P. 1
WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final

WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final

|Views: 116|Likes:
Publicado porAffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less


It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing
nuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to
debate it.
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
11-28-2007, “Domenici
Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”,
4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM
“It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change
must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on
policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as
other nations have done
,” he continued.

Nuclear power is the only way for the U.S. to reduce CO2 emissions.
(American Enterprise Institute) October 6, 2006
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1394,filter.economic/transcript.asp KP

What are some of the pieces that she would need to help you solve this problem? If you try to think about it,
all at once you probably cannot think of anything that is going to get you the whole way there, and even as
you will see, when you divide it into seven pieces it is pretty daunting. One example of a wedge - this is just
1/7 of what we have to do - would be two billion cars going at 60 miles per gallon instead of 30 miles per
gallon. So you can imagine it, but it is not easy.
And another wedge that is commonly mentioned that he has talked about, but, of course, Vice-President Gore
apparently does not talk about is you need about 700 gigawatts a nuclear power; that would be
about a wedge which is about twice current global capacity. So our view is that we do look at
nuclear power as one of the potential wedges, particularly for a couple of reasons. One is it is one of those
things we have already done. We have nuclear power. We know that we can do it. And also it is a really
important potentially GHT-free source of base load power, so that is something that we
think is important.
We did a report about a year-and-a-half ago by Granger Morgan and some of his colleagues at Carnegie
Mellon University, and they looked at what would it take over the next 50 years to
radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from United States electricity sector. They
found a very important role for energy efficiency and renewables.
Our organization is very supportive of
moving ahead on that front. But they found they could not figure out, when they did the modeling and
tried to play around with different costs and different rates of technology penetration, they really could
not see how we could get big reductions at least over the next 50 years.
If you go out a hundred years
sometimes people think it looks a little easy. You can see energy efficiency and renewables ramping up
fast enough to get you deeper reductions over a very long term, even beyond 50 years, but over the next
50 years it really looked like you needed either nuclear power or coal burning
, but with carbon-captured
storage or coal use because it might be coal gasification with carbon capture and storage as one of those
needed to work to meet the base-load needs [indiscernible] in a low-carbon way in order to really get the
deep reductions over 50 years.

SDI 2008

54 of 249


AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear Power Is the Only Viable Alternative Energy

Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change,
lexis, bc

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 n uclear 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.

SDI 2008

55 of 249


AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->