense amounts of heat. The heat boils water, converting it to steam, which then turns a turbine, generating electricity. So, in essence, a nuclear reactor is just a very sophisticated and dangerous way to boil water-analogous to cutting a pound of butter with a chain saw. At the moment, hydro provides 7%, and unfortunately wind is only 2% of the total U.S. mix, while solar is less than 1 %. Globally, coal supplies about 64% of the world's electricity, hydro and nuclear each provide 17%, and renewable sources again make up 2%. Nuclear power can’t solve oil dependence- it’s a drop in the bucket CFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy”, April 25, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ) Some experts say the revival of nuclear power may improve America's energy security and reduce its dependency on countries like Saudi Arabia for its energy needs. But Ferguson says that any new nuclear plants built, while reducing the United States' use of coal, would constitute "a drop in the bucket" in terms of affecting its overall supply, and would have little effect on reducing its addiction to overseas oil. "Nuclear power is not going to lessen our need for oil unless we do something to improve the efficiency of trucks and other automobiles," he says. The growing use of nuclear power abroad, however, may affect U.S. foreign policy because of its role in alleviating global warming and curbing greenhouse gases. It may also affect the U.S. relationship with Russia and other post-Soviet states like Ukraine, as countries in the region seek sources of energy outside of the Kremlin's control, and increasingly look to Washington to help finance their nuclear ambitions. Then, of course, there is the threat posed by civilian nuclear-power programs evolving into offensive nucleararms programs, something U.S. policymakers say is happening in Iran and North Korea.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

100

INDICT – NEI EVIDENCE
NEI publications are not based in fact, but rather are advertisements meant to engineer false public opinions. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 3)CP The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the propaganda wing and trade group for the American nuclear industry, spends millions of dollars annually to engineer public opinion. Advertisements such as the one on page 5 have been published extensively by the NEI in Scientific American, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, and Capitol Hill publications such as Roll Call, Congress Daily AM, and The nm: The primary goal of such ads is to establish the premise that nuclear energy is "cleaner and greener" than traditional sources of electricity. Sentences such as "our 103 nuclear power plants don't burn anything, so they don't produce greenhouse gases" imply that nuclear energy is a more environmentally conscious choice than, say, electricity produced from coal or oil-the traditional sources of fuel across the globe-one that will produce far less carbon dioxide and thus spare us the global warming problems now associated with these other energy sources. But a clear-eyed look at the true costs of nuclear energy production tells a very different story. The fact is, it takes energy to make energy-even nuclear energy. And the true "energetic costs" of making nuclear energy-the amounts of traditionally generated fuel it takes to create "new" nuclear energy-have not been tallied up until very recently. Certainly, they are absent from the NEI ads.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

101

NO LINK – CARBON PRICING DOESN’T TRIGGER NUCLEAR POWER
Even a significant carbon tax won’t make nuclear power competitive Electricity Journal 7 (Economics of Nuclear Power and Proliferation Risks in a Carbon-Constrained World, December, L/n rday) This article estimates costs of 9-12 cents per kilowatt-hour (in 2007 discounted levelized lifecycle costs) for new reactors. Other traditional alternatives, including wind, coal, and gas combined-cycle, have also risen in cost. Even with carbon taxes of $30/per tonnes of CO2, or requirements for sequestration, nuclear power does not show an economic advantage over new coal, gas, or wind that would lead to substantial near-term worldwide growth - the "renaissance" that some have spoken of.2

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

102

NUCLEAR POWER GOOD - 1NC
Nuclear power is inevitable globally – the only question is whether the U.S. stays involved and increases capacity. High oil prices are driving greater U.S. investment Rowley 08 (Anthony, The Business Times Singapore, “US official sees global push towards nuke power,” 5/23, lexis) A MASSIVE global expansion of the role of nuclear power in generating electricity was forecast yesterday by US Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon during a visit to Tokyo. He was there for follow-up talks on the US-Japan joint nuclear energy action plan agreed last year between the two countries. He spoke as the price of oil touched new records, underlining the need for alternative energy sources. By the middle of this century, as many as 86 countries around the world could be using nuclear energy as a major power source compared with 31 at present, Mr Spurgeon suggested. This will require not only massive capital investment in new plants and expansion of the nuclear power industry but also a strong 'infrastructure' to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, he said. He acknowledged that the US needed to 're-establish' its own nuclear manufacturing capability, having allowed it to run down when nuclear power fell out of favour during a long period of low oil prices. Japan maintained a 'healthy (nuclear) research and development programme even when the US programme was declining', he said. 'Japan and the US will collaborate closely under the joint action plan, especially in the area of nuclear energy R&D,' he said, noting that Japan has achieved advanced technological capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle and in areas such as liquid metal-cooled fast reactors. Japanese capital will also be welcome in financing the crash programme of 34 reactors that the US envisages building, he said. Nuclear power currently supplies 16 per cent of total US electricity generation needs and in order to raise this to 30 per cent by the year 2030, the US will require 30 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity, Mr Spurgeon said. If the US decides to raise its nuclear generation to a level where it can meet 50 per cent of total electric power requirement by the year 2050, that will require another 300 gigawatts of nuclear capacity. Given current problems of energy prices and energy security as well as the need to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions around the world, a global shift to nuclear power seems inevitable, he suggested. But it will be essential to build an infrastructure of nuclear fuel services in order to prevent a proliferation of nuclear weapons. Increasing renewable investment decreases demand for nuclear power and makes it less competitive – this tradesoff with new nuclear investment Asselstine, 08 – Managing Director at Lehman Brothers (James, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH Fifth, the companies and investors will require assurance that the price of power to be generated by a new nuclear plant will be competitive with other alternatives, including coal and gas-fired generation, and renewable energy resources. This may pose a special challenge for the initial group of new nuclear plants because it is likely that the industry will incur $300-$500 million in first-of-a-kind engineering costs for each new nuclear plant design in order to develop the detailed engineering design information required to satisfy the NRC's design certification process. Depending upon how these engineering design costs are allocated, this could significantly increase the cost of the initial new plants. Finally, as is the case with any new proposed generating project, the companies and investors will need confidence that the power from the new plant is needed, and that the company will be able to recover its capital investment in the plant and earn a fair return on that investment. In the case of a regulated electric utility, this confidence will depend upon the state rate-setting arrangements that are in place for the new plant. In the case of an unregulated, or merchant, generation company, this confidence will depend upon any contractual arrangements to sell the output of the plant, and upon studies of power market conditions in the region in which the plant will be located.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

103

NUCLEAR POWER GOOD – 1NC
Nuclear power is inevitable globally - expanding nuclear power construction is vital to U.S. nonproliferation leadership BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND
U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH

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

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

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

If the U.S. becomes more the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish. It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor, uranium enrichment, and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation other countries. The U.S. should establish a high priority goal to rebuild an indigenous nuclear industry and support its growth in domestic and international markets. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S.
However, if the U.S. nuclear infrastructure continues to erode, it will weaken the ability of the U.S. to participate actively in the international nuclear market.

dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves

has so-called consent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. The percentage of nuclear materials, including separated plutonium, that are subject to U.S. consent rights will diminish over time as new suppliers of nuclear materials and facilities take a larger share of the international nuclear market. Unless the U.S. is able to compete effectively in the international market as a supplier of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology, the quantity of the nuclear materials around the globe that the U.S. has control over will diminish significantly in the future. This may not immediately weaken the effectiveness of the nonproliferation regime since all the major suppliers have adopted the export guidelines of the Nuclear Supplier Group. However, only the U.S., Australia and Canada have consent rights over enrichment and reprocessing of the nuclear materials subject to

if there is a major decline in the U.S. share of the international nuclear market, the U.S. may not be as effective as it has been in helping to ensure a rigorous system of export controls.
their agreements. Consequently,

Proliferation leads to extinction. Victor A Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis, Summer 2002, Survival, p.87-90 In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed towards a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear “six shooters” on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather together on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

104

UNIQUENESS – NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT INCREASING
New demand is driving the expansion of nuclear power Peterson 8 -Scott, Vice President-Communications of Nuclear Energy Institute (Speech given 41st Japan Atomic Industrial Forum
Conference, 4-15-08, “Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction in the UnitedStates”,http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/petersonspeech0415/ //VR)

But today, more than ever, nuclear energy’s clean air benefits are playing a significant role in OECD countries. And that carbon-free electric production is attractive to developing nations that are exploring nuclear power as part of their energy future. Carbon reduction. Energy security. The need for baseload electric supply. Energy diversity. Economic electricity production. These are just some of the attributes that are prompting the global resurgence in nuclear energy. They also are many of the same attributes that drove the rapid expansion of nuclear energy in this country, in the United States and in other nations, like France, after the Middle East oil embargoes of the early 1070s. U.S. energy companies are again considering construction of advanced nuclear power plants because the fundamentals of the electric power business demand it. The need for new baseload generating capacity is unmistakable. In fact, four of the countries’ regions are dangerously below accepted reserve margins for electric capacity. Moreover, the U.S. electric sector’s dependence on natural gas exposes our customers to unnecessary price volatility, and our companies to unwelcome political stress and regulatory pressure. And uncertainty over future controls on carbon emissions will cast a cloud over coal-fired power generation for as long as we avoid our responsibility to address the climate change issue squarely. Nuclear energy investment is increasing now – new license applications Popular Mechanics, 8 (Mark Wolverton, “New Spin on Nuclear Power”, May 2008. Vol. 185, Iss. 5; pg. 20, Proquest)/AK Nuclear power, which already supplies 20 percent of the electricity in the United States, is a leading option for addressing the country's energy crunch. In 2007, operators filed license applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for seven new reactors; experts say double that number could be filed this year. But with more nuclear power plants would come the need for more enriched uranium. Nuclear power is experiencing a renaissance – high natural gas prices and increased federal subsidies HOLT 7 -CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, (Mark, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: "AMERICAN
NUCLEAR ENERGY IN A GLOBALIZED ECONOMY" SESSION II: WHAT IS THE INVESTMENT CLIMATE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY?; June 18, L/n rday

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

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

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

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

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

105

UNIQUENESS – NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT INCREASING
Massive nuclear boom in the status quo Nuclear Engineering International 6-18 (Power Market Developments – The American way, 2008, L/n, rday) At long last, the 'nuclear renaissance' in the USA is taking shape. Over the last year, there have been several important steps towards building new nuclear plants. The most significant of these are: - The docketing of eight combined construction and operating licence (COL) applications for a total of 13 new reactors. A further COL application (for two units) has been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). - In April this year, Southern Company subsidiary Georgia Power entered into a provisional engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract with Westinghouse and The Shaw Group for two AP1000 units at the Vogtle plant. Later, at the end of May, Westinghouse and The Shaw Group announced that a similar EPC contract had been entered into with South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) and Santee Cooper to provide two AP1000s at the Summer plant. - Several utilities have ordered ultra heavy forgings for nuclear components. - At the beginning of August 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) board gave the go-ahead for the $2.49 billion Watts Bar 2 completion project. TVA expects the 1218MWe unit to come online by 2013. - At the end of 2007, Congress authorised $38.5 billion in loan guarantee authority for innovative energy projects, including $18.5 billion for nuclear power facilities and $2 billion for front end facilities Nuclear power growth in the status quo – plant construction, global warming fears, and subsidies Public Utilities Fortnightly 8, (“Nuke Revival: When It Rains, It Pours,” January, L/n, rday) nuclear power's fortunes have improved rather dramatically, and a new herd mentality appears to be taking hold as more companies announce plans to build one, two and even more reactors. In an energy-hungry, carbon-constrained world, nuclear power is hard to beat. Based on life-cycle analysis, nuclear power emits 1 to 6grams of carbon equivalent per kWh compared with 1,000 to 1,300 for coal. Renewables are theoretically carbon-free, but not when you consider the amount of energy to build and maintain them. In December, Dominion Resources Inc. became the third U.S. utility to file a formal application for a new nuclear reactor, following the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in November and NRG Energy Inc., which filed in September. The first in line, NRG, expects to begin construction in 2010 and bring two units online in Texas in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Duke Energy expects to bring its two reactors online in 2016 and 2017. The last time the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had seen an application was in 1979. In another sign that the nuclear revival is not just talk, Exelon Nuclear, among the biggest U.S. nuclear operators, signed a multi-million-dollar order with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) in December for large forgings and component fabrication for two next-generation nuclear reactors. If that is not an indication of serious intentions to build, we don't know what is. The Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress, mindful of global climate change, increased funding for a loan program to guarantee up to 80 percent of nuclear-reactor construction costs. The legislation directs Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman to provide $20.5 billion specifically for nuclear energy - $18.5 billion for nuclear reactors and $2 billion for uranium enrichment - plus $10 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency and $8 billion for clean-coal technology. Pete Domenici (R., Nev.), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, explained, "Attracting investors for clean-energy projects is challenging, so we should do what we can to help get their projects off the ground."
For nearly 30 years, no utility CEO in the U.S. would even consider building another reactor. But

Nuclear construction is expanding slowely – 50 new plants by 2030 Bowman 8 - retired Admiral and president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, (Skip, “HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: AN OVERVIEW,” 6/19/2008 L/N

MR. BOWMAN: Mr. Upton, we are doing this slowly intentionally so that we do it correctly this time around. Let me start in a little bit shorter term. By 2016, 2017, we believe we will have four to eight new nuclear plants online -REP. UPTON: Some of us would like it to be 48 so we -MR. BOWMAN: Yes, sir. I'm one of them. But we are going slowly. We're doing it cautiously. We're doing it so that it comes out right. Based on the experience that that first wave of four to eight plants experiences as they're going along in the regulatory process and the construction process, we believe we could see as many as 20 plants online by 2020. And then our target for 2030 certainly depends on so many factors that it would be difficult for me to say. But I believe achievable -- that 68 gigawatts that Tom Kuhn talked about earlier from the Electric Power Research Institute --

64 gigawatts is achievable. That means we're talking on the order of 30 to 50 new plants by 2030.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

106

UNIQUENESS – NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT INCREASING
Nuclear power is beginning to expand now and is attracting investment against other fossil fuels Electric Perspectives, 2008 (Thomas J. Flaherty and Richard J. Goffi, “Nuclear Resurgence”, January-February, FirstSearch, REQ) The breaks are going nuclear's way. Nuclear owners are making sure that this time, they are more than prepared for the coming renaissance. For two decades the U.S. nuclear power industry has been hoping that it would get a second chance at meeting the energy needs of the country. That time has finally arrived. Several dimensions of the nuclear new build equation are now converging to drive a resurgence of the nuclear sector. The sustained superior performance of the existing nuclear fleet is just one encouraging factor. Combined with the stark realities of an
uncertain future energy supply, the industry is optimistic that the time has again come for it to lake center stage. But memories still linger over the results of the last build-out. By most measures, industry performance during the last nuclear build cycle in the 1970s and 1980s fell far short of expectations. In 1.985, Forbes magazine famously described the failure of the U.S. nuclear power program as "the largest managerial disaster in business history." In truth, the build-out had become a bankrupting endeavor due to both controllable and uncontrollable events. More troubling was the lack of improved performance with increasing experience. Final construction costs were still nearly three times the original estimate, regardless of when construction started. (See Figure 1.) This ability to encounter new problems despite updated approaches, costs, and schedules speaks to a snake-bitten industry that lost public and investor confidence. Most agree that managements, from the outset, did indeed vastly understate the complexity of nuclear plant projects; and the management approach did not match the challenging landscape these projects faced. In many cases, owners were too dependent on third parties (engineering, procurement, and construction firms -- FPCs -- for example) that had misaligned incentives and differing objectives. Project planning depended on a stable regulatory environment and predictable plant delivery prices, both of which remained inconsistent. The absence of an understanding of requirements contributed to poorly defined roles, insufficient resources, and inadequate capabilities for plant development. And this resulted in execution problems like substantial plant redesign, noncompliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements, contractor churn, schedule slippages, and cost overruns. A growing public attitude against utilities in general and nuclear power in particular exacerbated the situation, which led to difficulty in obtaining regulatory support, demonstrating the prudency of decisions, and recouping investment. While it has negotiated many vexing twists and turns, the nuclear industry still faces a road ahead characterized by speed humps and fog. Most owners are rightly slow to accept the simple assurances that they have adequately considered past risks in the current planning base. With an overwhelming sense of déjà vu, they are trying to ensure that they have learned the critical lessons of the past. For the nuclear sector to be an answer to 21st century supply challenges, it must remove the doubts and show regulators and the public that it has embedded those lessons into its planning model. INDUSTRY RENEWAL Since the last plant completions in the late 1980s, large baseload plants in general have not been in vogue except in targeted circumstances. Since the mid-1990s, the power sector filled its needs with natural gas combined cycle plants or gas peaking units. The late 1990s saw a "dash to gas" that saddled many companies with excess capacity and balance sheets that were incapable of financing new plants. While most observers believe that we are again tied to gas for our near-term capacity needs, care must be taken to avoid a repeat of the recent past. Gas is simply a "bridge" fuel to larger baseload capacity additions that have extended planning and construction lead-times. It is not an end-game. Foremost to the revitalization of the nuclear sector is the need for substantial new baseload capacity in the United States, and not just in a few regions. The industry estimates that it will need about 150 gigawatts of new baseload capacity by 2030 -- and it also recognizes that this time around it must plan and build a balanced portfolio that provides flexibility and protection against the volatility that results from over-reliance on one fuel. The need for new baseload capacity reflects several factors: * the gradual disappearance of the capacity overhang since the turn of the century; * concern over climate and the imminence of carbon legislation; * the large amount of wind power online and in development, even while related transmission and intermittency problems still exist; * the likely retirement of existing coal plants in the face of expensive emissions-reduction retrofits; and * the search for an alternative to exposure to gas price volatility. Many want a green solution to those issues, and nuclear offers a satisfying option. In fact, you could call nuclear a blue solution, since it avoids carbon emissions and keeps skies clear.

Also, a building chorus is singing the merits of reducing our dependence on foreign supply sources. While dubious as a necessary goal, energy independence provides additional push to the development of nuclear power as an option. Maybe most important, even with its high upfront capital cost, nuclear has economics that compare favorably to new supercritical coal, future clean-coal options like integrated coal gasification combined-cycle, and even natural gas-fired plants (given the elevated levels of gas prices predicted for the future). Even beyond the bus-bar economics, these non-nuclear fuel options are not without other viability and risk issues like technology
readiness, public support, policy alignment, and source availability.

The U.S. nuclear industry is growing now Fertel, 8 -, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute (Marvin, 4-03-08, “Selling the Department of Energy's Depleted Uranium Stockpile: Opportunities and Challenges.” http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/ferteltestimony040408/ //VR)
Nuclear energy currently supplies twenty percent of our nation’s electricity supply, and is America’s largest source of clean-air, carbon-free electricity, producing no greenhouse gases or other air pollutants. Nuclear energy accounts for 71 percent of the nation’s clean-air electricity generation. In 2006, U.S. nuclear plants prevented the discharge of 681 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is nearly as much carbon dioxide as is released from all U.S. passenger cars. The industry is committed to maintaining the benefits of nuclear energy to benefit the United States and the world.

Because of the growing need for additional baseload electricity in the United States, nuclear generating companies’ have already submitted 9 license applications. We estimate that at least another 5 applications will be made this year. This could result in 15-20 new operating nuclear plants in 2020, an additional 20GW – 25GW of generating capacity.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

107

UNIQUENESS – NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT INCREASING
Nuclear power investment is expanding now – it’s vital to maintaining the current nuclear infrastructure Spurgeon, 08 - Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy (Dennis, Energy Department Documents and Publications, Prepared Remarks, 5/12, lexis)
Energy is central to our economic growth, our national security, our standard of living and our way of life. We face significant energy challenges today and there is a sense of urgency when Americans are paying four dollars a gallon at the pump and increasing energy prices are pushing up the costs of other goods and services. Add to this the need to address global climate change and the enormity of the challenge becomes clear.

The President understands what our nation is confronting and is committed to expanding all sources of energy, and a cornerstone of that expansion is nuclear power. He has stated many times that nuclear power is the only near-term option for producing significant amounts of emissions-free baseload electricity. In fact last year nuclear power avoided almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, that is the equivalent of taking nearly all passenger cars off American roadways. Nuclear power makes up 72% of all emission free electricity generated in the United States. This is no trivial statistic considering electricity production makes up 40% of all the world's
carbon dioxide emissions.

Significant investment and expansion is needed just to maintain the current 20% share of electricity production that nuclear power currently represents in the U.S. We will need approximately 30 GWe of new nuclear power on line by 2030 to maintain that 20% share, and it is projected that we will need at least 300 GWe of new capacity by 2050 to start turning the corner on carbon emissions, using nuclear power to generate 30% of our electricity. What this expansion also means in the U.S. is new jobs. I don't have to explain the importance of human capital for all of us here in the nuclear power industry, and all
those trades and professions that stand to be invigorated by new nuclear projects. The Department has projected that construction of the currently proposed 15 new reactors could yield approximately: 2,700 pipefitters; 2,900 electricians; 1,800 construction professionals; 600 boilermakers; 2,500 sheet metal workers; and 2,900 iron workers. And keep in mind these job numbers are only for construction. On average, operating a nuclear power facility employs 800 workers and creates hundreds more in the surrounding community. These are high-skill, high paying jobs.

41 nuclear plants were ordered and we were well on the way to building a supply infrastructure to construct over 300 plants by the year 2000. When that expansion did not come to fruition our nuclear infrastructure, both in terms of human capital and production facilities atrophied.
Let me remind everyone that we have built a nuclear supply infrastructure from scratch once before in the U.S. In the year 1973 alone,

The U.S. regulatory framework favors nuclear investment Van Namen, 08 - Senior Vice President, Uranium Enrichment USEC Inc. (Robert, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) First, a few of the positives that have gotten us to this point are worth mentioning. Congress has enacted legislation, such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that has spurred utilities to consider building the first new plants in 30 years. In addition, the regulatory uncertainty of the NRC licensing process has been simplified and tested. For instance, USEC and Urenco's subsidiary LES have both successfully applied for and received construction and operating licenses for new enrichment facilities. These are the first new nuclear facility licenses issued by NRC in several decades. NRC has also worked vigorously to increase its staff in order to handle the tens of applications for new nuclear plants, fuel cycle facilities and uranium mines that is has received and expects to receive during the next decade. New public-private partnerships are expanding U.S. nuclear power Spurgeon, 08 - Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy (Dennis, Federal News Service, Prepared Remarks, 2/5, lexis) To further these twin goals of efficiently constructing and operating dozens of new nuclear power plants and maximizing the contribution from our existing nuclear fleet by extending the operating licenses and increasing the electrical output of today's reactors, I am proud to announce a cooperative research and development agreement between the Idaho National Laboratory and the Electric Power Research Institute. Today, INL and EPRI will release a joint INL-Nuclear Power Industry Strategic Plan for Light Water Reactor Research and Development. The plan was developed by a team led by INL's Utility Advisory Board and EPRI's Nuclear Power Council. The proposed industry/government cost-shared R&D effort is focused on 10 objectives including: * Sustaining the high performance of reactor plant materials * Transitioning to state of the art digital instrumentation and controls * Making further advances in nuclear fuel reliability and lifetime * Implementing broad spectrum workforce development * Implementing broad spectrum infrastructure improvements and design for sustainability; and * Addressing electricity infrastructure-wide problems This partnership reflects an ongoing effort between DOE and the nuclear power industry. Sustainability and expansion of nuclear power require public and private cooperation and significant investment in research and development.
The expansion of clean, emissions free, reliable nuclear power does not end at our borders. Today, thirty-one countries operate 439 reactors totaling 372 GWe of electricity capacity. Thirty-four new nuclear power plants are under construction worldwide, and when completed will add an additional 28 GW of new electricity. This new construction is taking place in almost every major region in the world including Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent, Europe, the Middle East, South America, and North America.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

108

UNIQUENESS – NUKE POWER WINNING OVER COAL
Nuclear power succeeding over clean coal in the status quo – high coal prices, and environmental opposition Public Utilities Fortnightly 7, Next-gen technologies face to dominate the big build. PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY July, 2007, L/n, rday Yet in the race to build the next fleet of base-load power plants, nuclear seems to be gaining ground on coal. The reasons are complex, but they come down to this: Coal is no longer cheap. "The economics have changed dramatically," Christopher says. "Coal prices and rail costs have risen. That's the numberone driver for new nuclear power in the United States." Environmental factors also are impeding coal's progress. Virtually every major pulverized-coal fired power project faces public opposition on environmental grounds, and these concerns have driven some project sponsors--including FPL, TXU, Duke, and Sempra--to scale back or cancel plans to build new pulverized-coal plants. Further, uncertainties about future carbon regulation have increased risks and costs for new coal-fired projects. "With the last 18 months of discussions around global warming, coal has become more of a challenge," says Jim Suciu, president of global sales for GE Energy. "A lot of people are having difficulty permitting coal plants, and coal will see more carbon pressure. Nuclear doesn't have that element."

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

109

AT: LACK OF INCENTIVES BLOCKS NUCLEAR POWER
Current incentives in the Energy Policy Act are beginning to expand nuclear power Asselstine, 08 – Managing Director at Lehman Brothers (James, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained four provisions that were intended to facilitate and encourage industry commitments to build and operate new nuclear plants. First, the Act included a 20-year extension of the Price-Anderson Act, which provides insurance protection to the public in the event of a nuclear reactor accident. With the previous expiration of the Price- Anderson Act, insurance coverage for the public remained in
place for the existing 104 operating nuclear units, but that coverage would not have been available for new plants. The 20-year extension of the Price-Anderson Act corrected this problem. Second, the Act provided a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for up to 6,000 megawatts of generating capacity from new nuclear power plants for the first eight years of commercial operation. This

A similar production tax credit was provided, and has historically been available, for certain renewable energy resources. Third, the Act provided standby support or risk insurance for a new nuclear project's sponsors and investors against the financial impacts, including financing costs, of
production tax credit is subject to an annual cap of $125 million for each 1,000 megawatts of generating capacity. delays beyond the industry's control that may be caused by delays in the NRC's licensing process or by litigation. This standby risk insurance for regulatory and litigation delays provides protection for the first six new nuclear units built. Up to $500 million in protection is provided for the first two new units, and 50 percent of the cost of delays up to $250 million, with a six- month deductible, is provided for

Finally, the Act provided for federal loans and loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the project's cost. These federal loan guarantees were not limited to new nuclear plants, but instead were made available to support the development of innovative energy technologies, including advanced nuclear power plants, that avoid or reduce certain air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Chairman, I believe that these financial support provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, if properly implemented, can provide a sufficient basis to support the development and financing of new nuclear plants in this country. Although no company has yet placed a firm order for a new nuclear unit, there is clear evidence from the level of activity within the industry since the Energy Policy Act was enacted that these provisions in the Act are having their intended effect of facilitating and encouraging new plant development. To date, the NRC has certified two new reactor designs for use, and reviews of two additional designs are currently underway. Thus, it appears likely that the industry will be able to select from at least four new NRC- certified plant designs. Further, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, as of April 8, 2008, at least 23 companies or consortia have stated their intention to file applications with the NRC for a combined license for at least 27 new nuclear units in this country. Of these, applications for COLs for 15 units have now been filed with the NRC, and that number could grow to about 20 units by the end of this year. In addition, a number of companies are pursuing Early Site Permit applications with the NRC in order to resolve site environmental issues in advance of the COL proceeding.
units three through six.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

110

REACTOR TECHNOLOGY INCREASING NOW
The U.S. nuclear industry is developing Advanced Light Water Reactors and high temperature gas reactors Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//DH While all of this has been going on, the nuclear industry in the United States has also been planning to build new Advanced Light Water Reactors. The U.S. NRC granted licenses to reactor designs by General Electric, Combustion Engineering, and Westinghouse, 88 and they are considering a second Westinghouse design at this time. 89 A license should be issued in the next year or two, just in time for construction at one of several pre-licensed sites. The federal government also initiated a new licensing process designed to avoid historical delays in starting new reactors. 90 To test this new licensing process, on Sept. 25, 2003, Exelon (Illinois) and Dominion (Virginia) filed Early Site Permit (ESP) applications with the U.S. NRC: Exelon for a second reactor at its Clinton, Illinois, plant, and Dominion for another reactor at its North Anna, Virginia, plant. 91 A third power company, Entergy, applied for an ESP October 21, 2003 for a second reactor at its Port Gibson, Mississippi, [*56] plant. 92 These three licenses could be the beginning of the nuclear construction renaissance in the United States. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry has a vision of increasing generating capacity by 50 percent, or about 50 plants or 50,000 megawatts, by 2020. 93 In addition, the U.S. DOE is preparing to construct a new, high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor for developing the technology to generate hydrogen instead of (or in addition to) electricity by using heat from nuclear power. 94 The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor is expanding internationally Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//DH Internationally, medium-term plans include a new reactor concept called the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PMBR), which is being developed by South Africa's Eskom, the fifth largest utility in the world. 95 The PBMR is a small, modular, helium gas-cooled reactor that will not require emergency core cooling systems because it physically cannot "melt down." 96 A very low power PBMR research reactor is already in operation in China. 97 The South African Government gave the green light for a prototype to be built at Koeberg, north of Cape Town. 98 They also approved environmental impact studies for a plant to be built at Pelindaba to supply nuclear fuel for the new reactor. 99

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

111

NUCLEAR POWER INCREASING GLOBALLY
Expansion of nuclear energy and uranium mining worldwide now Fertel 8- Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute (Marvin, 03-05-08, speech to the U.S. Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/ferteltestimony_030508/ //VR)

The United States faces major demand for new base-load electricity generation. The Administration and Congress both have recognized that nuclear power plants are critical to meeting electricity supply and for addressing climate change issues. The 104 operating nuclear power plants represent about 11% of installed capacity; however, they provide nearly 20% of electricity demand.

In response, the nuclear industry is in an expansion mode. One of the strengths of the nuclear option relative to other energy sources is forward price stability. In the face of rising energy costs to consumers, ensuring a predictable, reliable nuclear fuel supply is essential to being able to continue to offer the benefits of nuclear energy to our electricity consumers. Expansion of nuclear energy is also occurring throughout the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency is protecting about a 15% increase in the number of operating reactors by 2020. This world wide expansion requires the expansion of the world suppliers of nuclear fuel cycle services. This is why it is important for U.S. utilities to have access to international suppliers.

In 2007 utilities submitted to the NRC combined license applications for 7 new nuclear power plants and additional announcements account for 24 more plants. This expansion is predicated on a reliable and economically competitive nuclear fuel supply. Numerous mining and milling companies have reactivated or have submitted applications to states and/or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for uranium mines and mills. In 2007 Converdyn, working with Honeywell,
increased the conversion capacity of the Metropolis, IL facility. USEC has licensed a new enrichment facility which is currently in the demonstration phase, LES has licensed and begun construction of a new enrichment facility, and AREVA and General Electric have both announced plans for new enrichment facilities. The billion of dollars in financing for these facilities is proceeding under existing law. It is critical to the utilities, nuclear fuel suppliers, and the country that everyone succeeds. In this environment, the RSA must be viewed in terms of the overall fuel supply market and how perturbations in one facet of the market can have ramifications across all sectors.

Global Nuclear power production rapidly increasing – warming fears, and fossil fuel prices Public Utilities Fortnightly 8, (“Nuke Revival: When It Rains, It Pours,” January, L/n, rday)
Presently there are 435 operational reactors in 30 countries - 166 in Europe, 104 in the U.S. - providing roughly 15 percent of the world's energy. The proportion varies from zero to marginal - 2 percent in China - to significant - 20 percent in the U.S. and the U.K. - to dominant - 78 percent in France, for example. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), some 32 nuclear power stations are currently under

construction - 16 of them in Asia, where growth prospects are the best. The IAEA says nuclear power's share of global energy is likely to grow to 27 percent by 2030 because of environmental concerns and depletion and/or rising price of fossil fuels. The World's Nuclear Association (WNA), a trade group based in the U.K., counts 439 operating nuclear plants worldwide, claiming 94 more are planned for development with another 222 proposed. China plans to build 30 new reactors by 2020, increasing nuclear's share from 2.3 percent to 6 percent-roughly 40,000MW. By 2050, the aim is to have at least 150,000MW of installed nuclear capacity, 22 percent of the electricity mix. India plans to expand its share of nuclear-generated energy eightfold to 10 percent by 2022. Nuclear energy increasing worldwide and in the U.S. Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony/ //VR)

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

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

112

NUCLEAR POWER INCREASING GLOBALLY
Nuclear power is increasing both domestically and worldwide CFR, 2007 (Lee Hudson, “Fission for Answers”, April 19, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13124/fission_for_answers.html) While ethanol captures the imagination of energy officials in the Western Hemisphere, a familiar fuel source—nuclear power—appears to be stirring excitement on an even broader scale. Take Asia, where eighteen new plants are under construction and about 110 more are planned (Uranium Information Center), due in part to voracious demand from China, India, Japan, and South Korea. Or take the Middle East, where Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program has spurred oil titan Saudi Arabia to launch its own system (NYT) of nuclear reactors that would span the Persian Gulf region. Egypt also wants to tap nuclear energy (BBC), as do Turkey and Jordan. “The rules have changed (Haaretz) on the nuclear subject,” said Jordan’s King Abdullah in a recent interview. “Everybody's going for nuclear programs.” Of course, nuclear energy is also back in favor in the United States. “A secure energy future for America must include more nuclear power,” said President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address. At the time of the president’s speech, no new reactor had been built in the United States since 1996. Now one decommissioned nuclear reactor is being brought back into operation, and electrical utility companies are considering twenty three additional possible reactor projects (FT). A confluence of factors has made nuclear power suddenly more popular. Leading the list is Bush’s goal of energy independence, which requires reducing oil imports. No less significant is the drive to counteract global warming and cut back on energy sources that produce carbon gas. A new report from the Center for Naval Analyses points out that these goals can be interrelated, noting that climate change may well present a serious national security threat. More basically, the world faces a severe energy crunch. Global interest in nuclear power is increasing CFR, 2007 (Toni Johnson, “Global Uranium Supply and Demand”, November 7, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html, REQ) Interest in the use of nuclear power is on the rise, as the world’s growing demand for cheap, reliable electricity vies with the need to reduce air pollution. Nonproliferation of weapons and the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel dominate the debate on nuclear power, while nuclear fuel supplies have garnered little attention. Russia and Europe, currently shut out of the normal U.S. nuclear fuel market, want to sell directly to U.S. utilities, raising concerns about the U.S. enrichment industry. Meanwhile uranium mining is making a comeback after a two-decade slump, but obstacles such as infrastructure problems, stable access to enrichment services, and environmental concerns continue to dog the industry. World embracing nuclear power Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//markoff <Nuclear plants are under construction abroad, and many more are planned. Most of this nuclear construction, both planned and current, is concentrated in Asia. 57 This includes China, Japan, North and South Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Vietnam. Korea, Japan, and China have the most ongoing construction, and they are making plans to build much more nuclear capacity in the next fifteen to twenty years. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) currently operates sixteen reactors, six are under construction, and eight more are planned for completion by 2015 implying a 100% increase in nuclear generation by 2015. 58 The Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) is also working with U.S. researchers and the U.S. State Department to develop a new fuel cycle to "recycle" used fuel from light water reactors into heavy-water CANDU (Canadian Deuterium Uranium) reactors. 59

In Japan, which has more than fifty reactors, new construction is ongoing and more has been approved recently despite widely
publicized problems in their nuclear industry. 60 Japan is also working on recycling used nuclear fuel, where they are constructing plants for partitioning the used fuel into waste, uranium, and other actinides and for manufacturing mixed fuels for their reactors. 61 The most significant global nuclear story is in central and southeast Asia.

More than one-third of the Earth's people live in China, Pakistan, and India. Growing energy use in these nations, which are all on the far left of the earlier HDI-versus-electricity graph, could have devastating global implications. In China, aggressive growth depends on the availability of capital. China has eight operating nuclear power reactors, four are under construction, and they [*53] plan to continue to expand their nuclear industries even further. 62 India has fourteen operating reactors, several are under construction, and they are in the process of developing a complete fuel cycle industry. 63 Nuclear power is seldom thought of in conjunction with Central and South America, but many nations have nuclear programs, and some even have nuclear power plants. Brazil with two operating reactors and one on hold, 64 recently restarted their Angra-3 reactor construction project, with a $ 1.8 billion price tag
and a projected completion date of 2008. 65 With recent heavy rains, a recession, and a national surplus of hydroelectricity, however, they have once again halted the project. In Argentina, Atucha-1 has been upgraded and Atucha-2 is 85 percent complete, and the Government has approved a design and a site for a new prototype reactor. 66 Peru announced that they expect to need nuclear power between 2012 and 2016, and Mexican authorities stated that when the United States begins construction of new nuclear plants, Mexico would follow. 67 In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency began a multinational project to develop a waste repository for use by many of these countries.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

113

NUCLEAR POWER INCREASING GLOBALLY
Nuclear energy will double by 2030 Bowman 6- President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, 9-3-06, Speech to House of Representatives,
Development, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended //VR) Subcommittee on Energy and Water

Nuclear companies in the United States and around the world are making plans to build significant numbers of new nuclear plants to meet baseload electricity needs after 2015. According to data compiled by NEI, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Nuclear Association, 169 power reactors, totaling approximately 136,000 megawatts of capacity, are currently under construction, in development, planned or proposed around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s most recent forecast projects nuclear energy capacity worldwide could nearly double by 2030—from 370,000 megawatts in 2005 to
679,000 megawatts in 2030.

This expansion in nuclear power capacity is driven by economic and environmental imperatives—the need to supply sufficient electricity to serve growing population and to enable economic growth, and to minimize the environmental impacts of electricity production. Nuke power up- Europe CFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy”, April 25, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ) Across Europe, some politicians are rethinking plans to phase out nuclear-power plants. They are motivated by the following factors Need to diversify energy sources. Most European countries are dependent on imports for their energy needs. With natural-gas supplies from the North Sea soon to run dry, and after a January spat over natural-gas supplies between Russia and Ukraine threatened to choke off gas exports to the region, renewed emphasis has been placed on rethinking phase-outs of nuclear power. A study commissioned by the European Union found that Europe's vulnerability to disruptions of gas supplies is growing because "of the high dependence on a single source, Russia, of the new member states." In Germany, the largest importer of Russian gas, plans to phase out all nineteen of its nuclear plants by 2020 are being reconsidered. As are plans in Great Britain over whether to phase out its Chernobyl-era plants, which many experts say are unsafe, and replace them with newer, technologically advanced, but costlier plants. The first European country in over a decade to authorize construction of a nuclear reactor is Finland. Rising energy costs. Double-digit hikes in heating bills and escalating prices at the pump have prompted some European policymakers to rethink nuclear power. The oil shocks of the 1970s spurred France to undertake a major nuclear program, which today continues to provide around 75 percent of its electricity. Renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind power, in addition to clean-coal technologies, are other ways for Europe to keep its energy costs low, some experts say. Russian nuclear power is expanding Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//DH In Eastern Europe, Russia continues its use of nuclear power and its plans for growth. They are planning to open a repository for storage of used nuclear fuel from international partners, they are marketing nuclear energy internationally, and they are working with the United States to destroy plutonium and highly enriched uranium from the weapons program. 81 Uranium from more than a seven thousand nuclear warheads has already been recycled [*55] into fuel for U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. 82 Bulgarian officials recently announced that they would need a second nuclear power station in six years. 83

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

114

NUCLEAR POWER INCREASING – ASIA
Nuclear power expansion inevitable in Asia Flavin, 6 – Christopher, President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK With the nuclear construction business virtually dead in North America and Europe, energy-starved Asia is where a nuclear revival is more likely to begin. Indeed, India and China both have ambitious nuclear plans.Up to 30 nuclear plants are planned in each country over the next two decades-which sounds impressive until you do the math. Even if their nuclear dreams are realized, neither country will be getting even 5 percent of its electricity from nuclear power in 2020. This is simply not a significant commitment for countries with populations of well over a billion and electricity demand growing at 10 percent annually. Nuke Power up- Asia CFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy”, April 25, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ) Are Asia’s growing economies embracing nuclear power Yes, experts say. China alone is investing $50 billion in capital spending toward nuclear power, as it looks to expand on its current nine nuclear facilities to commission thirty more, boosting its output from 6,600 megawatts of power to 40,000 megawatts. India has eight nuclear stations currently under construction—the most of any nation—bringing its total, once the stations are completed, up to twenty-three. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are also considering future nuclear-power options. Unlike Europe or the United States, experts say Asians countries do not hold the same doubts about the potential dangers posed by nuclear power.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

115

AT: PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO NEW CONSTRUCTION
Public opposition to nuclear power is decreasing Gross, 07 – staff writer (Daniel, Newsweek, 10/29, “Solving 'Fission Impossible'”, lexis //DH) As contestants are eliminated, it's worth looking at the geezer in the bunch: nuclear power. Nearly 50 years after the Shipping port Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania became the first commercial power plant to hit critical mass, the New Jersey-based utility NRG last month filed papers seeking permission to build a nuclear power plant in Texas. This represents the first such new application since 1979, nuclear's annus horribilis. Two weeks after the debut of the fearinducing nuclear-disaster flick "The China Syndrome," life imitated art, as the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania suffered a partial meltdown. That effectively forestalled the creation of new nuclear power plants for a generation. The last reactor to come online was the Watts Bar reactor in Tennessee, in May 1996. So what's changed? Thirty years of safe operations have helped pave the way for NRG, and for a couple of dozen other possible plants in the works. Indeed, even as they're mocked in popular culture--like on "The Simpsons"--the nation's 104 commercial nuclear generating units have been quietly humming along without significant incident. "The Bureau of Labor Statistics will tell you that the nuclear industry is the safest place to work--safer than real estate and Wall Street," former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman tells NEWSWEEK. (You remember her--she played the environmentalist in the first Bush term). Through the first half of this year, nukes provided 19.8 percent of U.S. electricity generation, about the same proportion as they did in 1990. More important, thanks to developments in the broader environment, many longtime critics are changing their tune. As a cofounder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore used to call nuclear energy "synonymous with nuclear holocaust." But he now believes "nuclear is the cleanest, safest and has the smallest footprint" of any major energy-alternative source. He says that nukes are cheap and reliable, unlike alternative-energy sources like wind and solar. Neither do nuclear plants spew sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, like coal-powered plants do, or create massive volumes of CO2 emissions, like gas-fired plants do. The attitude of Moore, who co-chairs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, an industry-backed supporter of nuclear energy, is virtually indistinguishable from that of David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG: "Advanced nuclear technology is the only currently viable large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation to produce none of the traditional air emissions--and most importantly in this age of climate change--no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases." Another megatrend is working in nuclear's favor: demographics. In 2006, an estimated 41.3 percent of the population was below 30. Which is to say that the percentage and number of Americans who remember the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl decline with every passing year. Building new plants at existing locations solves Zawatsky, 08 – chief executive officer of havePower, LLC. (Jay, “Inside Track: Going Nuclear on Energy”, The National Interest, 4/9, http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=17332] //DH Why 104 new nuclear plants? Because we already have that many in operation. We simply build two thousand additional megawatts of capacity at each current location. Then we avoid the not-in-my-backyard problem. And there’s no need to worry about safety: the days of Chernobyl-type facilities are long gone. That was an Edsel. A nuclear plant designed today is a Lexus.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

116

AT: CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOO HIGH
Construction costs can be streamlined and construction times are short Murray, 08 - senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (Ian, National Review, “Nuclear Power? – Yes please”, 6/16, lexis) //DH Keep in mind that many of the current arguments used against nuclear power by environmentalists are economic in tone -that uranium is running out (not true even in the medium term); that decommissioning is expensive and/or will be a burden on the taxpayer (it is expensive, but the cost could be met by requiring the operator to pay into a fund during the reactor's life); or that building reactors takes too long (true, but most of that is the fault of red tape). The Canadian company ACEL has managed to shorten the time for building a reactor -- from groundbreaking to coming online -- to four years. Such a schedule should significantly reduce construction costs which, as we have seen, are the main impediment to nuclear costeffectiveness. Nuclear power is a cheaper and more stable investment than traditional energy Lewis, 6 - University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law, J.D. candidate, former Navy engineer specializing in pure water chemistry on naval nuclear reactors (Neal H, “INTERPRETING THE ORACLE: LICENSING MODIFICATIONS, ECONOMICS, SAFETY, POLITICS, AND THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE UNITED STATES,” 16 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 27, 2006)//markoff <The EIA believes that the cost of new nuclear construction, relative to coal and gas-fired plants, is too great for companies to invest in new capacity. 126 Increases in both performance and uprates at current nuclear plants caused the total nuclear power produced in the United States to increase, although no new nuclear capacity construction has occurred in the United States [*47] since 1996. 127 Plants are authorized to make additional technical improvements that can increase capacity slightly. 128 Although it makes economic sense to invest in lower-cost nuclear power upgrades, the EIA reasons that there is no supporting economic rationale for new investment in nuclear power. 129 The ESP filings of 2003 suggest that not everyone believes that nuclear power is an extinct method of producing electricity. Cost analysis indicates that nuclear power has been more stable than traditional steam power generation. 130 Between 1996 and 2000, production costs of steam power generation 131 for major electric utilities increased by 44%. 132 Over the same period, production costs for nuclear power generation increased at a similar rate of 47%. 133 Although this portion of electric generation has remained stable, the increase in the cost of fuel has been striking. Over the same period, the cost of fuel for steam power generation increased by 91% while the cost of fuel for nuclear facilities increased by only 37%. 134 The EIA projects that both coal and nuclear prices will remain relatively stable through 2025, but natural gas prices will experience a more serious fluctuation. 135 These numbers do not reflect the fuel price volatility of natural gas associated with the California energy crisis of 2002. 136>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

117

AT: ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS BLOCK NUCLEAR POWER
Nuclear power is on the rise- environmental activists have switched sides CFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy”, April 25, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ) Twenty years after the explosion at Chernobyl in northern Ukraine, nuclear power is enjoying a revival in much of the world. This is partly due to rising energy demands, renewed efforts to wean the world off fossil fuels, and a rethinking by some green activists over nuclear power's relatively benign impact on climate change. These activists say atomic power is a more environmentally friendly and economical alternative to coal-burning plants. Hence, sixty new plants are slated to go online by 2020—a 65 percent increase in global output. European leaders are reconsidering nuclear phase-outs, while new plants are in development across Asia to meet surging local energy demands, particularly in India and China. But concerns remain. No new plant has been ordered in the United States since the 1979 nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island;a few applications for plants have been submitted recently. After 9/11, ensuring plant security took on a new importance. Safeguarding and storing spent fuel also remain an unaddressed concern. Some question nuclear power's economic viability. Nuclear plants are more capital intensive than most other energy sources and if the price of oil or natural gas were to drop, nuclear power might lose its competitive advantage. Then there is the obvious threat that a country's nuclear program, such as Iran's, could be upgraded and used for offensive purposes, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation or nuclear weaponry falling into the hands of a terrorist group.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

118

AT: CURRENT LOAN GUARANTEES DON’T COVER ENOUGH OF THE DEBT
Current loan guarantees cover 100% of the loan Voinovich, 08 – US Senator (George, Nuclear News, “Making the nuclear renaissance a reality”, March, lexis) //DH I have worked hard to make the loan guarantee program perform as Congress intended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005-that is, to attract sufficient private capital at low cost. In addition to meeting with key administration officials, including then Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, in 2007 I introduced the Voinovich-Carper-Inhofe Amendment (SA-1575) to the Energy Bill (H.R. 6) to allow loan guarantees of 100 percent of the loan amount for capital-intensive projects such as nuclear and clean coal, provided that the borrower pays for the loan subsidy costs. Although this amendment did not make it into the final version of the Energy Bill, the administration recently issued a final rule that in effect adopts the intent of the Voinovich-Carper-Inhofe amendment. New DOE regulations cover 100% of project debt NEI 7 (Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry, quotes Frank Bowman, NIE president and CEO, 10-04-07, “Nuclear Industry Welcomes Step Forward For DOE Clean-Energy Loan Guarantee Program”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/nuclearenergywelcomesstep/ //VR) WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy today released its regulations implementing the clean-energy loan guarantee program authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation empowers the Secretary of Energy to provide loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of “innovative technologies” that “avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.” Following is a statement from Frank L. (Skip) Bowman, the Nuclear Energy Institute’s president and chief executive officer. “We are pleased that the Department of Energy has taken this important step to implement the loan guarantee provisions of the Energy Policy Act. Electric generating companies have begun to file license applications for new nuclear plants with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it is imperative that the Energy Department have in place a loan guarantee program that will support the financing for these large, capital-intensive power plant projects. “Advanced-design nuclear power plants available today hold tremendous promise to strengthen U.S. energy security and ensure fuel diversity. Nuclear energy also is essential to any credible program to prevent or avoid greenhouse gases, and it provides forward price stability in a volatile energy marketplace. These benefits accrue broadly to consumers and the U.S. economy, but electric companies carry a disproportionate share of the business risk in new reactor projects. The federal government’s loan guarantees appropriately would mitigate some of the business risk involved in building new nuclear plants. “Today’s regulations are a substantial improvement on the proposed regulations unveiled earlier this year. We are pleased that the final regulations provide for 100 percent guarantee of project debt, up to 80 percent of total project cost, as the Energy Policy Act intended. Consumers will be protected because industry will bear the cost to the government of providing the guarantee, in addition to making substantial equity investments. The nuclear industry looks forward to working with Congress and the Administration to ensure an aggregate loan volume for the program that reflects the size of these high-cost capital projects. “Further analysis of the new regulation is ongoing. We salute the leadership of Secretary Bodman and others in delivering this important ruling.”

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

119

AT: LACK OF LOAN GUARANTEES BLOCK NEW CONSTRUCTION
Loan guarantees have already been approved by the federal government – even nuclear lobbyists are satisfied States News Service 6-27 (NEI GRATIFIED BY HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS PANEL'S APPROVAL OF ENERGY AND WATER BILL FOR FY2009, 2008, L/n, rday) The following information was released by the Nuclear Energy Institute: The House Appropriations Committee today approved an energy and water development appropriations measure for fiscal year 2009. The following statement of reaction is from the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior vice president for governmental affairs, Alex Flint: "The nuclear energy industry is excited about the Appropriations Committee's approval of the 2009 energy and water funding bill. It reflects a solid investment in nuclear power as one of the clean, reliable energy sources that our nation must increasingly rely upon to achieve our energy and environmental goals. "The industry also greatly appreciates the tremendous support for nuclear energy expressed by House appropriators today, particularly by Chairman Peter Visclosky and ranking member David Hobson. They clearly recognize that our nation faces urgent challenges with regard to energy policy and future energy security, and they are working together to set America on a course for success. "It is fantastic that the committee is extending the Department of Energy's loan guarantee authority for new nuclear power plants by two years, through fiscal year 2011, and also increasing the loan guarantee authority for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The clean-energy loan guarantee program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will help encourage the construction of advanced nuclear power plants that avoid carbon emissions and provide electricity to help meet the U.S. economy's baseload energy needs. "The availability of loan guarantees to facilitate debt financing on reasonable terms for the first wave of nuclear plant license applications will help reduce uncertainties surrounding these capital-intensive projects, and ultimately will lower the cost of the electricity produced by these new power plants to the consumer. Loan guarantees have been massively increased in the ’08 Omnibus bill – this is fostering a rush towards nuclear power Gawlicki, 08 - Fortnightly contributor who has been writing about the power industry for nearly 20 years (Scott, Public Utilities Fornightly 08 : Financing New Nukes; Federal loan guarantees raise hopes for new reactors planned by affiliates of Constellation and NRG., February, L/n, rday) When President Bush signed the 2008 Omnibus spending bill last December, he effectively released the federal loan guarantee funding that nuclear developers say is critical to building the country's first nuclear steam generators in decades-and reinvigorating the industry as a whole. The $ 555 billion spending package allocates $ 38.5 billion in loan guarantees for energy projects that avoid, reduce or sequester greenhouse gases, including $ 18.5 billion for new nuclear plant construction, $ 2 billion for uranium enrichment, $ 10 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and $ 8 billion for clean coal technology.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

120

AT: LACK OF LOAN GUARANTEES BLOCK CONSTRUCTION
The House just approved an extension of loan guarantees NEI, 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, States News Service, “NEI GRATIFIED BY HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS PANEL'S APPROVAL OF ENERGY AND WATER BILL FOR FY2009”, 6/27, lexis) //DH The following information was released by the Nuclear Energy Institute: The House Appropriations Committee today approved an energy and water development appropriations measure for fiscal year 2009. The following statement of reaction is from the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior vice president for governmental affairs, Alex Flint: "The nuclear energy industry is excited about the Appropriations Committee's approval of the 2009 energy and water funding bill. It reflects a solid investment in nuclear power as one of the clean, reliable energy sources that our nation must increasingly rely upon to achieve our energy and environmental goals. "The industry also greatly appreciates the tremendous support for nuclear energy expressed by House appropriators today, particularly by Chairman Peter Visclosky and ranking member David Hobson. They clearly recognize that our nation faces urgent challenges with regard to energy policy and future energy security, and they are working together to set America on a course for success. "It is fantastic that the committee is extending the Department of Energy's loan guarantee authority for new nuclear power plants by two years, through fiscal year 2011, and also increasing the loan guarantee authority for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The clean-energy loan guarantee program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will help encourage the construction of advanced nuclear power plants that avoid carbon emissions and provide electricity to help meet the U.S. economy's baseload energy needs. "The availability of loan guarantees to facilitate debt financing on reasonable terms for the first wave of nuclear plant license applications will help reduce uncertainties surrounding these capital-intensive projects, and ultimately will lower the cost of the electricity produced by these new power plants to the consumer. "We also applaud the full funding of the Energy Department's nuclear waste management program at the requested level of $494.7 million. The planned Yucca Mountain, Nevada, repository is a key component of the integrated used-fuel management strategy."

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

121

AT: URANIUM SHORTAGES BLOCK NUCLEAR POWER
Enough uranium to supply once-through reactors for centuries, even by conservative estimates Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
(Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 44)

How long will the uranium ore resource base be sufficient to support large-scale deployment of nuclear power without reprocessing and/or breeding?10 Present data suggests the required resource base will be available at an affordable cost for a very long time. Estimates of both known and undiscovered uranium resources at various recovery costs are given in the NEA/IAEA “Red Book”11. For example, according to the latest edition of the Red Book, known resources12 recoverable at costs < $80/kgU and < $130/kgU are approximately 3 and 4 million tonnes of uranium, respectively. However, the amount of known resources depends on the intensity of the exploration effort, mining costs, and the price of uranium. Thus, any predictions of the future availability of uranium that are based on current mining costs, prices and geological knowledge are likely to be extremely conservative. The U.S. has international agreements to secure uranium and domestic production is increasing Van Namen, 08 - Senior Vice President, Uranium Enrichment USEC Inc. (Robert, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) Since 2003, the price of uranium has risen from about $10 a pound up to more than $95 for long-term contracts. At this price, domestic miners have begun the process to expand or restart existing mines. NRC expects
But today the situation has changed somewhat for the better. applications for 20 new mines to be filed by 2011. Concurrently, production has increased to about 5 million pounds a year at existing mines.

countries with the greatest uranium reserves, Canada and Australia, are close allies of the United States, reducing chances of supply disruptions. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy maintains an enormous inventory of uranium in various commercial and non-commercial forms. This inventory can supply limited regular demand as well as serving as a strategic reserve in case of supply disruptions. The department is working on the details of a long-term policy for handling its inventory, which would bring much needed clarity to the role of these sales in the
However, even if domestic production of uranium expands immensely, it is unlikely that we would ever be able to supply all our needs with domestic production. Fortunately, the market.

The U.S. has adequate uranium supplies Hickey, 6 – Professor of Law, Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, Hofstra Law School
(James E, “IDEA: REVIVING THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: USING DOMESTIC ENERGY LAW TO CURE TWO PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ILLEGALITY,” 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425, Winter 2006)//markoff

< Nuclear power is one of the most readily available domestic energy sources that can be used to achieve energy independence. It has a fifty-year record of safe operational experience with over one hundred power plants. n29 There are an estimated 498 million tons of uranium ore reserves in the United States n30 to fuel a revived nuclear power industry. In addition, Australia and Canada, two close U.S. allies, have most of the world's uranium reserves. Unlike fossil fuel electric power, nuclear electric power does not produce any GHGs. In 2005, over 200 million barrels of oil were used directly for electric generation. This consumption can be replaced by nuclear generation, which would help to reduce U.S. foreign oil dependence. In addition, the heavy reliance on the automobile in the United States is a major source of
n31

both oil consumption and of GHG emissions. The movement to introduce electric and electric hybrid cars to the U.S. automobile market is an attempt to reduce oil use and GHG emissions. However, if electric batteries used in these cars are recharged with fossil fuel generated [*431] electricity, little is achieved to reduce GHG emissions because the source of those emissions is simply moved from the

In a revived nuclear power industry, additional GHG emission reductions could be achieved by recharging electric car batteries with electricity produced from nuclear power plants.>
tailpipe to the smokestack.

Reprocessing spent fuel can overcome uranium supply limitations CFR, 2007 (Toni Johnson, “Global Uranium Supply and Demand”, November 7, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html, REQ) Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known to be recoverable. Australia leads with more than one million tons (about 24
percent of the world’s known supply), followed by Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each.

the overall amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group
In a 2006 background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes contends that worldwide rankings mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up to about 20 percent of the country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent.

The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fast-reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts say spent fuel can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel.
Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

122

AT: REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY BLOCKS EXPANSION
The nuclear industry has adapted to the current regulatory framework – these regulations are sufficiently predictable to allow nuclear expansion Peterson 8 -Scott, Vice President-Communications of Nuclear Energy Institute (Speech given 41st Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Conference, 4-15-08, “Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction in the UnitedStates”,http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/petersonspeech041 5/ //VR)
The companies operating nuclear plants in the United States today, and preparing to build new ones starting in the next decade, are operating to higher standards. Today’s nuclear industry has learned from the experiences of the past – including many lessons learned and good practices from this country – and those lessons inform everything we do.

The U.S. industry is positioned well for growth today because the industry started many years ago on a systematic program to identify the business risks of building new reactors and to develop ways to eliminate or manage those risks. In some areas, like licensing, we assembled several hundred industry personnel to review the NRC’s new reactor licensing process, under which designs and sites would be approved up front and companies would receive a single license to build and operate. The industry review identified ambiguities and potential uncertainties, and developed techniques to eliminate them. The result is a stable, workable platform for new nuclear plant licensing and construction. Last year, NRC finalized its new plant licensing regulations, and those revisions were subject to review and comment by all stakeholders, including the nuclear industry. We followed the same approach in other areas – financing, for example. For the industry, the loan guarantees in the 2005 Energy
Policy Act are critical to new nuclear plant financing. I would guess that hundreds of industry experts have been working in earnest since 2000 developing tools, techniques and programs to manage the risk of new nuclear plant construction. We have mobilized experts in licensing and regulation, financing, construction management, political affairs, public support, supply chain, and work force. Seventeen entities developing license applications for up to 31 new reactors did not just happen. It has been carefully planned. The new licensing process is markedly different from the old. The process is

restructured to ensure that all major issues – design, safety, siting and public concerns – will be settled before a company starts building a nuclear plant and puts billions of dollars at risk. The technology is mature. The next plants are light water reactors like the 104 plants operating today. The regulations are stable, well-understood, workable and defined in great detail. Equally important, NRC staff and the industry share a common understanding of how to comply with its terms and conditions. Nothing like this existed when today’s plants were licensed. All applications for licenses to build a specific reactor design will be identical
– virtually word for word – except for site-specific variations. When the NRC staff has reviewed an issue once, that issue should not be reviewed again in subsequent applications. This produces greater regulatory certainty.

Current nuclear regulations are managable for the industry Peterson 8 -Scott, Vice President-Communications of Nuclear Energy Institute (Speech given 41st Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Conference, 4-15-08, “Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction in the UnitedStates”,http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/petersonspeech041 5/ //VR) And finally, these are large capital projects relative to the size of the companies that will build them, which brings additional complexity to the table. It will require creative partnerships and joint ventures as the U.S. prepares to invest some one trillion dollars in electricity sector expansion and environmental compliance technology between now and 2020. On the other hand, we think the uncertainties are manageable. The licensing process is indisputably more efficient and predictable than when we last built nuclear plants in the United States. We understand what went wrong the last time and we’ve taken steps to remove or mitigate those risks. There’s no doubt the U.S. needs new baseload generating capacity.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

123

UNIQUENESS – RENEWABLES LOW
Other renewable are failing in the electricity sector – restraints and opposition Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff <Another handicap that most sources of renewable energy face as potential supplies of base-load electrical power is that they are immobile - they must be created where the wind blows, the sun shines, or the dam can be built. 105 Most other energy sources, such as coal, uranium, oil, or natural gas, can be delivered to a site of a generating plant that will be conveniently located in relation to sources of electricity demand and to the transmission network. Electricity is and always can be transmitted long distances over high-voltage transmission lines, but because people who live near the site of a proposed transmission line typically oppose its construction, state and local officials have "strong incentives to protect their own incumbent firms or citizens, rather than supporting interstate cooperative market norms." 106 Consequently, [*22] such lines are costly and very difficult to build. 107 A percentage of the energy is lost with each mile of distance. 108 To get a true cost for power from remote sources, the cost and difficulty of providing transmission must be factored into the equation. In some parts of the world, such as Denmark and Northern Germany, the reliability of offshore winds in the Baltic Sea near major population centers has encouraged large-scale offshore windfarm construction, 109 but its true cost-effectiveness is hard to determine because the extent of subsidies involved is complex. 110 Whether similar conditions exist in many parts of the United States, and whether the opposition to such farms can be overcome, remains to be seen. 111> Proposals for greater renewables don’t translate to action Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff <Few people would disagree with the idea that renewable energy research and development is desirable, and support for such work continues to come from both the public and private sectors. Virtually every day brings news of a new proposal somewhere in the world to develop another system of producing electricity renewably, 115 but few energy analysts believe that new systems of large-scale renewable generation are likely in the next few decades. 116>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

124

LINKS – DECREASING ELECTRICITY DEMAND KILLS NUCLEAR POWER
Decreasing electricity demand empirically undermines nuclear power Peterson 8 -Scott, Vice President-Communications of Nuclear Energy Institute (Speech given 41st Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Conference, 4-15-08, “Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction in the UnitedStates”,http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/petersonspeech041 5/ //VR) And finally, we were building under difficult business and economic conditions. Growth in electricity demand slowed from 6 to 7 percent a year to 1 to 2 percent. Many utilities intentionally slowed construction. The prime lending rate for financing hit 20 percent in the early 80s. As project schedules stretched out, costs increased and companies were forced to borrow more money at double-digit interest rates. The 1980s were somewhat dark days for nuclear power. Remember that back then, the average annual capacity factor of U.S. nuclear plants was in the mid-50-percent range. Refueling outages ran, on average, more than three months.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

125

LINKS – RENEWABLE ENERGY TRADESOFF WITH NUCLEAR POWER
Nuclear power and renewables tradeoff – investment capital is finite and nuclear is winning now Marshall, 08 (Christa, “CLIMATE: Nuclear question is radioactive in Hill debate”, Environment and Energy Daily, 3/13, lexis) //DH "The private capital market isn't investing in new nuclear plants, and without financing, capitalist utilities aren't buying," said Amory Lovins, the co-founder and chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit energy research organization, said at the House Select Committee on Energy Dependence and Global Warming hearing. The creation of new power plants actually worsens global warming, Lovins said, because it saps investment money from lower-cost renewable energy options such as wind power. But more than a dozen companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors and spending millions on "developing, submitting and defending" existing applications, said Alex Flint, senior vice president of governmental affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. "Financing will be available for nuclear power under the right conditions," Flint said. Flint added that billions in new federal loan guarantees to promote the construction of new plants cost the government nothing, prompting a sharp retort from committee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Nuclear power and renewable energy tradeoff – investment capital is finite Hanley, 08 (Paul, “Nuclear industry spins new mythology”, 6/24, The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan), lexis) //DH Amory Lovins = chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute According to Amory Lovins, reducing carbon emissions would be cheaper and safer if nuclear was rejected in favour of alternatives that are sustainable. "The bottom line is that nuclear buys two to 10 times less climate protection than its competitors." Investing in the nuclear option in Saskatchewan would suck up all the capital that would be spent more cost-effectively on renewable energy, efficiency and conservation.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

126

NUCLEAR POWER LINKS – RPS
A national RPS will decrease investment in nuclear power Sovacool and Cooper, 07 - *Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a national non- profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), June, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdf) Often overlooked, is how RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the U.S. Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.240 In Oregon, the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a 25 percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every 50 MW of renewable energy would displace approximately 20 MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power.241 Environment Michigan estimates that a 20 percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities.242 Utilities in Ontario, Canada, are deploying renewable energy systems in an attempt to displace all coal and nuclear electricity generation in the region entirely.243 A national RPS decreases nuclear power and clean coal investment Fershee, 08 – assistant professor of law at the University of North Dakota (Joshua, 29 Energy L. J. 49, “CHANGING RESOURCES, CHANGING MARKET: THE IMPACT OF A NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD ON THE U.S. ENERGY INDUSTRY”, lexis) Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other types of generation that utilities have considered. Some utilities, for example, have been considering building new nuclear generation facilities. n113 A national RPS would seem to make that less appealing, although it is not entirely clear that new nuclear facilities were that likely, or the best option, anyway. Nonetheless, a national RPS, at least absent a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions' cap, would add another hurdle for nuclear investment. Clean coal technologies, another major generation source in development, n114 would face similar hurdles, unless, of course, the national RPS were to include clean coal as a renewable source. And, of course, what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer. n115 A national RPS picks renewables as the winning technology at the expens of nuclear power and clean coal Josten, 07 - Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce, Letter to Rep. John Dingell and Rick Boucher, 6/15, http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf) One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are “renewable.” Clean, safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal technology have typically been excluded from this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean, safe energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit. A federal RPS will artificially hinder nuclear power Spencer, 07 – senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation (Jack, “Congress Should Not Overlook Benefits of Nuclear Energy”, 11/14, http://www.heritage.org/research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1704.cfm) Most of the bills focus too much on the process of energy production rather than on the product itself. For example, some language under consideration excludes nuclear power by creating mandates that can only be fulfilled with other sources of energy; or it creates so-called renewable portfolio standards that mandate only certain types of energy production. This approach artificially eliminates energy sources that are compatible with Congress's proclaimed goals of reducing CO2 emissions and energy dependence. Nuclear technology is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly energy source. It can generate massive amounts of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

127

NUCLEAR POWER LINKS - RPS
A federal RPS will cause utilities to invest in smaller natural gas generators instead of new nuclear plants – this also turns the natural gas advantage Kamalick, 05 (Joe, Chemical News & Intelligence, 3/8, “US manufacturers warn Congress on RPS power mandate,” lexis) Note O’Shaughnessy = president and chief executive of Revere Copper Products A federally mandated RPS would, for example, require power companies to generate at least 1-10% of their electricity output from renewable resources such as wind farms or geothermal sites, or purchase RPS credits if they cannot meet the alternative generation minimums. But O'Shaughnessy cautioned that, in the case of wind power, utilities would have to build required back-up generating capacity to maintain power levels when there is insufficient wind to drive wind turbines. To build that additional back-up generating capacity, said O'Shaughnessy, power companies would avoid controversial coal and nuclear power plant options and instead build more natural gas-powered electricity generators. Consequently, said O'Shaughnessy, "a federal RPS requirement could have the unintended consequence of actually increasing natural gas use in electricity generation, rather than reducing it as some proponents claim." An RPS eliminates political support for the expansion of nuclear power – this is empirically proven in several states Sovocool and Cooper, 07 *Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a national non- profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy (Ben and Christopher, “State efforts to promote renewable energy: Tripping the horse with the cart?”, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Fall, http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/2007/07fall.pdf?rd=1) Third, and perhaps most important, federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize “free-riding” going on in states that have chosen to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels to generate electricity, instead of promoting renewable energy. The DOE has already determined that only “the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.”30 Examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm this finding, as well as the tendency for a national RPS to displace oil-fired generation, which is still a significant source of electricity in Florida, New York, and Hawaii. Equally important, but often overlooked, is how SBC- or RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the United States. Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associ- ated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.31 In Oregon, the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a twenty-five percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every fifty MW of renewable energy would displace approximately twenty MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power.32 Environment Michigan estimates that a twenty percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities.33

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

128

NUCLEAR POWER TRADESOFF WITH RENEWABLES
Renewable energy is expanding globally but nuclear energy will reverse efforts Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK Governments and markets are beginning to recognize the potential of renewable energy and its use is growing rapidly. According to Worldwatch Institute's Renewables 2005, global investment in renewable energy in 2004 was about US$30 billion. The report points out that renewable sources generated 20 percent of the amount of electricity produced by the world's 443 operating nuclear reactors in 2004. Renewables now account for 20-25 percent of global power sector investment, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that over the next 30 years onethird of the investment in new power sources in OECD countries will be for renewable energy. Alternative energy guru Amory Lovins says the investment in alternatives is currently "an order of magnitude" greater than that now being spent on building new nuclear plants. Lovins has been preaching lower-cost alternatives, including energy conservation, for more than three decades, and the realization of his vision of sustainable, renewable energy is perhaps closer than ever. He argues that the current moves to re-embrace nuclear power are a huge step backwards, and that contrary to claims that we need to consider all options to deal with global warming, nuclear power would actually hinder the effort because of the high cost and the long time it would take to get enough carbon-displacing nuclear plants up and running. "In practice, keeping nuclear power alive means diverting private and public investment from the cheaper market winners-cogeneration, renewables, and efficiency-to the costly market loser. Its higher cost than competitors, per unit of net CO2 displaced, means that every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change," he writes in his 2005 paper "Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential." Nuclear energy investment is a direct tradeoff with renewable energy developement Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. x-xi)CP Meanwhile, every billion dollars spent on the supremely misguided attempt to revivify the nuclear industry is a theft from the production of cheap renewable electricity. Think what these billions could do if invested in the development of wind power, solar power, cogeneration, geothermal energy, biomass, and tidal and wave power, let alone basic energy conservation, which itself could save the United States 20% of the electricity it currently consumes.
A Greenpeace report issued in October 2005 predicted that solar power could supply clean electricity to 100 million people living in sunny parts of the world by the year 2025. Such an enterprise could create 54,000 jobs and be worth $19.9 billion. In just two decades, the amount of solar electricity could be equivalent to the power generated by seventy-two coal-fired stations-for example, enough to supply the needs of Israel, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia combined. (Egypt is currently one of the few countries in the world that hosts a government department solely devoted to the development of renewable energy sources ') The Carbon Trust, an independent company established by the British government, estimates that, with the correct amount of in-vestment, marine energy-tidal and wave power-could provide up to 20% of the United Kingdom's current electricity needs. As Marcus Rand, chief executive of the British Wind Energy Association, said, "The report provides impetus behind the vision that Britain can rule the waves and the tides making a significant dent in our carbon emissions alongside creating new world-class industries for the UK."4 According to Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, in 2004 the amount of electricity supplied by renewable

energy sources-wind, co-generation, biomass, geothermal, solar, hydro (excluding electricity generated from large hydro dams)¬added 509 times the total capacity} worldwide that nuclear power contributed, and raised the global electricity production 2.9 times more than nuclear power contributed. These "minor" electricity sources already dwarf the annual growth of nuclear power generation, and experts predict that by 2010, they will add 177 times more capacity than nuclear power provides. Nuclear power diverts capital from alternative energies. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 165-166)CP Unlike nuclear energy, all the renewable forms of energy mentioned above are extremely effective carbon displacers per dollar. For example, each $100 spent to develop nuclear power instead of end-use efficiency translates into the atmospheric release of one ton of CO2. Nuclear power thus contributes to global warming by diverting valuable assets away from all environmentally sounder alternatives such as wind power, solar power, geothermal energy, biomass, and cogeneration, each of which produces very little if any carbon dioxide.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

129

NUCLEAR POWER TRADESOFF WITH RENEWABLES
Nuclear power directly trades off with investment in renewables Mariotte, 2007 (Michael, Executive Director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “Nuclear Power in Response to Climate Change”, November 9, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html, REQ) The climate crisis is the overriding environmental issue of our time. Addressing it effectively is a necessity, and requires wise direction of our limited resources to support those technologies that offer both a speedy transition to a carbon-free future and a permanent, sustainable energy future. The thirty-one reactors now said to be under construction (probably ten of those will never be completed) are being built with governmental subsidies. In the United States, utilities and Wall Street have made clear that new reactors will be built only with taxpayer loan guarantees and other assistance. Federal support for energy technologies is not necessarily bad, but should be unnecessary for a mature technology like nuclear power—already the most subsidized energy source in the U.S. over the past 50 years. That taxpayers are being asked to shoulder the burden of new reactors—in the United States and across the globe—is an indication that nuclear power’s economics simply aren’t viable. And I haven’t yet addressed all of the ancillary (and expensive) facilities and issues that would be required to support a nuclear power revival: new radioactive waste dumps, when no country has yet been able to build even one permanent waste facility; new uranium enrichment plants—a proliferation problem as is plainly evident over Iran’s program; a greater risk of accident, terrorism and attack; a lack of qualified people to build, operate and regulate reactors; and, since uranium is a finite resource, a resort to reprocessing and the subsequent treatment of plutonium as a commodity—which should frighten anyone concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons. We can achieve an energy policy that is both carbon-free and nuclear-free. I want to refer our readers to two recent books. Carbon-Free and Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, by Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, is a remarkable work that lays out a detailed plan for the United States to become completely carbon-free and nuclear-free by 2050—without increasing the amount of Gross Domestic Product now being spent on energy. The second is Winning Our Energy Independence: An Energy Insider Shows How, by S. David Freeman, former board chair of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Freeman argues strongly against construction of any new coal or nuclear plants, and persuasively that renewables are, in fact, ready to meet our energy needs. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars—potentially trillions worldwide—on nuclear power would tie up the capital necessary to implement the safe, sustainable energy future the climate crisis calls for, while providing minimal carbon emissions reductions. That’s the fundamental issue. Our choice is stark: we can effectively address the climate crisis, or we can choose nuclear power. We can’t do both. Fortunately, the choice is an easy one. Nuclear and renewable investments tradeoff Mariotte, 2007 (Michael, Executive Director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “Nuclear Power in Response to Climate Change”, November 7, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html, REQ) Six billion dollars for one reactor: that’s more than four times the U.S. Department of Energy’s annual spending on all renewable energy programs—no wonder renewables continue to lag behind their potential. Moody’s Investors Service is even less optimistic. Their October 2007 projection is that new U.S. reactors will cost on the order of $5,000-6,000/kw. At those prices, even solar begins to look competitive—and its costs are trending down worldwide, not up. That’s why Google and other Silicon Valley entrepreneurs see solar power as the next Internet in terms of financial potential, and why they’re investing heavily in the technology. Even under current inadequate federal energy policies, Steve notes that wind expects to reach 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation by 2030—the same percentage nuclear holds now. Taking the hundreds of billions of dollars we could spend on nuclear power to achieve minor carbon emissions cuts and investing that in solar, wind and energy efficiency would be far more effective, and ultimately cheaper. And the emissions cuts could begin now, not in a decade or more.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

130

GENERATION IV REACTORS TRADEOFF WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY
Investment in nuclear energy trades off with renewable resources Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 129-130)CP Generation IV reactors will be so expensive that no single country possesses the necessary expertise nor the available funds to support the R&D. These new and innovative designs are so complex that they will be nowhere near completion until 2030 at the earliest with 2045 a more practical date-obviously they have not been conceived to make any difference to the global warming problem besetting the planer." Global warming is happening right now. The situation is urgent and must be addressed at once. The money allocated to these new reactors could be used right now to mass produce renewable energy technologies that are currently available, and only these renewable technologies will have a positive effect to reduce global warming gases. As we know the nuclear fuel cycle substantially adds to global warming.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

131

AT: RENEWABLES SOLVE ENERGY DEMAND
Renewables will never be able to meet demand fast enough Kerekes, 2007 - Senior Director at the Nuclear Energy Institute, (Steven, CFR, “Nuclear Power in Response to Climate Change”,
November 6, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html, REQ)

You do the math: Nuclear energy annually has provided 20 percent of U.S. electricity supplies since the early 1990s, and even with a marked increase in overall electricity demand, it constitutes more than 70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or controlled pollutants into the atmosphere. Renewable energy technologies over that same time period—even with subsidies like production tax credits in place—have increased their share of U.S. electricity production to 3.1 percent from 2.9 percent. At that rate of growth, it will take renewable technologies another twelve hundred years just to equal the share of electricity production that nuclear energy has provided since 1992.
But just to give Michael the benefit of the doubt, let’s take a more generous look at what wind power’s true believers are saying, as reported by Reuters last June from the American Wind Energy Association’s annual conference in Los Angeles: “The U.S. wind power industry will see half a trillion dollars of investment by 2030 to take the renewable source up to 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation, an industry conference heard on Monday.” Hmmm … 20 percent by 2030. Remind me again which technology’s offerings Michael proclaims to be “too little, too late.” The silly premise that Michael and many other critics employ with regard to nuclear energy’s clean-air benefits is to suggest that, simply because a substantial number of new nuclear plants is needed to

. The reality is that all carbon-free energy technologies, working hand in hand with improved energy efficiency and conservation measures, are needed to meet this threat. If Michael short-sightedly wants to oppose nuclear energy, he’s free to do so. But he shouldn’t do it with bogus arguments about which
accommodate our sector’s “wedge” of carbon prevention, then construction shouldn’t be undertaken at all. That line of thinking used to be called throwing out the baby with the bath water technologies are ready for prime time and which aren’t.

Nuclear energy is also the lowest-cost large-scale producer of electricity in this country. And nuclear’s production costs are stable and not subject to fluctuations in the natural gas or oil market. As a domestic energy technology with fuel from the United States and reliable trading partners, nuclear energy is essential to our nation’s energy security.
Nuclear energy is our country’s only large-scale energy source capable of producing electricity around the clock while emitting no air pollutants or greenhouse gases during production.

Nuclear power is the only alternative to fossil fuels – nothing else can be mass-produced Hickey, 6 – Professor of Law, Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, Hofstra Law School
(James E, “IDEA: REVIVING THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: USING DOMESTIC ENERGY LAW TO CURE TWO PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ILLEGALITY,” 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425, Winter 2006)//markoff
Despite these advantages, the growth of the nuclear power industry has been moribund since the late 1970s because of domestic concerns about cost, accidents, and waste disposal. n32 As a result, the nuclear energy contribution to meet the nation's total electric demand hovers at about twenty percent. n33 If nothing changes in the calculus of the benefits and costs of nuclear power production, the contribution of nuclear energy to meet the rising energy needs of the United States will decline in the future. Existing nuclear plants are operating at top efficiency and they are near the end of their useful lives, with no new

Without nuclear power plants, the primary fuel source for those plants will be fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil), which are the major contributors of GHG to
plants on the horizon. n34 In turn, U.S. electric demand is expected to increase by forty-three percent over the next twenty years requiring between 1300 and 1900 new power plants. n35 the atmosphere from electric generation. n36 Renewable energy sources presently contribute little more than two percent of the nation's total electric generation, excluding hydroelectricity (i.e. wind, solar,

Even if renewable capacity was trebled, it would still constitute only a very small portion of the total electric energy needs of the country. Hydroelectric power provides between six and seven percent of the country's electricity. n38 It is fully developed in the sense that nearly all rivers and streams capable of being used for production of [*432] hydroelectricity have been exploited. It is estimated that fossil fuels, without a change in energy laws and policies, will provide eighty-six percent of the energy supply of the United States in 2030. n39
geothermal). n37

Nuclear energy is comparatively net better for the US energy sector overall- prefer our qualifications Civil Engineering, 8 – Magazine of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering (“NUCLEAR POWER 'BEST ENERGY SOURCE'”, Apr 2008, Vol. 16, Iss. 4; pg. 57, Proquest)/AK NUCLEAR POWER is the only non-greenhouse gas emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand. This is the opinion of Dr Patrick Moore, internationally renowned environmentalist and chairperson of Greenspirit Strategies, who visited North-West University (NWU) on 4 March 2008 to share his perspectives on alternative energy sources and the implications of nuclear power for South Africa and the world. Dr Moore believes that nuclear energy is not only cleaner than energy from fossil fuels, but also more sustainable than other energy sources such as fossil fuel, wind, and the sun. In his opinion, hydroelectric plants and nuclear plants are the best options for base load to sustain a country's economy. He is also positive about wood and geo-thermal sources as renewable energy sources. He points out that wood captures carbon and, when replaced with new trees upon felling, wood recycles the carbon contained in it. When put to good use, wood, containing approximately 50 % carbon, can be viewed as sequestering carbon. 'If we have to weigh the consequences of introducing nuclear energy or not, taking into account the carbon dioxide emissions and the future depletion of fossil fuel, it is clear that the pros are more than the cons/ Dr Moore said.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

132

AT: RENEWABLES SOLVE ENERGY DEMAND
Nuclear power is superior to other forms of renewable energy – only it can meet baseload demand Nuclear Policy Outlook 7 (Semi-monthly newsletter analyzing policy matters that affect the nuclear industry, September/October 2007 , “Nuclear Energy: Advancing Its Critical Role in Climate Change Policy” http://nei.org/filefolder/Outlook_SeptOct07.pdf) The real advantage that nuclear energy offers in comparison to solar, wind and hydro is the significant electricity production it contributes to the grid today and the proportionately larger contribution it can make in the future. Nuclear power produces about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity and is readily expandable. It is unique in that it is a baseload source of power that is reliable 24/7, has low electricity production costs and does not produce GHGs while generating electricity. Companies are exploring construction of more than 30 reactors in the United States, and nearly that many are under construction worldwide. Hydro produces about 7 percent of America’s electricity, but there is little additional capacity in the United States. And even after 30 years of federal support for research and design, all renewables combined produce less than 3 percent of total electricity. Many companies that own nuclear plants also own and are investing in new renewable generation, but even if the total capacity were doubled or
tripled, a tremendous production gap will remain between the two sources. The realization of nuclear energy’s ability to produce large amounts of electricity without GHG emissions has convinced a number of experts on climate change of its importance.“Nuclear power can be an important part of the solution to climate change,” said Judy Greenwald, director of innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. However, she cautions that the industry must address important issues such as used fuel management and nonproliferation. Greenwald estimates that stabilizing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would require a 100- to 300-percent increase of low-carbon energy sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear energy. One way to conceptualize the scope of this challenge is known as Socolow’s wedges.2 Princeton University Professor Robert Socolow, along with his colleague Stephen

Nuclear power is key to base load energy – renewables can’t fill in and non-grid electricity can’t meet demand Nunn, 04- Senator of the United States, chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (Sam, “A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy”. Pg. 190-1) //DG Base load power supplies are the bedrock of a thriving economy. Many of our base load electric plants in the United States are reaching retirement age. Just to maintain current supply capacity, new base load plants must be brought online. To meet demand increases, more base load power will be required. Which energy technologies are best suited for the job?
A crucial point is made by Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller about how we must deal with the here and now, not wishful-thinking options. As they pointed out, "because major, complex technologies require more than half a century to diffuse into global society,"23 we must maintain and expand the options available to us today. Dr. Cesare Marchetti and Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic have extensively analyzed trends in primary energy substitution patterns. Figure 10.3 depicts this phenomenon. Basically, the message is that the re-placement of primary energy technologies is a long process, lasting on the order of fifty to seventy years at the global level. The process leads to even higher energy efficiencies (lower energy intensities of economic activities) and lower carbon content (decarburization). The dynamics of the process indicate that the next dominant energy sources will be natural gas, by midcentury, followed first by nuclear power and then by new renewable and/or fusion after the end of the century."

Regardless of one's view of the future, and which energy technology would produce the "best" future, prudence demands that we make decisions today to keep our options open, and more importantly, focus on the sources of base load energy available now-nuclear power, natural gas, and clean coal. Moreover, we must focus on the only source of electric energy that can provide baseload supply without any greenhouse gas emissions or supply constraintsnuclear power. I am a strong supporter of solar and renewable energy. But, unfortunately, today they only represent a niche market-they arc not capable of providing baseload power to our cities, hospitals, and factories. For renewables such as wind power to enjoy wide use in the United States, we must also have baseload nuclear and clean coal plants as well as gas-peaking plants. Nuclear and renewables are not mutually exclusive-in fact they must go hand in hand to create a diverse and reliable electricity generation system. As we look at the situation in the developing countries, we see that as their populations surge and become more concentrated in urban areas, decentralized sources of energy will not be sufficient. Large base load supplies of energy will be essential. If we want this to be clean energy, it should come from nuclear and clean coal plants. Renewable energy can only meet a small portion of electricity demand Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff The goal of a completely renewable system of electric generation appeals to almost anyone who does not have vested interests in the continued use of non-renewable energy sources. The currently available renewable sources of electrical energy on a large scale are primarily hydroelectric power (hydro), 80 wind, 81 and solar. 82 The United States and individual states have provided some incentives for the creation of renewable generating systems, and some European countries have provided even more, 83 but renewable energy resources can meet only a small fraction of reliable baseload electricity needs within the next decade because: (1) their availability depends on external factors beyond human control, requiring backup by reliable generation; (2) their potential location is also dependent on factors beyond our control; and (3) [*18] new renewable technologies, although promising, are more than ten years away from large scale production.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

133

AT: RENEWABLES SOLVE ENERGY DEMAND
Renewables are too diluted, expensive and inefficient – they can’t meet growing energy demand. Only nuclear power can reduce air pollution and prevent millions of deaths a year Rhodes and Beller 00, *nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory AND ** nuclear engineer and
Technical Staff Member (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb)
RENEWABLE SOURCES of energy-hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass-have high capital-investment costs and significant, if usually unacknowledged, environmental consequences.

Most renewables collect extremely diluted energy, requiring large areas of land and masses of collectors to concentrate. Manufacturing solar collectors, pouring concrete for fields of windmills, and drowning many square miles of land behind dams cause
Hydropower is not even a true renewable, since dams eventually silt in. damage and pollution. Photovoltaic cells used for solar collection are large semiconductors; their manufacture produces highly toxic waste metals and solvents that require special technology for disposal. A 1,000-Me solar electric plant would generate 6,850 tonnes of hazardous waste from metalsprocessing alone over a 30-year lifetime. A comparable solar thermal plant (using mirrors focused on a central tower) would require metals for construction that would generate 435,ooo tonnes of manufacturing waste, of which 16,300 tonnes would be contaminated with lead and chromium and be considered hazardous.

A global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron resources. It would require a century to build and a substantial fraction of annual world iron production to maintain. The energy necessary to manufacture sufficient solar collectors to cover a half-million square miles of the earth's surface and to deliver the electricity through long-distance transmission systems would itself add grievously to the global burden of pollution and greenhouse gas. A global solarenergy system without fossil or nuclear backup
would also be dangerously vulnerable to drops in solar radiation from volcanic events such as the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which caused widespread crop failure during the "year without a summer" that followed.

Wind farms, besides requiring millions of pounds of concrete and steel to build (and thus creating huge amounts of waste materials), are inefficient, with low (because intermittent) capacity. They also cause visual and noise pollution and are mighty slayers of birds. Several hundred
birds of prey, including dozens of golden eagles, are killed every year by a single California wind farm; more eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill.

A wind farm equivalent in output and capacity to a .1,000-MWe fossil-fuel or nuclear plant would occupy 2,ooo square miles of land and, even with substantial subsidies and ignoring hidden pollution costs, would produce electricity at double or triple the cost of fossil fuels. Although at least one-quarter of the world's potential for hydropower has already been developed, hydroelectric powerproduced by dams that submerge large areas of land, displace rural populations, change river ecology, kill fish, and risk catastrophic collapse-has understandably lost the backing of environmentalists in recent years. The U. S. ExportImport Bank was responding in part to environmental lobbying when it denied funding to China's 18,ooo-MWe Three
The National Audubon Society has launched a campaign to save the California condor from a proposed wind farm to be built north of Los Angeles. Gorges project. Meanwhile, geothermal sources-which exploit the internal heat of the earth emerging in geyser areas or under volcanoes-are inherently limited and often coincide with scenic sites (such as Yellowstone National Park) that conservationists understandably want to preserve. Because of these and other disadvantages, organizations such as the World Energy Council and the iEA predict that hydroelectric generation will continue to account for no more than its present 6.9 percent share of the world's primary energy supply, while all other renewables, even though robustly subsidized, will move from their present 0-5 percent share to claim no more than 5 to 8 percent by 2020. In the United States, which leads the world in renewable energy generation, such production actually declined by 9.4 percent from .1997 to 1998: hydro by 9.z percent, geothermal by 5.4 percent, wind by 50.5 percent, and solar by 27-7 percent. Like the dream of controlled thermonuclear fusion, then, the reality of a world run on pristine energy generated from renewables continues to recede, despite expensive, highly subsidized research and development. The 1997 U-S- federal R&D investment per thousand kWh was only 5 cents for nuclear and coal, 58 cents for oil, and 41 cents for gas, but was $4,769 for wind and $17,oo6 for photovoltaics. This massive public investment in renewables would have been better spent making coal plants and automobiles cleaner. According to Robert Bradley of Houston's Institute for Energy Research, U.S. conservation efforts and nonhydroelectric renewables have benefited from a cumulative zo-year taxpayer investment of some 830-$40 billion----@"the largest governmental peacetime energy expenditure in U.S. history." And Bradley estimates that "the $5.8 billion spent by the Department of Energy on wind and solar subsidies" alone could have paid for "replacing between 5,000 and 10,000 MWe of the nation's dirtiest coal capacity with gas-fired combined-cycle units, which would have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by between one-third and two-thirds." Replacing coal with nuclear generation would have reduced overall emissions even more.

Despite the massive investment, conservation and nonhydro renewables remain stubbornly uncompetitive and contribute only marginally to U.S. energy supplies. If the most prosperous nation in the world cannot afford them, who can? Not China, evidently, which expects to generate less than one
percent of its commercial energy from nonhydro renewables in 2o:z5. Coal and oil will still account for the bulk of China's energy supply in that year unless developed countries offer incentives to convince the world's most populous nation to change its plans. TURN DOWN THE VOLUME NATURAL GAS has many virtues as a fuel compared to coal or oil, and its share of the world's energy will assuredly grow in the first half of the 21st century. But its supply is limited and unevenly distributed, it is expensive as a power source compared to coal or uranium, and it pollutes the air. A 1,000-MWe natural gas plant releases 5.5 tonnes of sulfur oxides per day, 21 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 1.6 tonnes of carbon monoxide, and 0.9 tonnes of particulates. In the United States, energy production from natural gas released about 5.5 billion tonnes of waste in 1994. Natural gas fires and explosions are also significant risks. A single mile of gas pipeline three feet in diameter at a pressure of 1,ooo pounds per square inch (psi) contains the equivalent of two-thirds of a kiloton of explosive energy; a million miles of such large pipelines lace the earth.

The great advantage of nuclear power is its ability to wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. Nuclear fission, transforming matter directly into energy, is several million times as energetic as chemical burning, which merely breaks chemical bonds. One tonne of nuclear fuel produces energy equivalent to 2 to 3 million tonnes of fossil fuel. Burning i kilogram of firewood can generate 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity; 1 kg of
coal, 3 kWh; 1 kg Of Oil, 4 kWh. But 1 kg of uranium fuel in a modern light-water reactor generates 400,000 kWh of electricity, and if that uranium is recycled, 1 kg can generate more than 7,ooo,ooo kWh. These spectacular differences in volume help explain the vast difference in the environmental impacts of nuclear versus fossil fuels. Running a 1,000-MWe power plant for a year requires 2,000 train cars of coal or lo supertankers of oil but only 12 cubic meters of natural uranium. Out the other end of fossil-fuel plants, even those with pollution-control systems, come thousands of tonnes of noxious gases, particulates, and heavy-metal-bearing (and radioactive) ash, plus solid hazardous waste-up to 500,000 tonnes of sulfur from coal, more than 300,000 tonnes from oil, and 200,ooo tonnes from natural gas. In

a 1,000-Nffe nuclear plant releases no noxious gases or other pollutants' and much less radioactivity per capita than is encountered from airline travel, a home smoke detector, or a television set. It produces about 30 tonnes of high-level waste (spent fuel) and 8oo tonnes of
contrast, low- and intermediate-level waste-about 2 o cubic meters in all when compacted (roughly, the volume of two automobiles). All the operating nuclear plants in the world produce some 3,000 cubic meters of waste annually. By comparison, U.S. industry generates annually about 50,000,000 cubic meters of solid toxic waste. The high-level waste is intensely radioactive, of course (the lowlevel waste can be less radioactive than coal ash, which is used to make concrete and gypsum-both of which are incorporated into building materials). But thanks to its small volume and the fact that it is not released into the environment, this high-level waste can be meticulously sequestered behind multiple barriers. Waste from coal, dispersed across the landscape in smoke or buried near the surface, remains toxic forever. Radioactive nuclear waste decays steadily, losing 99 percent of its toxicity after 6oo years-well within the range of human experience with custody and maintenance, as evidenced by structures such as the Roman Pantheon and Notre Dame Cathedral. Nuclear waste disposal is a political problem in the United States because of

The World Health Organization has estimated that indoor and outdoor air pollution cause some three million deaths per year. Substituting small, properly contained volumes of nuclear waste for vast, dispersed amounts of toxic wastes from fossil fuels would produce so obvious an improvement in public health that it is astonishing that physicians have not already demanded such a conversion.
widespread fear disproportionate to the reality of risk. But it is not an engineering problem, as advanced projects in France, Sweden, and Japan demonstrate.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

134

AT: RENEWABLES SOLVE ENERGY DEMAND
Even if other energies have potential---nuclear is comparatively the only that can save the environment while not compensating for electricity Fertel, 4 – Marvin S., Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer @ the Nuclear Energy Institute (Congressional testimony FDCH, march 4, “Nuclear Power Generation”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)/AK In summary, nuclear energy represents a unique value proposition: a nuclear power plant provides large volumes of electricity—cleanly, reliably, safely and affordably. It provides future price stability and serves as a hedge against the kind of price and supply volatility we see with natural gas. And nuclear plants have valuable environmental attributes: They do not emit controlled air pollutants or carbon dioxide, and thus are not vulnerable to mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Other sources of electricity have some of these attributes. But none of them—not coal, natural gas or renewables—can deliver all of these benefits. Only nuclear power plants have all of these attributes, and that is why these plants are uniquely valuable. Hydroelectric power will be unreliable – less percipitation Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff <Much of the hydro in the United States is located in the high [*20] mountain regions of the western states. 94 Climatologists are forecasting that future precipitation during the winter wet season is likely to include more rain and less snow in these mountains, and the snow that falls will melt earlier in the year. 95 If this proves to be true, the water that is now made available by the annual snowmelt will not be available during the hot weather when both electric companies and agricultural users need it the most. 96 Disputes between these two interests are already common, and likely to get worse, reducing the reliability of hydro as a source for electric
generation. 97

the number of locations in the United States in which such dams could be built are quite limited. 99 Building on these sites would often create serious issues related to relocation, aquatic wildlife, disruption of existing recreation patterns, and destruction of protected parks and other sites of major ecological value. 100 Consequently, few energy analysts project substantial increases in hydro supplies. 10
Supplementing existing hydro sources with new ones would require the construction of many large dams. 98 From an engineering standpoint,

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

135

AT: RENEWABLE ENERGY MORE SUSTAINABLE / INFINITE ENERGY
Nuclear energy is comparatively more sustainable and energy efficient than both wind and solar energies Suppes & Storvick, 7 – Associate professor of chemical engineering, Johns Hopkins, and, Proffessor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering. ( Galen & Truman, Sustainable Nuclear Power, p.108-109 ) It is certain that science and technology will continue to produce yield discoveries as in the past. The inability to predict future breakthroughs is the reason a 30-year sustainability goal is a better planning criterion than perpetual sustainability. While the wind will blow and sun will shine for thousands of years, any particular wind turbine or solar receiver may only be functional for 20 years. Which is more sustainable-a wind turbine that must be replaced in 20 years or a nuclear power plant that must be replaced in 40 years? Which is more sustainable-a solar receiver that will take five years of operation just to produce as much energy as was consumed to manufacture it or a nuclear power plant that produces as much energy in four months as it took to manufacture the facility? No technology should be developed simply because it appears to offer perpetual sustainability. Few scientists are presumptuous enough to say they know what energy options will be used in 190 years, so why should we assign a premium value to an energy source having perpetual sustainability over an energy source with a 100+ year energy reserve? On the other hand, an energy source having 100 years of reserve should be considered premium relative to an energy source having a 20 year reserve. Basing energy decisions on single-issue agendas like sustainability is not productive. Rather, hidden costs associated with nonsustainable technologies should be evaluated and included in the economic analysis of a technology. An economic analysis that includes hidden costs and analysis based on cost alone has broader implications. For example, what medical breakthrough did not happen because the resources were spent on very costly solar receivers? If there is a hidden cost associated with potential greenhouse warming due to carbon dioxide emissions, should an appropriate "C02 tax" he placed on a worldwide basis? At the same time, no reasonable technology (e.g., nuclear reprocessing) should be barred by federal law. Such restrictions are subject to abuse by special interests such as corporations vested in alternative energy technologies. At any point in U.S: history total sustainability could have been put in place. For example, if in 1900 environmentalists were successful in persuading the U.S. government only to use sustainable energy sources, today's world would be substantially different, There is no reason to believe that single issue environmentalism is any more appropriate today than it would have been in 1900. The environment must be protected, but other factors must be part of the future.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

136

NUCLEAR POWER GOOD – TERRORISM IMPACT ADDON
A poorly managed international nuclear power transition risks proliferation, terrorism and accidents Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 22) Inevitably, there will be a high degree of government involvement in nuclear power, even in market economies, to regulate safety, waste, and proliferation risk. This is, in itself, another challenge for nuclear power. There is considerable variation in how different countries approach the issues of safety, proliferation, and waste management. This often complicates the role of governments in setting international rules – especially for preventing proliferation, but also for safety and waste management – that serve common interests. Poor safeguarding of nuclear materials or facilities in any nation could result in acquisition of nuclear explosives by a rogue state or terrorist group for use in another nation. The Chernobyl accident demonstrated the potential for radioactivity to spread across borders and thus the importance of uniformly high safety standards and advanced safety technologies (such as western reactor containment designs). Nuclear terrorism will cause extinction Sid-Ahmed, 4 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

137

UNIQUENESS – NO U.S. NUCLEAR POWER LEADERSHIP NOW
The lack of new construction has caused U.S. nuclear power leadership to atrophy Bodman, 07 – Energy Secretary (Samuel, Prepared Remarks to the American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting, 6/25, lexis) In many ways, the nuclear capability of the U.S. has atrophied in the 30 years since the last nuclear plant was ordered. We no longer have the capability to forge the heavy ingots needed to fabricate major nuclear reactor components. Whereas this nation was once the unquestioned leader in enrichment technology, we currently meet only a portion of our domestic demand, and even that is with outdated technology. And we depend on foreign sources for more than 80% of our enriched uranium requirements. We have no domestic commercial fuel recycling facilities, no operating fast-reactors or gas-cooled reactors, and no operating high-level nuclear waste repository. Further, each year less and less of the nuclear material in international commerce is of U.S. origin and therefore subject to U.S. consent over its transfer and use. The U.S. is losing nuclear industry competitiveness to Russia and China Kotek, 8- MANAGER OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON POLICY & ANALYSIS, Inc (John, “HEARING OF THE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES” 6/20, lexis, rday) MR. KOTEK: Well, you've got several countries that have been very aggressively pursuing nuclear energy development -REP. ROHRABACHER: sure. MR. KOTEK: -- and of course, you know, France is on the top of everyone's list for 75 (percent) or 80 percent of their electricity. And the Japanese have been very active. They get about 30 (percent), 35 percent of their electricity from nuclear. South Korea has an active -REP. ROHRABACHER: But you -- I want to dwell on that data. It's something I don't think many of us have understood because of the Japanese anti-nuclear position on so many -- on weapons -- in the weapons area, that the Japanese actually have moved forward and they are producing electricity. In fact, the high-pressure gas reactor is working in Japan. REP. BERMAN: And with North Korea doing what they're doing, how long with the Japanese anti-nuclear position be an anti-nuclear position? REP. ROHRABACHER: Correct. MR. KOTEK: You've got, of course, Russia. Russia is largely dependent on nuclear energy. They are being very aggressive in their attempts to restore their competitive position. And then, of course, China is trying to grow their domestic nuclear energy program. And one of the things that the Chinese tend to insist on when you go -- when a foreign company comes in and builds the plant in their country, there is quite a bit of technology transfer, so that they can bootstrap their way up and become a supply country, not an importing or a receiving country. So those are some of the major countries that are out there, but there are others as well who have aims on becoming nuclear suppliers around the world.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

138

NEW CONSTRUCTION KEY TO NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP
Maintaining strong domestic nuclear capabilities is the linchpin of U.S. influence over nonproliferation BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)//DH Historically, the ability of the U.S. to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons has stemmed from many factors, not least of which has been the political, military and economic power that the US has exercised in international affairs. The U.S. has used many tools to promote its nonproliferation objectives. One important instrument that the U.S. has employed for decades in building the international nonproliferation system has been its ability to provide nuclear fuel, nuclear power plants and fuel cycle services to countries on a reliable and stable basis, under strict nonproliferation controls and conditions.
In the early days of the nuclear era, the U.S. essentially had a monopoly in the nuclear fuel supply market. This capability, among others, allowed the U.S. to promote the widespread acceptance of nonproliferation norms and restraints, including international safeguards and physical protection measures, and, most notably, the NPT. The United States concluded agreements for cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy with other states, which require strict safeguards, physical protection and other nonproliferation controls on their civil nuclear programs.

Moreover, the strength of U.S. civil nuclear capabilities gave it an important seat at the international table, not only in negotiating the norms that should govern the conduct of civil nuclear power programs to protect against their misuse or diversion to nuclear weapons, but also in shaping the key elements of the global nonproliferation regime. In addition domestic U.S. nuclear programs have enabled the United States to make important contributions to achieving technical improvements in international safeguards, physical protection, and nuclear detection systems. However, the challenges now confronting the international nonproliferation regime come at a time when the U.S. commercial share of the global nuclear market has declined and when there are serious concerns about the health of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure. U.S. nuclear leadership is decreasing because of the lack of new construction DOE, 05 (Department of Energy,“MOVING FORWARD WITH NUCLEAR POWER: ISSUES AND KEY FACTORS ,” Final Report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Nuclear Energy Task Force, 1/10, http://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/NETF_Final_Draft_0105.pdf)//DH Central to meeting U.S. non-proliferation goals is U.S. leadership in the very business it created. But American leadership in the commercial international field is seriously threatened, reducing our leverage with the rest of the nuclear world. In the early years, Russia and the United States together controlled almost 90 percent of the global trade in peaceful nuclear products and services. Today, although the United States has a healthy and thriving domestic nuclear electricity generating structure, the rest of the U.S. nuclear enterprise is almost out of business. As early as 1976, President Ford’s
administration lamented the fact that the U.S. share (and control) of the global trade in nuclear materials, hardware, and services had dwindled to 50 percent. Several countries have slowly weaned themselves of any need for U.S. support, goods, or services. Virtually all U.S. fuel and hardware vendors have been absorbed into foreign corporations. By 1996, 15 other countries had developed partial or complete nuclear fuel cycle capabilities with limited, or no, U.S. or Russian involvement. Some of these countries (e.g., Japan, China, South Korea, Argentina, India, and Brazil) could become very competitive nuclear suppliers to the next growth era. Some have already established an independent multilateral cooperative network. China, for example, has developed indigenous cradle-to-grave capabilities. This means that other nations will reap the benefits of supplying nuclear goods and

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

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

139

NEW CONSTRUCTION KEY TO NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP
U.S. domestic nuclear power expansion is critical to nuclear leadership Buckner and Sanders 1 *Chair of the ANS Special Committee on Nuclear Nonproliferation AND **Vice-Chair of SCNN and Manager, Nuclear Initiatives, at Sandia National Laboratories (M. R., and Thomas, Enhancing global nuclear proliferation management with a strong U.S. nuclear enterprise Nuclear News February, L/n, rday) Many of the leaders of the United States recognize that it must lead the creation of an international future that will have fewer nuclear weapons, more nuclear waste, more countries with nuclear energy technology, and greater use of nuclear energy. They also recognize that having a strong domestic nuclear energy program helps manage the risks of offshore proliferation. In June 1997, in a letter to then DOE Secretary Federico Pena, Sen. Pete Domenici noted that "continued erosion in our global leadership of nuclear issues increases the probability that we will be buying our future nuclear power from foreign sources and that we will be nonplayers at a future date when proliferation issues involving nuclear materials will raise even more serious national security issues than they do today." n2 Senator Domenici noted similar concerns during a colloquy and a follow-up letter from him and his colleagues (Senators Kempthorne, Craig, Murkowski, Kyl, Faircloth, and Durbin) n3, n4 to Pena. Specifically, they stated the following: The projected demise of "everything nuclear" in the U.S. over the next four decades will slowly deteriorate our ability to project U.S. policy abroad regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the checks and balances necessary to prevent diversion of civilian technology and materials to illegitimate purposes. Already in the U.S., much of the nuclear service industry has "moved offshore" either directly or indirectly through foreign takeover. Our educational foundation, as evidenced by the number of academic departments and institutions, has decreased by 50 percent. The ratio of foreign students to domestic students pursuing graduate degrees in nuclear science and engineering in the U.S. has increased from 20 percent to over 70 percent over the past two decades. The U.S. curriculum no longer covers the breadth of the civilian fuel-cycle principles necessary to influence and promote worldwide safety, security, and accountability of nuclear infrastructures and materials. In fact, with the downsizing of the U.S. weapons complex and the civilian nuclear industry, most university R&D is concentrating on providing the base technologies for health effects and radiation protection, irradiated material management, and nuclear medicine. The greatest minds that we have nationally to weigh in on this question have done so, and they believe that the failure to have a strong nuclear energy research and development program will diminish our national security, our economic competitiveness, and the public well-being. The bottom line is that as our primacy in nuclear R&D declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations. U.S. leadership in world nuclear policy is a national security imperative. A Global Nuclear Materials Management Initiative was started in early 1998 to articulate a framework and vision for assuring safe, secure, and legitimate use of nuclear materials worldwide as nuclear technology is developed and deployed. A task force led by Sen. Sam Nunn and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) evaluated the current state of U.S. leadership and developed recommendations for a path forward. As stated so eloquently by Nunn in his call for action, "The world simply cannot afford delay in addressing the urgent security hazards posed by nuclear insecurity in the FSU. There is little remaining margin for continued decay of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure if the United States is to be technically credible in nonproliferation leadership in the twenty-first century. The opportunities are there; an investment of a few billion dollars, properly applied, could dramatically reduce the risks the world now faces. The fundamental requirement is leadership. The time to act is now -- before a catastrophe occurs."

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

140

NEW CONSTRUCTION KEY TO NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP
US domestic nuclear power is key to US nuclear leadership and expertise – allowing us to influence the non-prolif agenda, control advances in technology, and rapidly disarm warheads Kotek, 8- MANAGER OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON POLICY & ANALYSIS, Inc (John, “HEARING OF THE
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES” 6/20, lexis, rday)

As the committee is well aware, nuclear power in the U.S. has been on the decline. As a result, U.S. firms that once dominated the manufacture of nuclear reactors have largely been sold to foreign companies. For example, we now only have two domestically-owned reactor vendors -- General Electric and General Atomics. And even those companies would likely have to rely heavily on foreign sources of
materials and components if they were to receive an order for a new plant.

So while the U.S. debates its nuclear future, and that debate has turned markedly pro-nuclear, the rest of the world has recognized nuclear energy's benefits and has moved forward aggressively. We see this in places like France, Japan, Russia and China, but also in places like Indonesia and Brazil. Countries all across the world are looking to expand their use in nuclear energy. Then, of course, there are Iran and others, whose real purposes would appear to be other than peaceful. But the U.S. can't flounder in indecision and inaction any more. The world is going nuclear and we must too, or fall sadly and irrevocably behind as the world enters the second nuclear era. Now, some would say that all we have to do is start ordering plants again and the U.S. will be back. Becoming a nuclear energy consumer again is good, but that doesn't put us back in the game. It matters whether we are in the nuclear business, because nations that are engaged in the nuclear energy business sit at the nonproliferation table, have the technology to address global climate change, have the keys to combating global poverty, and hold the catalyst to advances in sciences and technology. An example of the nonproliferation benefits of a domestic nuclear industry can be seen in the joint U.S.-Russian program to disposition highly-enriched uranium from dismantled nuclear warheads -- more than 10,000 warheads to date thus far. Without a domestic nuclear industry, we'd be less able to engage in this and other programs that are helping to meet our global nonproliferation goals. Lack of a strong domestic nuclear industry hamstrings U.S. ability to control nuclear proliferation Buckner and Sanders 1 *Chair of the ANS Special Committee on Nuclear Nonproliferation AND **Vice-Chair of SCNN and Manager, Nuclear
Initiatives, at Sandia National Laboratories (M. R., and Thomas, Enhancing global nuclear proliferation management with a strong U.S. nuclear enterprise Nuclear News February, L/n, rday)

A January 2000 CSIS report n10 highlights this concern. This study was performed by a senior policy panel and five task forces made up of a broad cross-section of international participants with a wide range of experience and understanding of nuclear technology. The study concluded that "U.S. leadership on nonproliferation and safety issues (particularly as they relate to both the government and civilian nuclear energy) is fundamentally linked to the strength of its technical foundation, to the perception of the commitment of the U.S. government to maintaining a nuclear power option for the future, and to the policy positions taken by the United States." The report goes on to point out that "the essential technical foundations of its leadership in nuclear nonproliferation and safety" have been allowed "to atrophy and [that the United States] has greatly decreased its participation in international cooperation on nuclear energy and the fuel cycle." The speakers and panelists echoed many of these same conclusions at the June 2000 ANS Annual Meeting in San Diego, in two special sessions on "The Impact of Nonproliferation Measures on the Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle," sponsored by SCNN. n11 It was stated during the sessions that even though it may sound like a contradiction, a thriving, healthy nuclear industry helps to combat proliferation. Several speakers emphasized this point by stating that if the United States does not stay in the game (nuclear), it will have increasing problems making its points in the international forum, and, more important, having the points be given any weight. The demise of the U.S. nuclear industry was described as a "brain drain" because of the loss of young talent coming out of U.S. universities to fill the manpower gap that is being created in the nuclear industry by the retirement of many of scientists and engineers who have built the business over the last 50 years. Several speakers emphasized the need for a strong civilian program as a prerequisite to leadership on nonproliferation issues. Based on this body of concern, SCNN strongly recommends that the U.S. government and industry take steps now to meet these enormous challenges and opportunities as the United States makes the transition to the next nuclear century. Specifically, the SCNN endorses the following recommendations from the CSIS report: n10 * "The time has come for an unambiguous U.S. policy supporting the preservation of the Nation's existing nuclear power capability, the preservation of that investment by extending the licenses of present plants, and the option to expand that capability to meet future power needs." (In addition to the domestic energy advantages, SCNN believes that support of such a policy is a fundamental prerequisite for U.S. leadership in managing global proliferation risks.)

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

141

SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE KEY TO U.S. NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP
A moderate resurgence in nuclear power won’t be enough to restore U.S. leadership Buckner and Sanders 1 *Chair of the ANS Special Committee on Nuclear Nonproliferation AND **Vice-Chair of SCNN and Manager, Nuclear
Initiatives, at Sandia National Laboratories (M. R., and Thomas, Enhancing global nuclear proliferation management with a strong U.S. nuclear enterprise Nuclear News February, L/n, rday)

One could envision three scenarios for the future of things nuclear in the United States. The current trend could be thought of as Disengagement: civilian nuclear capabilities will continue to decline and excess defense assets will be irreversibly converted to something else or dispositioned over the next 30 years. A middle-ground scenario -- Partial Re-Engagement -would maintain some minimal global position in order to influence the future evolution of defense and commercial assets into the "next nuclear era." Finally, a Comprehensive Engagement scenario with a coordinated national nuclear policy is envisioned that would reestablish the United States as a global leader in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and a model for cradle-to-grave nuclear materials management.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

142

NUCLEAR POWER LEADERSHIP KEY TO SOLVE PROLIFERATION
The plan is vital to enhancing U.S. influence in nonproliferation globally BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND
U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH

The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure can have an important bearing in a variety of ways on the ability of the United States to advance its nonproliferation objectives. During the Atoms for Peace Program and until the 1970s, the U.S. was the
dominant supplier in the international commercial nuclear power market, and it exercised a strong leadership role in shaping the global nonproliferation regime. In those early days, the U.S. also had what was essentially a monopoly in the nuclear fuel supply market. This capability, among others, allowed the U.S. to promote the widespread acceptance of nonproliferation norms and restraints, including international safeguards and physical protection measures, and, most notably, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The United States concluded agreements for cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy with other states, which require strict safeguards, physical protection and other nonproliferation controls on their civil nuclear programs. Today due to its political, military and economic position in the world, the United States continues to exercise great weight in nonproliferation matters.

However, the ability of the United States to promote its nonproliferation objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries has declined. The fact that no new nuclear power plant orders have been placed in over three decades has led to erosion in the capabilities of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, during the same period, the U.S. share of the global nuclear market has declined significantly, and several other countries have launched their own nuclear power programs and have become major international suppliers in their own right.
It is highly significant that all but one of the U.S. nuclear power plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers and manufactures for light water reactors have now been acquired by their non-U.S. based competitors. Thus, while the U.S. remains a participant in the international market for commercial nuclear 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 a technical and commercial basis, opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferation can be expected to increase. However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide plants and nuclear fuel technology and services on a competitive commercial basis suggests that the U.S. will have to work especially hard to maintain and,

in some cases, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, if it wishes to exercise its influence in international nuclear affairs. The influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. There is a clear upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the
nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults

that are unprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosures of the nuclear operations of A.Q. Khan. These developments underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity
and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is perceived as a

major technological leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market. However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure has begun to weaken the ability of the U.S. to participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes more dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish.
It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called consent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. Further, the ability of the U.S. to develop improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistent and vigorous support for nuclear R&D programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support in order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As the U.S. Government expends taxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Generation IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and to U.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and source selection where possible. Finally, the ability of the United States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital to implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitive nuclear facilities to other countries.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

143

NUCLEAR POWER LEADERSHIP KEY TO SOLVE PROLIFERATION
The nonproliferation regime is effective but only if U.S. nonproliferation credibility can be maintained BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND
U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH

The international nonproliferation regime has proved largely effective in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. Contrary to predictions made during the 1950s and 1960s that 20 to 30 states would possess nuclear weapons by the 1970s, by the year 2007 only nine states have actually conducted nuclear weapons tests and a tenth (i.e., Israel) is widely regarded as possessing nuclear weapons. An eleventh, Iran, has engaged in activities in violation of its safeguards agreement with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which it entered into pursuant to its obligations under the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT or Treaty). As a consequence, Iran is presently subject to sanctions by the United Nations (UN) Security Council. On the other hand, 183 non-nuclear-weapon states have faithfully adhered to their obligations under the NPT and have adopted a strong nonproliferation ethic. Despite the fact that earlier dire predictions have not been realized, the international nuclear nonproliferation regime now faces serious, new challenges. These include the threats posed by the nuclear programs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran; the clandestine marketing of sensitive nuclear materials and technology by A.Q. Khan; the procurement networks employed by such countries as Iran and the DPRK to support their respective nuclear weapons programs; and the risks that terrorists may gain access to nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons-usable material. These difficulties come at a time when the international community is demonstrating an increasing interest in expanding the use of commercial nuclear power not only to meet growing energy needs but also to address the environmental problems produced by other energy sources. One of the key challenges that the nonproliferation regime faces is, therefore, to ensure that this projected growth in commercial nuclear power will take place under conditions that provide the maximum protection against the misuse of civil nuclear technology for military or nuclear explosives purposes. At the same time, if this challenge is not met effectively, it will undermine the prospects of achieving the expanded use of peaceful nuclear power and the benefits that it can provide in the coming decades. The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure can have an important bearing in a variety of ways on the ability of the United States to advance its nonproliferation objectives. During the Atoms for Peace Program and until the 1970s, the U.S. was the dominant supplier in the international commercial nuclear power market, and it exercised a strong leadership role in shaping the global nonproliferation regime. Today due to its political, military and economic position in the world, the United States continues to exercise great weight in nonproliferation matters. However, the ability of the United States to promote its nonproliferation 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 in the U.S. has led to erosion in the capabilities of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, during the same period, while the U.S. share of the global nuclear market declined significantly, several other countries launched major nuclear power programs and became major international suppliers in their own right.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

144

NUCLEAR POWER LEADERSHIP KEY TO SOLVE PROLIFERATION
Without repairing our domestic nuclear industry, the US can not maintain primacy and combat proliferation Ebel, 2000 - Director of the Energy and National Security Program at CSIS, (Robert, Testimony before the Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization, May 2, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000302ebel.pdf, REQ) On all fronts-industry, government, and university-the technical strength of the United States in nuclear matters is continuing to weaken, making it more difficult to provide knowledgeable and credible leadership to support the global and largely bipartisan nuclear policies which the United States espouses. The United States has lost the lead in many areas of nuclear energy technology, The combined leadership of the U.S. government and industry has deteriorated, weakening the negotiating ability of the United States to build a fully effective international nuclear weapons control regime and to continue to ensure safe and proliferation-resistant nuclear power throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, I have described for you a world which simply cannot afford delay in addressing the urgent security hazards posed in large part by nuclear insecurity in the former Soviet Union. There are more than 1,000 tons of plutonium and uranium now scattered in 300 buildings and 50 sites across Russia. There is little remaining margin for continued decay of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure if the United States is to be technically credible in nonproliferation leadership in the twenty-first century. The fundamental requirement is leadership, and the time to act is now, before a catastrophe occurs. The United States must respond now, not later, to those threats to our national security which our report isolated. And we must begin by ensuring that our own house is in order. Is it? Are we properly organized to act, not only in our own national interests but in the interests of the world as a whole? The NNSA holds the promise of giving us that leadership, leadership which in the past has seemed somewhat confused as to priorities and how to respond. The Department of Energy must have in place clear lines of authority and accountability if those concerns which I have outlined for you-and those recommendations which I listed earlier-- are to be addressed in a timely fashion. Expert panels have concluded that these clear lines of authority and accountability have not been in place. Out of the efforts of many, including members of this Panel, the NNSA was created. Unfortunately, a number of deficiencies have emerged regarding the implementation plan. NNSA must have in its portfolio responsibility for both domestic and global nuclear materials. But the civilian nuclear electric power program should be kept outside its purview. We all recognize that the issues at hand are so many in number, so diverse in content, that it has been quite difficult to grasp them as a whole. But we must try, and NNSA is the organizational answer. But is it itself organized in a way to touch all those issues which must be reflected in our national policies? In this regard, care must be taken not to replace multiple stovepipes with one huge stovepipe. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to work to remedy the observed shortcomings of NNSA. We have lost too much time already. Unfortunately, the nuclear world is not prepared to wait for us. The vision of global nuclear materials management is of a world in which all nuclear materials are safe, secure, and accounted for, from cradle to grave, with sufficient transparency to assure the world that this is the case. That is a daunting goal, which must be approached step by step, within a well-defined strategic framework. I applaud this Panel for the work it has done to help secure that vision for us.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

145

EXPANDING NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO COMPETITIVENESS
Expanding nuclear power is vital to U.S. competitiveness and leadership Van Namen, 08 - Senior Vice President, Uranium Enrichment USEC Inc. (Robert, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) Today's U.S. nuclear fuel supply industry is in transition. While it is in better shape than it was a decade ago, much work remains to be done and substantial investments need to be made before it can fully support the expansion of nuclear power in our country. Domestic fuel companies constructing new facilities face stiff competition in a market dominated by foreign, vertically integrated firms, many of which benefit from the financial and political support of their governments. As we work to increase our domestic fuel supply capacity, U.S. companies supplying the nuclear fuel cycle need the assurance that their investment of resources will receive the support necessary to revive the industry to a long-term, self-sustaining position. We must rebuild and expand our domestic fuel cycle infrastructure to put us in a position of self reliance for the future. While America still leads the world in the amount of electricity produced by nuclear power, we long ago gave up our industry leading position on nuclear technology. Unless we take steps now to reclaim a leadership position, we will lose our ability to affect nuclear's future expansion and use worldwide or even in our own country. Now is the time for the U.S. government to encourage the efforts of our domestic companies to rejuvenate the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle so it can meet the demand of an expanded nuclear power generating capacity in the decades to come.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

146

NUCLEAR POWER LEADERSHIP KEY TO NUCLEAR SAFETY
Leadership in nuclear power is vital to influencing global reactor safety Domenici, 04- Senator of the United States (Pete, A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy. pg. 218219//DG The United States has been a world leader in both the policy and technical aspects of nuclear energy. This nation operates more nuclear power plants than any other country, and most of the world's operating nuclear power plants are based on u.s. LWR technology. Given: the projected growth in global energy demand as developing nations industrialize; our strategic interests in addressing nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear safety, economic competitiveness, and potential global climate change; and our need to satisfy growing domestic needs for energy in an environmentally responsible manner, the United States must regain its scientific and technological leadership in nuclear energy. This leadership will provide the United States a key "seat at the table" at ongoing international discussions regarding the future implementation of nuclear technologies, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear safety, and many other issues important to U.S. policy objectives. The United States' leadership in nuclear technology is a vital component of our nation's foreign policy. American prominence in nuclear technology enables the United States to exercise considerable influence on the manner in which nuclear technologies are applied worldwide. Strategies to prevent nuclear materials proliferation, nuclear safety practices, and safeguards policy are directly influenced by U.S. technical leadership in the international community. Reactor accidents are inevitable globally – they’ll occur outside the U.S. Cochran, 08 - Senior Scientist, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council (Thomas, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH 4. Reactor safety is a significant concern and, to a degree not matched by any other power source, continued nuclear power generation is hostage to its worst practitioners. The most important factor affecting the safety of nuclear power plants is the safety culture at the plant. In the United States and some OECD countries the safety culture at operating plants has improved over the past two decades. While new reactor designs have improved safety and security features, over the next two to three decades, the safety and security of nuclear plants in the United States and the rest of the world will largely be determined by the safety and security of existing reactors. Several countries that already have nuclear plants, e.g., Russia, Ukraine, China, India, and Bulgaria, have notably weaker safety cultures than the nuclear enterprise merits. This is not a situation that the United States government as a whole or this Congress can control or resolve. Compounding the problem, expansion of nuclear power is projected to occur primarily in countries that currently have significant weaknesses in legal structure (rule of law), construction practice, operating safety and security cultures, and regulatory oversight, e.g. China and India. Securing commercial sales and "nuclear renaissance" exuberance have taken precedence over nuclear safety and non-proliferation concerns. This is evidenced by the fact that since his election in May 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy has offered French reactors to such authoritarian, unaccountable, nontransparent, and corrupt governments as Georgia, Libya, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, and Algeria (Nucleonics Week Vol.49. No. 7, Feb. 14, 2008). Consequently, if another catastrophic nuclear reactor accident occurs during the next couple of decades, it is more likely to occur in Russia, Ukraine, China, India, or another country with a poor safety culture, than in the United States. Several countries recently expressing an interest in acquiring nuclear reactors also have very high indices of industrial accidents and official corruption.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

147

NUCLEAR POWER LEADERSHIP KEY TO NUCLEAR SAFETY
US nuclear power regulation is modeled internationally and gives U.S. companies a massive advantage internationally Klein 6, Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Dale, KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FORUM ON
GLOBAL WARMING AND NUCLEAR POWER SUBJECT: NUCLEAR POWER ISSUES October 6, L/n, rday

global reactor and equipment manufacturers are considering, and they understand that regulators in other countries have always looked at the U.S. for the quality standards, and they will continue to do so. The NRC approval of a reactor design, a system, a procedure or any other myriad aspects of a nuclear facility's construction and operation resonates with other regulatory regimes around the globe. This excellence of U.S. standards is well-known. Those that are planning to build new reactors anywhere in the world want quality in reactor systems and equipment to be built to the U.S. standards to assure a quality.
There is another factor that I recently returned from the meetings with my regulator counterparts, and we strongly advocated a multinational design evaluation program. This is a major effort to standardize the design evaluation process for new nuclear construction throughout the world. Reinvigorating the domestic nuclear

supplier network is needed to provide reactor systems and components that will have an advantage for the U.S. nuclear industry besides aiding the NRC in our inspection process. There will be competition for these materials, in particularly the ambitious construction projects that have been announced in China, India and in Russia for further expansion to their nuclear power production capabilities. Whatever this country does, it is clear that nuclear power is continuing to grow elsewhere in the world. The nation will be well-served if our own energy needs provide a springboard to rebuild the U.S. technology and manufacturing capabilities to something that approached the leadership the nation once had in making foreign markets as well as supplying our own needs. Expanding nuclear R&D programs through GNEP is vital to the U.S. nuclear infrastructure and improving nuclear safety BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND
U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH

Further, the revitalization of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure will depend on the U.S. ability to provide sustained bipartisan support for nuclear R&D programs in order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. The ability of the United States to continue to make significant contributions to the improvement of safeguards, physical protection and proliferation resistance of nuclear systems is dependent, at least in part, on the continued health of the U.S. technological base. This assumes close collaboration between industry and the national laboratories, which could be increased through greater use of Cooperative Agreements between U.S. firms and national laboratories. GNEP contains some important new ideas that could advance U.S. nonproliferation objectives. Envisioned within both GNEP and the U.S.-led Generation IV Initiative is the development and deployment of next- generation nuclear power plant designs that, if completed, could help restore a U.S. competitive edge in nuclear system supply. As the U.S. Government expends taxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Generation IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and the benefit to U.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and selection where possible.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

148

U.S. NUCLEAR POWER LEADERSHIP KEY TO GNEP CREDIBILITY
The GNEP is vital to slowing proliferation and reducing nuclear waste – commiting to U.S. nuclear power is vital to its influence BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)//DH Lastly in February 2006 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed a major new initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) aimed at the development, demonstration and deployment of advanced separations and burner reactor systems. The initiative has several important features: • The demonstration of new separation techniques for recycling nuclear fuel that would allow the U.S. to close its fuel cycle and to develop somewhat more proliferation-resistant technologies by avoiding the presence of separated plutonium.
In this connection, the U.S. nuclear services firm, EnergySolutions has acquired many BNFL employees as well as BNFL’s technologies in modern fuel reprocessing and waste treatment and is seeking to offer an alternative to the MOX fuel cycles without separating pure plutonium. Similarly AREVA- COGEMA, Inc. is also offering the prospect of treatment recycling plants with no separated plutonium.

• The advancement of the nuclear waste management program within the United States by coupling these new separation techniques with advanced recycling reactors with the objective of reducing the volume of waste per reactor that would have to be
disposed of in Yucca Mountain. The program is specifically intended to remove the need to follow the Yucca Mountain Project with several additional geological repositories. continue that is devoted to completing the Yucca Mountain Project. It assumes work will

• The establishment of a new international nuclear fuel assurance regime in order to discourage the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities. A major long-term aspect of this objective is a proposal that those supplier states with industrial enrichment and fuel recycling capabilities should work to provide so-called “cradle-to- grave” services to states that agree to refrain from acquiring enrichment and reprocessing facilities. Under this approach the supplier states would lease enriched uranium to consumer nations and would accept the return of the resultant spent fuel for recycling.
Under the proposal contained in GNEP, achievement of this goal will take some time since such cradle-to-grave services would be put into place only after the proposed advanced recycling technologies have been proven and have become operational. The pursuit of GNEP is a major policy and technical goal of the Administration of President Bush. However, fulfilling the promise of GNEP is a long-term endeavor that will require commitment across

The U.S. ability to fulfill this long-term promise could be aided by a strengthened U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure. In the short-term, the U.S. and world is looking to expand the peaceful use of nuclear energy in the civilian sector.
several Administrations.

Nuclear energy is inevitable globally – creating credibility with GNEP is vital to solving proliferation risks Marsh, 2007 – physicist, consultant to the DOD on on strategic nuclear technology and policy and Fellow of the American Physical Society (Gerald E, “Can the Clash of Civilizations Produce Alternate Energy Sources?”, USA Today Magazine, January, Firstsearch, REQ) Nuclear power is going to expand globally whether the U.S. plays a role or not. China brought six new reactors online between 2002-04, and plans at least another 30 in the next 15 years. India is planning for 30, with seven due to come on-line by 2008. For nuclear power to spread through the developing world beyond these two countries without the threat of additional proliferation of nuclear weapons, we need a new model, hopefully one fashioned by the U.S. with its ability to structure the necessary international framework. A somewhat promising start has been made with the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative, under which the
world's leading nuclear exporters would guarantee that all countries have access to a reliable source of fuel for civilian reactors at a reasonable cost. The spent fuel would be returned for recycling and waste disposal. In return, the non-nuclear weapons nations would renounce enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel. To win acceptance, the supplier nations' fuel and waste-disposal services must be guaranteed by a global entity such as the International Energy Agency or the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under an arrangement known as "hub-spoke," self-contained reactors, sometimes called "nuclear batteries," would be available in a variety of sizes. Sealed and failsafe, they would be manufactured at a central location and rented to nations needing more energy. Running them would not require advanced nuclear expertise. At the end of their 15- to 30-year life, the exhausted reactor cores, still sealed, would be traded for rejuvenated ones. In fact, Toshiba has developed a nuclear battery and, to demonstrate it, the company has offered to install one at Galena, Alaska (population 650) for free. The reactor would put out 10 megawatts of electricity--just right for Galena--although much larger modular units can be produced.

The technical part of the new model already exists:

The combination of hub-spoke with a secure, internationally guaranteed fuel recycling and waste disposal arrangement for all nations having conventional nuclear reactors would permit the inevitable spread of civilian nuclear power without making the proliferation of nuclear weapons any more likely. If the IEA is correct, the time we have to formulate an appropriate policy and begin investment is a mere five to seven years. We need to act now.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

149

NUCLEAR POWER LEADERSHIP SOLVES – REPROCESSING IMPACTS
Reprocessing inevitable – U.S. leadership can influence the direction Suppes & Storvick, 7 – Associate professor of chemical engineering, Johns Hopkins, and, Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering. ( Galen & Truman, Sustainable Nuclear Power, p.77-79 ) Wastes and By-Products as Feedstocks The greatest potentials exist with municipal solid waste and spent nuclear fuel. Historically, both vehicular fuel and electrical power technologies were alive and well before there was a municipal solid waste problem of any magnitude and before we were aware of the potential for nuclear energy. Both municipal solid waste and nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel) provide an opportunity to generate useful energy from a waste that imposes a burden on society. Today's U.S. nuclear power plants extract about 3.4% of the energy available in the fuel rods before they are set aside as spent fuel. The spent fuel elements are stored at each of the nuclear power plants, and transporting them to a repository in Yucca Mountain is the subject of bitter debate. Reprocessing the fuel reduces the mass of the waste requiring long-term storage and recovers the 96.5 % of unspent fuel. This reprocessing is practiced in Europe and Japan, but not in the United States. Excess weapons grade uranium/plutonium can also be blended with natural uranium to make power plant fuel and eliminate this inventory as a weapons threat Similar to nuclear reprocessing, the conversion of municipal solid waste into fuel and electricity can eliminate a waste problem and provide energy. Landfill corporations receive $15 to $60 per ton to dump this waste in a properly prepared hole in the ground and, unfortunately, often see waste-to-energy projects as competition for their revenues. The municipal waste-to-energy must overcome at least four opposing groups: (1) direct political pressure from electrical power providers and landfill corporations, (2) air quality regulations that make it difficult to build the new conversion facilities, (3) the cost and availability of conversion technology, and (4) Mafia-type control on the collection of solid waste. Pull use of municipal solid waste for energy is as much a political' issue as it is a technology opportunity. In the absence of American leadership, answers are likely to come from Europe. In Japan and Europe, landfill land is becoming less available. In Germany, it will be illegal to dump waste of high caloric value after 2005.2 This one German law forces resolution of three of the four issues related to waste-to-energy technology. The opportunity is there, and technology will be developed!

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

150

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO SOFT POWER
Fossil fuel dependence creates the perception that the U.S. violates international law with impunity – revitalizing the nuclear power industry is key Hickey, 6 – Professor of Law, Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, Hofstra Law School (James E, “IDEA: REVIVING THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: USING DOMESTIC ENERGY LAW TO CURE TWO PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ILLEGALITY,” 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425, Winter 2006)//markoff Two perceptions, right or wrong, of international law illegality on the part of the United States have arisen in the last few years with regard to both the use of military force in Iraq and to global warming. The first perception is that the United States invaded Iraq illegally to secure a significant source of foreign oil. The second perception is that the United States ignores the letter and spirit of the evolving international climate change regime to reduce greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. Both perceptions of international law illegality directly reflect the domestic growth energy policy of the United States that is anchored by a present and future reliance almost exclusively on fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas), which both emit GHG and contribute to the dependence [*426] of the United States on foreign oil. n1 Those perceptions of illegality could be fully cured by an aggressive use of existing domestic law to revive the nuclear power industry in the United States to replace its fossil fuel-based electric supply. This would put the United States in compliance with the climate change regime (whether or not it ever participates in it) and would help both to greatly reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign oil as a factual matter and to eliminate the perception that it uses force to secure foreign oil sources as a policy matter. In turn, the benefits of removing perceptions of international law illegality ought to play a significant and positive role in weighing the benefits and costs of future domestic nuclear energy production.> Plan is key to restore foreign policy credibility Hickey, 6 – Professor of Law, Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, Hofstra Law School (James E, “IDEA: REVIVING THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: USING DOMESTIC ENERGY LAW TO CURE TWO PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ILLEGALITY,” 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425, Winter 2006)//markoff <It may now be time to rebuild that consensus and revive the growth of the nuclear power industry in the United States. Our dependence on foreign oil has grown to an unacceptable degree and evidence of the dangers of irreversible global catastrophe from global warming is mounting, while the energy policy of the United States remains a prisoner of fossil fuels. This has resulted in widely held perceptions, right or wrong, that the United States violated international law on the use of force by invading Iraq to secure foreign oil sources and that it now is violating the letter and spirit of the emerging international law regime to deal with climate change. Those perceptions can be removed by a domestic growth energy policy resting on existing domestic energy laws that moves away from fossil fuels and expands nuclear power production. If fossil fuels continue to be the centerpiece of long term domestic energy policy, those perceptions of international law illegality will persist to the detriment of U.S. foreign policy for decades.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

151

AT: NUCLEAR POWER INCREASES THE RISK OF PROLIF – TECH TRANSFER / REPROCESSING
International cooperation on nonproliferation on balance outweighs prolif risks Totty, 08 (Michael Energy “(A Special Report); The case for -- and against -- Nuclear Power.” 2008, June 30) Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.1. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. Finally, critics say that an expansion of nuclear power will increase the danger that potentially hostile nations will use nuclear material from a power program to develop atomic weapons, or that rogue states or terrorists will steal nuclear material to make bombs. While nonproliferation is an important consideration, the proliferation problem won't be solved by turning away from nuclear power. To curtail these risks, governments need to strengthen current international anti-proliferation efforts to, among other things, give the International Atomic Energy Agency more information about a country's nuclear-related activities and IAEA inspectors greater access to suspect locations. Further, current fuel-reprocessing techniques are limited and new processing technologies are being developed to limit the amount and accessibility of weapons-grade materials (by, for instance, producing a form of plutonium that needs further reprocessing before it could be used in bombs). Coal mining risks prolif Rhodes and Beller 00, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member) Nuclear proliferation is another overlooked potential consequence of coal-buming. The uranium released by a single i,oooMWe coal plant in a year includes about 74 pounds of uranium- 235-enough for at least two atomic bombs. This uranium would have to be enriched before it could be used, which would be complicated and expensive. But plutonium could also be bred from coal-derived uranium. Moreover, "because electric utilities are not high-profile facilities," writes physicist Alex Gabbard of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals ... can proceed without attracting outside attention, concern or intervention. Any country with coal-fired plants could collect combustion byproducts and amass sufficient nuclear weapons materials to build up a very powerful arsenal." In the early 1950s, when richer ores were believed to be in short supply, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission actually investigated using coal as a source of uranium production for nuclear weapons; burning the coal, the AEC concluded, would concentrate the mineral, which could then be extracted from the ash. The civil nuclear energy industry slows the spread of nuclear weapons. Grimston & Beck, 2 - *Director of Talks for UK Atomic Energy Authority, Adviser to British Nuclear Industry Forum, and Senior Research fellow at Imperial College, University of London. **Chemical Engineer, retired planning director for Shell UK Ltd and former president of European Strategic Planning Federation. (Malcolm C. Grimston and Peter Beck, Double or Quits?: The Global Future of Civil Nuclear Energy, p.135 ) It can be argued that a civil nuclear industry based in the developed world can play, and has played, a role in slowing the spread of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), for example, offers help in developing civil nuclear power to states that undertake not to divert the resulting materials or skills towards a military programme and that accept verification procedures from the international community. In effect, aid in developing civil nuclear energy is being used as a 'carrot' to encourage countries not to develop weapons. These procedures might include inspection visits and other monitoring activities. Failure to abide by the provisions of the treaty could result in an international enforcement response, including export controls, sanctions, embargoes and legal action.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

152

AT: INCREASING NUCLEAR POWER IS MODELED – INCREASES PROLIF
Modeling is empirically false Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 193-194) CP There's a school of thought that any reliance on nuclear energy by anybody sets a bad example, and tempts wayward states to first acquire civil nuclear technology and then turn it to military ends. But this concern is hard to credit, on either theoretical or historical grounds. Is it really plausible that a country like North Korea or Iran would forego acquisition of nuclear technology just because the United States, Germany, or Japan decided to do so first? Obviously they have been assembling nuclear technology precisely in order to lay the groundwork for nuclear weapons programs: they're not buying it with peaceful purposes in mind, and only then contemplating the military option as an afterthought; they will remain intent on laying the groundwork for nuclear weapons programs, to the best of their ability, whatever other countries may do. While it's true that if every other country of the world gave up nuclear technology, it would be harder for countries like Iran and North Korea to launch weapons efforts in the guise of energy programs, it would be a very high price to pay for a very uncertain reward. In the historical record, there is not a single clear case of a country buying civil nuclear equipment and only later opting for weapons, having been tempted into the decision by the availability of the technology. The United States, the Soviet Union, England, France, China, Israel, 27 Iraq, 28 India, 29 Pakistan and South Africa all launched nuclear programs specifically to open a nuclear weapons option. (The only debatable case is India.) None of them would have been deterred by others claiming that reliance on nuclear energy is not desirable, per se. Baldly put, boosting U.S. reliance on nuclear power so that it accounts for, say, 40 percent rather than 20 percent of our electricity would not materially affect the considerations of any other country deciding whether or not to develop nuclear weapons. (Nor, conversely, would a decision by the United States to end reliance On nuclear energy have any impact.) This does not imply, of course, that the United States should return to the reckless policies of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when its government positively encouraged other countries to buy nuclear equipment. 32 On the contrary, the United States should continue to work vigorously to convince the other major countries that supply nuclear equipment that they should limit sales of sensitive technology to dubious customers like Iran and North Korea.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

153

AT: NUCLEAR POWER CAUSES REPROCESSING
Political obstacles prevent new reprocessing plants Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //DH Congress has obliged the DOE proposal by providing $ 50 million for research and development of these reprocessing technologies. Nevertheless, experts on nuclear waste reprocessing remain skeptical. Success for this reprocessing proposal would require the siting and construction of a series of reprocessing facilities and nearby [*241] dedicated nuclear power plants. 85 The new power plants would have to be near to the reprocessing facilities because the plutonium fuel would be so dangerous that it could not safely be transported. 86 Siting such facilities is likely to be a political impossibility. 87 Political barriers block new reprocessing sites Lester, 6 – Richard, professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center of MIT (Richard K., “New Nukes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2006, Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 39, Proquest)/AK Removing actinides means that waste canisters in the repository could be packed closer together without violating thermal limits. This would increase storage capacity, which in turn could reduce the number of repositories. Energy secretary Sam Bodman recently suggested that GNEP has the potential to postpone a second U.S. waste repository indefinitely, even if nuclear power growth does resume. This appeals to politicians, who are almost desperately eager to avoid another politically painful repository-siting process. But offsetting this promise is the requirement, also implicit in GNEP, to find sites for new reprocessing plants, fuel and target fabrication facilities, and fast-spectrum burner reactors. Each of these may be easier to site than a second waste repository, though perhaps only marginally so. But GNEP is likely to increase the quantity of required nuclear sites, possibly by a large number.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

154

REPROCESSING GOOD – SOLVES PROLIFERATION AND WASTE
GNEP reprocessing is the best way to ensure proliferation-resistant, low waste nuclear power Spurgeon 07 : DENNIS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, HEARING OF THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP November 14th, L/n rday In the short time I have to describe the complex and multifaceted GNEP program, I think it is most important to understand the basic principles that guide the overall GNEP effort. The Statement of Principles is outlined on the board you see before you, and I believe it's also at your desk. This Global

Nuclear Energy Partnership is cooperation of those states that share the common vision of the necessity, of the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in a safe and secure manner. This cooperation will be pursued with the following objectives: Expand nuclear power to help meet growing energy demand in a sustainable manner and in a way that provides for safe operations of nuclear power plants and management of wastes. In cooperation with the IAEA, continue to develop enhanced safeguards to effectively and efficiently monitor nuclear materials and facilities to ensure nuclear energy systems are used only for peaceful purposes. Establish international supply frameworks to enhance reliable, cost effective fuel services and supplies to the world market, providing options for generating nuclear energy and fostering development while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation by creating a viable alternative to acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies. Develop, demonstrate, and in due course deploy advanced reactors that consume trans-uranic elements from recycled, spent fuel. Promote the development of advanced, more proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions. Develop and demonstrate advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel for deployment in facilities that do not separate pure plutonium with a long-term goal of ceasing separation of plutonium and eventually eliminating stocks of separated civilian plutonium. Such advanced fuel cycle technologies, when available, would help substantially reduce nuclear waste, simplify its disposition, and draw down inventories of civilian spent fuel in a safe, secure, and proliferation resistant manner. Finally, take advantage of the best available fuel cycle approaches for the efficient and responsible use of energy and natural resources.
Seventeen nations have now signed the Statement of Principles and have become GNEP partners. Eighteen other nations and three international organizations are participating as observers, and several of these nations are expected to join as partners. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Technology, Research and Development Program outlined in my written statement is designed to provide the technology advancements needed in order to make the vision of GNEP and its objectives a reality.

The secretary of Energy often remarks that there is no silver bullet to our energy challenges or to climate change. However, he is quick to note nuclear power's potential of meeting the growing demand for energy without producing greenhouse gasses. GNEP comes at a crucial time in the burgeoning expansion of nuclear power and a crucial time for the nation's energy security. It is the only comprehensive proposal to close the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States and engage the international community to minimize proliferation risks, as well as provide and benefit from cooperation in policy formulation, technical support, and technology and infrastructure development. GNEP reprocessing eliminates weapons grade plutonium – recycling it into spent fuel Sell 06 Clay, Deputy Secretary of Energy HEARING OF THE ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP March 2, L/n First, the Department of Energy seeks to greatly accelerate its work in the demonstration of advanced recycling. This effort builds on the advanced fuel cycle initiative initiated by this -- or by Congress, and specifically this committee, several years ago. We have developed in the laboratory recycling technology that does not separate plutonium like the current reprocessing technologies that are used around the globe. Rather, it keeps the actinides together, including plutonium, so that they can be made into fuel to be consumed in fast reactors that will also produce electricity. By not separating plutonium and building in the most advanced safeguard technologies, recycling can be done in a way that greatly reduces proliferation concerns. Another key objective of GNEP would be to demonstrate at engineering scale an advanced burner reactor that can be used to consume plutonium and other actinides, extracting energy potential out of recycled fuel, reducing the radiotoxicity of the waste in repeated cycles so that the waste that comes out of the reactor

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

155

REPROCESSING GOOD – SOLVES PROLIFERATION
Reprocessing solves proliferation risks of existing fuel Rhodes and Beller 00, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member) Hundreds of tons of weapons-grade plutonium, which cost the nuclear superpowers billions of dollars to produce, have become military surplus in the past decade. Rather than burying some of this strategically worrisome but energetically valuable material-as Washington has proposed-it should be recycled into nuclear fuel. An international system to recycle and manage such fuel would prevent covert proliferation. As envisioned by Edward Arthur, Paul Cunningham, and Richard Wagner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, such a system would combine internationally monitored retrievable storage, the processing of all separated plutonium into mox fuel for power reactors, and, in the longer term, advanced integrated materialsprocessing reactors that would receive, control, and process all fuel discharged from reactors throughout the world, generating electricity and reducing spent fuel to short-lived nuclear waste ready for permanent geological storage.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

156

AT: REPROCESSING RISKS DIVERSION OF FUEL
Reprocessing has never caused diversion to weapons programs Rhodes and Beller 00, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member) Although power-reactor plutonium theoretically can be used to make nuclear explosives, spent fuel is refractory, highly radioactive, and beyond the capacity of terrorists to process. Weapons made from reactor-grade plutonium would be hot, unstable, and of uncertain yield. India has extracted weapons plutonium from a Canadian heavy-water reactor and bars inspection of some dual-purpose reactors it has built. But no plutonium has ever been diverted from British or French reprocessing facilities or fuel shipments for weapons production; IAEA inspections are effective in preventing such diversions. The risk of proliferation, the IAEA has concluded, "is not zero and would not become zero even if nuclear power ceased to exist. It is a continually strengthened nonproliferation regime that will remain the cornerstone of efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons." Nuclear Waste Can be Recycled without diversion – France model proves Bennett and Dyson 7, - *Vice President for Public Affairs at Third Way AND ** a board member of the group Third Way, and former chair of the
New York State Power Authority (Matt Bennett and John Dyson, Third Way, “Just say ‘oui’ to nuclear power,” 9/16/07

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/16/just_say_oui_to_nuclear_power/) //DT

So what would an alternative look like? Here again, we should follow France. Instead of storing its waste at each nuclear plant (as in the United States) or burying it in containers underground (as we would do if Yucca opens), the French take their waste to a massive plant in Normandy, where spent fuel is recycled. They can reuse 80 percent of the material; the remaining 20 percent is "vitrified" - combined with molten glass and solidified - to immobilize the radioactive material. It can then go into long-term storage with much less risk of leaching into the groundwater. Recycling does create separated plutonium, which theoretically could be used in a nuclear weapon. But the likelihood of it falling into the wrong hands is infinitesimal - the United States has well-proven systems to safeguard nuclear material. Moreover, the plutonium that comes out of this reprocessing system would be difficult for terrorists to handle without advanced training and laboratory equipment. Reprocessing is on balance less risky than storage Rhodes and Beller 00, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member) Ironically, burying spent fuel without extracting its plutonium through reprocessing would actually increase the long-term risk of nuclear proliferation, since the decay ofless-fissile and more-radioactive isotopes in spent fuel after one to three centuries improves the explosive qualities of the plutonium it contains, making it more attractive for weapons use. Besides extending the world's uranium resources almost indefinitely, recycling would make it possible to convert plutonium to useful energy while breaking it down into shorter-lived, nonfissionable, nonthreatening nuclear waste. GNEP solves the risks of existing reprocessing Spurgeon 7 - ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, (Dennis, HEARING OF THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL, March 7, L/n rday) To meet these challenges, President Bush initiated the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, a comprehensive approach to enable an expansion of nuclear power in the United States and around the world to promote non-proliferation goals and to help resolve the nuclear waste issues. Domestically, GNEP provides a solution to the ever-growing issue of spent nuclear fuel. In conjunction with Yucca Mountain, GNEP provides a solution which outlines a closed fuel cycle where energy is harvested from the spent fuel before the end product is disposed of in a permanent repository. The spent fuel will be recycled in a manner that will be more proliferation resistant than current processes used around the world. A closed fuel cycle will also alleviate some of the burden placed on Yucca Mountain, and will possibly eliminated the need for a second geologic repository throughout the remainder of the century. We reiterate though that no fuel cycle scenario will of note that will eliminate the need for a permanent geologic repository such as Yucca Mountain.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

157

REPROCESSING KEY TO PROLIF LEADERSHIP
Investment in new energy technologies is critical to maintain U.S. leadership in non-prolif efforts Spurgeon 7 - ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, (Dennis, HEARING OF THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL, March 7, L/n rday) Internationally, GNEP promises to address the growing global energy demand in an environmentally friendly way. A global regime of countries able to provide a complete portfolio of nuclear fuel services, including Russia, France, and possibly Japan, China, and Britain, will provide these services to countries wanting to use nuclear power to meet their domestic growth in electricity demand without the cost and risk associated with nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. By providing these services to other countries, we hope to dissuade future states from developing domestic enrichment capabilities like we are encountering with Iran today. The fact is the U.S. is not currently positioned to be an active member of this global regime. We have limited enrichment capabilities and no back end fuel cycle capabilities. Creating capabilities needed to participate in the global expansion of nuclear power will take 15 to 20 years, meaning that in order to become an active participant of the global nuclear expansion, we need to begin now. Taking those steps necessary enables us to better assure that the imminent expansion will be safe, beneficial, and will not promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If we fail to act, we will have little to say in the process. GNEP reprocessing is critical to US nuclear competitiveness and prolif leadership Kotek, 8- MANAGER OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON POLICY & ANALYSIS, Inc (John, “HEARING OF THE OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES” 6/20, lexis, rday)

Now, with trade and nuclear energy, however, comes the prospect of nuclear weapons proliferation. To ensure that the U.S. will influence and manage proliferation risks during the next expansion of nuclear energy around the world, it is imperative that the U.S. be the promoter, enabler, and the lead supplier of this growth.
The American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness was formed to alert policymakers and the public of the need to restore U.S. leadership in nuclear energy. The president took a bold step toward restoring this leadership earlier this year with the announcement of

GNEP. We support the president's vision of GNEP which, if properly implemented and accompanied by the American-led transforming technology lead, can restore America's preeminence in the nuclear enterprise. If GNEP is structured with an eye towards enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness, American industry could thrive.
The Council has been concerned, however, about our industry's inability, at present, to participate fully in GNEP. So the Council is recruiting leadership from the business world, as well as from U.S. national labs and universities, to respond to the enormous opportunities that a resumption of U.S. nuclear energy leadership would create. U.S. manufacturing, technology, financial and other interests should seize the opportunity and rally to ensure that the president's vision is realized. And indeed, we are finding an encouraging number of U.S. companies interested in getting into the nuclear business or growing their nuclear portfolio.

By restoring a robust nuclear industry, America can protect its environmental, economic and national security interests, and it can also reclaim leadership of the global nuclear energy industry -- an industry that was created through American ingenuity more than 50 years ago.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

158

REPROCESSING KEY TO PROLIF LEADERSHIP
GNEP reprocessing makes the U.S. and international leader in non-prolif technology and makes the US nuclear industry the best in the world Kotek, 8- MANAGER OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON POLICY & ANALYSIS, Inc (John, “HEARING OF THE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES” 6/20, lexis, rday) So the Council contends it's not enough for the U.S. to simply become a producer of electricity using plants designed, constructed, fuelled and service by foreign suppliers. We need American companies competing in this vital arena. Now, because the U.S. has been on the sidelines and its lead in nuclear design, manufacturing, supply and service has been eroded, we are free to move beyond existing technology. Now, certainly U.S. companies can and should compete in the market for providing large- scale reactors based on existing technology, but the U.S. is in a unique position to also capture markets for tomorrow's nuclear technology. The proposed GNEP program could provide just the boost our industry needs in order to develop and market new, advanced proliferation-resistant nuclear energy technology. For example, one exciting technological opportunity is in right-sized exportable reactors that can be manufactured in the U.S. and exported to the developing world. Now, this isn't far-fetched. I mean, advanced manufacturing borrowed from other industries where the U.S. still holds global leadership will allow the shift from large systems that rely on economies of scale but which must be built on site. Factory production, with its inherent efficiencies, could make nuclear power economic for smaller applications in developing regions. This would feed into a distributor generation approach which fits countries lacking a mature grid and other infrastructure. And by engaging with international partners to establish a guaranteed fuel supply and return system, we can dramatically reduce proliferation risk by eliminating the need for small countries to establish enrichment reprocessing capability.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

159

REPROCESSING SOLVES WASTE STORAGE
GNEP reprocessing prevents proliferation of nuclear waste, and cuts overall waste by 100 Sell 06 Clay, Deputy Secretary of Energy HEARING OF THE ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP March 2, L/n MR. SELL: Nuclear power is the only mature technology of significant potential to provide large amounts of completely emissions-free base load power to meet this need. It will result in significant benefits for clean development around the globe, reduced world greenhouse gas intensities, pollution abatement, and the security that comes from greater energy diversity. But nuclear power, with all of its potential for mankind, carries with it two significant challenges. The first: What do we do with the nuclear waste? And the second one: How can we prevent the proliferation of fuel cycle technologies that lead to weaponization? GNEP seeks to address and minimize these two challenges by developing technologies to recycle the spent fuel in a proliferation- resistant manner, and support a reordering of the global nuclear enterprise to encourage the leasing of fuel from what we'll call fuel- cycle states in a way that presents strong commercial incentives against new states building their own enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.
Regarding our own policy on spent nuclear fuel, the United States stopped the old form of reprocessing in the 1970s, principally because it could be used to produce plutonium. But the rest of the major nuclear economies -- in France, in Great Britain, in Russia, in Japan, and in others -- continued on without us. The world today has a buildup of over 250 metric tons of separated civilian plutonium. It has vast amounts of spent fuel, and we risk the continued spread of fuel-cycle technologies.

If we look only for a moment at the United States, we are on the verge of a U.S. nuclear renaissance, in many respects due to the provisions enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. New plants will be built. But if we want many more built -- and we need them -- I believe the United States must rethink the wisdom of our once-through spent fuel policy. We must move to recycling.
This administration remains confident that Yucca Mountain is the best location for the United -- for a permanent geologic repository. And getting that facility licensed and opens -- opened remains a top priority. Whether we recycle or not, we must have Yucca Mountain. But the capacity

of Yucca Mountain as currently configured will be oversubscribed by 2010. If nuclear power remains only at 20 percent for the balance of the century, we will have to build the equivalent of nine Yucca Mountains to contain once-through spent fuel. The administration believes -SEN. DOMENICI: Could you make that statement again? MR. SELL: If we continue to have nuclear generation at 20 percent for the balance of the century, because of our oncethrough spent fuel policy, we will have to build the equivalent of nine Yucca Mountains.
The administration believes that the wiser course is to recycle the used fuel coming out of the reactors, reducing its quantity and its radiotoxicity, so that only one Yucca Mountain will be required by the balance of this century. So what exactly is, then, GNEP? GNEP really is -SEN. DOMENICI: May I interrupt you? MR. SELL: Yes, sir. SEN. DOMENICI: And that one Yucca Mountain, under that scenario, would not be filled with the kind of waste we plan on putting in it now, right? MR. SELL: It would be filled. We still have a significant amount of defense waste in Senator Murray's home state and in Senator Craig's home state that will go to Yucca Mountain. SEN. DOMENICI: I'm speaking of the domestic side.

MR. SELL: And on the commercial spent fuel, we believe that up to 90 percent of commercial spent fuel could be recycled before going to Yucca Mountain. SEN. DOMENICI: Which means it would be a different spent fuel. MR. SELL: It would be in a condition with a very low -- with a peak dose occurring in year 1,000 versus year 1 million. It would be in a more stable glacious form, and it's the radiotoxicity of the waste which really drives capacity size. And by reducing the radiotoxicity you could fill Yucca Mountain with this glacious stable waste, and that would -- we think would be enough for this century.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

160

REPROCESSING SOLVES WASTE STORAGE
Reprocessing solves spent fuel problems Moore 6 - CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, GREENSPIRIT STRATEGIES, LTD. (Patrick, HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR ENERGY OVERSIGHT, September 13, L/n rday) I just add, in terms of nuclear fuel, spent fuel, I think it would be irresponsible to bury that spent fuel. At least it should be easily recoverable. It should always be thought of as interim storage, until it is recycled. Ninety-five percent of the available energy in the nuclear fuel is still there after the first cycle in the reactor, and that 95 percent energy is available for the future by extracting the plutonium and uranium that remains in the spent fuel. And then the other good thing that occurs if you recycle fuel, from an environmental perspective, is that the fission products, which are then a much smaller quantity of material and don't require eight Yucca Mountains, can then be glassified -- or vitrified, as it's called. And that only has to be kept out of the environment for between three and five hundred years before it is down to background levels again, as opposed to the plutonium that's always talked about -- 250,000 years. It's true that plutonium lasts for 250,000 years. That's probably a good thing because it is a very valuable fuel -- it just has to be kept contained, which is now being done in reactors all around the world with considerable success. Breeder reactors eliminate nuclear waste material by reprocessing it Charman, 6 – Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK The nuclear power industry did not expect Nevada's legal challenges to be so successful, and U.S. nuclear proponents have begun to think beyond Yucca Mountain. They maintain that the development of fast breeder reactors, which create nuclear fuel by producing more fissile material than they consume, along with reprocessing the spent fuel (separating out the stillusable plutonium and uranium) will reduce the volume of waste and negate the need for geologic disposal. Since it was originally assumed that reprocessing would be part of the nuclear fuel cycle, commercial reactors were not designed to house all of the waste they would create during their operational lives. Three commercial reprocessing facilities were built in the United States, though only one, at West Valley in western New York state, ever operated. After six years of troubled operation marked by accidents, mishandling of high-level wastes, and contamination of nearby waterways, it was shut down in 1972. In 1977 the Carter administration banned reprocessing due to concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation after India stunned the world by testing its first atomic bomb, which was made with plutonium from its reprocessing facility. According to UCS, approximately 240 metric tons of separated plutonium-enough for 40,000 nuclear weapons-was in storage worldwide as of the end of 2003. Reprocessing the U.S. spent fuel inventory would add more than 500 metric tons. France, Britain, Russia, India, and Japan currently reprocess spent fuel, and the Bush administration is pushing to revive reprocessing in the United States. It has allocated $ 130 million to begin developing an "integrated spent fuel cycle," and recently announced another $250 million, primarily to develop UREX+, a technology said to address proliferation concerns by leaving the separated plutonium too radioactive for potential thieves to handle. In addition, the U.S. Congress has directed the administration to prepare a plan by 2007 to pick a technology to reprocess all of the spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and start building an engineering-scale demonstration plant.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

161

REPROCESSING SOLVES WASTE STORAGE
Reprocessing solves the waste storage problem Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//DH Used nuclear fuel is mostly uranium and, if buried, the long-term hazards would arise from just 1.1 percent of the used fuel. 109 Of the thousands of tons of used nuclear fuel from commercial electricity generation, about 96 percent is uranium and 4 percent are byproducts of the fission process. 110 The uranium can be separated cleanly and disposed as Class C lowlevel waste, or it can be safely stored for later recycling from a few decades to a century from now. 111 In 2002 the U.S. DOE demonstrated the capability to produce almost 99.99 percent pure Class C uranium after separating it from used nuclear fuel. 112 The product was so clean it could be safely held in your hand. Most of the byproducts of the fission process (about 75 percent of the byproducts or about [*59] 3 percent of the used fuel) are stable or short-lived fission products that do not pose major disposal challenges. 113 This process of separating the waste stream is called "partitioning." If we can separate the 96 percent reusable uranium from the 4 percent waste products, then partition the easily treated portion (75 percent of the waste) from the rest, we need to treat a comparatively small amount of material. Another 0.3 percent of the used fuel is cesium and strontium that decays in a few centuries. 114 This more highly radioactive material is a source of much of the thermal energy, or heat, that must be considered when designing deep geological repositories for high-level waste. During the partitioning of the used fuel, cesium and strontium can be captured and stored in extremely stable waste forms while they decay to inert materials in a few hundred years. In the unlikely event it was released from a repository, the remaining 1.1 percent of the used fuel would create a long-term hazard. 115 Of that, 0.9 percent is plutonium that can be fissioned to produce energy in a wide variety of existing and conceptual nuclear reactors; 0.1 percent is minor actinides that can be fissioned efficiently only in fast spectrum reactors; and 0.1 percent is long-lived iodine and technetium that can be transmuted to stable, non-radioactive, non-toxic elements. 116 Thus, nuclear transmutation can take care of both the minor actinides and the long-lived fission products in the right kind of facility or facilities.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

162

AT: REPROCESSING BAD – TERRORISM
There are massive obstacles to making dirty bombs with nuclear energy material NEI 7 (11-07-07, , Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization “Used Fuel Secure at Nuclear Power Plants, Could Not Be Used to Make a ‘Dirty Bomb’” http://www.nei.org/filefolder/used_fuel_could_not_be_used_to_make_a_dirty_bomb_0907.pdf) Used Fuel Is Stored Securely at Plants The possibility of utilizing used nuclear fuel for a “dirty bomb” is fraught with practical and logistical obstacles that would render such a scenario essentially impossible. A “dirty bomb” is a bomb made of conventional explosives covered with radioactive material that would be used by terrorists to spread radiation. However, no nuclear reaction occurs. The most significant public health consequences would occur as a result of the explosion—not the radioactivity in the device. The used fuel at nuclear power plants would be extremely difficult for an outsider to access. Moreover, it also would be extremely difficult to use. Used fuel is stored in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or in robust concrete and steel containers—each weighing more than 100 tons—in a separate, secured area. The used fuel—consisting of small ceramic pellets—is contained in metal fuel rods. The rods are grouped into bundles called assemblies. The average used fuel assembly is 14 feet long and weighs up to 1,600 pounds. The used fuel is protected by the same security force and electronic surveillance equipment as the rest of the plant. Handling the material under any circumstances requires special equipment. The FBI rates security forces and infrastructure at nuclear plants formidable and considers plants difficult to penetrate. Nuclear power plants can defend against an assault by a well-trained paramilitary force, armed with automatic weapons and explosives, intent on forcing its way into a plant to commit radiological sabotage, with the aid of an “insider.” Companies must demonstrate this ability on a regular basis. Areas of the plant that house used fuel would withstand the impact of a wide-body commercial aircraft, according to peerreviewed analyses by the Electric Power Research Institute, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based research organization. Operations personnel are trained in emergency procedures to keep the plant safe from a sabotage attempt.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

163

MOX DOESN’T SOLVE PROLIF
MOX storage doesn’t prevent proliferation – radiation barriers aren’t strong Lester, 6 – Richard, professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center of MIT (Richard K., “New Nukes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2006, Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 39, Proquest)/AK The GNEP proposal to introduce full actinide recycling is also advertised as contributing to nonproliferation. But whether its impact is positive or negative depends on what it is being compared to. If the countries that now do conventional PUREX reprocessing-principally France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Japan-were to adopt the UREX+ process, and as a result stopped accumulating separated plutonium, the outcome might be positive. But in practice, the proposed UREX+ strategy of keeping the plutonium mixed with other, more radioactive transuranic isotopes might not create much of a radiation barrier to potential proliferators. Recent calculations suggest that the radiation level would not be particularly high-perhaps as much as several orders of magnitude lower than the intense radiation fields associated with spent fuel. So adoption of UREX+ reprocessing of light-water reactor fuel combined with reprocessing of advanced burner reactor fuel would introduce sizeable new flows and stocks of contaminated plutonium that might be only marginally better protected from would-be proliferators than pure plutonium, and much less protected than if the plutonium simply remained in the spent fuel. For countries that are not now reprocessing, including the United States, this would not be a positive development. Additional protection could be obtained using a variant of the UREX+ process that mixed certain radioactive fission products in with the plutonium and the minor actinides. But these fission products would have to be separated from plutonium before fuel fabrication and then recycled back to the waste stream, adding further, costly steps to the GNEP fuel cycle. MOX is inevitable because the U.S. lacks nuclear technological leadership BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH However, while most countries have not proceeded with reprocessing programs, several countries that employ nuclear energy extensively have continued with a closed fuel cycle approach that is centered around the use of mixed oxide (MOX) fuels. France and the UK offer commercial reprocessing services and MOX fabrication for other countries. Japan has recently begun operation of a commercial scale reprocessing facility, plans the wide-scale use of MOX fuel, and has a long-term plan to commercialize the fast reactor. The U.S. has no commercial reprocessing or MOX fuel fabrication plant. Much of the technological leadership in reprocessing and MOX fuel fabrication is now in France, and French technology is even being used in the MOX fuel fabrication plant being constructed at Savannah River for the disposition of excess U.S. weapons plutonium.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

164

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES WARMING
Nuclear power is a critical solution to global warming – alternatives will devastate the economy Bowman 6-20 President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, (Frank L., States News Service, Testimony before the Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, “GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION,” 2008, L/n, rday) First, we see a growing consensus that any credible program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and worldwide will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches, and that nuclear energy is an indispensable part of that portfolio. This conclusion is supported by an impressive body of mainstream research and analysis. And second, we believe it is imperative to address the major investment challenge facing the electric power sector as it seeks to develop and deploy the low-carbon and zero-carbon technologies necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Federal legislation must obviously include targets and timetables for carbon reduction, but legislation must also help provide industry the technology and the means to achieve those targets and timetables. In our view, that will require an aggressive program of financing support-more aggressive and ambitious than anything in place today. The growing body of mainstream research and analysis shows that nuclear power is an important part of the portfolio required to reduce carbon emissions. The most recent came from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)'s International Energy Agency (IEA) last week. The IEA's 2008 Energy Technologies Perspective asserts that "A global revolution is needed in ways that energy is supplied and used. Far greater energy efficiency is a core requirement. Renewables, nuclear power, and CO2 capture and storage must be deployed on a massive scale." Last week's IEA report amplifies the findings in its World Energy Outlook, the pre-eminent global energy forecast, which was published earlier this year. In the 2008 edition of that forecast, the IEA analyzed what must be done to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm)-the level judged necessary by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to avoid irreversible damage. In that scenario, world nuclear generating capacity more than doubles-from 368 gigawatts today to 833 gigawatts in 2030. Even with this ambitious growth, the additional nuclear capacity does not shoulder the entire carbon reduction load: enduse energy efficiency, improved efficiency of coal-fired power plants, and major gains in CO2 capture and storage are also necessary. This conclusion-that nuclear power is an essential component of any carbon reduction initiative- is unambiguous and beyond question. It is shared by leaders and governments around the world, including Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Mr. de Boer said last July that he had never seen a credible scenario for reducing carbon emissions that did not include nuclear energy. In addition to policy leaders, the world's scientific community agrees that nuclear energy must play a significant role in meeting the dual challenges of electricity production and greenhouse gas reduction. The most recent assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies nuclear energy as one of the "key mitigation technologies." Closer to home, analyses of the various legislative proposals that have come before Congress, including the modeling conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, all show that nuclear plant construction must accelerate in a carbonconstrained world. In EIA's analysis of the Lieberman-Warner legislation, the model forecasts more new nuclear capacity than could realistically be built during the forecast period. And in those modeling runs where nuclear energy expansion is constrained, carbon emissions and carbon prices are higher, electric sector consumption of natural gas soars, electricity and gas prices are higher, and GDP losses are greater. Nuclear power decreases CO2
Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony/ //VR)

Nuclear power plants generate over 70 percent of all carbon-free electricity in the United States. By using nuclear power instead of fossil fuel-based plants, the US nuclear energy industry prevented 681 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2006. For perspective, the volume of greenhouse gas emissions prevented at the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants is equivalent to taking 96 percent of all passenger cars off America’s roadways.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

165

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES WARMING
Nuclear power is the only way to solve global warming – renewables aren’t feasible Moore 6 DR. PATRICK, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, GREENSPIRIT STRATEGIES, LTD.; HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND
WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR ENERGY OVERSIGHT, September 13, L/n rday

I find it both terribly ironic and unfortunate that we find ourselves at a juncture where it is the environmental movement itself that is one of the main impediments to the realistic and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emission, because they are opposed to all of the realistic solutions, which include nuclear energy and hydroelectric energy as the only
MR. MOORE: But the way I would kind of sum it up is that two other base load cost-effective sources of electricity. Most environmental groups are not only opposed to fossil fuels, but also to nuclear, and are proposing to tear hydro dams down rather than build new ones, and almost stopped the Three Gorges Dam in China, which amounts to the equivalent of 36 huge brown coal fired power plants.

the environmental movement has to re-think its policy on nuclear because its policy on nuclear is completely logically inconsistent with its policy on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Like, what is it? Do you want to reduce fossil fuel consumption, which amounts to 86 percent of world supply? And between them, fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro are 99.2 percent of the world's energy. All of the renewables and wind and solar is less than 1 percent of the world's energy supply at the present time.
And so I think the -- I agree with Steward Brand and others that And while I thoroughly favor expanding those renewable energy resources where cost-effective, in particular hydroelectric, geothermal -- by which I mean both the hot rocks kind that California has, and ground source heat pumps, which could take fossil fuels out of every building in the world and provide heating, cooling and hot water with renewable solar energy -- and then wind energy is also very important. Those three I think are the most important, along with biomass. I shouldn't have left that out. Biomass will be very important in the future too.

So, there are a number of renewable energy sources that can be considerably expanded, but with the amount of energy that is used in this country and this world, they cannot make a significant dint in fossil fuels, seeing as though energy consumption as a whole is also rising. Nuclear energy, as I said, my main -- I think my main thesis is that nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas emitting power source that can effectively replace some of the fossil fuels we use now, while at the same time supplying the demand for energy in the world. I think that is a true statement. Nuclear solves greenhouse emissions and reduces compliance costs Fertel, 4 – Marvin S., Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer @ the Nuclear Energy Institute (Congressional testimony FDCH, march 4,
“Nuclear Power Generation”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)/AK

Finally, new nuclear power plants will play a leading role in meeting U.S. clean air goals and the administration’s goal of reducing the U.S. economy’s greenhouse gas intensity. In addition, under the cap-and-trade systems in place or planned for all major pollutants, incremental production from new emission-free nuclear power plants would reduce the compliance costs that otherwise would be imposed on coal-fired and gas-fired generation. Nuclear power plants produce electricity that otherwise would be supplied by oil-, gas- or coal-fired generating capacity, and thus avoid the emissions associated with that fossil-fueled capacity.
CO2 would be 30% higher if nuclear plants attrophied Bowman 6- President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, 9-3-06, Speech to House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended //VR) Third, nuclear power plants play a strategic role in meeting U.S. clean air goals and the nation’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. New nuclear power plants produce electricity that otherwise would be supplied by oil-, gas- or coal-fired generating capacity, and thus avoid the emissions associated with that fossil-fueled
capacity. The emissions avoided by U.S. nuclear power plants are essential in meeting clean-air requirements. For perspective, the Clean Air Interstate Rule will reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) emissions in 2010 by 4.3

2005 alone, operating nuclear power plants prevented the emission of 3.3 million tons of SO2 and 1.0 million tons of NOx . Nuclear energy is equally important in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions. The 682 million metric tons of CO prevented by nuclear energy in 2005 is equal to the annual emissions from 96 percent of the country’s passenger cars. Without our nuclear power plants, CO2 emissions from the electric power sector (which represents approximately one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions) would be approximately 30 percent higher.
million tons below 2003 levels and nitrous oxide (NOx ) emissions in 2009 by 1.7 million tons. In
2

Only Nuclear Power can solve for Climate Change Bennett, 08 - Vice President for Public Affairs at Third Way (Matt Bennett, Third Way, “The Democrats' Nuclear-Free Zones.” 1/17/08 (http://dispatch.thirdway.org/articles/2008/01/17/the-democrats-nuclear-free-zones) //DT All of the objections to nuclear power that these candidates have offered are simply red herrings. As , global climate change poses the greatest threat that mankind faces, perhaps the greatest our species has ever faced. If we are to confront this crisis effectively and in time, we simply must produce power without producing carbon. And the only way to get there from here is to build a LOT more nuclear plants, and to do so fast. One simple point: nuclear energy produces about 20% of US power usage today. Solar is about .02%. You triple solar power, you get to .06%. You triple nuclear, you get to 60%. The math isn’t hard.
As George Will would say: “Well.” Third Way has written before

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

166

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES WARMING
Nuclear energy is key to emission reduction- but requires sustained policies NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, April 08, no date, “Nuclear Energy Plays Essential Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/policybriefs/nuclearenergyreducinggreenhousegasemission) Nuclear Energy’s Vital Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas mainly emitted by human activity—is the major focus of policy discussions to reduce emissions. At a time when the United States faces a projected 25 percent increase in electricity demand by 2030, failure to develop a holistic policy that meets the nation’s energy demand, energy security needs and greenhouse gas reduction goals could threaten success on both objectives. Nuclear power plants produce large amounts of electricity without emitting carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. America’s 104 commercial power reactors provide about one-fifth of U.S. electric-ity—and 70 percent of the nation’s carbon-free electricity generation. In a 2007 policy paper, the Nuclear Energy Institute detailed the principles underlying its position on climate change. These include: • The industry supports federal legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Nuclear energy is a vital source of electricity that can meet the nation’s growing energy needs with a secure, domestic energy supply that also protects air quality. • A credible program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches. Nuclear energy is an indispensable part of that portfolio. • Achieving a significant expansion of nuclear energy in the United States requires sustained federal and state government policies that pave the way for advanced design nuclear plant construction, research and development on new reactor and used fuel recycling technologies, development of the next-generation work force, and long-term stewardship of used nuclear fuel. In the United States, electric utilities are expanding the use of nuclear energy along with energy efficiency and conservation programs and an expanded portfolio of low-emission sources of electricity, including wind and solar energy. Nuclear power plants already play a powerful role in preventing greenhouse gases in the electricity sector. By using nuclear energy rather than fossil fuel-based plants, electric utilities prevented 681 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2006. For perspective, the volume of greenhouse gas emissions prevented at nuclear power plants is equivalent to taking 96 percent of all passenger cars off America’s roadways. A credible program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches, including the widespread use of nuclear energy, renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and the development of technology to capture carbon from coal and natural gas power plants. In the European Union, a recent study of the region’s carbon avoidance shows that an additional 704 million metric tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted if all nuclear power plants in these countries were removed from the electricity grid. Worldwide, nuclear energy prevents the emission of more than 2.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

167

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES WARMING
Nuclear energy solves warming – consensus NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, card cites the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Princeton University, Columbia University’s Earth Institute, Harvard University and the Pew Center on Global Climate, April 08, no specific day, “Nuclear Energy Plays Essential Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/policybriefs/nuclearenergyreducinggreenhousegasemission) Diverse Groups Recognize Nuclear Energy’s Climate-Friendly Benefits Given the dual challenges of meeting growing electricity supply and preventing and mitigating greenhouse gases, policymakers and energy industry leaders are evaluating an expanded role for nuclear energy. U.S. policymakers are weighing different legislative and other approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While many predict that meaningful climate change policy may take several years to finalize, the role that nuclear energy can play in carbon reduction programs is clear. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) in a February report, “Crossing the Divide: The Future of Clean Energy,” said that carbon policies could fundamentally change the competitive landscape of the global energy business. Conventional emission-free technologies—nuclear energy and hydropower—will account for most of the clean energy impact globally and almost half of the gross clean power additions by 2030, CERA reported in its analysis. Carbon mitigation strategies from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Princeton University, Columbia University’s Earth Institute, Harvard University and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change identify a clear role for nuclear energy in a portfolio of options to reduce greenhouse gases. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its Fourth Assessment Report issued in 2007, concluded that lowering emissions would require greater emphasis on renewables and nuclear energy. The IPCC report said that a broad mix of energy sources, including nuclear energy, “will almost certainly be required to meet the growing demand for energy services, particularly in many developing countries.” A U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change study called for an additional investment of $25 billion in nuclear energy by 2030. The U.N.’s findings are consistent with the World Economic Forum’s 2008 analysis on energy, which stated that nuclear energy “is probably the best option for carbon-neutral energy from the perspective of currently available and easily scalable technologies.” Furthermore, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said “low-emission electricity generation will be achieved in part through niche sources such as wind and biofuels. Larger-scale solutions will come from nuclear and solar power.” Nuclear energy also is part of the strategy for combating climate change in an energy security plan released by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank. The center recommends that the United States establish a “renewable portfolio standard” mandating that 10 to 25 percent of electricity be produced from renewable resources and nuclear energy by 2025. Nuclear power is key to decreasing CO2 Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 180-181 ) CP IF THE WORLD'S greenhouse gas emissions are to be kept from more than doubling in this century, the United States is going to have to do not just its fair share, so to speak, but a little more. This is because as the world's richest and most highly endowed country, it can afford to do more; because U.S. use of energy is singularly extravagant; and because the world's poor countries cannot be stopped from developing as fast as they can and therefore using more energy than at present.
An affordable and achievable energy future for the United States would look roughly like this: in the next decades, economic growth will be achieved without any net increases in energy demand; conservation and efficiency, encouraged by some combination of carbon emissions taxes and gasoline taxes, or by a cap-and-trade system for carbon and fuel-efficiency requirements for automobiles, will

combustion of coal by conventional means will be phased out: until advanced coal gasification and carbon sequestration technologies are feasible on a large scale, carbon emissions from the coal sector will be reduced by switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels. Wind but not solar energy will be able to provide a sizable fraction of the electricity now provided by coal, and natural gas
take care of that. At the same time, ought to be able to take another bite, if supply problems are solved. (As noted previously, at least one major pipeline will be needed to carry gas from Alaska to the Lower 48, and a network of port terminals to handle seaborne carriers of liquefied natural gas.) But with natural gas already in high demand and short supply, even without the added pressures on natural gas availability that will result as the

Accordingly, it will be desirable if nuclear power-an even better substitute for coal than natural gas can play a part as well.
automotive economy ultimately switches over to vehicles powered by fuel cells, natural gas cannot be expected to get the whole job done.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

168

SOLVENCY - SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO SOLVE WARMING
Any expansion of nuclear power has to be massive to reduce emissions enough Moore 6 - CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, GREENSPIRIT STRATEGIES, LTD. (Patrick, HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR ENERGY OVERSIGHT, September 13, L/n rday) And I can't emphasize enough that it just isn't sufficient to talk about 10 or 20 nuclear power plants if we're actually serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel for electricity consumption in the U.S. because energy demand is growing rapidly, not as rapidly as the economy thankfully, because efficiency and conservation are also playing a very important role in energy consumption, and should continue to do so. But I don't believe any amount of efficiency or consideration will allow us to stop growing the need for energy in the economy of the United States, or the rest of the world for that matter. And when you consider China and India and Indonesia and Brazil and all the other countries that are now increasing their standards of living and their rate of per-capita energy consumption, this is a tremendous challenge, and therefore it is necessary -- if we're looking at it from a climate change, greenhouse gas reduction point of view, it's necessary to have a very aggressive program of nuclear energy. Substantial increase in nuclear power key Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 38, emphasis in original) This study approach is conditioned by the belief that the nuclear power option makes sense only if possible deployment is quite large, since no small deployment can make a significant contribution to dealing with the greenhouse gas problem. Support for keeping the nuclear power option open will therefore depend on convincing the public and their elected representatives that large-scale deployment can overcome the four challenges. We believe that establishing a vision for a possible large- scale deployment of nuclear energy that is both technically and politically credible is a necessary condition for gaining public support. Indeed it is misleading to focus on small increases in nuclear capacity justified by significant CO2 reduction. Furthermore, small deployments ignore or do not face squarely the challenges that must be overcome for nuclear energy to become a significant contributor to controlling CO2 emissions.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

169

AT: LIFECYCLE CARBON COSTS PROVE NUCLEAR POWER DOESN’T DECREASE C02
Nuclear power solves global warming—even accounting for life-cycle carbon effects Totty, 08 (Michael Energy “(A Special Report); The case for -- and against -- Nuclear Power.” 2008, June 30) Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.1. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. If the world intends to address the threat of global warming and still satisfy its growing appetite for electricity, it needs an ambitious 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 average temperatures. At the same time, making electricity accounts for about a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels to produce power. Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- and no sulfur or mercury either. 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 are comparable to the full life-cycle emissions of wind and hydropower and less than solar power. Nuclear energy has one of the lowest amount of emissions –renewables have the same lifecycle carbon costs Nuclear Policy Outlook 7 (Semi-monthly newsletter analyzing policy matters that affect the nuclear industry, September/October 2007 , “Nuclear
Energy: Advancing Its Critical Role in Climate Change Policy” http://nei.org/filefolder/Outlook_SeptOct07.pdf)
A common topic in the debate about nuclear energy stems from misperceptions about the volume of GHG emissions created during the entire life cycle of the production of electricity with nuclear energy—

. no energy source is emission-free when one examines the life-cycle impact, which is difficult to calculate accurately. Regardless, life-cycle emissions comparisons may be the best way to assess electric generation technologies most fully. Nuclear plants do not produce emissions when they generate electricity, but life - cycle activities, such as mining uranium, transporting materials by truck or building related facilities, do produce emissions. The same is true for hydro and renewables that do not produce carbon emissions while making electricity. These generating sources, however, have similar life-cycle emissions—many of them higher than nuclear energy. According to most analyses, the total life-cycle emissions of nuclear energy are among the lowest of all electricity sources.3 Even with extremely
from the mining of uranium to the management of used nuclear fuel and plant decommissioning Critics of nuclear energy point out that it is not completely emission-free if one considers the emissions produced by all of the activities associated with nuclear power. True. However, low levels of carbon emissions, these types of generation will become more competitive economically as the external costs of emissions are factored into the energy marketplace. The Keystone Center’s report notes that “climate policies enhance the position of all low-GHG sources of power. … The more stringent the policy (the greater the reduction target or the higher the carbon tax), the greater the relative economic advantage of nuclear and other low-GHG technologies.” “The climate change issue is the most important environmental issue” for the industry, environmental groups and the nation, said Tom Cochran, director of nuclear programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “The most economically efficient way of addressing climate change is to place limits on greenhouse gases or to tax them.” The NRDC strongly supports a cap on CO2 emissions, and according to Cochran, the nuclear energy industry has been too tentative about supporting such an initiative. Several leading energy companies, such as Duke Energy, Exelon, GE and PG&E Corp., have joined with the NRDC, Environmental Defense and other environmental groups on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which is pushing for a carbon cap as part of a climate change policy. Still, Congress has much ground to cover before such a policy can emerge. “How Congress eventually deals with climate change policy will profoundly affect the future competitiveness of nuclear energy,” said Pew’s Greenwald. At the same time some policymakers are concerned that a climate change policy could have a negative impact on the economy over the short term. To that end, the nuclear industry does not support a plan that would harm the economy; rather, it supports a mechanism that would impose only a moderate and predictable cost on carbon over the near term. The industry will support only those GHG mitigation strategies that balance environmental protection, energy security and sustainable development. Constructive elements of all these goals are found in part in many of the legislative proposals introduced to date.When evaluating climate legislation, policymakers should treat nuclear energy the same as other energy sources that do not produce emissions. As the industry pursues its climate change policy, it must look upon the role of nuclear energy not simply as an opportunity for expansion, but as an obligation to be part of a portfolio of options that protect the environment while providing continued economic growth and lifting the standard of living worldwide.

,

Nuke power solves warming – no greenhouse effect with full lifecycle costs Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff The use of nuclear fuel to generate electricity causes no emissions of greenhouse gases. 219 As of 2003, nuclear power accounted for 69% of the carbon-free generation in the United States. 220 Even if the full life cycle of a nuclear power plant is calculated, the emissions of greenhouse gases are negligible. 221 The avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions has been a major factor in converting some prominent environmentalists to the [*42] support of new nuclear reactor construction. 222 Many companies in the United States now recognize the need to factor in the potential cost of complying with future greenhouse gas regulations in evaluating power plant proposals, 223 and some of the countries that have agreed to comply with the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are looking at nuclear power as a way to facilitate compliance. 224

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

170

COAL RELIANCE INCREASING
High natural gas prices force a transition to coal Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 50) This suggests that high natural gas prices will eventually lead investors to switch to coal rather than to nuclear under the base case assumptions as nuclear appears to be so much more costly than coal and U.S. coal supplies are very elastic in the long run so that significant increases in coal demand will not lead to significant increases in long term coal prices. In countries with less favorable access to coal, the gap would be smaller, but 2.5 cents/kWe-hr is too large a gap for nuclear to beat coal in many areas of the world under the base case assumptions (absent additional restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide from coal plants which we examine separately below).

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

171

COAL BAD – ENVIRONMENT
Coal-generated electricity destroys the environment Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff Virtually all of the coal mined in the United States is used as boiler fuel to generate electricity, 122 and although few users of that electricity
realize it, half of the nation's electric energy is provided by coal. 123 In his recent book, Big Coal, Jeff Goodell points out that in the United States, the mining and combustion of coal typically occur in such

most Americans have no idea "what our relationship with this black rock actually costs us." 124 This is particularly true with Coal is ecologically destructive through (1) mining, (2) air pollution, (3) greenhouse gas emissions, and (4) water pollution; and (5) while so-called "cleanremote locations that regard to public understanding of ecological systems that are being destroyed in remote places or through chains of causation that only experts understand. coal" technology is a long-range hope, it is not likely to be common in the next decade. 1. Coal Mining Is Destroying Vast Amounts of Natural Landscape Originally, almost all coal mining took place through the construction of a network of shafts underground from which coal would be cut and brought to the surface. Such "underground" mining still takes place in the United States, 125 but each year a [*26] larger share of the mining is "surface" mining. 126 Both kinds of coal mining have an impact on the landscape both directly and indirectly.

Underground mining typically brings to the surface large volumes of minerals, only some of which constitutes usable coal. 127 The residue is known as "gob" or "culm" and residue piles from both existing and abandoned underground mines are common sights in older mining areas. 128 The rain penetrates the piles and leaches out the soluble material, creating sulfuric and other acids, which are supposed to be stored in impoundments on the mine site but often flow directly into local watersheds or potable aquifers, particularly if the mine has been abandoned. 129 This kind of acid mine drainage pollutes streams throughout older mining regions, often turning them bright orange, rendering the water non-potable and uninhabitable by wildlife, and changing the ecological processes on the riparian landscape far beyond the mine site. 130 [*27] Underground mining also destroys landscapes through subsidence. If a mine shaft is not properly supported, its roof will collapse, which typically causes the surface of the earth over the mine to subside. In older mines, such subsidence regularly happened only after
a mineshaft was abandoned, but many newer mines use a system called "longwall" mining, which makes no attempt to support the roof over the area where coal is removed, resulting in intentional

subsidence can change drainage patterns on the surface in ways that may destroy existing ecosystems. 131 Even more directly damaging to the natural landscape is surface mining, which now produces the majority of our coal. 132 The
subsidence. Both intentional and unintentional two most prominent examples of surface mining in the United States and the resulting ecological consequences are in the Powder River Valley of Wyoming, and in a section of the Southern Appalachians that includes parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. 133 In both areas, surface mining is used extensively, but the differences in the terrain result in quite different impacts. 134 The Powder River Valley is relatively flat and dry rangeland, supporting cattle and, in the streams, trout. 135 The coal seams in this valley tend to be massive, and the parts that have been mined are relatively close to the surface. 136 The earth overlying the coal, [*28] known in the trade as "overburden," is blasted with explosives and then removed by massive machines built for the purpose. 137 The scale of the operations is so large that seventeen Wyoming surface mines supply over a third of U.S. coal consumption. 138 Despite the effects from the dust created in these operations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to classify such dust as a non-pollutant. 139 In December 2005, the EPA issued proposed rules that would exempt mining operations in rural areas from dust emission regulations. 140 In the Southern Appalachians, surface mining is taking place in a forested landscape of rolling hills and mountains with relatively moist conditions. 141 The current mining method is known as "mountaintop mining," and involves blasting and scraping off the tops of mountains to obtain access to the coal underneath. In an earlier era, this coal would have been accessed by underground shafts, but today's massive machinery and cheap explosives makes it more economical to remove the mountaintop and use surface mining equipment to take out the coal. 142 The rubble that was once the top of the mountain is simply dumped into a valley adjacent to the mountain, creating what is euphemistically called "valley fill." The result is the destruction [*29] not only of the ecological characteristics of the mountain itself but also of the adjacent valley. 143 Although this destruction has been widely criticized, it continues to be supported by both federal and state regulating agencies. 144

Although reserves of coal in the United States remain plentiful, the quality and accessibility of the coal is likely to decline. 145 "A good percentage of the coal that's left is too dirty to be burned in conventional power plants, and much of it is buried in inconvenient places - under homes, schools, parks, highways, and historical landmarks." 146 A future shortage of good quality coal may add to the ecological destruction involved in coal mining by requiring more disruption to get at equivalent amounts of coal. 147
2. Coal Combustion Pollutes a Wide Range of Environments In their recent "Nutshell" book on energy law, Joseph Tomain and Richard Cudahy concisely summarize the primary types of air pollution caused by coal combustion: [*30]

Coal combustion generates four main sources of pollution: sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter; all of which spoil land, water, and air. Sulfur oxide, which increases with the sulfur content of the coal, causes human health problems, crop damage, and acid rain. Nitrogen oxide contributes to the same problems and causes smog. Tons of particulate matter are emitted from coal burning facilities daily and cause property damage and health hazards. Finally, carbon dioxide causes what is known as the greenhouse effect, which is an increase in the temperature of the earth's surface. 148 We have long known that air pollution from coal combustion damages crops and natural vegetation, in addition to its impact on human health. 149 In the last thirty years, scientists have learned that pollutants from coal-burning power plants travel long distances 150 and create acid rain that significantly harms plants and
animals. 151 Acid rain is formed when sulfates and nitrates emitted by the tall stacks of coal-burning power plants react with rainwater to form acids that are deposited on the landscape many miles away from where the pollutants were emitted. 152 In 1990, when Congress finally enacted acid rain legislation, the assumption was that sulfuric acid was the main harmful component of acid rain, 153 and the statute imposed limits of sulfur emissions but less strict limits on nitrogen emissions. 154

[*31] Many scientists now believe that nitrogen oxides play a larger role in acid rain than was earlier realized, 155 Continues…

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

172

COAL BAD – ENVIRONMENT
Continued… and may be as important, or even more important, than sulfur emissions, 156 perhaps because nitrogen interacts with other elements more extensively. 157 Acid rain continues to kill trees and fish in many parts of the eastern states and Canada, 158 and the relative roles of nitrogen and sulfur in the production of acid rain continue to be explored by scientists. 159 Now scientists are also demonstrating that mercury emitted from coal-burning power plants poisons ecosystems, and by doing [*32] so, endangers human health. 160 Coal burning is the largest uncontrolled non-natural source of mercury.
161 Although most attention has understandably been paid to mercury's impact on human health, the direct source of that impact is the bioaccumulation of mercury in organisms consumed by humans, especially fish. 162 Research increasingly shows that this bioaccumulation is affecting a wide range of animals in addition to the fish that are the most important source of mercury consumed by humans. 163 The EPA has been widely criticized for delaying effective regulation of mercury, 164 and many states are preparing to impose tighter restrictions. 165 Other heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead, are found in greater or lesser degrees in various coal seams, 166 and research on [*33] the ecological effects of burning coal containing these substances seems to be at a relatively early stage. 167 3. Carbon Dioxide from Coal Burning Negatively Affects Biodiversity

Many studies have shown that climate change brought about by the increase of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, has had adverse ecological impacts. 168 Studies of the impact of climate change on animal species are already beginning to show significant changes to the geographical movements
of animals that appear to be the result of changes in climate. 169 For example, mussel diversity along the California coast has declined in the face of warming water temperatures; 170 amphibian diversity in Costa Rican cloud forests has declined in the face of warmer and drier conditions; 171 and a study of 34 butterfly species found that their European ranges had shifted to the north from 35 to 240 kilometers. 172

<[*34] Plant species will also be significantly affected by climate change. Increased levels of carbon dioxide accelerate plant growth in laboratory studies, 173 but many botanists believe that any stimulative effects will be offset by declines in soil nutrient availability. 174 Moreover, the plants that could readily adapt to the new climate conditions may be far away and lack good dispersal capability. 175 And although some scientists hope that higher carbon dioxide levels will increase the ability of forests to store carbon, recent studies cast doubt on the extent to which this will occur. 176 One analysis suggests that 15-37% of a sample of 1103 land plants and animals would eventually become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050. 177 Not all of the projected climate change can be attributed to the combustion of coal, but coal's share of the responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions is very significant. 178 4. Solid Wastes from Coal Combustion Pollute Our Waters After coal is burned in a power plant, the solid noncombustible material is a waste product, often known as ash, which contains a
highly complex and variable mix of the impurities found in coal, including mercury, selenium, thorium, radium, uranium and vanadium. 179 Each year coal-fired power plants produce about 130 million tons of this solid waste. 180

, rain can leach toxic materials from the ash into underground water supplies, and floods have sometimes washed out impoundment dams, sending tons of ash into communities and rivers, destroying their ecological viability. 182
Some ash is used in construction materials, but much of the ash is stored in impoundments at or near the power plant site. 181 If these impoundments are not properly maintained Uranium, radium, and thorium found in coal are naturally radioactive elements, and it is estimated that 500 tons of uranium are left in the ash produced by coal-fired power plants each year, some of which will decay, releasing radon gas. 183 The amounts of radioactivity involved are probably harmless, but the amount of radioactivity released by a coal-fired power plant exceeds that of a nuclear power plant, a fact that few people realize. 184

Radioactive emissions from coal-burning power plants cause some 320 deaths per year worldwide. 185

Effects of coal collapse the environment – nuclear power is much more safe and the environment is resilient towards accidents Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff The study of the ecological impact of the Chernobyl experience should cause us to compare that terrible disturbance to the more gradual and less dramatic changes that humans are causing by burning coal. Explosions, even huge ones, are one-time events. Ecological processes have a long history of adapting to such events and recovering, as they have in the area around Chernobyl. But incremental changes of a unidirectional nature, which go on and on at rates faster than the kinds of change to which ecological processes have adapted, such as acid rain, mercury emissions, and climate change, may be the most serious threat to ecological systems and processes. 274 Ecological systems can be "metastable" if irregular disturbances at a particular scale are within the level of resilience of the system, thus allowing the system to remain relatively stable at a larger scale. 275 But disturbances that are continually pushing ecological systems in the same direction, as in the case of the disturbances that cause climate change, are likely to exceed the boundaries of metastability. 276 The "excess carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere today is removed exceedingly slowly, meaning that the carbon dioxide we emit in the next half-century will alter the climate for millennia to come." 277

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

173

COAL BAD – ENVIRONMENT
Coal production destroys forests, kills fish, and contaminates the aquatic food chain and exposes populations to anywhere between 3 and 400 times as much radiation as a nuclear plant. Cravens, 7 – A published novelist whose decade long immersion in the entirety of the nuclear energy process for over a decade has lead her to contribute articles and op-eds to Harper’s Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker. (Gwyneth, The Power to Save the World, pg. 196-197 ) The environmental standards here are strict, “ Kinley said. Duke was now installing scrubbers and other equipment to catch even more of the articulates and opacities. "Opacity" means visible pollution. Coal combustion produces oxides of sulfur and of nitrogen . As they move through the atmosphere and combine with water, they can form tiny particles that settle in our lungs as well as making smog and acid rain. The acidity can decimate forests, kill fish, and, because of tremendous worldwide emissions, is also changing the chemistry of the ocean and affecting its organisms. Then there are transparent gases, released frorn coal when it is burned. 'Those "clean smokestacks" look good because you can't see mercury rising as vapor from them into the sky. The mercury returns to earth in raindrops, In bodies of water, this toxin, which changes chemically to methylmercury, is consumed by algae, becomes increasingly concentrated as it goes up the aquatic food chain, and can cause ailments in humans who frequently consume affected fish. Around the Great Lakes, people are urged to limit their consumption of local fish and pregnant women are warned to avoid it entirely. A comprehensive assessment of methylmercury from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2000 estimated that each year more than sixty thousand children are born at risk for neurodevelopmental problems associated with in-utero mercury exposure. The NAS recommended a major reduction of anthropogenic mercury pollution (natural mercury also erodes out of rocks into the water supply). Government scientists have found methylmercury in every well and lake in the United States; its level has also increased in the ocean, ad Consumer Reports now advises pregnant women to avoid canned tuna altogether, Coal-fired plants are the biggest producers of mercury ernissions in the country, spouting fifty unregulated tons per year. President Bush's Clear Skies initiative now calls for gradual reduction of this output to fifteen tons a year by 2018. The problem, however, is global. A l;OOO-megawatt coal plant also freely disperses about twenty-seven Metric tons of radiological material a year, exposing people to much more low-level radiation than a nuclear plant would. But it is the nuclear industry that by regulation must track and isolate the smallest actual or estimated quantities of radioactive substances and foot the gigantic bill for doing so. Like mercury, radon rises invisibly from coal-fired plant smoke-stacks-scrubbers and precipitators can’t catch these vapors – and eventually decays into daughters that can damage that can damage the pulmonary lining, especially in people who are also inhaling tobacco smoke and fine particulates. On average, every year fossil fuels expose the American population to about a hundred times more low-level radiation than nuclear plants do. Effects of coal collapse the environment – nuclear power is much more safe and the environment is resilient towards accidents Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff The study of the ecological impact of the Chernobyl experience should cause us to compare that terrible disturbance to the more gradual and less dramatic changes that humans are causing by burning coal. Explosions, even huge ones, are one-time events. Ecological processes have a long history of adapting to such events and recovering, as they have in the area around Chernobyl. But incremental changes of a unidirectional nature, which go on and on at rates faster than the kinds of change to which ecological processes have adapted, such as acid rain, mercury emissions, and climate change, may be the most serious threat to ecological systems and processes. 274 Ecological systems can be "metastable" if irregular disturbances at a particular scale are within the level of resilience of the system, thus allowing the system to remain relatively stable at a larger scale. 275 But disturbances that are continually pushing ecological systems in the same direction, as in the case of the disturbances that cause climate change, are likely to exceed the boundaries of metastability. 276 The "excess carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere today is removed exceedingly slowly, meaning that the carbon dioxide we emit in the next half-century will alter the climate for millennia to come." 277

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

174

AT: CLEAN COAL
Clean coal fails to reduce greenhouse gases Tomain, 5 - Dean Emeritus and the Wilbert & Helen Ziegler Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati (Joseph P, “BIOETHICS SYMPOSIUM: BIOFUELS AND THE NEW ENERGY ECONOMY: Smart Energy Path: How Willie Nelson Saved the Planet,” 36 Cumb. L. Rev. 417, 2005) <The current administration has rejected participation in the Kyoto Protocols, n152 the most ambitious international emissions reduction efforts to date. The Administration is concerned that this set of restrictions or targets, if binding upon the United States, might adversely affect the nation's economy. n153 Accordingly, the Administration argues that the United States can set its own goals and emissions reductions targets. To achieve that objective, the Administration embarked on two major clean coal initiatives: the Clear Skies Initiative n154 and the Clean Coal Power Initiative. n155 [*445] Clean coal initiatives have received funding under EPAct 2005, n156 and they can play important roles in the Smart Energy future. n157 Unfortunately, neither of these two federal initiatives has reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Over the last decade and a half, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased 16% while showing a 23% decrease in the intensity of energy use. n158 In the face of federal failure, several states have joined together to develop their own emissions reduction plans. n159 Although current efforts are inadequate, clean coal technologies must play a larger and more effective role in the future. In addition, alternative electricity strategies are necessary.> Clean coal technology fails – cost barriers are too high Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff 5. Large-Scale Use of "Clean-Coal" Technology Is Decades Away Scientists and engineers believe that it is technologically possible to create a process for burning coal which creates no conventional air pollution and stores all of the potential carbon emissions in the earth's underground layers. 186 In 2003, such a proposal was part of the President's State of the Union speech, 187 and the coal industry has been talking about this idea without rushing to adopt it. 188 Whether the needed carbon storage and sequestration will ever come about, however, is another question. The [*37] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released an extensive study of the potential methods of carbon capture and storage. 189 They concluded that capturing carbon dioxide before it is released as power-plant emissions is possible but expensive with current technology. 190 Once captured, existing technologies can be used to inject the gas into underground layers, such as existing or depleted petroleum reservoirs. 191 But the risk of sudden escape of the injected gas needs to be evaluated; the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can asphyxiate all oxygen-dependent organisms enveloped by the cloud of carbon dioxide. 192 In summary, coal mining and combustion adversely affects the natural environment in many ways, and the chances of seeing widespread use of technological innovations that will reduce these impacts within the next decade are negligible.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

175

AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
Air pollution is increasing droughts in China and India Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 53-54 ) CP In the course of INDOEX, the brown cloud was found to consist largely of gaseous pollutants like carbon monoxide, which came mainly from biomass burning, and aerosols, mainly from coal combustion. And it was found to be the combined product of certain characteristic weather patterns making for large-area inversions and of home and commercial heating during winter-whether that involved burning straw and sticks in the traditional grass-roofed huts of Ramanathan's ancestral home, or burning coal, oil, or gas in the skyscrapers being erected by multinational corporations in cities like Bangalore and Shanghai. The cloud, two miles thick at its winter maximum, absorbs solar radiation before it can reach the surface and reflects it back out to space, so that on average, about 10 percent less sunlight reaches the surface of the earth than otherwise would be the case. Because of that effect, the cloud locally cancels the warming impact of the greenhouse gases arising from the same biomass and fossil-fuel combustion that generates the cloud. In a narrow sense, that might be considered a net good. But the cloud also has been found to have a highly deleterious effect on rainfall patterns, essentially because it cools the waters below, reducing rates of evaporation and cloud formation." In their most recent published work, Ramanathan and his colleagues have done simulations of the brown cloud's effects from 1930 to 2000, in which they were able to replicate changes in surface solar radiation, surface and atmospheric temperatures over land and sea, and decreases in monsoon rainfall. Their work suggests that if current emissions trends continue unabated, the frequency of droughts on the subcontinent may double in the coming decades. Independent studies show that the brown cloud has been aggravating or even causing a drought that has been ravaging northwestern China for years, drastically reducing flows into the Yellow River, while shifting rainfall to the south. Similar droughts, but with a more patchwork pattern, laid waste to large swaths of India in 2003 and 2004. Ironically, by this time, the Indian government had dissuaded UNEP from providing extra funding to allow the ABC program to increase its scope to cover all of Asia. Evidently the country's officialdom, according to a long front-page report in the Wall Street Journal, did not wish to see aspersions cast on economic activities it considered vital to its progress. 11 In a way, this didn't matter. Ramanathan, by then a tenured full professor of ocean, atmospheric, and climate sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California-San Diego, was too prominent an authority to silence or even constrain. Besides being a member or fellow of just about every important scientific society, from the U.S. National Academy to the Pontifical Academy, he was well ensconced as Scripps as director of its Center for Atmospheric Sciences. Something as big and pervasive as the Asian brown cloud cannot be attributed to just one cause or blamed on just one or two bad actors, Nevertheless, at first approximation, it consists mostly of products of coal and biomass combustion in China and India. Though China's controversial big dams, like Three Gorges on the Yangtze and Xiaolangdi on the Yellow River, get a lot of attention outside China, more than four fifths of the country's electricity is produced from coal. Coal also is the preferred fuel for home heating and cooking in much of the country. This is especially true in rural areas. Public authorities have sought to encourage conversion to natural gas in the bigger cities, but even there, coal is still very widely used. The hexagonal briquettes, perforated vertically with holes so as to better mix oxygen and carbon, are sold ubiquitously by vendors on China's street corners (see photo). The energy picture in India is essentially similar, except that its economy is only about half as big and its extremes are more pronounced. Nuclear power plays a somewhat greater role, partly because the central government promoted it starting in the 1950s, for reasons connected with international prestige and a desire to lay the foundation for a weapons program. Yet India's rural population still relies almost entirely on biomass for fuel, and by and large it is coal that runs India's factories, powers its electricity generators, and drives its quaint locomotives.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

176

AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
2 million people die a year in China and India from air pollution Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 53-55) CP Environmentalists in the United States and Europe may fret about whether air quality is getting better or worse, or whether it is, getting better fast enough. 12 In China and India, the situation is unambiguous. As these countries strive to attain higher standards of living, their hunger for energy gets fiercer all the time-though their per capita consumption is still a tiny fraction of that in advanced industrial countries. And as their energy requirements escalate, so too does their coal combustion. Though they may want in principle to equip their coal generators with state-of-the-art pollution-control technology, it's almost a foregone conclusion that these two relatively poor but very ambitious countries tend to economize on such equipment. Even when they have properly outfitted plants, they often do not use it when demand for electricity is highest and there is pressure to run plants at maximum capacity. The result is a public health catastrophe. A careful and reputable scholar at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University, Keith Florig, has estimated that as many as a million people die each year in China from diseases that are closely related to air pollution If that figure is correct, about twice as many Chinese die yearly from air pollution as die in accidents of all kinds. The World Bank's estimates are lower-on the order of several hundred thousand premature deaths each year, attributed to air pollution mainly from coal and biomass combustion, and from cement production." In any case, it's generally recognized by all who care to look that China's air pollution is not just a problem but a public health emergency. Vaclav Smil, an expert on energy and the environment at the University of Manitoba, has observed in one of his many China studies that exposure levels in the country's towns "call to mind conditions in the cities of Western Europe and North America two to four generations ago." 15 Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish specialist on global trends who has styled himself "the skeptical environmentalist," does not gloss over the fact that Beijing, like Delhi and Mexico City, often suffers from particulate levels that are eight times those in Europe or the United States. He notes that of the fifteen most polluted cities in the world, thirteen are in Asia.!''
In China, indoor air pollution from coal and biomass combustion often reaches levels deemed unsafe for outdoor air pollution by authorities like the World Health Organization. So if you live in or near one of China's most heavily polluted industrial cities, you may not do yourself any good, in contrast to your counterpart in North Carolina or Ohio, by staying inside when it's too nasty outside. An especially tragic result of this indoor air pollution, which is often associated with inefficient and poorly vented cooking stoves, is that the country's women-and evidently this is uniquely true of China-die of lung cancer at rates about as high as those for men, even though they smoke much less.17 In India, the picture is just as grim. According to the world's leading authority on indoor air pollution, Kirk R. Smith of the University of California-Berkeley's School of Public Health, between 400,000 and 550,000 women and children under five die prematurely each year as a result of fumes from domestic biomass combustion. 18 Smith considers that number a pretty firm low-end estimate of the death toll from indoor air pollution because it leaves out men, many of whom smoke, counting them too would produce much greater uncertainties in the calculations, but clearly the total mortality would be much higher.

According to Smith's studies, about three quarters of Indian families rely on poorly designed, unvented stoves, which produce pollution far in excess of world standards. In the few areas like West Bengal where coal is used instead, the toxins spewed into homes may be even worse. Thus, altogether, some 750 million rural Indians are systematically poisoning themselves, and that leaves out the whole modernizing part of the economy, the urban and industrial sectors relying on coal to produce electricity and steel. When this is factored in, India's toll from air pollution must be similar to Chinas-perhaps as high as a million people a year, and certainly hundreds of thousands. (Ramanathan guesses from everything he has read that the air pollution toll for each country is in the hundreds of thousands a year, and for Asia as a whole at least 1.5 million. 19) Fossil fuel emissions kill 30,000 people a year Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 32-33 ) CP Particulate pollution comes from numerous sources, including industrial processes that rely on coal and diesel vehicles. But coal-fired power plants top the list. The Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based nonprofit advocacy group, determined in an October 2000 report that power plants outstripped all other polluters as the main emitters of sulfur dioxide, which is the biggest single source of fine particulate pollution in the United States, and were the major source of nitrogen oxides, the other main fine-particulate precursor. The task force claimed, on the basis of calculations done by independent consultants and closely based on the EPA's own models, that if power plants were required to reduce their emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 75 percent, the effect would be to save about 18,000 lives a year-roughly the same number lost annually in drunk-driving accidents. That conclusion implied that the total number of deaths attributable each year to the two pollutants is about 30,000.13

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

177

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES AIR POLLUTION
Nuclear energy substantially reduces air pollution- studies prove NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, April 08, no day found, “U.S. Needs New Nuclear Plants to Meet Energy Demand, Maintain Supply Diversity” , http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/policybriefs/usneedsnewplants/) The electricity produced by nuclear power plants displaces electricity that otherwise would be supplied by oil-, gas- or coalfired generating capacity. Hence, nuclear energy plays a vital role in our national air-quality compliance programs. In 2007, nuclear power plants prevented the emission of about 3.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 1 million tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxide—pollutants controlled by the Clean Air Act. Nuclear plants also prevented the discharge of 681 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2006. This amount equals the carbon dioxide released from nearly all U.S. passenger cars. In 2005, a Polestar Applied Technology study, commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute, concluded that the nine northeastern states cooperating on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative would be incapable of meeting their ambitious goals to cap carbon emissions without the help of the region’s 15 nuclear power plants. Without those plants, the region would be forced to generate about 50 percent of its electricity from natural gas in order to meet its carbon-cap goals. The environmental benefits of nuclear energy are gaining greater recognition. In recent years, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University and the Earth Institute at New York’s Columbia University have released studies advocating expanded use of nuclear energy to combat global climate change. Some environmentalists also advocate the expanded use of nuclear power to meet our planet’s energy needs while protecting our environment. In September 2007, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said, “A more diverse mix of voices are taking a positive second look at nuclear energy—environmentalists, scientists, the media, prominent Republicans and Democrats, and progressive think tanks. They are all coming to a similar conclusion: If we are to meet the growing electricity needs in this country and also address global climate change, nuclear energy has a crucial role to play.” British scientist James Lovelock, a leading international environmentalist, reiterated his support for nuclear energy in his 2006 book, “The Revenge of Gaia.” He wrote, “There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as truly long-term providers. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world.” Counterculture icon Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, called for a reassessment of America’s use of nuclear energy. “The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power,” Brand wrote in the May 2005 MIT Technology Review. A commitment to nuclear power causes a shift away from coal, saving thousands a year from toxic pollution and reducing GHG emissions Rhodes and Beller, 2000- *Richard, Pulitzer Prize winning author, visiting scholar at Harvard and MIT, **PHD from Purdue, research professor at UNLV, directs the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (“The Need for Nuclear Power”, February, http://www.nci.org/conf/rhodes/index.htm, REQ) Among sources of electricpower generation, coal is the worst environmental offender. (Petroleum, today’s dominant source of energy, sustains transportation, putting it in a separate category.) Recent studies by the Harvard School of Public Health indicate that pollutants from coal-burning cause about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the United States alone. Used to generate about a quarter of the world’s primary energy, coalburning releases amounts of toxic waste too immense to contain safely. Such waste is either dispersed directly into the air or is solidified and dumped. Some is even mixed into construction materials. Besides emitting noxious chemicals in the form of gases or toxic particles — sulfur and nitrogen oxides (components of acid rain and smog), arsenic, mercury, cadmium, selenium, lead, boron, chromium, copper, fluorine, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, zinc, carbon monoxide and dioxide, and other greenhouse gases — coalfired power plants are also the world’s major source of radioactive releases into the environment. Uranium and thorium, mildly radioactive elements ubiquitous in the earth’s crust, are both released when coal is burned. 45 IAEA BULLETIN, 42/2/2000 Radioactive radon gas, produced when uranium in the earth’s crust decays and normally confined underground, is released when coal is mined. A 1000- megawatt-electric (MWe) coalfired power plant releases about 100 times as much radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear plant. Worldwide
releases of uranium and thorium from coal-burning total about 37,300 tonnes (metric tons) annually, with about 7300 tonnes coming from the United States. Since uranium and thorium are potent nuclear fuels, burning coal also wastes more potential energy than it produces. The overlooked radioactive waste that is generated while burning coal emphasizes the political disadvantages under which nuclear

Current laws force nuclear utilities, unlike coal plants, to invest in expensive systems that limit the release of radioactivity. Nuclear fuel is not efficiently recycled in the United States because of proliferation fears. These factors have warped the economics of nuclear power development and created a politically difficult wastedisposal problem. If coal utilities were forced to assume similar costs, coal electricity would no longer be cheaper than nuclear.
power labors.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

178

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES AIR POLLUTION
Nuclear energy is the vital internal link to clean air- it outweighs vehicle use Fertel, 4 – Marvin S., Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer @ the Nuclear Energy Institute (Congressional testimony FDCH, march 4,
“Nuclear Power Generation”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)/AK

The value of the emissions avoided by U.S. nuclear power plants is essential in meeting clean air regulations. In 2002, U.S. nuclear power plants avoided the emission of about 3.4 million tons of sodium dioxide (SO2 ) and about 1.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx ). To put these numbers in perspective, the requirements imposed by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments reduced SO2 emissions from the electric power sector between 1990 and 2002 by 5.5 million tons per year and NOx emissions by 2.3 million tons year. 3 Thus, in a single year, nuclear power plants avoid nearly as much in emissions as was achieved over a 12-year period by other sources. The NOx emissions avoided by U.S. nuclear power plants are equivalent to eliminating NOx emissions from six out of 10 passenger cars in the United States. The carbon emissions avoided by U.S. nuclear power plants are equivalent to eliminating the carbon emissions from nine out of 10 passenger cars in the United States. Nuclear energy key to less emissions and energy increase Koetz 2k (Maureen, 7-5 2000, director of environmental policy for the Nuclear Energy Institute, speech the Committee on Science
Air Quality Protection Subcommittee on Energy and Environment U.S. House of Representatives http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2000/koetztestimony7252000extended )

Perhaps the most undervalued aspect of nuclear generation is its ability to avoid the emission of harmful pollutants while producing significant amounts of electricity. The Clean Air Act—the principal federal statute addressing air quality and man-made emissions—
sets concentration levels allowable in the ambient air for pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, ozone (and its precursor nitrogen oxide) and particulate matter. Regulations then prescribe various limitations on emissions required to meet these ambient air quality standards, and states take appropriate actions to limit overall emission levels to comply. The emission caps and permit restrictions that result represent a finite level of pollution permitted for a range of industrial activities in a defined area, including electricity production. The permissible levels of emissions have decreased over time, as restrictions have become tighter. Concurrently, the total amount of electricity needed to satisfy demand in states and regions has increased. Much of the burden for reducing concentrations of harmful air pollutants to meet Clean Air Act requirements has been focused on the electric utility industry because of the ease and cost effectiveness of controlling large, stationary sources of emissions compared with smaller, mobile sources such as

automobiles. Reducing emission levels at new and existing facilities was the focus of many of the regulations implemented under the law. Technologies such as scrubbers, bag houses and low-emission burners have become standard tools in reducing emissions from combustion-based sources of electricity.
However, reducing emissions is not the only method employed to achieve compliance with increasingly stringent Clean Air Act limitations. Avoiding the emissions in the first place while meeting increased electricity demand has also been an important compliance tool. In fact, between 1970 and 1990,

the increased use of nuclear energy eliminated more nitrogen oxide emissions than actions taken to comply with Clean Air Act restrictions. Nuclear energy, by avoiding additional emissions as electricity output grows, acts as a vital partner in Clean Air Act compliance. So at the same time the United States was responding to the oil and gas shocks of the 1970s by re-balancing the energy supply portfolio to
include nuclear energy, it was also aiding in the implementation of Clean Air Act requirements in states where the plants operated. Attainment designations, permit programs and other compliance actions under State Implementation Plans implicitly rely on the continued availability of existing nonemitting electricity. And as the United States takes steps to address the possible atmospheric impacts of carbon and other greenhouse gases, nuclear energy will be needed to bridge the gap between emissions abatement and continued energy security.

Environmental protection and energy security are among the reasons why two out of three Americans favor nuclear energy. Sixty-five percent of college graduates/registered voters and 62 percent of the general public favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity. One reason for the steady support for nuclear energy is the perception that nuclear energy is a
fuel of the future and is important for future generations. Americans tend to see solar and nuclear energy as sources of the future. In addition, there is broad support for the continued operation of existing nuclear power plants (76 percent) as well as for maintaining the option to build more nuclear power plants in the future (73 percent).

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

179

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES AIR POLLUTION
Nuclear energy helps meet demand and keeps air clean- cuts emissions and increases efficiency NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, 04-07-08, “Nuclear Energy’s Importance in Reaching Clean Air Act Goals”, http://nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/policybriefs/cleanairactgoals) Nuclear Energy Helps Meet Electricity Demand While Keeping the Air Clean Nuclear energy has played an important role by reducing air pollution while meeting increased demand for electricity. Since 1990, nuclear power generation has increased by more than 35 percent and has helped meet demand for more electricity by consumers in dozens of states. The nuclear energy industry achieved this rise in electrical output mostly by increasing the efficiency of existing plants. The additional electricity generated is the equivalent of adding 27 new nuclear power plants to our nation’s grid. However, these plants are operating at record efficiency levels and additional increases would be difficult. To achieve further significant reductions in air pollutants, the operating licenses for these plants must be renewed and new nuclear power plants must be built. Since 2000, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating licenses for nearly half of the nation’s reactors. In addition, more than a dozen consortia and companies have announced plans to seek licenses for more than 30 new reactors. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that because of increased demand for electricity, it would take 35,000 megawatts of new nuclear power by 2030 to maintain nuclear’s current 20 percent share of total generation. The United States may need even more to meet increasingly stringent clean-air requirements. Congress and other policymakers should consider the environmental benefits of nuclear energy in future clean-air legislation in view of its critical role in keeping emissions low today and in meeting new requirements. This is essential to the health of the nation’s cities and citizens. Nuclear Energy Helps Cut Emission of Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide Nuclear energy has played a key role in America’s clean-air program for decades. Like hydroelectric power and renewables, nuclear power plants are considered a clean-air energy source because they do not burn anything or emit criteria pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. Nearly one-third of total U.S. electricity—30 percent—comes from clean-air sources, and nuclear energy accounts for a large part of that. Because nuclear plants are major contributors to our nation’s electricity supply—generating nearly 20 percent—they also are major contributors to improving our air quality. Only 10 percent of clean-air electricity in the United States comes from sources other than nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants have helped states meet air-quality standards. Federal air-quality regulations limit pollution through emission “caps” and “permits,” which set a fixed amount of emissions allowed for a range of activities, including electricity production. As the economy and population grow, electricity demand increases as well. Emissions, however, are not allowed to increase. In fact, the long-term goal is to decrease the emission of criteria pollutants, not just prevent them from increasing. A state or region can more easily remain within its emission caps and still meet its electricity needs when clean-air energy sources are used as much as possible. Improved nuclear plant performance through increased efficiency has helped states reduce air pollution to a greater degree and at a lower cost than expected.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

180

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES DISEASE
Nuclear Technology is key to fight cancer and other diseases Nunn, 04- Senator of the United States, chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (Sam, “A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy”. Pg. 187) //DG Nuclear technology not only provides us with electricity, it also saves lives every day. There are breast cancer survivors because radiation kills cancer cells lurking in the body after tumors are removed. In fact, there are more than 10 million diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine procedures performed each year that save American lives.'? And the safety of medicines that cure our diseases are tested by the Food and Drug Administration by using radioactive tracers. I have consistently supported the funding for the DOE to provide a crucial cancer treatment provided by the radioactive material, bismuth-Zl J, a rare emitter of high-energy alpha particles. Its demand is expected to far outstrip our supply of this valuable cancer-fighting tool. One out of every three patients in hospitals receives either diagnostic or therapeutic treatment from nuclear medicines. On yet another health front, food irradiation makes our supply of food safer and last longer. As I pointed out in my Harvard speech in October 1997, beef recall Is, such as the one for 25 million pounds of beef from Hudson Foods due to corruption by E. coli bacteria, can be avoided if the beef is irradiated. Food irradiation can help cut into the alarming statistic that food-borne bacteria cause nine thousand deaths and one hundred thousand serious illnesses each year in the United States. There is no scientific danger stemming from food irradiation-only popular myth and scare tactics by consumer groups. Not only does irradiation kill life-threatening bacteria, it prolongs the shelf life of the food and thus we waste far less food every day.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

181

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO HYDROGEN
Nuclear energy is the best way to produce hydrogen. Cravens, 7 – Author whose decade long immersion in the entirety of the nuclear energy process for over a decade has lead her to contribute articles
and op-eds to Harper’s Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker (Gwyneth, The Power to Save the World, pg. 243)

One pound of nuclear fuel could provide hydrogen in a quantity equivalent to the energy in 250,000 gallons of gasoline without the carbon emissions, according to Idaho National Laboratory (INL). It has begun researching reactors that combine heat and chemical processes to split water into hydrogen and oxygen-an efficient, rapid way to produce large amounts of hydrogen. This method would take two times more energy value of the hydrogen produced rather than the approximately four times, more that using fossil fuels would. To take the methodology to the necessary commercial scale would be costly. But as a replacement for gasoline, reactor-bred hydrogen would be more energy-efficient than our present arangments, which involve the purchase and shipment of oil from distant, usually troubled locales as well as the investment of staggeringly huge military expenditures in some of those lands to protect oil fields and Oil the seas to protect shipping routes. To maintain a military presence in the Middle East and prosecute wars there costs taxpayers about $100 billion a year. That's roughly the cost of thirty or forty new large-scale reactors. Burning fossil fuels to make hydrogen is like driving fifty miles to a fill up your tank at a station that sells gasoline for four times what it costs per gallon at home. It makes no sense to extract hydrogen using gas or coal. Although anti-nuclear advocates say that wind power and other renewable can make all the hydrogen fuel we need, energy experts say the arithmetic does not add up. Steve Herring, a scientist at INL working on the reactor method, says that we’d have to triple the number of reactors we now have in order to meet the country’s current hydrogen needs and we’d require 4,000 new reactors to make enough hydrogen to replace all the gasoline being used today. Nuclear energy is a prerequisite to viable hydrogen production Cravens, 7 – Author whose decade long immersion in the entirety of the nuclear energy process for over a decade has lead her to contribute articles
and op-eds to Harper’s Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker. (Gwyneth, The Power to Save the World, pg. 245)

Geoffrey Ballard, inventor of the modern fuel cell, has called for the clean production of hydrogen by using nuclear power, emphasizing that it is "extremely important, unless we see some other major breakthrough that none of us has envisioned." The MIT-Harvard study The Future of Nuclear Power concluded that hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water depends on low-cost nuclear power. The availability of water itself for the project is another obstacle to the hydrogen economy. The nonprofit World Resources Institute calculates that electrolysis would require over four trillion gallons of water a year and that American water consumption would increase by 10 percent if we went to hydrogen. Nuclear power would work great with the hydrogen market Nunn, 04- Senator of the United States, chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (Sam, “A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy”. Pg. 200) //DG Twenty-first century energy production systems will need to produce more than just electricity. The economies of tomorrow will require hydrogen, fresh water, and process heat in quantities that can meet centralized or distributed demand in an environmentally acceptable manner. The benefit of
using hydrogen as a transportation fuel is significant, as over one-third of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from the transportation sector-" Switching transportation fuels will have a huge environmental benefit for our country, especially if produced by a green form of energy.

While any source of electricity can be used for electrolysis of water and hydrogen (H2) production, the trick will be to do it cleanly and economically. Furthermore, conventional electrolysis is limited in efficiency. Since hydrogen will unquestionably be the transportation fuel of choice for the long term, barring some revolutionary new technology (such as clean, low cost coal gasification), hydrogen should be produced by electricity from nuclear power. It is the only option, barring a scientific breakthrough that can possibly meet the scale of deployment required at a low cost while meeting the goals of providing energy security and protecting the global environment. Nuclear power systems meet the criteria demanded for hydrogen production, providing high temperatures at low cost as well as a reliable source of energy. Nuclear power plants typically operate for one to two years without stopping for refueling. Their large scale is also compatible with the large power needs for hydrogen production. It makes no sense whatsoever to produce hydrogen for environmentally friendly hydrogenpowered fuel cells using environmentally unfriendly fossil fuels. A 700 MWe nuclear power plant can produce sufficient hydrogen from electrolysis to power about 650,000 cars.I? Paul
Grant, a science fellow at the EPRI, has estimated that the United States would need about 84 MMT per year (or 230,000 MT of hydrogen daily) to fuel all of our automobiles. It would require about 400

However, this would eliminate the consumption of 9 million barrels of oil per day, which could be a huge boon to our energy and national security. If we were to produce this much electricity using fossil fuels, it would require hundreds of coal or natural-gas-fired power plants, which would spew tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
GWe of electric capacity to extract this much hvdrogen?

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

182

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO HYDROGEN
Nuclear Power Key to Hydrogen Dominci 05—U.S. Senator & chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
(Pete,‘Let's go to hydrogen; nuclear power a key” April 24. http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/13006.html) The rising global demand for oil continues to drive gasoline and oil prices to troubling heights, while climate change continues to raise questions about the role carbon emissions play in our weather. Partly due to these pressures, I believe we are poised to move toward a hydrogen-based economy. Right now, our society is at transportation crossroads similar to where we were a century ago. In the early 1900s, people still relied on the horse and buggy. The new-fangled automobile was too expensive, unreliable and hard to maintain. Gasoline was impossible to get in most places, and paved roads didn't exist in most areas. We are there today with hydrogen. Hydrogen cars are too costly, their performance is unreliable (particularly in humid climates) and hydrogen is virtually impossible to get. We still don't know how to store it or transport it effectively. We face precisely the same hurdles our great
grandparents faced more than a hundred years ago with the automobile. The choices we make today will determine how swiftly and successfully we overcome these hurdles and move toward the freedom and opportunity a hydrogen society offers us. Right now, we are researching several possible sources for hydrogen. Today, natural gas is the most popular choice, but we are funding research into sources

I believe high-temperature nuclear reactors offer the ideal source for hydrogen for four reasons.First, nuclear reactors don't emit carbons in the atmosphere. Natural gas, the other popular feedstock, is a fossil fuel that emits carbons when it's burned. Second, we can provide our own nuclear power, controlling supply and, hence, price. We don't have to rely on foreign nations for nuclear power like we do for oil and, increasingly, natural gas. The Energy Information
from nuclear reactors to windmills. Personally, Administration says we will rely on foreign countries for 20 percent of our natural gas by 2025. If we rely on natural gas for our hydrogen, I fear our hydrogen society may one day be as dependent on

Third, nuclear reactors have the capacity to produce hydrogen in the volumes we will need if we power our cars with hydrogen. I don't believe windmills or similar non-carbon sources have the potential to produce the hydrogen we will need.We are still 20 years away from the kind of high-temperature reactors that easily produce hydrogen, but Department of Energy research at Idaho National Laboratory is
foreign countries as our oil economy is. promising. I share President Bush's commitment to a substantial, ongoing investment in hydrogen research. My energy bill last Congress included a $2.1 billion authorization for hydrogen research over the next five years. I plan to include a similar authorization in this year's bill. Last year, I funded $134 million in hydrogen research through the Energy & Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, which I chair. This money goes to several programs that study better ways to produce, store and transport hydrogen. This year, Bush is requesting $260 million for hydrogen research -- most of which falls

auto manufacturers are working to develop better hydrogen cars. I, like most members of Congress, have had the opportunity to drive hybrid cars that are partially fueled by hydrogen. Additionally, I am working with Senator Bingaman and the
under the jurisdiction of my appropriations subcommittee. I plan to appropriate sums in line with his request. Meanwhile, Energy Committee to craft a bipartisan energy bill I hope to get through the Senate this year. This bill, like last year's bill, will include incentives to encourage the public to buy and use energy-efficient hybrid cars.It is interesting to note that in some regions of the country, rising gasoline prices have driven up demand for these cars by nearly 50 percent since last fall.I believe the hydrogen economy will offer as much freedom and opportunity to our children as the automobile age offered our grandparents. I remain committed to contributing to our hydrogen advance through my work in the U.S. Senate.

Nuclear Power will change the way the world produces hydrogen WALD 04 –reporter for NYT (MATTHEW L. “Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies” November 28, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/politics/28hydrogen.html) //DG WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - Researchers at a government nuclear laboratory and a ceramics company in Salt Lake City say they have found a way to produce pure hydrogen with far less energy than other methods, raising the possibility of using nuclear power to indirectly wean the transportation system from its dependence on oil. The development would move the country closer to the Energy Department's goal of a "hydrogen economy," in which hydrogen would be created through a variety of means, and would be consumed by devices called fuel cells, to make electricity to run cars and for other purposes. Experts cite three big roadblocks to a hydrogen economy: manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost, finding a way to ship it and store it on the vehicles that use it, and reducing the astronomical price of fuel cells. "This is a breakthrough in the first part," said J. Stephen Herring, a consulting engineer at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, which plans to announce the development on Monday with Cerametec Inc. of Salt Lake City. The developers
also said the hydrogen could be used by oil companies to stretch oil supplies even without solving the fuel cell and transportation problems. Mr. Herring said the experimental work showed the "highest-known production rate of hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis." But the
plan requires the building of a new kind of nuclear reactor, at a time when the United States is not even building conventional reactors. And the cost estimates are uncertain. The heart of the plan is an improvement on the most convenient way to make hydrogen, which is to run electric current through water, splitting the H2O molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. This process, called electrolysis, now has a drawback: if the electricity comes from coal, which is the biggest source of power in this country, then the energy value of the ingredients - the amount of energy given off when the fuel is burned - is three and a half to four times larger than the energy value of the product. Also, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions increase when the additional coal is burned. Hydrogen can also be made by mixing steam with natural gas and breaking apart both molecules, but the price of natural gas is rising rapidly. The new method involves running electricity through water that has a very high temperature. As the water molecule breaks up, a ceramic sieve separates the oxygen from the hydrogen. The resulting hydrogen has about half the energy value of the energy put into the process, the developers say. Such losses

because hydrogen for a nuclear reactor can be substituted for oil, which is imported and expensive, and because the basic fuel, uranium, is plentiful. The idea is to build a reactor that would heat the cooling medium in the nuclear core, in this case helium gas, to about 1,000 degrees Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. The existing generation of reactors, used exclusively for electric
may be acceptable, or even desirable, generation, use water for cooling and heat it to only about 300 degrees Celsius. The hot gas would be used two ways. It would spin a turbine to make electricity, which could be run through the water being separated. And it would heat that water, to 800 degrees Celsius. But if electricity demand on the power grid ran extremely high, the hydrogen production could easily be shut down for a few hours, and all of the energy could be converted to electricity, designers say. The goal is to create a reactor that could produce about 300 megawatts of electricity for the grid, enough to run about 300,000 window airconditioners, or produce about 2.5 kilos of hydrogen per second. When burned, a kilo of hydrogen has about the same energy value as a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline. But fuel cells, which work without burning, get about twice as much work out of each unit of fuel. So if used in automotive fuel cells, the reactor might replace more than 400,000 gallons of gasoline per day. The part of the plan that the laboratory and the ceramics company have tested is high-temperature electrolysis. There is only limited experience building high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, though, and no one in this country has ordered any kind of big reactor, even those of more conventional design, in 30 years, except for those whose construction was canceled before completion. Another problem is that the United States has no infrastructure for shipping large volumes of hydrogen. Currently, most hydrogen is produced at the point where it is used, mostly in oil refineries. Hydrogen is used to draw the sulfur out of crude oil, and to break up hydrocarbon molecules that are too big for use in liquid fuel, and change the carbon-hydrogen ratio to one more favorable for vehicle fuel. Mr. Herring suggested another use, however: recovering usable fuel from the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada. The reserves there may hold the largest oil deposits in the world, but extracting them and converting them into a gasoline substitute requires copious amounts of steam and hydrogen, both products of the reactor.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

183

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO HYDROGEN
1000 nuclear reactors could generate enough hydrogen to run every car in America Parker 04- PHD @ Department of Economics East Carolina University (Randall, “Thousand Nuclear Reactors Could Hydrogen Power All Cars In America” October 08, http://www.futu repundit.com/archives/002389.html) //DG Andrew Oswald, an economist at the University of Warwick, and his brother Jim, claim that to switch to hydrogen power for vehicles would require either covering half of California with with turbines or building 1,000 nuclear reactors.
Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would demand so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations. The Oswalds are making the argument that hydrogen isn't an easy solution to our energy problems. Fair enough. But could hydrogen play a role if we really thought we were better off

Or perhaps if we only had a non-fossil fuel based way to generate enough hydrogen to power our cars we could instead use the power to generate synthetic hydrocarbons or we could develop better battery technology. The more important question then is whether we could get that power from somewhere if we really wanted to. While I would oppose the construction of so many wind turbines on esthetic grounds some might disagree. I'm not sure what the cost would be of all those wind turbines but the 1,000 nuclear reactors are at least within the realm of the affordable. It is not clear what reactor size the Oswalds assumed in their calculation. But suppose they based their calculation on the new and very large Westinghouse AP1100 1,100 Megawatt nuclear reactor. The cost for a pair is estimated to be about $2.2 to $2.7 billion. But if 1,000 of them were built it seems safe to assume that there'd be considerable economies of scale. So let us suppose the reactors would cost $1 billion each. Well, that is only $1 trillion to build 1,000 of them. Put that $1 trillion in perspective. The US burns about 20 million barrels of oil per day which at $50 per barrel is $1 billion per day or 364 billion per year. Though much of that is not for cars. Still, is that $1 trillion affordable if we really needed to switch to nuclear? The United States has a $11 trillion dollar a year economy. For a cost equalling slightly more than one month's economic production we could drastically cut our use of fossil fuels. So when people say we have no choice but to use fossil fuels, well, that just isn't true.
ending our reliance on fossil fuels? Let us leave aside the fact that hydrogen has a lot of problems associated with it that its enthusiasts tend to ignore. Perhaps some day those problems will be solved.

Nuclear power is the only way to produce mass amounts of hydrogen Morris 03- Co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance (David “A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea” February 24, 2003, AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/authors/2120/) Renewable energy is a very little dog. Environmentalists envision an energy economy where hydrogen comes from water, and the energy used to accomplish this comes from wind. Big dogs like the nuclear industry also foresee a water-based hydrogen economy, but with nuclear as the power source that electrolyzes water. Nucleonics Week boasts that nuclear power "is the only way to produce hydrogen on a large scale without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions." Nuclear power is key to the transition to a hydrogen economy Rhodes and Beller 00, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member)
Petroleum is used today primarily for transportation, but the internal combustion engine has been refined to its limit. Further reductions in transportation pollution can come only from abandoning petroleum and developing nonpolluting power systems for cars and trucks. Recharging batteries for electric cars will simply transfer pollution from mobile to centralized sources unless the centralized source of

Fuel cells, which are now approaching commercialization, may be a better solution. Because fuel cells generate electricity directly from gaseous or liquid fuels, they can be refueled along the way, much as present internal combustion engines are. When operated on pure hydrogen, fuel cells produce only water as a waste product. Since hydrogen can be generated from water using heat or electricity, one can envisage a minimally polluting energy infrastructure, using hydrogen generated by nuclear power for transportation, nuclear electricity and process heat for most other applications, and natural gas and renewable systems as backups. Such a major commitment to nuclear power could not only halt but eventually even reverse the continuing buildup of carbon in the atmosphere. In the meantime, fuel cells using natural gas could significantly reduce air pollution.
electricity is nuclear.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

184

HYDROGEN GOOD IMPACTS
Hydrogen reduces oil dependence Olson, 05 (Robert. Greenhaven "Developing Hydrogen Fuel Could Help America Avoid an Energy Crisis” Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC& type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010373210&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=nys l_me_nyc72_bh&version=1.0>.) A substitute for oil. Two-thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil consumed per day in the United States is used for transportation. Hydrogen is the best alternative for replacing that oil, which could be of critical importance sooner than later if gloomy forecasts of oil availability turn out to be right. Hydrogen solves global security and energy wars Olson, 05 (Robert. Greenhaven "Developing Hydrogen Fuel Could Help America Avoid an Energy Crisis” Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC& type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010373210&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=nys l_me_nyc72_bh&version=1.0>.) Security benefits. Even if the peak and decline of global oil production is decades away, developing hydrogen's potential is important for national and global security. The turmoil in Iraq has once again focused attention on the world's growing dependence on oil from the volatile Persian Gulf region. The United States, for example, imported 54% of its petroleum supply in 2001, almost a quarter of it from the Persian Gulf. By 2020, the United States will import 70% or more of its oil, the U.S. Department of Energy projects. Between now and then, the output of smaller producers will decline and we will become increasingly dependent on a small number of nations with the largest reserves—nations that may include Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Libya. Given the vital importance of oil to the world economy, the instability of the Persian Gulf region, and hostility toward the United States among populations in the region, this projected level of import dependence should be considered an intolerable security risk. Hydrogen development can reduce that risk because hydrogen can be produced from a wide variety of domestically available resources: natural gas, biomass, wind, hydroelectric, solar, coal, and nuclear. Hydrogen solves global warming Olson, 05 (Robert. Greenhaven "Developing Hydrogen Fuel Could Help America Avoid an Energy Crisis” Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC& type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010373210&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=nys l_me_nyc72_bh&version=1.0>.) Environmental benefits. Energy reduction and use is arguably the largest single source of environmental degradation. Environmental impacts include multi-pollutant urban air emissions, regional acid rain, and global warming. By contrast, the only emission from fuel cells running on hydrogen is pure water. The greatest potential environmental benefits that hydrogen technologies can [offer is to] reduce and eventually eliminate today's massive releases of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. These emissions are the main driver of global warming.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

185

HYDROGEN TRADES OFF WITH RENEWABLES
Hydrogen prevents research and development in new renewable, wind, solar and biomass Morris 03- Co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance (David “A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea” February 24, 2003, AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/authors/2120/) Consider that it has taken more than 30 years for the renewable energy industry to capture 1 percent of the transportation fuel market (ethanol) and 2 percent of the electricity market (wind, solar, biomass). Renewables are poised to rapidly expand their presence. A hydrogen economy would be a potentially debilitating diversion. As the President's 2004 budget demonstrates, any new money for hydrogen will be taken largely from budgets for energy efficiency and renewable energy. From a federal point of view, then, the more aggressively we pursue hydrogen, the less aggressively we pursue more beneficial technologies. To be successful, a hydrogen initiative will require the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars to build an entirely new energy infrastructure (pipelines, fueling stations, automobile engines). Much of this will come from public money. Little of this expenditure will directly benefit renewables. Indeed, it is likely that renewable energy will have about the same share of the hydrogen market in 2040 as it now has of the transportation and electricity markets.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

186

NUCLEAR POWER PREVENTS OIL WARS - SHELL
Nuclear power solves oil dependence, preventing nuclear war Cohen, 90 - Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh (Bernard, The Nuclear Energy Option, http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/nuclear/chapter13.html) If one attempts to develop scenarios that might lead to a major nuclear holocaust, fights over energy resources such as Middle East oil must be at or near the top of the list. Anything that can give all of the major nations secure energy sources must therefore be viewed as a major deterrent to nuclear war. Reprocessing of power reactor fuel can provide this energy security, and therefore has an important role in averting a nuclear holocaust. That positive role of reprocessing is, to most observers, more important than any negative role it might play in causing such a war through proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

187

OIL SOLVENCY – NUCLEAR POWER DECREASES OIL CONSUMPTION
Nuclear power decreases oil consumption because of hybrid cars Zawatsky, 08 – chief executive officer of havePower, LLC. (Jay, “Inside Track: Going Nuclear on Energy”, The National Interest, 4/9, http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=17332] //DH How is nuclear power the cure to all that ails us? Here’s how: We import ten million barrels of oil every day. That costs us one billion dollars every day, adding $365 billion each year to our trade deficit. Nearly all of that imported petroleum goes into transportation fuels. Replacing all of the imported-oil horsepower with an equivalent amount of nuclear-generated power eliminates nearly 30 percent of the trade deficit. But how do you run cars on nuclear power? The answer can be found in two words: “hydrogen” and “hybrids.” If America constructed 104 new nuclear plants, we would add enough base electrical capacity to power every car and truck on the road today, because electricity can convert water into hydrogen (H2O plus electricity equals H2 plus O2) to fuel both modified internal-combustion engines and fuel-cell electric engines. And by adding plugs to existing gas-electric hybrids, owners could refuel their cars at home. Nuke power eliminates oil dependency Hickey, 6 – Professor of Law, Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, Hofstra Law School (James E, “IDEA: REVIVING THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: USING DOMESTIC ENERGY LAW TO CURE TWO PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ILLEGALITY,” 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425, Winter 2006)//markoff < Nuclear power is one of the most readily available domestic energy sources that can be used to achieve energy independence. It has a fifty-year record of safe operational experience with over one hundred power plants. n29 There are an estimated 498 million tons of uranium ore reserves in the United States n30 to fuel a revived nuclear power industry. In addition, Australia and Canada, two close U.S. allies, have most of the world's uranium reserves. Unlike fossil fuel electric power, nuclear electric power does not produce any GHGs. In 2005, over 200 million barrels of oil were used directly for electric generation. n31 This consumption can be replaced by nuclear generation, which would help to reduce U.S. foreign oil dependence. In addition, the heavy reliance on the automobile in the United States is a major source of both oil consumption and of GHG emissions. The movement to introduce electric and electric hybrid cars to the U.S. automobile market is an attempt to reduce oil use and GHG emissions. However, if electric batteries used in these cars are recharged with fossil fuel generated [*431] electricity, little is achieved to reduce GHG emissions because the source of those emissions is simply moved from the tailpipe to the smokestack. In a revived nuclear power industry, additional GHG emission reductions could be achieved by recharging electric car batteries with electricity produced from nuclear power plants.> Nuclear power can eliminate oil dependence Colvin, 4 – Joe F., president and chief executive officer of the NEI (“"Nuclear Energy — A Global Imperative for the 21st Century", Sept 8, http://www.nei.org/documents/WhitePaper_NuclearEnergyGlobalChoicefor21stCentury.pdf) Initiatives are also under way to expand the use of nuclear energy as an efficient, emission-free way to produce hydrogen to replace oil for transportation. We’ve eliminated imported oil from the electricity sector using nuclear energy. We believe we can play a similar role in the transportation sector.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

188

OIL SOLVENCY – NUCLEAR POWER DECREASES OIL CONSUMPTION
Expanding nuclear power is the only way to shift from dependence on oil Marsh, 2007 – physicist, consultant to the DOD on on strategic nuclear technology and policy and Fellow of the American Physical Society (Gerald E, “Can the Clash of Civilizations Produce Alternate Energy Sources?”, USA Today Magazine, January, Firstsearch, REQ)
These repressive governments, such as the former dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Assad family in Syria, and even the more friendly dictatorship of Pres. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, are due to failed early attempts to modernize these societies, followed by the disastrous introduction of the centralized Nazi and later Soviet modelsof governance. Traditional Islamic or Arab societies were quite

There also is little hope that the nations of the world will act in concert to prevent the rise of Iran to power and hegemony over the Gulf--or its probable development of nuclear missiles. If the U.S.'s dependency on Gulf oil is not reduced, the nation must expect to pay the price in blood in addition to dollars. Many hope that America can avoid the clash of civilizations by finding a new source of energy, one that not only sidesteps the issue of dependence on Gulf oil, but is far more environmentally benign. Perhaps the time is ripe for a heavy investment in windmills or solar power. However, these sources only are capable of providing limited amounts of electric power compared to projected demand. All such sources of energy are unlikely to comprise more than two percent of the total energy mix by 2030. There is a major government initiative underway to use hydrogen to power the country's vast transportation system. Hydrogen, though, like electricity, is not a source of energy; rather, it is a means of delivering energy from one point to another. In addition, hydrogen use has a built-in inefficiency, since the laws of physics dictate that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than is given back from its use. Yet, it remains an attractive
different. The conflict within Islam is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. transfer medium since its sole waste product when burned is water.

In time, it is quite possible that hydrogen will replace oil, but only after less expensive production and handling methods are developed. One possibility is that future nuclear reactors (development of which has been proposed as part of the 2003 governmental hydrogen initiative) will be able to operate at a temperature high enough to dissociate water directly into its component elements (hydrogen and oxygen). While
electricity from any source could be used today to produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis, the process remains inefficient. Even if economical sources of hydrogen become available, the required widespread distribution facilities do not exist and would have to be implemented; the present natural-gas infrastructure is incompatible with the gas. Also, it is impractical for vehicles to carry large quantities of hydrogen except as a liquid at cryogenic (super-low) temperatures--a very expensive and inefficient process. Certain metals and alloys potentially can store as much hydrogen per unit volume as liquid hydrogen. They are safer than liquid hydrogen and will release the gas in a controlled fashion when heated--again, however, with low efficiency at the current state of the art. What other fuel options are there for the transportation sector? A number come to mind: natural gas, already used for indoor vehicles because of its clean burning; biofuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel, and methanol; and nuclear fusion, which might be able to produce electricity cheaply enough to offset the inefficiencies of hydrogen production by electrolysis. Gas that can be stored as a liquid--propane, for instance--would be very attractive for transportation, even if the energy stored per pound is less than gasoline. However, there is not enough to replace oil. Natural gas is very attractive for small-scale electricity production and supplying electricity during peak demand periods, but it is economically unsuitable for producing bulk (base-load) electricity--again, there is not enough available. From a health perspective, natural gas is extremely valuable for heating. Until it was used for this purpose, large cities were not healthful places to live. People are not going to go back to heating their homes with coal (although it is an abundant energy source), nor will they continue to accept skyrocketing heating bills without demanding reforms. The growing use of natural gas for generating electricity already has led to tight supplies and rising prices. The substitution of biofuels in the transportation sector, while promising, has the handicap of competing with food production. Extensive development without careful planning is likely to raise the cost of food and other agricultural products. It is not clear how such planning could be completed without interfering with the market mechanisms needed for efficient production. The U.S. has some 400,-000,000 acres under cultivation. One attractive choice for biodiesel is rapeseed oil but, to produce enough biodiesel from this source to fuel the country would require some 1,400,000,000 acres. Then there is the fresh water--already in short supply--needed for this increased cultivation. Biofuels are unlikely to replace oil, at least not in the short term. Finally, there is nuclear fusion. Hydrogen has two isotopes--forms that either have one or two neutrons added to the nucleus of each hydrogen atom--deuterium and tritium. If a mixture of the two sufficiently is compressed and heated, the deuterium and tritium atoms will fuse to form atoms of helium, along with the release of a great deal of energy in the form of heat and high-activity neutrons. Yet, keep in mind that there remains only a small possibility that the international effort to build what is known as a "tokomak" could lead to a design for a fusion reactor to produce electricity. Even if successful, commercialization would be extremely difficult. Most conceptual designs are for plants producing around 10,000 megawatts--the equivalent of five large-size nuclear fission reactors of the kind we use today. Shutting down such megaplants for maintenance would lead to serious electric grid management difficulties. The tritium fuel used by a fusion reactor must be bread from lithium, with some of the neutrons produced by fusion. This tritium fuel is radioactive and presents the same handling hazards as normal hydrogen. Besides, if the plant were to have optimal efficiency, the excess neutrons left over after breeding tritium would be used to create plutonium in a blanket of uranium, which then would be furned in fast-fission reactors. Fusion power based on current designs only makes sense if integrated into an already existing network of fission-powered reactors coupled with the recycling of spent fuel. Recycling has the added advantage of eliminating the nuclear waste problem by reducing the time the real waste must be isolated to less than 500 years and enabling uranium to supply energy for thousands of years. Too bad this composite technology is unlikely to be available or competitive anytime soon. Western civilization therefore will continue to be dependent on oil--at least for transportation--in the foreseeable future, despite all the talk of electric cars powered by batteries or hydrogenfed fuel cells. THose technologies already have niche applications, but cannot yet serve general transportation needs. We can pump more oil Still, there are various courses of action that can be undertaken immediately. With environmental risks far less than in the past, the Federal government should open areas of the Gulf of Mexico to exploration and drilling. One deep-water well in the area is producing some 6,000 barrels of crude per day from a 300-mile-wide field estimated to contain up to 15,000,000,000 barrels--that represents a 50% increase in current U.S. reserves. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is another source of domestic energy with extractable reserves projected to equal as much as 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. it is oil that can be brought into production quickly using conventional technology. Incentives should be formulated to increase the secondary recovery of domestic reserves. Much oil remains in existing wells, but it has not made economic sense to recover it. With new techniques, and higher oil prices, this picture is changing. While the amount of oil from these sources is not large in terms of total U.S. consumption, it is enough to provide greater market control of prices during the time the world needs to depend on Middle Eastern oil, especially if the country works hard to increase energy efficiency. This is the role that oil from the North Sea played for many years. In this longer term, the U.S. has a number of options for liquid fuels, including enormous reserves of coal and shale oil in four western states. However, the production of liquid fuel from coal or the recovery of shale oil in an environmentally sound manner--in the vast quantities needed--will take many years. Most importantly, companies need some guarantee that, if they make the investment to bring these sources of energy to market, they will not lose it to OPEC price manipulation. Since the military would like to see a uniform fuel across its various platforms, it may be possible--through long-term contracts with minimum price guarantees--to form a partnership with industry to secure this investment.

we need to ask ourselves whether it makes sense to burn billions of barrels of oil. even if the slight warming the world is experiencing should prove to be only minimally related to the carbon dioxide produced by human activities, the burning of such vast quantities of fossil fuel is bound to have an environmental impact. The developed world cannot legislate how the developing world will use these fuels, and history has shown that commercialization likely will be at the lowest cost to the producer, with the concomitant release of vast quantities of pollutants. China is a perfect contemporary example. Yet, if the grinding poverty that most people in the developing world are living under is to end through development along the Western model--and no alternative model has been shown to be viable--the required energy has to come from somewhere. There is only one practical answer that is known today: nuclear power coupled with the long-term development of a hydrogen economy based on nuclear energy. Despite longstanding public concern, nuclear power is by far the most ecologically sound way to generate large amounts of electricity. The environmental impact of nuclear power since its inception (and this includes the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters)
It is a matter of national security that these sources of oil be developed. In the long run, however, has been far less than that from the burning of fossil fuels for an equivalent amount of energy.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

189

NUCLEAR POWER DECREASES LNG IMPORTS
Nuke power solves dependence on oil and natural gas Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 30) <Yet another reason for thinking about the nuclear option — national security — is not new. The dependence of the developed world on oil from the Middle East, an unstable region of the world, has long presented a risk to the economies of the United States and other countries that depend on imported oil, such as Japan, Germany, and France. The United States’ dependence is linked principally to fuel for the transportation sector, but many other countries rely on oil for significant power generation. Nuclear power offers one option for reducing this dependence. Within the time horizon addressed in this study, however, the national security implications of expanded nuclear power may be even more significant with respect to natural gas, which displays the same lack of geographic correlation between supply and demand that has defined the geopolitical landscape for oil. It is likely that many nations, including the United States, may import large quantities of LNG or liquids from gas, produced from stranded gas in diverse regions of the world.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

190

AT: URANIUM SUPPLY DISRUPTIONS
No risk of uranium supply disruptions von Namen, 08 - Senior Vice President, Uranium Enrichment USEC Inc. (Robert, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH However, even if domestic production of uranium expands immensely, it is unlikely that we would ever be able to supply all our needs with domestic production. Fortunately, the countries with the greatest uranium reserves, Canada and Australia, are close allies of the United States, reducing chances of supply disruptions. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy maintains an enormous inventory of uranium in various commercial and non-commercial forms. This inventory can supply limited regular demand as well as serving as a strategic reserve in case of supply disruptions. The department is working on the details of a long-term policy for handling its inventory, which would bring much needed clarity to the role of these sales in the market.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

191

AT: EXPANDING NUCLEAR POWER INCREASES URANIUM PRICES
Uranium prices won’t increase with rising demand Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 44) Moreover, there are good reasons to believe that even as demand increases the price of uranium will remain relatively low: the history of all extractive metal industries, e.g., copper, indicates that increasing demand stimulates the development of new mining technology that greatly decreases the cost of recovering additional ore. Finally, since the cost of uranium represents only a small fraction of the busbar cost of nuclear electricity, even large increases in the former — as may be required to recover the very large quantities of uranium contained at low concentrations in both terrestrial deposits and seawater — may not substantially increase the latter.14 In sum, we conclude that resource utilization is not a pressing reason for proceeding to reprocessing and breeding for many years to come.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

192

NUCLEAR POWER GOOD – DESALINATION SHELL
Only nuclear power can meet baseload energy needs that can meet energy requirements for solving poverty and desalination Domenici, 04- Senator of the United States (Pete, A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy. pg. 218219//DG I’m a strong champion of a vision wherein nuclear materials play a vital role in ensuring reliable energy supplies for the world. In my vision, nuclear energy can be one of the tools by which we help the world obtain clean sources of reliable energy that can be used to dramatically advance standards of living around the world. If we are to ameliorate some of the causes of war, proliferation, and terrorism-such as poverty-we must ensure that other countries have access to clean energy supplies to drive their engines of economic development. The seeds of unrest and terrorism will be far less fertile as the standards of living of all peoples are raised toward our own. Nuclear energy offers solutions to some of the crucial issues facing the world today. Nuclear technologies can provide power for emerging economies while protecting our environment; supply energy for the hydrogen economy while conserving fossil fuels for other uses in an environmentally friendly manner; desalinate water for the world's growing population; improve people's health through application of nuclear medicine; add to the safety of our food supply through irradiation; and improve the safety of industrial products and techniques. I strongly support the continued development of nuclear power both here and abroad. New nuclear power plants offer emission-free power sources, help maintain diversity of fuel supply, enhance energy security, meet growing electricity demand, protect consumers against the volatility in the prices of home heating oil and natural gas, and provide an economically competitive supply of energy for our growing economy. I would also argue that nuclear power has the potential to break the proliferation cycle by burning weapons-useable materials in commercial reactors, turning atoms for weapons into atoms for energy. I believe that once the new plants are built, the industry will show the public that nuclear power plants can be built economically and operated safely, consistent with the public's demands. With those new plants, the industry will be able to convince the investment community that new plant construction is a solid investment opportunity, not one to be shunned.
The industry is taking the necessary measures to be ready to make a decision on ordering a new nuclear plant when the market conditions are ripe. As the economy recovers, the need for new electricity supplies will increase both nationally and regionally, and the market will absorb the overbuilding of new gas plants in the recent past. At that point in time, utilities will make decisions whether to build new

nuclear power plants may very well be the next choice for new baseload electricity supply in the next five years. Presently they are in the process of testing the nuclear regulatory process and taking care of predecisional
coal, new gas, or new nuclear plants. The three nuclear industry consortia described in chapter 4 indicate to me that items such as site banking or design precertification’s. Without concerns over excessive regulatory risks, decisions can be made on a level playing field.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

193

NUCLEAR POWER GOOD – DESALINATION SHELL
Global energy demand will triple – radical expansion of nuclear energy is vital to desalination, solving water wars, and global poverty and disease Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//markoff Our global neighbors need much more energy to achieve the standards of living of the developed world. One-third of the six billion people on Earth today lack access to electricity. 3 Another two billion use just 1000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, which is barely enough to keep a single 100-watt light bulb lit. 4 In addition, one billion people have no sanitary water, 5 which could [*43] be provided easily and inexpensively if energy were available to operate desalination and/or purification plants. Energy is needed for development, prosperity, health, and international security. The alternative to development, which is easily sustained with ample energy, is suffering in the form of poverty, disease, and death. This suffering creates instability and the potential for widespread violence, such that national security requires developed nations to help increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts. The relationship between energy use and human well being is demonstrated by correlating the United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI) with the annual per capita use of electricity. The UN compiles the HDI for almost every nation annually. It is a composite of average education level, health and well being (average life expectancy), and per capita income or gross domestic product. One such correlation that was done a few years ago showed that electric consumption first increases human well being, then people who are well off increase their electric consumption. 6 Figure 1 illustrates this for almost every nation on Earth (the data includes more than 90 percent of the Earth's population). Note there is a threshold at about 4000 kWh per capita. Below this threshold, human development increases rapidly with increases in available electricity (there are, of course, exceptions to every rule). Above this threshold, use of electricity increases rapidly as people become more healthy, wealthy, and educated. A deeper investigation into the data underlying the HDI reveals the effects of what Dr. Eric Loewen, a delegate to the United Nations 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, now calls "energy apartheid." 7 People in the Western world, who have and use large amounts of energy, have a life expectancy of about eighty years, while those on the lower left side of this graph, undeveloped nations where most people have no access to electricity, will die decades earlier. Thus, billions of our global neighbors without sufficient electricity die decades before they should. Those who live in poverty live in the most dangerous of conditions. Without substantial increases in electricity generation, the proportion of the Earth's population without sufficient electricity will increase in the next fifty years as it grows by 50 percent to near 9 billion people. 8 Preventing global conflict will require even more addition of electricity. The product of increased population and increased per capita energy usage by people who today have access to nearly none is a great growth in global electricity usage. Estimates [*44] for future increases in energy and electricity use, even with substantial efficiency improvements and conservation efforts, range between doubling and tripling in the next fifty years. 9 Even with conservation, "energy star" appliances and homes, mandated fuel economy, massive government purchases of "renewables," and energy saving and efficiency measures, our use of electrical energy has been growing faster than total energy usage; electricity use in the United States increased 57 percent between 1980 and 2000, while total energy use increased just 27 percent. 10 Water Wars cause nuclear conflict Weiner, 90 - Prof. At Princeton (Jonathan, The Next 100 Years p. 270) If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

194

GLOBAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION INCREASING
Energy consumption is on the rise worldwide- economic growth Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony/ //VR) NEI’s policy statement on climate change begins with the statement that “reducing carbon emissions, while fostering sustainable development, will be a major global challenge of the 21st century.” The scope of that challenge was reinforced last week when the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration testified before Congress on the EIA’s 2008 Annual Energy Outlook. The EIA forecasts growth in US electricity demand of 30 percent between 2006 and 2030. In large part, because the forecast also predicts the construction and operation of 16.4 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity, CO2 emissions are predicted to increase by a smaller, yet still challenging, 16 percent from 2006 levels. The global forecast is even more challenging. In 2030, world population is expected to be 8.3 billion people, an increase of 23 percent from today’s estimated population. In addition, strong economic growth is forecast in the developing nations. To quote EIA, “total electricity demand in the non-OECD nations is expected to grow from 2004 to 2030 at an annual rate that is nearly triple the rate of growth for electricity demand in the OECD.” Because of this rapid population and economic growth, EIA forecasts global electricity demand to nearly double between 2004 and 2030 from 16.4 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2004 to 30.4 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2030. The U.S. needs 285,000 megawatts of base load capacity to meet new demand Bodman, 07 – Energy Secretary (Samuel, Prepared Remarks to the American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting, 6/25, lexis) The projections are staggering. By 2030, we estimate that global energy consumption will grow by over 50 percent, with 70 percent of that growth coming from the world's emerging economies. For electricity specifically, we estimate that U.S. demand will increase by about 50 percent by 2030, with global demand nearly doubling. To meet this demand in the U.S., we would require 285,000 megawatts of new base load capacity. By way of comparison, that represents roughly the total capacity of all the coal-burning power plants now operating in the U.S. and almost three times the capacity of the existing fleet of nuclear plants.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

195

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO DESALINATION
Nuclear power will make Desalination easier Nunn, 04- Senator of the United States, chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (Sam, “A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy”. Pg. 207) //DG Nuclear energy can also help address one of the world's most pressing needs: potable drinking water. There is a golden opportunity to use nuclear power for water desalination. We do that today onboard nuclear submarines. With the advent of new desalination systems such as reverse osmosis, the potential is there." The French CEA is studying a 300 MWe cogeneration nuclear plant for electricity and desalination. With the 300 MWe plant, 250 MWe are used for electricity production and 50 MWe for desalination, producing 200,000 cubic meters per day. This is enough water for 1 million people." Similar desalination work is in progress in Korea, Kazakhstan, and Japan. China reportedly will construct a nuclear power plant in Yantai City to desalinate 35 million gallons of water per day. India is developing a desalination plant at its PWRs at the Madras nuclear power plants in Kalpakkam.'" Millions of people globally could have access to clean, desalinated water because of nuclear technologies. Nuclear power solves hydrogen, desalination, and recycling fuel Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//markoff <Alternate applications for existing and advanced nuclear reactors include industrial processes such as hydrogen generation, desalination, and recycling used nuclear fuel and transmutation of nuclear waste. Desalination plants can provide clean water for the billion people who do not have safe water supplies. Several nations have demonstrated the use of nuclear energy for desalination [*57] including Kazakhstan, Japan, and others. 102 China will soon begin construction of a nuclear-powered desalinator project in Yantai City in east China's Shandong Province, with a designed capacity of producing approximately 35 million gallons of fresh water per day. 103 India has a desalination plant in development, which by the end of the year will be capable of producing 1.7 million gallons of fresh water per day. 104 The desalination plant is coupled to two 170 megawatt pressurized heavy water reactors at the Madras Atomic Power Station in Kalpakkam. 105 Other nations investigating or developing nuclear desalination plants include Egypt, Russia, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Algeria, Iran, South Korea, Indonesia, and Argentina. 106 Nuclear energy can also provide heat for industrial applications and heat and electricity for the production of hydrogen. These provide clean electricity production, transportation, and industrial fuels. Finally, nuclear power can be used to take care of its own one remaining problem: waste. Research for nuclear transmutation - the use of nuclear reactions to eliminate radioactive and radiotoxic isotopes - is being conducted in the United States and Europe. 107 Transmutation may one day be able to reduce the toxicity of waste bound for repositories and eliminate the eternal storage of plutonium in repositories. It could also generate 10-20 percent more nuclear power. 108>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

196

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO DESALINATION
Nuclear power is vital to desalinization Howard 07, Angelina, Nuclear Energy Institute PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18, L/n, rday And then lastly, as we think forward and as a part of that, is the development of the next-generation nuclear plants -perhaps the high-temperature gas reactors that can be used for other industrial purposes, the extraction of oil from the oil sands, for hydrogen production, for the desalinization. And I think a clean and potable water supply is going to be just as critical as energy supply and perhaps even more critical for the world as we go forward. And so nuclear energy and nuclear technologies can play a role in all of those elements. And so for the near term, we need to get on and continue to use the Generation III or Generation III+ reactors as a part of our energy fleet here in the United States. And then in the long term, we need to do the R&D that will allow us to use all these technologies in the most efficient way. Nuclear energy solves water shortages Colvin, 4 – Joe F., president and chief executive officer of the NEI (“"Nuclear Energy — A Global Imperative for the 21st Century", Sept 8, http://www.nei.org/documents/WhitePaper_NuclearEnergyGlobalChoicefor21stCentury.pdf) And I urge you not to forget that nuclear technologies offer a host of other benefits for the world’s burgeoning populations. Its use in water desalination, for example, can provide potable water in places where fresh water is scarce. Sustaining a vibrant, environmentally sound future demands that nuclear energy play a key role. No other energy source can provide so much with so little impact on our planet. Nuclear power plants are built in conjunction with desalination plants World Watch Institute, 3 (Ed Ayres, “Desalination getting serious”, Sept./Oct., 2003, Vol. 16, pg. 7, Proquest)/AK In discussions of the growing global water crisis, the option of desalination-making fresh water out of sea water-has rarely been taken seriously because the cost, at least for large-volume uses, has been prohibitive. Only in a few arid but oil-rich countries of the Middle East and North Africa has it seemed to make sense to expend the energy needed to remove salt on a large scale. Saudi Arabia has 27 desalination plants producing about 12 million cubic meters of fresh water per day and providing 70 percent of the nation's drinking water. The UAR produces about 5.5 million cubic meters, and Kuwait about 3 million. But now, even in the United States, where water is relatively inexpensive, desalination is gaining a place in the supply picture, at least in a few locations. In Tampa, Florida, a new $100-million plant-the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere-opened in May 2003 with an initial output of 25 million gallons per day. The plant is expected to produce about 10 percent of the Tampa Bay region's overall water supply by 2008. Several factors have combined to make desalination a more viable option now. Global population is continuing to rise, while the planet's natural supply of water is fixed. Per capita consumption is also continuing to rise, as less-developed countries become more industrialized and more water is used for farm irrigation, factory processing, dish-washers, and showers. Meanwhile, the share of the planet's fresh water that can be actually used to meet these demands is declining, as more ground-water becomes contaminated. And in many places, privatization of water markets has created new incentives for pursuing the potentially lucrative business of turning salt water to fresh. At the same time, new technology has brought the cost of desalination down. A new "spray-flash" technique developed at Saga University in Kyushu, Japan, makes efficient use of differences in ocean temperatures by generating vapor from warm surface water, then cooling it with deep ocean water and condensing it to make fresh water. At least one aspect of the new surge in desalination could raise a new concern for environmentalists. Many of the desalination plants are built in conjunction with power plants, and in Japan they are being built in conjunction with nuclear power plants, which require water for cooling. With both energy and water supplies becoming increasingly scarce, it isn't hard to imagine a political scenario in which the efficiencies gained by combining nuclear and desalination plants makes the need for fresh water become an argument for giving more longevity to the nuclear option.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

197

US KEY TO NUCLEAR POWER GLOBALLY
US action key to global shift to nuclear power Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 29) <Developed countries. Among the major developed countries, the United States is unique in having a projected large increase in population and a concomitant large increase in total electricity demand. If the global deployment of nuclear power is to grow substantially by midcentury, the United States almost certainly must be a major participant. Nuclear power growth is unlikely to be very large in other key developed countries, such as Japan (with an anticipated population decline) or France (with a stable population and a power sector already dominated by nuclear power).>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

198

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO SOLVE GLOBAL POVERTY
Only nuclear power can be deployed on a large enough scale to combat climate change and poverty Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//markoff <One reason for the recent optimism in the nuclear industry is an ever-increasing worldwide demand for energy. Demand for electrical energy leads [*42] that growth. Other recent trends and forces include demand for cleaner forms of energy in general and electricity in particular, as well as global pressure for sustainable development and reductions in carbon emissions, all of which support the need for increasing supplies of nuclear energy. Nuclear power is the only energy source that can be developed on a massive scale that will meet all the requirements for tremendous increases in generation. For economic and resource sustainability, new sources of energy must be clean, affordable, reliable, environmental, 2 safe and secure, and sustainable. Before describing why Western nuclear power meets these requirements, let me tell you why we need to use more clean electricity and other forms of energy, not less. Those of us who have it use energy to benefit humankind. We naturally seek to use energy to multiply our labor, increasing our productivity. In developed nations energy is used to build and light grammar schools and universities, to run hospitals and police stations, to purify water and produce medicine, to power farm machinery and mass transit, to drive sewing machines and robot assemblers, and to store and move information. A particular form of nuclear energy, nuclear radiation, is also used to sterilize mail in the nation's capital, consumer products found on grocery store shelves and elsewhere, and medical equipment used in every hospital and clinic in the nation. For the betterment of the human condition, the world needs massive additions of clean and affordable energy supplies. Development depends on energy, we use it to fight poverty and disease, to create and administer medicine, to grow and distribute food, and to provide the means for people to learn their way out of poverty, which is the most dangerous "thing" on Earth.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

199

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO SOLVE GLOBAL POVERTY
Expanding nuclear power is vital to solving global poverty and underdevelopment Domenici, 04- Senator of the United States (Pete, A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy. pg. 181//DG
The United Nations (UN) is projecting that the world's population will rise from its current level of 6 billion to 7.5 billion by 2020; the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is forecasting a population range of 8 to 12 billion by 2050. No matter what forecaster you choose to heed, it is generally conceded that the world's population will increase by 33 percent or more by 2050. There is clearly a case for the development of diverse sources of energy between now and then if the world is to survive.

We face a moral imperative to structure a diverse and environmentally sustainable system for providing energy for our nation and the rest of the world. Leaders from six of our country's finest national laboratories wrote to Energy Secretary Abraham in April 2003, eloquently stating this imperative: Energy is vital to human civilization. It underpins national security, economic prosperity, and global stability. As the world's most powerful and prosperous nation, the U.S. must lead the way in developing a diverse energy system that can In a rapidly growing world energy demand in a way that promotes peace, prosperity, and environmental quality. This diverse energy system must include a growing component of nuclear energy.' My
perspective on sustainability is derived from my many years in the U.S. Senate, wherein I have devoted much of my time to environmental and energy concerns. When my Senate tenure started in 1973, the commemoration of Earth Day was three years young. During the ensuing years, I witnessed great strides toward the improvement of our nation's environment. We are uniquely fortunate to be prosperous enough to consciously choose to promote environmental concerns and conserve resources. However, we should focus on creating ways not only to continue these improvements in our own country, but also to assist other nations to improve their ability to protect the world's environment. The earth is the home we all share. If it is accepted that people are the real wealth of nations, then human development

is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive lives in accord with their needs and interests. Human development is about expanding the choices people have to lead lives they value, and is about much more than economic growth.
While this may sound "theological," it is fact that we need energy to provide us with heat and electricity, to power our industries, our transport, and our modem way of life, and to maintain our standard of living. Energy is fundamental to meeting the human development challenges facing the world in the new millennium. Approximately 20 percent of the people in the developing countries, which make up about three-quarters of the world population, are illiterate; a billion people lack access to potable water sources; and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. Nearly 325 million children do not receive an education at school and 30,000 children per day under the age of five die from preventable causesthat is, II million children annually. According to the UN's International Labor Organization, 3 billion people-half of the world's population-live in poverty, with incomes of less than $2 per day. A quarter of the people in the developing countries earn less than $1 per day, and 60 percent live on less than $2 per day. Even in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, deprivation looms large, where more than 130 million are "income poor," 34 million are unemployed, and adult illiteracy averages 15 percent. Figure 10.1 presents the relationship between the UN's "Human Development Index" and annual per capita electricity use. It shows clearly that the quality of human life is directly related to consumption of electricity. It can be seen, for example, that the developed countries have a human development index (HDI) of greater than 0.8, whereas undeveloped Africa ranges between 0.3 and 0.5. Scientist Alan Pasternak from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory found that the HOI reached a high plateau when a nation's people consumed about 4,000 kWh of electricity per capita.? It shows how far undeveloped countries must progress in their quest for a better quality of life for their people. Notice that in India, for example, with a huge and growing population, their people do not even consume half of the benchmark 4,000 kWh of electricity needed to reach an acceptable HDI. One quarter of the world's population, about 1.6 billion people, have no access to electricity, and four out of five people who do not have electricity live in rural areas of developing countries, particularly in South Asia and subSaharan Africa. This lack of electricity exacerbates and perpetuates poverty in these countries. Lacking electricity, jobs cannot be created by industrialization of the economy. It is of interest to note that in 1999, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States generated 30 percent of the world's GDP, consumed 25 percent of the world's energy, and emitted 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide. The high electricity consumption rates in the United States, Canada, and Australia are, in addition to lifestyles, in part due to the large size of the three countries, and possibly the northern climates in the case of Canada and much of the United States.

By every human measure, the world "runs" on energy, and in the future the world will need more and more energy. Energy allows labor to be more and more productive and drives the machines that provide for the world's sustainable development. Sadly, in today's world, only one-quarter of the world's population has electricity, a resource that most people in developed countries take for granted. The alternative to an adequate and secure supply of energy is lack of development. History shows this results in people suffering the horrors of poverty, crime, disease, lack of education, and ultimately, premature death. An accompanying alternative to lack of development is chaos, violence, and anarchy that can lead to forced redistribution of wealth

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

200

NUCLEAR POWER KEY TO SOLVE GLOBAL POVERTY
Nuclear energy promotes economic stability and wealth – the key to winning the war on terrorism Kotek, 8- MANAGER OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON POLICY & ANALYSIS, Inc (John, “HEARING OF THE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES” 6/20, lexis, rday) Now, the U.S. can do this, and I believe there are powerful reasons why it should. It's easy to forget, for example, that we live in a world where more than 1.5 billion people don't have access to electricity. And without electricity, necessities like healthcare, education and jobs suffer. And as we're all too aware, terrorism most often takes root in countries where life is hard and much of the country is blanketed in darkness each night. Of the countries who the State Department says sponsor terrorism, none rank among the top 50 on the U.N.'s list of the most developed countries. So as the world's most powerful and prosperous nation, the U.S. has a unique business opportunity, a chance to solve one of our most vexing national security problems, and some would say a moral obligation to help address the energy challenges facing the developing world. Boosting global access to energy is good for our economy, good for our national security, and good for the world. If we want to win the war on terrorism, we must help boost global prosperity, and that requires access to energy. Securing affordable energy supplies for our world, while protecting our environment, will require greater use of inexpensive lowemission energy resources such as nuclear. Expanding nuclear power is key to solve global poverty and instability Rhodes and Beller 00, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member) THE WORLD needs more energy. Energy multiplies human labor, increasing productivity. It builds and lights schools, purifies water, powers farm machinery, drives sewing machines and robot assemblers, stores and moves information. World population is steadily increasing, having passed six billion in 1999. Yet one-third of that number-two billion people-lack access to electricity. Development depends on energy, and the alternative to development is suffering: poverty, disease, and death. Such conditions create instability and the potential for widespread violence. National security therefore requires developed nations to help increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts. For the sake of safety as well as security, that increased energy supply should come from diverse sources. "At a global evel," the British Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering estimate in a 1999 report on nuclear energy and climate change, "we can expect our consumption of energy at least to double in the next So years and to grow by a factor of up to five in the next loo years as the world population increases and as people seek to improve their standards of living." Even with vigorous conservation, world energy production would have to triple by 2050 to support consumption at a mere one-third of today's U.S. per capita rate. The International Energy Agency(IEA)of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)projects 65 percent growth in world energy demand by 2020, twothirds of that coming from developing countries. "Given the levels of consumption likely in the future," the Royal Society and Royal Academy caution, "it will be an immense challenge to meet the global demand for energy without unsustainable long-term damage to the environment." That damage includes surface and air pollution and global warming.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

201

AT: NUCLEAR POWER CAUSES WATER POLLUTION / THERMAL POLLUTION
Nuclear plants don’t hurt aquatic ecosystems Nuclear Energy Institute, 3 (“Powering the Future with Environmentally Sound Nuclear Energy: The Ecological Stewardship of the Nuclear Energy Industry,” 2003, http://www.nei.org/filefolder/environment-ecology_book_2003.pdf) Like all electric power plants, nuclear power plants must use water for cooling. That is why so many of them are located on bodies of water. The water that is used to make the steam, and that comes into contact with radioactive material, is kept in strictly enclosed, recirculating systems. It never mingles with the cooling water, and is never discharged. The cooling water, slightly warmed but carrying no measurable radioactivity, is discharged after use. Cooling water discharged from a plant contains no harmful pollutants, but it still must meet federal Clean Water Act requirements and state standards designed to protect water quality and aquatic life. If the water is warm enough to cause possible harm to aquatic life, it is cooled before it is returned to the river, lake or bay. It is either mixed with water in a cooling pond or pumped through a cooling tower before it is discharged. In addition, power plants operate under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, which specify standards and monitoring requirements for the plants. These permits must be renewed every five years. The NRC also reviews plant operations to be sure there are no adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic ecology. In fact, nuclear plants are excellent habitats for marine and plant life, including a number of endangered and protected species. Also the safety of the discharge canal from boat traffic has provided refuge to such endangered species as manatees and crocodiles in Florida. For example, seven years before Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant began operating on the banks of the Chesapeake Bay, scientists began studying the local marine life—blue crabs, oysters, fish and others. With more than 30 years’worth of data, scientists have determined that the Calvert Cliffs plant has no adverse effect on the local marine life, and has benefited some species.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

202

AT: NUCLEAR POWER INCREASES WATER CONSUMPTION
Water consumption is minimal- in all of the US electricity generation uses 3.3% of consumed freshwater NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, May 08, “Water Consumption at Nuclear Power Plants”, http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/factsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants) Key Facts • Power plants circulate significant volumes of water in the process of generating electricity but actually consume a small amount of water relative to other uses. • Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States, electricity generation accounts for 3.3 percent—less than half of the freshwater consumed for residential uses (6.7 percent), according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). • Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool equipment. This water quickly returns to its source and never is exposed to radioactive material. • Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of renewable energy. • Nuclear power plants have a small environmental impact and produce reliable electricity in a wide range of weather conditions. Most of the water goes back- a typical house of three uses 274 more gallons a day than a nuclear plant NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, May 08, “Water Consumption at Nuclear Power Plants” , http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/factsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants)
Defining Water Withdrawal, Consumption All power plants that generate electricity by moving steam through a turbine rely on water for cooling. Coal, natural gas and nuclear plants produce about 90 percent of all the electricity that powers America’s homes and economy. This electricity also powers water purification systems, pumping stations and wastewater treatment plants that residents, businesses and communities rely upon in society. In many respects, electricity and water are interdependent.

The amount of water actually consumed by electric power generation is very small compared with other uses. Thermoelectric power plants withdraw large volumes of water, but, depending on the design, most of the water is returned to its source. A critical distinction is the difference between water withdrawn from a lake or river by a power plant and water actually consumed by the plant. Plants that have an open-loop design withdraw water for cooling through a system of pipes that circulates it through components to cool those components and the steam. This water is withdrawn and then quickly returned to its source. This water never encounters the reactor or radioactive material.
For plants that use a cooling tower, water is withdrawn and used to cool a closed-loop plant equipment cooling system through evaporation, and the water is not returned to its source. Coal plants, some nuclear plants, natural gas plants and thermal solar plants also consume water through evaporation from cooling towers, cooling ponds and lakes or during circulation in a closed-loop cooling system. Because rainfall in some areas of the country in 2007 was 15 to 20 inches below normal, energy companies have taken steps to reduce water consumption and otherwise conserve water supply.

Energy companies have worked with state and local governments and public water system operators to manage water use during drought conditions. In the Southeast, this coordinated approach to conservation resulted in more than a 20 percent water savings in 2007. Electricity Generators Among Smallest Users Electric power generation is among the smallest users of freshwater, accounting for about 3.3 percent of U.S. freshwater consumption, according to the USGS. This is the same percentage used both by industry and to raise livestock. The largest consumption of freshwater is for irrigation (81.3 percent) and residential use (6.7 percent), the USGS said. A typical nuclear plant supplies electricity around the clock for 740,000 homes. A nuclear power plant that returns cooling water directly to the source consumes the equivalent of six to 16 gallons of water per day per household. The same plant would consume the equivalent of 20 to 26 gallons of water per day per household if it used cooling tower systems. By comparison, the average U.S. household of three people consumes about 300 gallons of water per day for indoor and outdoor uses, according to the USGS. Flexibility in siting solves water shortages Nuclear Engineering International 8, (Comment - Cooling of plants: a constraint on growth? June 18, L/n, rday) Cooling for coal-fired and nuclear plants is plainly not an issue where the availability of water is unlimited, as when the plant is sited by a large body of relatively cool water. The wet cooling problem can arise for plants sited on rivers and other locations where water availability is limited in quantity or by regulations on the temperature of returned water. But by capitalising on the great flexibility in site selection (not encumbered by fuel issues), nuclear energy planners can ensure the availability of reliable cooling as they optimise costs. Key factors in this calculation are the comparative extra expense of longer electricity transmission and of alternative and supplemental cooling technologies. The siting of coal plants, by contrast, is substantially motivated by another factor: fuel availability. Because coal-fired plants consume vast quantities, proximity to the fuel source or transport hubs is a key cost factor and a major constraint in their siting.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

203

AT: URANIUM MINING IMPACTS
Nuclear power causes no environmental damage Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff <Like coal, nuclear power is made from a mineral substance that comes from a mine, is transported to the power plant and removed from the plant when its usefulness has ended. The uranium used in nuclear power plants, however, has only a small fraction of the ecological impact of coal at any stage of its cycle, both in total effect and per unit of power produced. The nuclear industry claims that: Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment - including air, land, water, and wildlife - of any energy source, because it does not emit harmful gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to [*38] produce the same amount of electricity as other sources. 193 The evidence supports these claims, as will be shown below. 194 Moreover, the risk of a serious accident or terrorist attack on the next generation of nuclear plants will be slight. 195> Uranium use has minimal ecological impact Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff 1. The Amount of Uranium Used Is a Tiny Fraction of the Coal Used The mining of uranium admittedly can create some of the same adverse ecological impacts as the mining of coal. 196 The difference, however, is that while the coal-fired power plants in the United States used slightly over a billion tons of coal in 2005, 197 nuclear power plants used only 66 million pounds of uranium oxide. 198 Thus the scale of the impact from uranium mining is not in the same ball park as the impact of coal mining. 199 Virtually all uranium mines currently operating in the United States are underground mines or use the in situ leaching method, 200 which both have much less impact on the environment than open pit uranium mining. 201 Moreover, coal-fired power plants produce [*39] half the electricity in the United States while nuclear power plants produce one-fifth. 202 In addition, unlike coal, uranium used in power plants can be recycled and used again. 203 At the present time, the United States does not reprocess its nuclear fuel, 204 but countries such as Great Britain, France, Japan, and Russia do so on a regular basis. 205 The policy issues related to reprocessing are beyond the scope of this article, but it should be noted that the possibility of future reprocessing further reduces the slim risk that supplies of uranium will run out, 206 despite the fact that the known uranium resources would provide enough fuel to support four times the current amount of worldwide nuclear electricity generation for the next 80 years. 207 Furthermore, uranium is not the only element that can be used as nuclear fuel; India is producing nuclear fuel from thorium, of which it has ample supplies. 208

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

204

AT: NUCLEAR POWER BAD – RADIATION
Their argument is scientifically disproven- low-dosage exposure to radiation is not harmful and health effects are easily prevented Cravens, 2002 (Gwyneth, “Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks”, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_weapons_cravens.aspx, REQ) For radiation to begin to damage DNA enough to produce noticeable health effects, exposure must dramatically increase— to about 20 rem, or 20,000 millirem. Above 100 rem, or 100,000 millirem, diseases manifest. Whether low-dosage radiation below a certain threshold poses no danger and may in fact be essential to organisms is controversial (the Department of Energy began the human genome project to help determine if such a threshold exists). If exposure is not too intense or prolonged, cells can usually repair themselves. Radiation is used widely to treat and to research illnesses. The horrible—and preventable—reactor explosion at Chernobyl caused fatalities and suffering among the local population but increased the overall background radiation level by a factor of only 0.00083 worldwide. According to UNSCEAR, contamination greater than background radiation was limited to 20 square miles around the plant. The severest casualties occurred among plant workers and firemen, two of whom died from scalding. Another 134 suffered acute radiation sickness. Twenty-eight of those victims died within three months; 13 succumbed later. The rest survived. Among civilians in surrounding communities, UNSCEAR found 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer, mostly in children, and predicted more would develop. Thyroid cancer could have been avoided, however, had the entire population surrounding Chernobyl been promptly given potassium iodide, which blocks the uptake by the thyroid of radio-iodine, a radionuclide produced by reactors. Fourteen years after the accident, no other evidence of a major health effect attributable to radiation exposure had been found. The UNSCEAR report states: "There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, not even among the recovery operation workers. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population are not likely to experience serious health consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident." Nuclear power solves air pollution and avoids radiation problems Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff <Whereas coal burning creates large amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, nuclear power generation emits none. 209 The reason that nuclear power plants produce no air pollutants when generating power is that in a nuclear power plant, nothing is burned; the heat used to spin the turbines and drive the generators comes from the natural decay of the radionuclides in the fuel. 210 It is the burning of fossil fuels, and particularly coal, that causes air pollution from electric power plants. 211> Nor does a nuclear power plant pollute its surroundings with dangerous radiation, as its opponents often imply. 212 The population exposure from the normal operation of nuclear power plants is far lower than exposure from natural sources. 213 "The civilian nuclear power fuel cycle, involving mining, fuel fabrication, and reactor operation, contributes a negligible dose [of radiation] to the general public." 214 Life cycle air pollutant emissions from nuclear plants are comparable to those of the wind, solar, and hydro facilities - in other words, minimal. 215 Concern is sometimes raised about the possibility of releases of large amounts of radiation from an accident at a nuclear power plant. 216 In the four decades of commercial power plant operation [*41] in the United States, such a release has never occurred. 217 The only serious accident at a commercial nuclear reactor in the United States caused no radiation damage to people outside the plant and little environmental damage. 218>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

205

AT: NUCLEAR POWER BAD - RADIATION
Low level radioactivity from nuclear power increases health Rhodes and Beller 00, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Richard + Denis
“The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member)
The production cost of nuclear electricity generated from existing U.S. plants is already fully competitive with electricity from fossil fuels, although new nuclear power is somewhat more expensive. But this higher price tag is deceptive. Large nuclear power plants require larger capital investments than comparable coal or gas plants only because nuclear utilities are required to build and maintain costly systems to keep their radioactivity from the environment. If fossilfuel plants were similarly required to sequester the pollutants they generate, they would cost significantly more than nuclear power plants do. The European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) have determined that "for equivalent amounts of energy generation, coal and oil plants, ... owing to their large emissions and huge fuel and transport requirements, have the highest externality costs as well as equivalent lives lost. The external costs are some ten times higher than for a nuclear power plant and can be a significant fraction of generation costs." In equivalent lives lost per gigawatt generated (that is, loss of life expectancy from exposure to pollutants), coal kills 37 people annyally; oil, 32; gas, 2; nuclear, 1. Compared to nuclear power, in other words, fossils (and renewables) have enjoyed a free ride with respect to protection of the environment and public health and safety Even the estimate of one life lost to nuclear power is questionable. Such an estimate depends on whether or not, as the long-standing "linear no-threshold" theory (LNT)maintains, exposure to amounts of radiation considerably less than preexisting natural

there is no evidence that lowlevel radiation exposure increases cancer risk. In fact, there is good evidence that it does not. There is even good evidence that exposure to low doses of radioactivity improves health and lengthens life, probably by stimulating the immune system much as vaccines do (the best study, of background radon levels in hundreds of thousands of homes in more than go percent of U.S. counties, found lung cancer rates decreasing significantly with increasing radon levels among both smokers and nonsmokers). So low-level radioactivity from nuclear power generation presents at worst a negligible risk. Authorities on coal geology
levels increases the risk of cancer. Although LNT dictates elaborate and expensive confinement regimes for nuclear power operations and waste disposal, and engineering make the same argument about low-level radioactivity from coal-burning; a U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet, for example, concludes that "radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm." Yet nuclear power development has been hobbled, and nuclear waste disposal unnecessarily delayed, by limits not visited upon the coal industry.

Radiation from nuclear plants is minimal- would have to live next to one for 2,222 years to have the same radiation of an x-ray Colvin 2k (Joe F, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute, 7-18-2k, speech for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science
Subcommittee on Energy & Environment, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2000/colvintestimony7182000extended) We Live Among Radiation from Many Sources Every plant, animal and human on Earth is surrounded by radiation. Radiation is a natural part of our everyday lives. Natural background radiation exists from numerous sources—the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breath and the soil on which we walk. Americans, on average, receive 360 millirem of radiation exposure each year from their surroundings with no identifiable health risk. Natural sources of radiation account for 82 percent of the radiation to which the public is exposed every year. This includes sources, such as radon (55 percent), cosmic radiation from the sun and stars (8 percent), radiation from rocks and soil (8 percent) and radiation in food and water (11 percent). Man-made sources account for the remaining 18 percent, including medical and dental x-rays and nuclear medicine (15 percent) and consumer products, such as televisions, computers and smoke detectors (2-3 percent). The degree of background radiation varies greatly from one location to another—from 100 to 1,000 millirem—due to many natural and man-made factors. People living in high altitudes, such as Denver, receive far more ambient radiation than people living in low-lying coastal cities, like Savannah, Ga. Residents living near nuclear power plants receive an infinitesimal amount of radiation, especially when compared to naturally occurring sources of radiation. Living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant increases ones radiation exposure by a mere 0.009 millirem (less than one-thousandth of one percent of radiation exposure from all sources), according to the Environmental Protection Agency. To put this in

perspective, one would have to live near a nuclear power plant for 2,222 years to get the same amount of radiation exposure one gets from a single diagnostic medical x-ray (20 millirem). In comparison, the EPA notes that people living within 50 miles of a coal-fired power plant also receive an extremely small radiation does of 0.03 millirem from the naturally occurring radiation in coal—though it is still more than three times the radiation they would receive from living near a nuclear power plant. There is no evidence to support an increase of cancer rates with living near a nuclear facility. Cravens, 7 – A published novelist whose decade long immersion in the entirety of the nuclear energy process for over a decade has lead her to contribute articles and op-eds to Harper’s Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker. (Gwyneth, The Power to Save the World, pg. 106) For years stories have circulated about "cancer clusters" around nuclear facilities, In 1991 the National Cancer Institute reported on an epidemiological survey it had done of 107 U.S. counties in which people lived near sixty-two different facilities- commercial nuclear power plants, DOE research and weapons plants, and a fuel reprocessing plant. Some of those counties had lower rates of cancer than the control counties and others higher rates; no evidence of an increased risk of death from cancer could be linked to living near a nuclear facility.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

206

AT: NUCLEAR POWER BAD - RADIATION
Health risk is almost zero Colvin 2k (Joe F, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute, 7-18-2k, speech for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Subcommittee on Energy & Environment, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2000/colvintestimony7182000extended) Potential Health Risks of Exposure to Low Levels of Radiation Are Very Small, Possibly Zero To ensure radiation safety standards are set conservatively, national and international scientific organizations, including the NAS, NCRP, ICRP, IAEA and UNSCEAR, assume a linear relationship between radiation dose and its effect. This means that small doses are assumed to have health effects in direct proportion to the known effects of large doses—even though no health effects have been directly observed at low doses. Many scientists question the validity of the linear hypothesis because of the lack of evidence and the knowledge that many other agents that are harmful at high doses have no effect at low doses. For example, the BEIR V committee of the NAS specifically pointed out that a threshold might exist below which radiation causes no harm. Although numerous scientific studies have been conducted of populations exposed to radiation, there is no consistent evidence that humans are harmed by exposure to radiation at levels below 10,000 millirem. For example, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health in 1990 announced that a large-scale NCI study found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear facilities in the United States. This research, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, showed no increase in the incidence. This study was the largest of its kind ever conducted. Even if radiation leaks it’s natural and not harmful Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff <Radioactivity plays an important role in the natural environment of the earth. 259 Radionuclides, like the other elements, were formed primarily in the evolution and explosion of stars. 260 Nuclear fission happens naturally and spontaneously in radioactive elements contained in the earth. This naturally occurring nuclear fission is what maintains the warmth of the earth's interior, keeping the tectonic plates in motion, causing mountains to rise up, and driving a variety of other natural processes. 261 In fact ""the energy involved in almost all natural processes can be traced to nuclear reactions and transformations.' Fusion is the principal source of the sun's heat, and fission is the principal source of the earth's ..." 262 All animals, including humans, are continually exposed to natural sources of radiation. "Each second, about 15,000 particles of radiation strike each and every one of us." It comes from naturally radioactive elements in the rocks and soil, from food grown in such soil, and from the cosmic rays from space. 263 Radiation doses from the normal operation of the nuclear fuel cycle are very small compared to natural background radiation. 264 Scientists generally agree that the public's fear of low doses of radiation is far greater than their fear of much more serious risks. 265> Studies disprove radiation impacts of reactor incidents Cravens, 7 – A published novelist whose decade long immersion in the entirety of the nuclear energy process for over a decade has lead her to contribute articles and op-eds to Harper’s Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker. (Gwyneth, The Power to Save the World, pg. 97-98) The findings did not correspond with what most people had come to believe about the reactor accident. The severest casualties occurred among plant workers, two of whom died from scalding. On the first day of the accident, about 1,000 emergency workers, mostly firetighters, received the highest doses of radiation. In the first three months, before the hottest radioactive materials would have decayed, 134 people out of that group suffered acute radiation sickness and were given treatments to mitigate its effects. Within a few weeks, twenty-eight perished. Soldiers, miners, and construction workers were drafted to clean up the plant and the thirty-kilometer zone surrounding it. They also built settlements, dams, and water
filtration systems. Certified as "liquidators," this group of about 226,000 individuals received relatively low exposure-an average total-body dose of 1,000 millirem, less than they would have received from nature if they'd moved to northeastern Washington State for one year. Approximately 374,000 other liquidators, who worked outside the thirty-kilometer zone, received exposures that were considerably lower - about 100 millirem. Studies of the liquidators have failed to find any direct correlation between this increased exposure and a rise in cancer or death rates, and a recent study of radioactivity in their teeth suggests : dose they received was lower than had been estimated.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

207

AT: RADIATION DESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENT
Nature would adapt to deal with radiation leaks Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law
(Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff

<Ecologists today recognize that disturbance is a natural part of ecological processes. Ecological change caused by disturbance is not only inevitable but, within limits, necessary if ecological processes are to be maintained. This current view is
a departure from much of the earlier ecological thinking, which assumed that each part of the world had a "climax" condition that in the aggregate created a static "balance of nature." 266 University of Illinois wildlife law expert Eric Freyfogle summarizes the importance of this

change: "Ecologists now realize that the whole concept of community climax is misleading, for climaxes are always tentative and subject to being upset by a wide variety of natural forces, including fire, disease, and weather." 267
My colleague, Dan Tarlock, has chronicled how the science of "nonequilibrium" ecology emphasizes the important role that disturbance, such as wildfire, flood, or epidemic, plays in ecological processes. 268 Things our society has called "disasters" are not external to the ecological

system but a vital part of it. 269 Disturbance can be seen as an inevitable ecological process and a [*50] stabilizing factor that needs to be understood, 270 and "efforts to freeze or restore a static, pristine state" of nature are inappropriate "irrespective of whether
the motive is to conserve nature, to exploit a resource for economic gain, to sustain recreation, or to facilitate development." 271>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

208

AT: FOOD CONTAMINATION FROM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT
Government quarantines solve any threat to the food supply NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, February 08, no day found, “Science Proves Potassium Iodide Unnecessary Beyond 10 Miles of a Nuclear Power Plant”, http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/policybriefs/potassiumiodide/) Protecting the Food Chain. The food chain was not protected after the Chernobyl accident because details of the accident were not disclosed promptly. Unknowingly, many people continued to consume milk and food that was contaminated with radioactive iodine. People living in the region around Chernobyl tended to have relatively low levels of stable iodine in their thyroid glands, so they were highly susceptible to absorbing the radioactive element. Typical U.S. dietary intake of stable iodine is three to five times higher than it is in the area around Chernobyl. This difference would result in a much lower uptake of radioactive iodine in the thyroids of the population around U.S. reactors—even in the unlikely event of a release of radioactive iodine. In summary, the NAS report concluded: “[If] contaminated milk and food had been avoided, most of the resulting thyroid cancers [around Chernobyl] would almost certainly not have occurred.” This is one of the principal objectives of the 50mile EPZ around U.S. nuclear power plants. Because the food chain would be protected, KI would provide little additional value beyond the 10-mile EPZ. Within the 10-mile zone, sheltering and evacuation are the primary means for protecting the public—with consideration of KI use to provide an additional layer of protection. Conclusion U.S. nuclear power plants have sophisticated emergency preparedness plans to protect the public in the event of a reactor accident. A federal task force concluded in 1978 that a 10-mile radius around the plant is appropriate to protect the public. The primary protective measures in the 10-mile zone are evacuation and sheltering. KI may be used as a secondary measure, if a release of radioactive iodine is expected or has occurred. It can protect only the thyroid—a fact that must be made clear to those who take it so they do not fail to take other recommended protective actions. Beyond that distance, public health would not be threatened directly by a radioactive release because any material would be widely dispersed in the air mass.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

209

CALDICOTT INDICTS
Caldicott’s not objective Hörber, 8 – École Supérieure des Sciences Commerciales d’Angers, France (Thomas, Book reviews: “Nuclear power is not the answer,” International Affairs. London: May 2008. Vol. 84, Iss. 3; pg. 555) Overall, this book presents a strong argument against reliance on nuclear energy. Its fundamental shortcoming is its lack of objectivity, which may well stem from a genuine conviction that the nuclear option is simply not the right one, but which also compromises the case its author makes for the feasibility of renewable alternatives. This is particularly unfortunate, because playing the devil’s advocate for nuclear power might have added that modicum of plausibility to the argument for renewables which could help them to their breakthrough, and thus might have turned this very readable book into a truly objective and thus conclusive study. Caldicott’s analysis is based off faulty sources – NEI is comparatively better Bradish, 6 – Manager, Energy Information @ NEI Nuclear Notes http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/09/dr-caldicott-vs-nuclear-power-round.html) But according to the author, our clean-air messages are “fallacious and misleading.” If you can guess what the topic of the first chapter is, you’re probably right -- the lifecycle emissions of nuclear power. And the source of hers and every anti’s claims on this issue is none other then Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith. Last year we began to tackle this issue and have since accumulated more and more data that conflict with the two authors' conclusions. Here’s a post from earlier this month that includes five sources analyzing nuclear’s lifecycle CO2 emissions. Unlike van Leeuwen and Smith, who only compare nuclear to gas, these sources compare nuclear’s results to other fuels, and they reach roughly the same conclusions. And I should note that three of these five sources are non-nuclear. She’s not objective, doesn’t consider both sides of the story Bradish, 6 – Manager, Energy Information @ NEI Nuclear Notes (David, “Nuclear Power is Not the Answer,” NEI Nuclear Notes, September 25th, 2006, http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/09/nuclear-power-is-not-answer.html) One thing that kept popping up in my mind was that I couldn’t find one mention of a positive aspect of nuclear power. If I were undecided about nuclear power, I would want to see the pros and cons of every issue. Instead, this book offers only the cons. If Dr. Caldicott is trying to appeal to the undecideds, I’m sure many of them became much more skeptical of the anti-nuclear movement after this book. It is more of a reference for those who already are against nuclear power.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

210

MELTDOWN RISK LOW
1. No statistical basis for nuke power being dangerous – other energy is worse Lewis, 6 - University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law, J.D. candidate, former Navy engineer specializing in pure water chemistry on naval nuclear reactors (Neal H, “INTERPRETING THE ORACLE: LICENSING MODIFICATIONS, ECONOMICS, SAFETY, POLITICS, AND THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE UNITED STATES,” 16 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 27, 2006)//markoff <Regardless of these nuclear accidents, fears about nuclear power are not founded on statistical fact. Worldwide, from 1970 until 1992, the coal industry has had the largest number of deaths resulting from energy production. 166 Over 6,000 people have died [*52] from coal production-related accidents. 167 Strikingly, when the statistics for worldwide energy industries are compared on the basis of terawatts of energy produced per year, hydroelectric power is by far the most dangerous energy source. 168 That is, there is a high number of deaths associated with a relatively little-used energy source. 169 Nuclear power has only resulted directly in 31 deaths between 1970 and 1992, all of which occurred in the disaster at Chernobyl. 170 Statistically, nuclear power is one of the safest forms of power production. The most dramatic incidents involving energy production do not involve nuclear power at all. For example, at least 2,000 civilians died when the Machhu II Dam failed in India in 1979. 171 In addition, the 1984 explosion of a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage tank in Mexico resulted in over five hundred deaths, two thousand injuries, and the evacuation of over two hundred thousand people. 172 The number of people killed and the total number of lives negatively affected by nuclear power is overwhelmingly dwarfed by accidents in other areas of the energy industry. 173> 2. Nuclear power is safe – no accidents Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//markoff No caveats, no explanation, not from this engineer/scientist. It's just plain safe! All sources of electricity production result in health and safety impacts. However, at the National Press Club meeting, Energy Secretary Richardson indicated that nuclear power is safe by stating, "I'm convinced it is." 45 Every nuclear scientist and engineer should agree with that statement. Even mining, transportation, and waste from nuclear power have lower impacts because of the difference in magnitude of materials. In addition, emissions from nuclear plants are kept to near zero. 46 If you ask a theoretical scientist, nuclear energy does have a potential tremendous adverse impact. However, it has had that same potential for forty years, which is why we designed and operate nuclear plants with multiple levels of containment and safety and multiple backup systems. Even the country's most catastrophic accident, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, did not injure anyone. 47 The fact is, Western-developed and Western-operated nuclear power is the safest major source of electricity production. Haven't we heard enough cries of "nuclear wolf" from scared old men and "the sky is radioactive" from [*50] nuclear Chicken Littles? We have a world of data to prove the fallacy of these claims about the unsafe nature of nuclear installations. [SEE FIGURE IN ORIGINAL] Figure 2. Deaths resulting from electricity generation. 48 Figure 2 shows the results of an ongoing analysis of the safety impacts of energy production from several sources of energy. Of all major sources of electricity, nuclear power has produced the least impact from real accidents that have killed real people during the past 30 years, while hydroelectric has had the most severe accident impact. 49 The same is true for environmental and health impacts. 50 Of all major sources of energy, nuclear energy has the least impacts on environment and health while coal has the greatest. 51 The low death [*51] rate from nuclear power accidents in the figure includes the Chernobyl accident in the Former Soviet Union. 52

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

211

MELTDOWN RISK LOW
3. New reactor designs solve the meltdown risk CFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy”, April 25, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ) Repeat of Chernobyl-like meltdown. A dozen or so other Chernobyl-era nuclear plants with aging equipment are still operating—and expected to continue to operate for the next thirty years—within the former Soviet Union. Although their design flaws have for the most part been addressed, some experts fear human error makes a future meltdown, however remote, still a possibility. Elsewhere, Chernobyl-like meltdowns are becoming unlikely, thanks mainly to developments in technology, IAEA Deputy Director Tomihiro Taniguchi told the Associated Press. Others point to advanced technologies like pebble-bed reactors, which use graphite pebbles and gases like helium as a coolant, and are safer, cheaper, and more efficient but leave greater waste than traditional nuclear power plants. Plans for these kinds of reactors are in place in South Africa and the United States.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

212

MELTDOWN RISK LOW
Meltdown fears are media hype and scare tactics Spiers, 2008 (Elizabeth, Founder of Dead Horse Media and dealbreaker.com, June 9, “The Case for Nukes”, Fortune Magazine, firstsearch) REQ WHEN GOLDMAN SACHS analysts suggested last week that oil could hit $200 a barrel, I expected someone somewhere to express horror at the possibility. But the reaction was a tiny, resignation-filled sigh. Relentless fuel-price increases have so exhausted consumers that we don't have the energy to be outraged anymore. So we feel helpless as we watch oil sprint past the $130 mark on its way to price-prohibitive territory and wonder whether it's too late to bring back the horse and buggy. Our sense of helplessness is an illusion: There are things we can do. We got ourselves into this mess, mostly through multiple administrations of politically comfortable but shortsighted decision-making. And inasmuch as we're willing to stand a little political discomfort, we can get ourselves out. One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. It's one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coal- and natural-gas-based electricity production, and it's responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coal-based production was the largest contributor, at 48%. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. All three are replaceable. It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they're doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France's economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn't produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn't been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism. Although the ban has been reversed, the fears still linger. But irrational fear of improbable safety breaches is responsible for most opposition to nuclear power in this country. The unlikely culprit? Pop culture. We've seen The China Syndrome, and we worry that nuclear-reactor employees may be bumbling Homer Simpsons, capable of accidentally pushing the red button. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island -- the former of which killed 36 people and the latter of which killed none -- have become so outsized in the American imagination that our perception of actual risk has been completely distorted. We're willing to tolerate the health risks and environmental repercussions of other fuels to avoid the infinitesimally small and comically improbable possibility of a catastrophic accident that resembles something out of a 1979 Jane Fonda movie, the likes of which have never happened in the history of nuclear power. We also cognitively associate nuclear power with bombmaking and having seen what atomic radiation can do to people; we think of it as being exponentially worse than exposure to fire, poisonous gases, and pollution -- the likely repercussions of large-scale accidents at conventional power plants. As with anything that's exotic, potentially dangerous, and little understood, it becomes more frightening in mythology. Silhouettes of cooling towers on the horizon seem sinister because we've seen the imagery from Chernobyl -- an accident that was exacerbated because it was left burning for five days, which would never happen now. Are there downsides? Yes. Nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere, and consistent with human behavior since the beginning of time, no one wants it in his own backyard. But at some point we have to weigh the necessity of energy independence against the cost of uncomfortable fixes like nuclear energy. As oil climbs to the point where no one can afford it and we're forced to stop buying it -- what Goldman analysts euphemistically call "demand destruction," as if it were intentional -- we may find that we have no choice. We can't afford to be afraid anymore.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

213

XT 1 – SAFER THAN OTHER INDUSTRIES
Nuke power is the safest industry there is Lewis, 6 - University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law, J.D. candidate, former Navy engineer specializing in pure water chemistry on naval nuclear reactors (Neal H, “INTERPRETING THE ORACLE: LICENSING MODIFICATIONS, ECONOMICS, SAFETY, POLITICS, AND THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE UNITED STATES,” 16 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 27, 2006)//markoff <The safety of nuclear power is a big concern. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) focuses on the safety of nuclear power as a primary mission. 139 Americans, indeed, citizens of all nations, are concerned with the safety of nuclear power. 140 The Three Mile Island nuclear incident in 1979 catalyzed American sentiment and damaged the reputation of the nuclear power industry. 141 Seven years later, the Chernobyl incident in 1986 demonstrated how disastrous a nuclear accident is when it occurs. 142 These two incidents are far from the norm. 143 Testimony by John E. Kane, Senior Vice President of the NEI, before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, effectively summed up America's safety record with nuclear power. 144 He stated, "with almost 3,000 reactor-years of experience, nuclear energy's safety performance over the past [ten] years is virtually unparalleled in American industry. If we look at reactor performance [*49] and lost-time accident rates, nuclear plants are among the safest places to work in the entire industrial sector." 145>
Reactor safety is at a record high Bowman 7 –President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, 05- 24- 07, “The Changing Climate for Nuclear Energy”, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/bowmanassembly/ //VR) This is our best-kept secret. All the safety-related metrics tracked by the industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission demonstrate high levels of excellence. Unplanned shutdowns are at near-record lows. Lost-time accident rates at record-low levels. Forced outage rates ... unplanned safety system actuations ... worker radiation exposures ... events with safety implications ... all down. I have great confidence in nuclear plant safety based on those indicators. But I derive even more confidence from the process that produces those indicators, from the institutions we have created to share best practices ... to establish standards of excellence ... and to implement programs that hold us to those standards. First, our industry has the strongest government regulator of any industrial sector: a regulator who routinely conducts over 2,000 hours of inspections a year through resident inspectors assigned 24-by-7 to each plant. With a regional office and headquarters staff to oversee the resident inspectors and assist with inspections when necessary. With the power to impose fines and order shutdown.

Chernobyl can’t happen here Rhodes and Beller 00, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Richard + Denis
“The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member)

By comparison, nuclear accidents have been few and minimal. The recent, much-reported accident in Japan occurred not at a power plant but at a facility processing fuel for a research reactor. It caused no deaths or injuries to the public. As for the Chernobyl explosion, it resulted from human error in operating a fundamentally faulty reactor design that could not have been licensed in the West. It caused severe human and environmental damage locally, including 31 deaths, most from radiation exposure. Thyroid cancer, which
could have been prevented with prompt iodine prophylaxis, has increased in Ukrainian children exposed to fallout. More than 8oo cases have been diagnosed and several thousand more are projected; although the disease is treatable, three children have died. LNT-based calculations project 3,420 cancer deaths in Chernobyl-area residents and cleanup crews. The Chernobyl reactor lacked a containment structure, a fundamental safety system that is required on Western reactors. Postaccident calculations indicate that such a structure would have confined the explosion and thus the radioactivity, in which case no injuries or deaths would have occurred.

These numbers, for the worst ever nuclear power accident, are remarkably low compared to major accidents in other industries. More than 40 years of commercial nuclear power operations demonstrate that nuclear power is much safer than fossil-fuel systems in terms
of industrial accidents, environmental damage, health effects, and long-term risk.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

214

XT 3 – NEW REACTOR DESIGNS SOLVE
Nuclear technology increasing—accidents are a thing of the past Nunn, 04- Senator of the United States, chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (Sam, “A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy”. Pg. 190-1) //DG Turning now to the industry's safety record, it has over forty years of international operating experience. Its record in terms of safety-related events and radiation exposure to the public in the United States and worldwide continues to improve each year. The bottom line is that nuclear power is safer than fossil fuels from the perspective of accidents, environmental damage, and public health. New reactor designs being considered by the NRC make nuclear increasingly attractive, with standardized safety features and more inherent proliferation-resistance features. Even in terms of the wastes from all the energy options, the nuclear power industry is the only one required to dispose of all its wastes. The technology to reduce the volume and toxicity of such radioactive wastes is being developed and can further improve the safety of the nuclear option as compared to other energy options. New reactors reduce the probability of accidents Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 54) With regard to implementation of the global growth scenario during the period 2005-2055, both the historical and the PRA data show an unacceptable accident frequency. The expected number of core damage accidents during the scenario with current technology8 would be 4. We believe that the number of accidents expected during this period should be 1 or less, which would be comparable with the safety of the current world LWR fleet. A larger number poses potential significant public health risks and, as already noted, would destroy public confidence. We believe a ten-fold reduction in the likelihood of a serious reactor accident,9 i.e., a core damage frequency of 1 in 100,000 reactor- years is a desirable goal and is also possible, based on claims of advanced LWR designers, that we believe plausible. In fact, advanced LWR designers claim that their plant designs already meet this goal, with even further reduction possible. If these claims and other plant improvements and cost reductions are verified, advanced LWRs will be in a very good position to drive a large share of the global growth scenario market. For future LWR development, we recommend implementation of designs that use a combination of passive and active features in order to enhance reliability of plant safety systems. Passive systems utilize stored energy for pumping, either by means of pressurized tanks or by gravity acting on water in elevated tanks. They substitute for motor-driven pumps ultimately driven by emergency diesel generators, and can thereby remove the risk of failure of diesels to start when needed, i.e., during a station blackout. Additional gains may come with the introduction of High-Temperature Gas Reactors (HTGRs). In principle the HTGR may be superior to the LWR in its ability to retain fission products in a loss-of- coolant accident, because of fuel form and because core temperatures can be kept sufficiently low due to low power density design and high heat capacity of the core, if RD&D validates this feature. Two HTGR plants of small capacity and modular design are under development for eventual commercial application. Reactor safety has substantially increased Adams, 8 - health physicist at T. G. Adams and Associates (Theodore G. Adams, Buffalo News, “Federal loan guarantees key to nuclear plant construction”, June 8, http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/365369.html)/AK By all measures, there has been a significant improvement in nuclear safety since the 1970s. Industrial and nuclear safety records are consistently better than ever in more than four decades of operation. Unplanned automatic plant shutdowns, workplace accident rate, collective radiation exposure and other indices of plant safety continue to meet tough goals set by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. And spent fuel is being stored safely and securely at nuclear plant sites, while work proceeds on developing a permanent repository for nuclear waste in Nevada.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

215

AT: AGING REACTORS RISK ACCIDENTS
Reactors don’t degrade – no accident risk Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 182-183 ) CP During those decades, however, reactor performance began to steadily improve, without attracting too much notice from the general public. The numbers are impressive: in 1980, U.S. nuclear reactors were generating electricity only 56.3 percent of the time on average; in 2004, the reactors were running 90.5 percent of the time (see graph). During this period, the anticipated life expectancy of reactors also increased notably-an important consideration, given their very high capital costs (though perhaps not quite as important as one might suppose'). In the early years, many nuclear critics believed that the materials in the power plants might degrade faster than nuclear proponents claimed, mainly because of intense bombardment by radiation. But it turns out that most reactors are holding up better than expected. In the United States and in some of the other countries that went nuclear early on, utilities that had obtained licenses to run nuclear plants for 40 years are now applying to extend those licenses for another 20 years. In several large advanced industrial countries, nuclear energy has been supplying very large fractions of total electricity for decades, without any major mishaps. In France, which has probably the best reputation for strong nuclear management, reactors supply three quarters of the country's electricity. In Sweden and South Korea the proportion is roughly 50 percent, and in countries like Japan, Germany, and the United States it hovers around 20 to 25 percent. Even at the low end of that range, 20 percent represents a huge quantity of energy-only coal produces much more in the United States, with natural gas running about even with nuclear.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

216

AT: NATURAL DISASTERS RISK MELTDOWNS
Nuclear power plants are safe from natural disasters Fertel 8- Marvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute (2-28-08, Speech for U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clear Air and Nuclear Safety, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/ferteltestimony/ //VR) Compared to other commercial facilities, nuclear power plants start with a clear advantage in the area of security. The structures that house reactors and critical systems are built to withstand natural events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and floods. They are massive structures with thick, steel-reinforced exterior walls and internal barriers of reinforced concrete. As such, the structures provide a large measure of protection against potential attacks. In addition, the “defense-in-depth” philosophy used in nuclear facility design means that plants have redundant systems to ensure safety. Many of these redundant safety systems are separated physically so that if one area of the plant is compromised, backup systems in another part of the plant can maintain safety. This redundancy provides a capability to withstand securely and safely a variety of events, natural or man-made.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

217

AT: REGULATIONS ARE LAX
Nuclear safety standards go beyond the NRC – there’s dozens of levels of new safeguards that government regulators don’t take into account Fertel 06, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE, (Marvin, Federal News Service, HEARING
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EFFORTS TO SET SECURITY STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES, April 4, L/n, rday) As my final point, I want to emphasize that security at nuclear power plants does not end with the NRC, with what the NRC requires, nor with what plant operators can provide to protect our nation's critical infrastructure. Industrial and commercial facilities must integrate their

security with local, state and federal forces. The industry recognizes that there is a spectrum of potential threats, some less, some greater than the capabilities of our or any other private sector plant security program. Recognizing this fact, the industry has provided national leadership and is the first industrial sector to participate in the Department of Homeland Security's risk assessment and management for critical asset protection, RAMCAP, program and its comprehensive review program. Twenty-two sites have gone through RAMCAP and 20 nuclear plant sites have already completed the comprehensive reviews. We expect to complete all of them by July of 2007. These DHS programs represent areas where significant enhancements to security can be achieved for nuclear plants and for all the other sectors of the critical infrastructure. NRC plant security regulations are tightening to solve now Klein 8, Chairman, Nuclear Regulator Commission, (Dale, Federal News Service HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS; SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OVERSIGHT: SECURITY OF OUR NATION'S NUCLEAR PLANTS; February 28, L/n, rday) The NRC is also conducting a series of rule-makings to establish a clear regulatory basis for the security of new power plants. This includes specific revision to the design basis threat requirements which was published as a final rule in March of 2007. An ongoing rule-making would revise the number of security requirements applicable to both current and future nuclear power plants including their requirements for physical security, access authorization, fitness for duty and training and qualification of security officers. Finally, allow me to say a word about research and test reactors. In light of the recent report by the GAO that raised questions about adequacy of the security of these facilities. As we communicated to GAO, we believed that the report provides a misleading and incomplete picture of our actions to ensure the safe and secure operations of research and test reactors. NRC's assessment of research and test reactors security is based on well-founded technical and security practices, as well as expertise from numerous outside sources. Nuclear plants are safe - well regulated Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony/ //VR) Our nuclear power plants are also extraordinarily safe places to work. In 2006, our lost-time accident rate was 0.12 accidents per 200,000 worker hours. Statistics from other industries as compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show a comparable accident rate in the manufacturing sector to be 3.5 accidents per 200,000 worker hours and that it is even safer to work at a nuclear power plant that it is to work at a bank. The nuclear industry is also one of the most heavily regulated commercial enterprises. The NRC implements a reactor oversight process for all nuclear plants that encompasses its inspection, assessment and enforcement programs. The NRC maintains at least two resident inspectors at every US nuclear power plant. These inspectors, with support from NRC regional offices and headquarters, conduct a minimum of more than 2,000 hours of baseline inspections at each site per year. Additional direct inspection is based on plant performance.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

218

AT: MELTDOWNS – NO HEALTH IMPACT
Chernobyl proves meltdowns don’t cause lasting damage Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law
(Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff

C. "But What About Chernobyl?" In 1986, an explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine caused the release of large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. 247 Initially, the Soviet government released little information about the explosion and tried to play down its seriousness, but this secrecy caused great nervousness throughout Europe, and fed the public's fears of nuclear power all over the [*46] world. 248 Now a comprehensive analysis of the event and its aftermath has been made: In 2005,
a consortium of United Nations agencies called the Chernobyl Forum released its analysis of the long-term effects of the Chernobyl explosion. 249 The U.N. agencies' study found that the explosion caused fewer deaths than had been expected. 250 Although the Chernobyl

reactor was poorly designed and badly operated 251 and lacked the basic safety protections found outside the Soviet Union, 252 fewer than seventy deaths so far have been attributed to the explosion, mostly plant employees and firefighters who suffered acute radiation sickness. 253 The Chernobyl reactor, like many Soviet reactors, was in the open rather than in an American type of pressurizable containment structure, which would have prevented the release of radiation to the environment if a similar accident had occurred. 254 [*47] Perhaps the most surprising finding of the U.N. agencies' study was that "the ecosystems around the Chernobyl site are now flourishing. The [Chernobyl exclusion zone] has become a wildlife sanctuary, and it looks like the nature park it has become." 255 Jeffrey McNeely, the chief scientist of the World Conservation Union, has made similar observations: Chernobyl has now become the world's first radioactive nature reserve... . 200 wolves are now living in the nature reserve, which has also begun to support populations of reindeer, lynx and European bison, species that previously were not found in the region. While the impact on humans was strongly negative, the wildlife is adapting and even thriving on the site of one of the 20th century's worst environmental disasters. 256
Mary Mycio, the Kiev correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, has written a fascinating book based on her many visits to the exclusion zone and interviews with people in the area. 257 She notes that the fear that radiation would produce permanent deformities in animal species has not been borne out after twenty years; the population and diversity of animals in even some of the most heavily radiated parts of the exclusion zone is similar to comparable places that are less radioactive. 258

Radiation impacts are exaggerated – Chernobyl disproves Cravens, 7 – A published novelist whose decade long immersion in the entirety of the nuclear energy process for over a decade has lead her to contribute articles and op-eds to Harper’s Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker. (Gwyneth, The Power to Save the World, pg. 99-100) UNSCEAR also found that "the accident had a large negative psychological impact on thousands of people." Fear, born of ignorance of real risk coupled with anxiety about imagined harm, fostered epidemics of psychosomatic illnesses and elective abortions-perhaps as many as 200,000-because of dread of genetic mutants. Long-standing anxiety about government directives was exacerbated by the actions of Soviet officials during the first two years after the incident. Better management of the emergency, including adequate dissemination of facts, probably could have prevented much of this psychic damage, which also plagues war veterans and people displaced by natural disasters like major hurricanes and floods. "Most of the world community agreed that the conclusions were what had been expected," Mettler said. "The Russians were in agreement. But at first, Ukraine and Belarus went nuts and claimed that all sorts of other things were happening. When we presented the findings in Vienna in 1992, the Ukrainians said that rates of TB, measles, and other diseases had gone up. I asked then and there for their data, and added, 'And, oh, by the way, include your data from the years preceding Chernobyl.' I got some data and had it translated and showed it to the audience. Certain diseases were down, others were up. So that data didn't support the Ukrainians' blanket statements. There was a great deal of discussion of thyroid cancer and leukemia. The claim that cancer rates in general went up didn't cut it for us, for a number of reasons. As I said, those separate groups, one in Hiroshima and one London, independently analyzed the data and made the conclusions. The conclusions have been borne out and continue to be borne out. There’s been no change.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

219

AT: MELTDOWNS – NO HEALTH IMPACT
Studies that show a wide increase in cancer after nuclear exposure are fundamentally flawed. Cravens, 7 – A published novelist whose decade long immersion in the entirety of the nuclear energy process for over a decade has lead her to contribute articles and op-eds to Harper’s Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker. *Mettler operated in the Atomic Energy Commission of New York, has a master’s degree from Harvard University after becoming a radiologist and has taken several courses in nuclear engineering. (Gwyneth, The Power to Save the World, pg. 101-102) According to a paper plucked from a high shelf UNSCEAR's Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation and found a graph of cancer rates in the area in the six years prior to the accident. "You see that the rate of all cancers was steadily going up and that the slope stayed the same after Chernobyl in 1986. It hasn't changed. Except for leukemia and thyroid cancers, which appear relatively quickly, most cancers from radiation occur twenty years after the exposure. Officials from Belarus and Ukraine were saying that Chernobvl caused the increase. We replied, 'Yes, cancer rates were going up, especially in cities. Your reporting system is no good.' In villages, there are no autopsies and there's less medical care than in cities. Cancer rates are higher in Poland than around Chernobyl. Is it just more cornmon there? Or is there some protective effect in the Ukraine? Worldwide, about thirty percent of the population gets cancer. The reported rates in the Ukraine are fifteen percent. But how do you know what people have died of? Suppose a man dies of lung cancer. The Ukrainian villager doing the report could write down 'pneumonia' for lung cancer.”According to Mettler, statistical predictions of leukemia based on doses did not pan out. Even with thyroid cancer, there was no clear, documented evidence of an increase during the time the IAEA study took place. “And the Soviets,” he added, “used to include thyroid cancer data in the category of “all other” and that category included prostate cancer, which isn’t caused by radiation. But we couldn’t exclude twenty-four thyroid cancers, mainly in children . Now, when you screen children more for thyroid cancer in a normal population, you’ll find more. But it’s clear that the magnitude of the number of cases – about two thousand – was not simply due to screening. We got a lot of crap for projecting thyroid cancers and leukemia when, as some critics said, “You didn’t find any increase!’ So we got shot at from both sides. I figured we must be doing something right.”

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

220

AT: NEW DESIGNS NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS
Existing reactor designs will be modified to fit the new NRC guidelines Power Engineering 7 (NRC will make hard "targets" harder; Startup; United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to improve designs of nuclear power plants to thwart terrorist activities; April 1, L/n, rday) While company spokesman Scott Shaw said the company could not guarantee that the AP1000 would be impervious to such an attack, he expressed confidence in the design's durability. The reactor is housed inside a containment vessel with steel walls 1 3/4 inches thick surrounded by a cylindrical, steel-reinforced concrete shield building with three-foot-thick concrete walls. The building is designed as a seismiccategory 1 structure, capable of withstanding the impact of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. "However, when the NRC gives new guidance about the design of nuclear reactors to withstand an impact from a large aircraft, Westinghouse will evaluate the AP1000 design against the new guidelines and, if necessary, modify the existing AP1000 design to comply with the new federal guidelines," Shaw said.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

221

AT: TERRORISM IMPACTS
1. There is NO RISK of a meltdown or terrorist attack on a plant- multiple safeguards check Cravens, 2002 (Gwyneth, “Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks”, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_weapons_cravens.aspx, REQ) Could any of the 103 nuclear reactors in the United States be turned into a bomb? No. The laws of physics preclude it. In a nuclear weapon, radioactive atoms are packed densely enough within a small chamber to initiate an instantaneous explosive chain reaction. A reactor is far too large to produce the density and heat needed to create a nuclear explosion. Could terrorists turn any of our reactors into a Chernobyl? Again, extremely unlikely. American reactors have a completely different design. All reactors require a medium around the fuel rods to slow down the neutrons given off by the controlled chain reaction that ultimately produces heat to make steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. In the United States the medium is water, which also acts as a coolant. In the Chernobyl reactor it was graphite. Water is not combustible, but graphite—pure carbon—is combustible at high temperatures. Abysmal management, reckless errors, violation of basic safety procedures, and poor engineering at Chernobyl caused the core to melt down through several floors. A subsequent explosion involving steam and hydrogen blew off the roof (there was no containment structure) and ignited the graphite. Most of the radioactive core spewed out. A similar meltdown at the Three Mile Island power plant in 1979—one caused by equipment malfunctions and human failure to grasp what was happening and respond appropriately—involved no large explosion, no breach. The reactor automatically shut down. Loss of coolant water caused half the core to melt, but its debris was held by the containment vessel. Contaminated water flooded the reactor building, but no one was seriously injured. A minute quantity of
radioactive gases (insignificant, especially in comparison to the radionuclides routinely discharged from coal-fired plants in the region) escaped through a charcoal-filtered stack and was dissipated by wind over the Atlantic, never reaching the ground. The people and land around the plant were unharmed.

In response, the NRC initiated more safeguards at all plants, including improvements in equipment monitoring, redundancy (with two or more independent systems for every safety-related function), personnel training, and emergency responsiveness. The commission also started a safety rating
system that can affect the price of plant owners' stock. The new science of probabilistic risk assessment, developed to ensure the safety of the world's first permanent underground nuclear waste-disposal facility, has led to new risk-informed regulation. In over two decades no meltdowns have occurred and minor mishaps at all nuclear plants have decreased sharply. Cuts by Congress in the NRC's annual research budget over the past 20 years—from $200 million to $43 million—may have considerably compromised ongoing reforms and effectiveness, however.

U.S. nuclear power plants, which are subject to both federal and international regulation, are designed to withstand extreme events and are among the sturdiest and most impenetrable structures on the planet—second only to nuclear bunkers. Three nesting containment barriers shield the fuel rods. First, metal cladding around the rods contains fission products during the life of the fuel. Then a large steel vessel with walls about five inches thick surrounds the reactor and its coolant. And enclosing that is a large building made of a shell of steel covered with reinforced concrete four to six feet thick. After the truck-bomb explosion at the World Trade Center in 1993 and the crash of a station
wagon driven by a mentally ill intruder into the turbine building (not the reactor building) at Three Mile Island, plants multiplied vehicle and other barriers and stepped up detection systems, access controls, and alarm stations. Plants also enhanced response strategies tested by mock raids by commandos familiar with plant layouts. These staged intrusions have occasionally been successful, leading to further corrections. On September 11, all nuclear facilities were put on highest alert indefinitely. Still more protective barriers are being erected. The NRC, after completing a thorough review of all levels of plant security, has just mandated additional personnel screening and access controls as well as closer cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies. Local governments have posted state troopers or the National Guard around commercial plants, and military surveillance continues.

What if terrorists gained access to a reactor? An attempt to melt down the core would activate multiple safeguards, including
alternate means of providing coolant as well as withdrawal of the fuel rods from the chain reaction process.

And if a jetliner slammed into a reactor? Given what is now publicly known, one could predict that earthquake sensors, required in all reactors, would trigger automatic shutdown to protect the core. Scientists at the national labs are calculating whether containment structures could withstand a jumbo jet, specifically the impact of its engines, which are heavier than the fuselage, and any subsequent fire. Even the worst case—a reactor vessel breach—would involve no nuclear explosion, only a limited dispersal of radioactive materials. The extent of the plume would depend on many variables, especially the weather. As a precaution, no-fly zones have been imposed over all nuclear power plants. Military reactors used for weapons production have all been closed for a decade and are spaced miles apart on isolated reservations hundreds of miles square. Any release of radioactivity would remain on site. 2. Construction and regulations prevent all scenarios for terrorist attacks Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law
(Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff

<Terrorists could not acquire bomb-making material from spent fuel in a nuclear power plant, because the material would be too radioactive for them to handle. 233 Nor would it be feasible to bomb an American reactor in a way that would release deadly radiation. 234 All reactors in American power plants are contained in structures made of heavy steel and concrete three to four feet thick, 235 and the reactor pressure vessel itself is further protected by steel walls eight inches thick. 236 The robust construction of nuclear power plants would provide substantially more protection against assault with airplanes or other types of weapons than exists at "other critical infrastructure such as chemical plants, refineries, and fossil-fuel-fired electrical generating stations." 237 Attacking a plant by crashing an airplane into it would be difficult because the reactor is a small, low structure often surrounded by large but harmless cooling towers. 238 Even an attempt to hit a reactor with a large airliner would be unlikely to succeed in releasing radiation, with success depending on the attacker's "unpredictable "good fortune.'" 239 Legitimate concerns have been raised that some (but not all) existing nuclear power plants have spent fuel storage pools in locations that might be susceptible to a terrorist attack that could drain the water from the pool, which might cause a release of radiation if the water was not quickly replaced. 240 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued new regulations to protect against this possibility, 241 and designers of
newly-constructed [*45] power plants are now aware of this potential problem and will avoid it. 242>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

222

AT: TERRORISM IMPACTS
3. A nuclear reactor is the hardest target- terrorists will look elsewhere Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 189-190) CP The Indian Point reactor, because of its age and its proximity to New York City, has long been the subject of acute concerns about nuclear terrorism, in the sense of attacking a plant and detonating it in order to make it, in effect, a dirty bomb-a bomb designed to spread toxic radiation over a large area, but not actually to blow up like an atomic bomb. Naturally those concerns became all the more severe after 9/11, which raised the specter of a gang flying an airplane directly into a reactor containment building or of seizing adjacent territory and shooting shoulder-mounted missiles into the core. Visit a plant like Indian Point." or any similar nuclear power plant, however, and you will notice that a reactor is a hard target compared to many others a terrorist group could choose from. Even without all the special added security measures adopted since 9/11, the core is by nature highly protected by its pressure vessel and by the containment building, which is designed to prevent radiation from leading into the environment even in the case of a severe accident. The reactor vessel also is quite small-much harder to hit than a large, flimsy building like the World Trade Center towers, not to speak of sprawling petrochemical plants, trains and trucks carrying toxic or explosive materials, or transportation hubs. The worst plausible case seems to be that a terrorist group could sabotage water piping or controls entering the reactor vessel from the outside, inducing a meltdown. But the group would have

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

223

XT 1- SECURITY MEASURES PREVENT TERRORISM
Massive security investments have made nuclear power plants the safest places in the U.S. – confirmed by the GAO Fertel 06, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE, (Marvin, Federal News Service, HEARING
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EFFORTS TO SET SECURITY STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES, April 4, L/n, rday) Let me turn now to security. When I was here just over 18 months ago, I testified that nuclear power plants are the most secure commercially owned facilities in the country. That remains true today because we have continued to work to meet the NRC requirements, satisfy our own performance expectations, and most importantly, through DHS, enhance integration with federal, state and local authorities for providing security to our nation's critical infrastructure.

Specifically, over the past four and-a-half years, we have improved our security in several steps. The first step was what the commission
talked about that occurred on September 11. And just four months later, in February 2002, the NRC again increased security requirements in several areas.

The industry, complying with the NRC orders, instituted additional measures, such as extending and fortifying security perimeters, increasing patrols within security zones, installing new barriers to protecting its vehicle bombs, installing additional high tech surveillance equipment and strengthening security coordination with local, state and federal agencies. Following the completion of its top to bottom review and its study of the potential threats to nuclear power plants, the NRC issued three orders in April 2003. One order revised the DBT, further increasing plant security requirements. In addition to modifying the DBT, the NRC also issued orders that enhanced training and qualifications for security officers and improved access control and established work hour limits. We estimate the costs across our 64 sites of this additional security since 2001 is now over $1.2 billion. Since the September 2004 hearing before this committee, we have implemented NRC's approved security plans at each site. We've completed the physical improvements at each site, as required by the DBT defined by the NRC. We've conducted 27 NRC observed force-on-force drills, and we can play with those numbers if they're still confusing, and also hundreds of such drills as part of the industry's programmatic security training program. And we've been a national leader, working with the Department of Homeland Security by completing 22 risk assessments and 20 comprehensive reviews for nuclear power plants. Given all we have done and although the GAO identified some areas for improvement, we're very pleased that GAO also agrees with what the industry has been saying, that nuclear plants have made substantial security improvements after September 11. Nuclear plants are safe from terrorist attacks Fertel 8- Marvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute (2-28-08,
on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clear Air and Nuclear Safety, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/ferteltestimony/ //VR) Speech for U.S. Senate Committee

Unique among the nations critical infrastructure, nuclear plants have, even prior to 9/11 had to meet security requirements required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Following the September 2001 attacks, the NRC has increased nuclear facility security requirements numerous times by issuing orders and other formal requirements, and is now in the process of codifying additional requirements in rulemakings. Since 9/11 the industry has invested more than $2 billion in additional security at nuclear plant sites and has increased the number of specially trained, well-armed security forces by more than 60 percent. These officers are better trained, better equipped and armed, better led and better supported with stronger protective systems and barriers, and better tested and evaluated by
the industry and independently by the NRC.

Nuclear power plants are immune to sabotage Fertel 8- Marvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute (2-28-08,
on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clear Air and Nuclear Safety, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/ferteltestimony/ //VR)

Speech for U.S. Senate Committee

Nuclear power plant security is designed with concentric perimeters with increased security at each level. Physical barriers protect against unauthorized personnel and vehicle intrusion, including truck bombs. These security zones are protected by trained and armed professionals, who use hardened defensive fighting positions located throughout the plant, if needed. In the innermost security zone, access to the vital areas of our plants is strictly controlled using biometrics and other technologies. Critical areas are constantly surveilled and monitored using state-of-the-art detection equipment. Strict access control is maintained using biometrics and other technologies. Industry employees with unescorted access are subject to a systematic fitness-for-duty program and a continual behavioral observation program and must undergo comprehensive background checks.
The difficult-to-penetrate structures are just the first level of a multistage, integrated security strategy.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

224

XT 1 – SECURITY MEASURES PREVENT TERRORISM
Physical barriers, security measures, and communication ensure plants aren’t vulnerable to terrorists CFR, 2006 (Eben Kaplan, “Anti-terror Measures at U.S. Nuclear Plants”, April 14, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10450/antiterror_measures_at_us_nuclear_plants.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2Fpublicati on_list%3Fid%3D452, REQ) What measures are in place to protect U.S. nuclear facilities? Even prior to the 9/11 attacks, nuclear plants had extensive security measures in place. Each plant has a trained security force and a series of physical barriers. Security personnel undergo thorough background checks and submit to lengthy personal searches when entering and exiting the plant. The physical barriers consist of an "owner-controlled" buffer zone of land around the facility, a restricted-access "protected area," and a further restricted "vital area." Double fences, barbed wire, and surveillance systems are common. The containment vessels for nuclear reactors are among the world's sturdiest man-made structures. The vessel at the Indian Point plant, for instance, is made of three-and-a-half-foot thick concrete reinforced by three-inch thick steel bars. After 9/11, the NRC began a top-to-bottom review of its security requirements, and in 2003, issued new orders to tighten security. Some $1.25 billion was spent on these measures, which included adding security barriers and detection equipment, creating more rigid access control, and increasing the number of security personnel by 60 percent. The NRC also revised the DBT to include what it claims is "the largest reasonable threat against which a regulated private guard force should be expected to defend." While details are classified, experts say this covers an assault by multiple armed attackers. How vulnerable are nuclear plants to an attack from an airplane? A 2002 report by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association suggests a nuclear reactor would remain intact if crashed into by an average private aircraft. Even a much larger commercial jet, such as a Boeing 757, would not cause critical damage to a reactor, the report concluded. NRC studies have reached similar conclusions. Peter D. Zimmerman, a professor at King's College, London who was among the authors of a National Academies report on spent fuel storage, says, "I think there are some reactors where it is possible to fly an airplane into the spent fuel pool and crack it open." He says, however, that the consequences of such an attack are unclear. Nuclear facilities are not required to have plans in place to repel such an attack. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration, the agency charged with protecting the nation's transportation system, is responsible for preventing a 9/11-style airborne attack. Nuclear plant operators are in close contact with the national air defense command, and, in the event of such an attack, the two groups would cooperate to head off the assault or mitigate the impact. Safeguards limit the damage and prevent terrorism EPRI 3 (The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conducts research and development on technology, operations and the environment for the global electric power sector, February 03, no day found, “Risk Characterization of the Potential Consequences of an Armed Terrorist Ground Attack on a U.S. Nuclear Power Plant (EPRI Public Health Analysis)”, http://www.nei.org/filefolder/eprinuclearplantconsequencesstudy20032_1.pdf) *PRA= probability risk assesment The main conclusions from this study are as follows: 1. The risk to the public resulting from a core damage accident caused by an armed terrorist ground attack on a U.S. commercial nuclear power plant is small. It is comparable to, or less than the risk from other types of accidents postulated for U.S. commercial nuclear plants. 2. Given an attack, the likelihood of core damage (such as the 1979 Three Mile Island 2 Event) is unlikely because of nuclear plant owner capabilities to detect insider activities, physically deter the attackers, and mitigate accident propagation with operator actions and safety systems. The likelihood of severe release is even less because of the inherent strength of containment and radioactivity removal capabilities of containment and systems design. 3. Should core damage and radiological release occur, the public health consequences are not catastrophic. The mean number of prompt fatalities is estimated to be about 2, and the mean number of latent cancer fatalities is estimated to be less than 100, which is indistinguishable compared to cancer fatality risks without the event. For more severe releases (i.e., those in which at least one prompt fatality occurs), the mean number of prompt fatalities is estimated to be about 20 and the mean number of latent cancers is about 600. 4. Because of the very strong nature of their security systems and safety systems, and the low risk of health consequences, commercial nuclear plants are considered an unattractive target for terrorist groups intent on causing loss of life. 5. This study confirms that capability of Federal and other government agencies to detect, interdict, or otherwise disrupt an armed terrorist attack force, which is preparing to attack a commercial nuclear plant, is important to reducing the likelihood of a successful attack.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

225

XT 3 – TERRORISTS WON’T TARGET
Terrorists threat overblown- they could not blow up or steal nuclear waste successfully Cravens, 2002 (Gwyneth, “Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks”, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_weapons_cravens.aspx, REQ) Would a jet plane crashing into a waste pool cause a nuclear explosion? Given information now available, one can state that if the small target a pool presents were actually hit and coolant water were drained, spent fuel bundles would melt, react with the concrete and soil below the pools, and solidify into a mass—in effect causing containment. Some radionuclides would be vaporized and scattered, but in a very limited fashion, since spent-fuel rods lack immediately releasable energy. The waste pools contain practically no burnable materials. In dry-cask storage, an innovation safer than waste pools, a single bundle of rods is entombed in a thick concrete cylinder, 18 feet tall and 8 feet across, designed to withstand powerful impacts and widely separated from its neighbors. Air is the coolant. If one bundle somehow failed, not enough heat would be available to cause it or other bundles to melt. Sixteen plants have already converted to dry casks, and more will follow. Could terrorists steal spent nuclear fuel? First they would have to get past multiple impediments: guards, high double fences with concertina wire, floodlights, motion detectors, and cameras. Fuel rods are so radioactive that anyone coming within a few feet of them would become extremely ill and die within hours if not minutes. The more radioactive something is, the harder it is for someone to steal—and survive. Special equipment and thick lead shields are required for handling, and spent fuel for transport must be placed in casks weighing about 90 tons that have been stringently tested (burned with jet fuel, dropped from great heights onto steel spikes, and otherwise assaulted) and have remained impervious. Could terrorists make a nuclear weapon from commercial U.S. reactor fuel? Not easily. It is enriched with uranium-235 but not nearly enough to make it weapons-grade. Extracting the enriched uranium-235 would require a large, sophisticated chemical separation plant. Threat of a terrorist attack on a reactor is overblown and unlikely CFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy”, April 25, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ) Plant insecurity. After 9/11, concerns arose over the security of the United States' 103 nuclear plants, particularly Indian Point, located thirty miles north of New York City. According to a 2004 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an attack on the plant could kill up to 44,000 people. But some nuclear experts say the threat posed by terrorists may be exaggerated. "Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode," wrote Greenpeace's Moore, referring to nuclear plants' six-feet-thick exteriors. Ferguson does not see nuclear plants as likely targets. "We don't see a lot of serious interest on the part of most terrorist groups to attack nuclear targets," he says. "They tend to favor softer targets," like office buildings or embassies.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

226

AT: GUARDS ARE ASLEEP AT THEIR POSTS
Security inattentiveness is incredibly tiny – and task forces solve Fertel 8 Marvin SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE; (Marvin, Federal News Service, HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS; SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OVERSIGHT: SECURITY OF OUR NATION'S NUCLEAR PLANTS, February 28, L/n rday) Let me turn now to the subject of this hearing, which is security officer attentiveness. In an environment of strong security and professionalism, we still have had isolated incidents of security officer inattentiveness. Every company expects the on-duty security force to be fully attentive and able to respond when called upon. And certainly, that is the predominant situation when you look across our sites. In 2007, we're aware of 12 incidents of inattentive officers at our site. And that's at a roughly about 16 million man hours of security officers on duty. Now, that doesn't make it okay. It shouldn't be happening at all. As the chairman said, you're going for perfection. But we should keep in mind we have 24/7 security officers on guard at every site and we've had 12 incidents, not acceptable but not systemic. Immediately following the Peach Bottom situation, NEI communicated with the industry's chief nuclear officers and recommended several immediate actions to be taken by each site. Consistent with the chairman's statement about his P3 (ph) experience, one of the things we emphasized at that point was the need for leadership at the site and encourage each chief nuclear office to meet with the security organization to discuss the importance of officers being attentive to their duties and reinforce the organization's expectations and standards. We also created a task force which is actively engaged examining security organization, cultural issues, as well as additional measures that may be effective for ensuring security officer attentiveness. The taskforce is working to define the performance and professional standards needed to promote the security culture desired across all of our plants. It is looking at the behavior observation program and how we can strengthen it. Nuclear power plants are protected from terrorist attacks – they are cracking down against lax security Fertel 8- Marvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute (2-28-08, Speech for U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clear Air and Nuclear Safety, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/ferteltestimony/ //VR) In summary, our defenses were robust prior to September 11, 2001 and they are significantly better today. It is highly unlikely that attackers could successfully breach security at a nuclear power plant and even more unlikely they could produce a release of radiation that would endanger the residents near the plant. We take security officer inattentiveness seriously. We have taken and are continuing to take aggressive action to ensure appropriate measures are in place. In addition, security at our nuclear power plants is not static. We are constantly reviewing and reevaluating our security programs. Consequently, America’s nuclear energy industry will continue to play its role as a leader and model for protecting our country’s critical infrastructure.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

227

AT: AIRCRAFT STRIKES
Hijacked planes can’t cause plants to release radiation – studies prove that even in a perfect scenario structures are too strong, NORAD controls local airspace, and plants are triggered to shutdown Fertel 06, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE, (Marvin, Federal News Service, HEARING OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EFFORTS TO SET SECURITY STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES, April 4, L/n, rday) MR. FETEL: Just a response to that, first of all from a pure technical study standpoint. The NRC has done studies, and I'm sure they can brief you in their secret session. The industry did studies that we don't hold secret. We hired the Electric Power Research Institute shortly after 9/11 to look at a 767-400, relatively large plan, one that constitutes more than 80 percent of the aircraft flying in this country, and had it hit containment structures where the fuel is, had it hit spent fuel pool structures and had it hit dry cask storage. And they did it as an analysis to maximize the impact. And what we found was we wouldn't get a release of radiation with that particular scenario. Now, the National Academy of Science has looked at things and said, well, if the plane was bigger or the plane flew faster, you'd get a different outcome, no question. If the plane doesn't hit it just right you get a different outcome. So what we concluded was the robustness of the structures is really pretty good unless you have a really marvelous hit on a structure. A very, very bad day at the plant with a lot of people dead that work there. But as far as a release, we didn't get it from a relatively sophisticated analysis. This was $1 million worth of engineering and computer runs. You weren't here for the first panel, Congressman, but Commissioner McGaffigan and others talked about the actions they have taken. They've taken actions with NORAD and with the military to do a number of things as far as trying to protect the airspace around nuclear plants, imminent threat procedures at all of Mr. Crane's plants. His control room has been trained on basically shutting the plant down if they're told by NORAD something happens or a plane is of course. They don't have to know it's a terrorist plane. They've also been trained on other actions they could take to try and put the plant in the safest condition it could be in if there was something that happened. Aircraft impacts into reactors will be contained Klein 8, Chair, Nuclear Regulator Commission, (Dale, Federal News Service HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS; SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OVERSIGHT: SECURITY OF OUR NATION'S NUCLEAR PLANTS; February 28, L/n, rday) Mr. Chairman, my written testimony also addresses the issue of possible aircraft impacts. As part of a comprehensive review of security the NRC license facility, the NRC conducted detailed, specific, engineering studies at each site, which confirm that the likelihood of both managing the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that could affect public health and safety is low. Nevertheless, in response to the orders from the NRC, operating owners have implemented mitigating strategies that further reduce any effects of an aircraft impact on public health and safety.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

228

AT: AIRCRAFT STRIKES
Current plants can withstand airborne attacks – and additional NRC regulations ensure safety Power Engineering 7 (NRC will make hard "targets" harder; Startup; United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to improve designs of nuclear power plants to thwart terrorist activities; April 1, L/n, rday) Although the U.S. nuclear industry and those who regulate it have long believed that the nation's nuclear power plants could probably withstand a September 11-style attack, future reactors will be specifically designed to survive a crash by a large aircraft. A year after the 9/11 attacks, a report commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute determined that an attack against any of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors would likely not cause radiation releases, although generating capability would likely be affected. The study wasbased on $1 million in computer modeling analyses. Now, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner says such a terrorist incident is considered highly unlikely. But with plans for as many as 30 new U.S. nuclear power plants in the works, the NRC says it will work with nuclear plant designers to enhance durability. Brenner expressed confidence that existing plants are strong, robust and would perform well if subjected to a deliberate attack. But he added that the NRC is looking at ways that the new designs can be modified to further improve their survivability after an attack. Nuclear facilities are isolated from air attacks and radiation release- even then, status quo solves their indicts Fertel, 4 – Marvin, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at NEI (“Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety”, May 20, //www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/ussenatecmtefertelextended)

It is highly unlikely that attackers could successfully breach security at a nuclear power plant and produce a release of radiation that would endanger the residents near the plant. NRC Chairman Nils Diaz on May 15 said that facilities that shield reactor fuel—the containment building, spent fuel pools or dry storage containers—are protected from scenarios as extreme as an aircraft crashing into a nuclear power plant. “The NRC has conducted an extensive analysis of the potential vulnerability of nuclear power plants to aircraft attacks,” Diaz said. “While the analysis is classified, the NRC remains convinced that nuclear power plants are the most heavily protected civilian facilities in the United States.” Diaz noted that the possibility that such an attack would result in a radiological release is low. Even so, we recognize that the security programs at our nuclear power plants must not be static. We are constantly reviewing and reevaluating our security programs. In that regard, the industry is ready to work with this subcommittee to help you and the
American public better understand our industry’s strong commitment to security and protecting public safety.

New designs solve air attacks Fertel, 4 – Marvin, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at NEI (“Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety”, May 20, //www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/ussenatecmtefertelextended)

It should be recognized that nuclear power plants are massive structures with thick exterior walls and interior barriers of reinforced concrete. The plants are designed to withstand tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes. As a result, the structures inherently afford a measure of protection against deliberate aircraft impacts. In addition, the defense-in-depth philosophy used in nuclear facility design means that plants have redundant and separated systems in order to ensure safety. That is, active components, such as pumps, have backups as part of the basic design philosophy. This provides a capability to respond to a variety of events including aircraft attack.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

229

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLVES BETTER THAN NUCLEAR POWER
Renewable energy solves better than nuclear power – greater energy production Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 161-163)CP The good news is that there is no need to build new nuclear power plants to provide for the projected energy needs of the future. Indeed, it would be possible, using other forms of electricity generation, to close down most of the existing nuclear reactors within a decade. There is enough wind between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River alone to supply three times the amount of electricity that America needs. Many kinds of alternative solutions are currently on the drawing board because of the extreme urgency of countering global warming. For instance, the conversion of coal to a synthetic fuel, which can be used for transportation and which would contribute much less to global warming than petroleum, is actively being championed by Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana. 1 This chapter, however, concentrates exclusively on renewable sources of power for the generation of electricity. The most commonly cited figures show that currently in the United States, just over 2% of the electricity is provided from renewables, whereas nuclear power provides 20%.2 These figures, however, exclude hydropower electricity. If this is taken into account, 2004 figures show 9.06% of U.S. electricity came from renewables, and 18.60% came from renewables worldwide. But American politicians lack the political will, at least at the federal level, to resist the coal, oil, and nuclear industries' demands and to shift their focus from these tired and dangerous technologies to explore the alternatives. Vice President Cheney devised the 2005 energy bill behind closed doors, consulting exclusively with top executives of the coal, oil, and nuclear industries (including Ken Lay from Enron who is currently under indictment), all of whom had contributed significant funds not only to the Bush campaign, but also to the campaigns of most of the important Republican players in the House and Senate. Thus, American politicians are bought and sold, and global warming continues unabated." However, the world at large has already begun to shift over to alternative energy sources, as is documented in several recent studies. A 2005 Rocky Mountains Institute report by Amory Lovins titled "Nuclear Power: Economics and ClimateProtection Potential," uses industry and government data to show that globally, nuclear power is being outstripped by other, better sources of electricity production. Globally, more electricity is now produced by decentralized, low-carbon or nocarbon competitors than from nuclear power plants-about one-third from renewables (wind, biomass, solar) and two-thirds through a very efficient form of energy production in which electricity is made from waste heat emanating from industry in a process called fossil-fuel combined-heat-and-power CHP, or cogeneration.s Even without the subsidies enjoyed by the nuclear industry, worldwide, decentralized electricity generators provided almost three times as much output and six times as much capacity as nuclear power by 2004.6 (Output is the actual amount of electricy generated, whereas capacity is the potential output of an electricity generator. These two numbers are different whenever generators are not operated at top capacity.) And decentralized capacity is projected to increase 177 times by 2010, at the same time that orders for new nuclear reactors decline and aging reactors shut down. Nuclear power plants take years to build, they are energy intensive, and they are extremely expensive. Lovins contends that even the relatively inefficient use of decentralized electricity generation in today's market supersedes nuclear electricity in cost, speed, and size by a large and rising margin.? Lovins ultimately concludes that none of the centralized thermal power generators (coal, gas, oil, or nuclear) can compete economically with wind power and certain other renewables, let alone the t"10 cheaper alternatives (cogeneration and energy efficiency)." He finds it interesting that most of the studies that examined the energy future, such as the oft-quoted 2003 MIT study, fail to examine the feasible economic alternatives to nuclear and large centralized generation." And, as stated above, the U.S. administration and Congress apparently have no intention of seeking the obvious economic and ecological alternatives to coal, oil, and nuclear power. According to Lovins, the oft-made claim by nuclear energy proponents that "we need all energy options" has no analytical basis and is simply not true. Quite the contrary, society cannot afford all options. Because the disastrous economics of nuclear power mitigate against private investment, all new orders for nuclear reactors are to be heavily subsidized by taxpayers-$13 billion is allocated to the nuclear industry in the 2005 U.S. energy bill, for example. Although a bonanza for nuclear power plant owners, this money is directly diverted from investment in cheaper, cleaner, greener optionscogeneration, renewables, and efficiency-that would ultimately serve consumers and the environment infinitely better.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

230

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLVES BETTER THAN NUCLEAR POWER
Wind technology is comparably superior and easier to access than solar energy Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 167-168)CP Wind power, already used extensively in Europe, is rapidly becoming the energy of the future. It is cheap, fast to produce, and attractive to farmers and U.S. rural communities. In 2004, wind power globally outpaced nuclear power six fold in annual capacity additions and threefold in annual output additions. Wind power is very attractive because it is benign, its development has short lead times, its mass production is economically very efficient, its technological development is rapid, and it is easy to site windmills on available land. Furthermore, the speedy deployment and lack of regulatory fuss will always support the growth of wind power compared to the long lead time and delay-prone, complex, and contentious technology of nuclear power, which could experience a meltdown or terrorist attack at any time.22 A recent study, which collated more than 8,000 wind records from every continent, found a potential global wind power resource of 72 terawatts-forty times the amount of electricity used by all countries in 2000. If just 20% of this wind energy were to be tapped, all energy needs of the world could be satisfied (one terawatt of electricity would power 10 billion 100-watt light bulbs).23 (This analysis of global available wind power performed by Christina Archer and Mark Jacobson of Stanford University is probably somewhat conservative in scope because many continents lack the specific data for wind over large unmapped areas.) There is plenty wind in the united states to be the only source of electricity for all Americans. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 169)CP Wind power has enormous potential in the United States. The land between the Rockies and the Mississippi is referred to as the Saudi Arabia of wind because of the relentless gales that consistently batter this huge American prairie. Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota together could provide 100% of America's electricity. The offshore potential for wind energy is incalculable, and the wind potential of the Great Lakes and the northwest and northeast areas of the States has hardly been tapped. Wind power from readily available rural land in just several Dakota counties could produce twice the amount of electricity that the United States currently consumes. In Minnesota, since the mid-1990s, hundreds of wind turbines have been generating electricity through this windswept region. Constructed by large corporations who pay farmers $2,000 to $5,000 per machine to rent their land, wind power machines have produced enormous benefits to cash-strapped farmers. Some farmers have even developed their own commercial-scale, giant wind turbines on wind-farms called "combines in the sky," making even more money from this new, green energy crop. Federal and state government subsidies for wind energy empirically solve Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 170)CP It is imperative that the federal and state governments subsidize these important and critical new energy sources. Some states are al-ready offering worthwhile subsidies. For instance, the Minnesota state Legislature is currently providing a production incentive to small wind farms, and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will purchase another 400 megawatts of wind capacity, having decided that wind power is the "least-cost alternative" for new electricity generation in the state. Wind can provide 100 percent of electricity needs Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884) Despite the problems with atomic power, society needs around-the-clock electricity. Can we rely on intermittent wind until solar power is cost-effective in 2015? Even the Department of Energy says yes. Wind now can supply up to 20 percent of electricity, using the current electricity grid as backup, just as nuclear plants do when they are shut down for refueling, maintenance and leaks. Wind can supply up to 100 percent of electricity needs by using “distributed” turbines spread over a wide geographic region—because the wind always blows somewhere, especially offshore.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

231

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLVES BETTER THAN NUCLEAR POWER
There is ample space and materials for solar energy in the US. Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 171-172)CP Hypothetically 10 trillion to 20 trillion watts of solar power provided by photovoltaics could take the place of all conventional energy sources currently in use. Consequently, it has been estimated that a rather inefficient photovoltaic array covering half a sunny area measuring 100 square miles could meet all the annual U.S. electricity needs. Although this is a vast amount of electricity, there are probably enough feedstocks adequate and appropriate materials to meet this gigantic challenge. Photovoltaic cells are becoming both more efficient to produce and more efficient solar collectors. However, fossil-fuelled energy is necessary to create photovoltaic cells. A solar roof collector would therefore take one to four years to recover the amount of energy that produced it, but because it has a life expectancy of thirty years,87% to 97% of the electricity it produces will not be plagued by pollution-greenhouse gases or resource depletion. There is ample space available to locate these solar arrays, including rooftops, alongside roadways, or on unused desert landcapes bathed in sun. The future production of massive numbers of solar collectors will require certain specialized materials, all of which are readily available, including even the rare minerals-indium and tellurium. The reliability, technological improvements, and market penetration of concentrated photovoltaics have all advanced considerably in the last twenty years Solar energies are comparatively more competitive economically than nuclear Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 163-164)CP The 2003 MIT study on the future of nuclear power demonstrates that each ten cents spent to buy a single nuclear kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity could instead be used to generate 1.2 to 1.7 kWh of gas-fired electricity, 2.2 to 6.5 kWh of cogeneration from large industries, an infinite number of kilowatt hours of waste heat cogeneration, or 1 0 kWh of saved energy through efficiency measures. 12 The New Scientist, a well-known scientific journal published in the United Kingdom and the United States, recently editorialized that although renewable electricity technologies are heavily criticized by the nuclear, coal, and oil industries and by many politicians who listen to the industry propaganda, the combination of wind power, tidal power, microhydro, and biomass make renewable power ever more practical. Windpower and biomass are now almost as cheap as coal, and wave power and solar photovoltaics are rapidly becoming competitive. A report from the New Economics Foundation reinforces the conclusions of the New Scientist. Renewable energy is quick to build, abundant, and cheap to harvest, and it is safe, flexible, secure, and climate friendly. Surplus electricity can be fed back into the grid. Furthermore, renewable electricity generation produces electricity at the point of use, making large-scale grid connections unnecessary. Thus, from an economics standpoint, renewable sources of energy make a great deal of sense. Renewables can provide more power than nuclear energy by 2020 Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884) Myth 3. Nuclear Energy Is Necessary to Address Climate Change Government, industry and university studies, like those recently from Princeton, agree that wind turbines and solar panels already exist at an industrial scale and could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, and the vast majority of U.S. electricity by 2050—not just the 20 percent of electricity possible from nuclear energy by 2050. The D.O.E. says wind from only three states (Kansas, North Dakota and Texas) could supply all U.S. electricity needs, and 20 states could supply nearly triple those needs. By 2015, according to the D.O.E., solar panels will be competitive with all conventional energy technologies and will cost 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Shell Oil and other fossil-fuel companies agree. They are investing heavily in wind and solar.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power good / bad disads

232

AT: NUCLEAR POWER TRADESOFF WITH RENEWABLES
Renewables and nuclear energy aren’t exclusive Kerekes, 2007 (Steven, Senior Director at the Nuclear Energy Institute, CFR, “Nuclear Power in Response to Climate Change”, November 9, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html, REQ) I love it! Now Michael’s knock on nuclear energy is that it’s a “mature” technology—meaning not so much that it’s been around for a while but that it’s actually generated huge amounts of emission-free electricity. Setting aside the fact that the sun and the wind have been around since, say, the dawn of time, here’s what the Cato Institute—no friend of government investment in nuclear energy—revealed in a January 2002 “Policy Analysis”: “R&D dollars have not handicapped renewable energy technologies. Over the past 20 years, those technologies have received (in inflation-adjusted 1996 dollars) $24.2 billion in federal R&D subsidies, while nuclear energy has received $20.1 billion and fossil fuels only $15.5 billion.” So it’s a complete myth that Michael’s preferred technologies haven’t gotten the money. They have. In fact, nuclear and renewables make a nice, emission-free combination. Of course, renewables cannot meet baseload, 24-hour a day, seven-day a week electricity demand. Nuclear power can. Our industry average capacity factor—which measures actual electricity production relative to theoretical production non-stop for a full year—has been right around 90 percent for the past seven years. By comparison, the Department of Energy pegs the average capacity for state-of-the-art wind projects at 36 percent, with older projects lagging at 30 percent or lower. I agree that it’s prudent to use limited resources wisely. Yet the investment resources for energy technologies aren’t as limited as Michael thinks. Morgan Stanley Vice Chairman Jeffrey Holzschuh has a presentation in which he notes that the U.S. utility industry investment needs for the next thirteen years total about $1 trillion. Of that total infrastructure need, $350 billion, or $23 billion per year, is needed for electric-generating facilities. Of that sum, the capital required to build an additional 15,000-20,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity over the next fifteen years is about $3.5 billion per year. Meanwhile, over the past five years, the investment capital raised by the U.S. power industry has ranged between $50 billion and $79 billion annually. In other words, new nuclear plant construction will barely make a dent in the ability of U.S. capital markets to finance new energy projects. This is not an “either-or” scenario. We need all these emission-free energy technologies. The fact that nuclear energy has proven its value as a reliable, affordable source of clean energy is cause for hope.