P. 1
Neg Nukes Good Bad

Neg Nukes Good Bad

|Views: 20|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


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



NUCLEAR POWER GOOD/BAD INDEX....................................................................................1 NUKE POWER BAD......................................................................................................................2 Solvency Frontline...........................................................................................................................3 NUKE POWER INEVITABLE.......................................................................................................5 INCENTIVES FAIL........................................................................................................................6 URANIUM SHORTAGES.............................................................................................................9 LOANS = DEFAULTS.................................................................................................................10 Terrorism Turn...............................................................................................................................11 Nuclear Power = Terrorism............................................................................................................12 Accidents Turn...............................................................................................................................13 Ext- Nuclear Power - Accidents.....................................................................................................14 Proliferation Turn...........................................................................................................................15 NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE.......................................................................................................16 A2: WARMING ADV....................................................................................................................18 POLITICS- NUKE POWER IS PARTSIAN.................................................................................21 Politics Links- BIPART.................................................................................................................22 POLTICS- PUBLICLY POPULAR...............................................................................................23 POLITICS- PUBLICALLY UNPOPULAR..................................................................................24 NUKE POWER GOOD.................................................................................................................25 Nuclear Power Solves Warming....................................................................................................26 NUCLEAR POWER SOLVE OIL DEPENDENCE.....................................................................28 A2: Accidents.................................................................................................................................29 A2: TERRORISM..........................................................................................................................32 A2: WASTE...................................................................................................................................34 A2: PROLIFERATION..................................................................................................................35


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich





UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Solvency Frontline
1. STATUS QUO SOLVES LOAN GUARANTEES EXIST NOW CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity,” May 2008,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf) Current energy policy, especially as established and expanded under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), provides incentives for building additional capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil-fuel technologies and an advanced generation of nuclear reactor designs that are intended to decrease costs and improve safety.2 Among the provisions of EPAct that specifically apply to newly built nuclear

power plants are funding for research and development; investment incentives, such as loan guarantees and insurance against regulatory delays; and production incentives, including a tax credit. Since the enactment of EPAct, about a dozen utilities have announced their intention to license about 30 nuclear plants. 2. PLAN DOESN’T ENSURE PLANTS WILL BE BUILT Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) Another federal benefit that Crane calls a "significant motivation" for NRG's decision to move ahead is a provision that lets the secretary of energy authorize loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of a nuclear plant. "We believe this will encourage banks to extend loans for projects like the Texas generators," says Crane, who adds that NRG expects to tap its own resources for about 20 percent-or $1.2 billion-of the estimated cost, with banks and capital markets making up the difference. The 2005 Energy Act also provides tax breaks for operators of new nuclear plants based on the energy they produce, and requires the federal government to indemnify operators in the event of an accident. While such provisions may add up to a sweet deal for new

entrants into nuclear power, they don't guarantee that any proposed projects will actually get built. For one thing, there's plenty of opposition to nuclear power from organizations like Common Cause that question the safety of such plants and note that there is still no federal repository for federal waste. 3. SHORTAGES IN URANIUM PREVENT SOLVENCY Harding 07 (Jim Harding, a consultant from Olympia, Washington. He's worked on a whole series of energy and
environmental issues, “Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?” Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html) On the uranium issue, this is a very peculiar commodity. Today, world consumption -- let me state it differently -- world production of uranium is about 60 percent of consumption. It doesn't happen in
turkey, butter, milk or many other commodities. And the reason for that is that you need to procure uranium quite a long ways in advance, and beginning sort of in the mid- to late 1970s, people had ordered a lot of reactors in the U.S., Western Europe and Russia, secured long- term contracts -- meaning seven to 10 years for uranium -- at a high price, and they cancelled the plan. So all that secondary supply came into the market, depressing the price. It was followed by privatization of centrifuge -- of enrichment in the United States. We also bought lots of surplus

So we're running the global nuclear industry on a secondary supply that pops pretty quick. And it's
enriched uranium from Russia. And most recently, we are blending down or diluting surplus weapons uranium into U.S. fuel.

had the unfortunate impact that existing contracts have fixed prices for uranium; the same is generally true on the enrichment side. You need to procure the product about four years in advance of burning it. We're at a price of $135 a pound, pretty much a historical peak. Utilities for the most part run out of their existing supply by 2012, 2013. They've got to get back into this market. And it's hard to tell what the long- term price
will be. This is not -- it's not a physical shortage of uranium, it's a shortage of milling capacity and also enrichment capacity. The enrichment issue was somewhat complicated, because when you go to a higher uranium price, you want to decrease the tails assay at the enrichment plant.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Effectively, you reduce the output of that plant by 30 percent. We don't have the capacity to do that and meet demand. So utilities are also -there are two possibilities. One is, utilities are going to pay -- are going to buy more uranium than they'd ideally like, or enrichers are going to use market power to the same extent that uranium miners are going to use -- based on this set of problems, we came up with significantly higher numbers in the Keystone report for future nuclear fuel. It's about three times current levels, at the low end, and about five times

at the high end -- now, not a big number, but it is a -- for a

utility thinking about a building a reactor today, they have to worry at little bit about whether or not there are sufficient fuel supply and enrichment capacity out there to meet their needs, because the mines may not exist to support that purchase. You could buy it, but we've got to double enrichment and mining capacity in the next
few years to meet demand, even without significant growth in this industry.

4. EMPIRICALLY LOAN GUARANTEES FAIL- PLANTS ARE NEVER BUILT Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton, Staff Writer, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear power surge coming, Sept. 28, 2007,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn.html) The nuclear industry has already put Congress on notice that it could require loan guarantees of at least $20 billion for planned projects – and more later, NEI officials told The New York Times in July. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal- or gas-fired facilities. For example: On Monday, New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5.4 and $6.7 billion. That huge startup cost might make financial sense, given a reactor's low operating expenses, especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free. But the last time that the nuclear industry was on a building spree – in the 1980s – roughly half of the power plants proposed were never finished, in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. A number of power companies went bankrupt. In late 2003, NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s. If defaults occur in the new round, critics worry federal costs will be huge. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen," says Tyson Slocum, director of energy program at Public Citizen, Ralph Nader's consumer-protection group. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers, I think that money would be better invested in cheaper sources of emissions-free power that don't have the fatal flaws nuclear power does." In 2003, a

Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants. 5. NOT ENOUGH SITES FOR MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power,
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm) 6. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17,000 – or 2,500 or 3,000

-- nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power. There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political
instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, geography, local politics, political instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy. Remember that climate change

is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power,
many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. How could we get enough


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power, if we need to build 17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?

Nuclear power inevitable Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, “Nuclear Energy
Policy,” July 12, 2007, http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) Nevertheless, the outlook recently has been improving for the U.S. nuclear power industry, which currently comprises 104 licensed reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states. (That number includes TVA’s Browns Ferry 1, which restarted May 22, 2007, after a 22-year shutdown and $1.8 billion refurbishment.) Electricity

production from U.S. nuclear power plants is greater than that from oil, natural gas, and hydropower, and behind only coal, which accounts for more than half of U.S. electricity generation. Nuclear plants generate more than half the electricity in six states. The near-record 823 billion
kilowatt-hours of nuclear electricity generated in the United States during 2006 was more than the nation’s entire electrical output in the early 1960s, when the first large-scale commercial reactors were being ordered.

Status quo solves- the next president will support nuclear power Miller 07 (William H. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the
University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor, Financing the next generation of nuclear power plants, Sept. 23, 2007, http://publicutilities.utah.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants.pdf) It's encouraging to know that, despite differences over energy policy, several presidential candidates recognize the need for additional nuclear power. Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, DIll., and John McCain, R-Ariz., support federal incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants. McCain says there is "no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth."


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti) In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new

atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved. The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as
completed since then. All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash. "Wall street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the

necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will
cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOESN’T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills:
Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007, http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf) A provision of the Senate bill exempts DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec. 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). The Senate provision allows, among other things, for DOE to write unlimited loan guarantees without Congressional oversight. If adopted, this provision removes Congressional authority and the safeguards in place through the appropriation process, and shifts the financial risk from private lenders to taxpayers. Initial analyses of the loan guarantee program have shown that DOE lacks the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement its program. Reports from the GAO and DOE’s Office of the Inspector General state that the necessary policies, procedures, and staff

remain absent, raising questions about DOE’s ability to manage its loan guarantee program. This Issue Brief explores these issues raised by the 2007 energy bill provisions, as they pose potentially
significant risks and high costs to America’s taxpayers.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



An increase in loan guarantees is inadequate- there are problems in how they are applied Schoen 07 (John Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC, Does nuclear power now make financial sense?,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/) Nukes for sale But it’s far from clear that this new round of plants will ever be built. Even if all goes as proponents hope, the first plants won’t come online before 2014 and will cost an estimated $4 billion each. Before ground is broken for the first new plant, the power industry will have to convince state regulators and investors that the numbers add up. To do that, they face several important hurdles. Most of these projects are expected to be financed by bonds. To help reassure investors that the bonds are a safe investment, Congress

has provided loan guarantees for 80 percent of the financing for the first several projects to win NRC approval. But that critical guarantee has already hit a serious snag. Typically, these
projects would be financed with 80 percent debt and 20 percent cash or equity put up by the owner of the plant. But

federal officials in charge of loan guarantees have interpreted the law to mean that those guarantees apply only to the debt portion of the financing package. Using that math, the loan guarantee — 80 percent of 80 percent — will only cover about two-thirds of the total cost. That could be more risk than Wall Street is ready to assume — especially for the projects that
go first. Congress to the rescue? Though the current interpretation of the rules could throw cold water on efforts to raise money, many in the industry expect Congress to clarify the rules to provide more generous guarantees. “You had a lot of people who voted for the (Energy Policy Act of 2005) that have a pet project at home that they thought they were arranging a loan guarantee for,” said Tezak, the energy industry analyst. “But it has the potential to be a deal breaker.”

PLAN DOESN’T CHANGE DOE REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE GUARANTEES MEANS THEY WILL ONLY BUILD 3 REACTORS CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity,” May 2008,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf) The maximum coverage available under the loan guarantee program—a guarantee on debt covering 80 percent of a plant’s construction costs, which implies that investors’ equity would cover the remaining 20 percent—would most likely reduce the levelized cost of new nuclear capacity by about 10 percent. But not all prospective nuclear plants would necessarily receive a guarantee of debt covering 80 percent of construction costs because the criteria for qualifying are restrictive. The Department of Energy has indicated that it will deny a utility’s application for a loan guarantee if the project is not deemed to be both innovative (essentially, in the case of nuclear technology, a plant design that has not been built in the United States) and commercially viable, and

that no more than three plants based on each advanced reactor design can be considered innovative. The 30 plants currently being proposed use five reactor designs, so at most, 15 of those plants would qualify as innovative. In addition, just because a plant is considered both innovative and commercially viable does not mean it will receive the maximum guarantee of 80 percent. Under
the base-case assumptions, covering 80 percent of construction costs would require guaranteeing debt with a face value of $4.5 billion to $7.5 billion for each plant (depending on the size of the reactor). Providing the maximum coverage to three plants based on each of the five reactor designs would result in roughly $100 billion in loan guarantees, a commitment that has not been proposed, let alone funded. (The President’s budget proposed a limit of $18.5 billion [in nominal dollars] on the cumulative amount of loan guarantees for new nuclear plants over the 2008–2011 period.)4 The loan guarantee program could encourage investors to choose relatively risky projects over more certain alternatives because they would be responsible for only about 20 percent of a project’s costs but would receive 100 percent of the returns that exceeded costs.5


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



INCENTIVES WILL FAIL TO REVITILLIZE NUCLEAR POWER Walsh 08 (Bryan Walsh, Is Nuclear Power Viable?, June 6, 2008,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812540,00.html) That's debatable, to say the least. There's no question that a nuclear plant, once it's up and running, produces comparatively little carbon dioxide — a British government report last year found that a nuclear plant emits just 2% to 6% of the CO2 per kilowatt-hour as natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel — but nuclear energy still seems like the power of yesterday. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s, a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U.S. since 1996, and some nations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns — the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear meltdown, or the fact that we still have yet to devise a longterm method for the disposal of atomic waste. But to Amory Lovins — a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute — there's a much better green reason to be against nuclear power: economics. Lovins, an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers, argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. In his study, titled "The Nuclear Illusion," he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment, the nuclear industry attracted nothing. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it," he says. More nuclear subsidies, which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for, won't do the trick either. Lovins notes that the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past halfcentury, and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant — roughly how much it now costs to build one — still haven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. At the same time, the price of building a plant — all that concrete and steel — has risen dramatically in recent years, while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk. Nuclear supporters like Moore who argue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs, not to mention the huge liability risk of an accident — the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant, so it's up to government to do so. Conservatives like Republican presidential candidate John McCain tend to promote nuclear power because they don't think carbon-free alternatives like wind or solar could be scaled up sufficiently to meet rising power demand, but McCain's idea of a crash construction program to build hundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just

as unrealistic.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Uranium shortages will thwart a robust nuclear energy program Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power,
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm) 7. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants,

we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. What’s more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Defaults likely Hill Heat 07 (Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant
Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007, http://www.hillheat.com/events/2007/10/30/loan-guarantee-provisionsin-the-2007-energy-bills-does-nuclear-power-pose-significant-taxpayer-risk-and-liability) Not only is the cost to the taxpayers potentially very high, so is the risk. The Congressional Budget Office has said

there is a good chance that the DOE will underestimate the costs of administering these loans and that more than 50 percent of new reactor projects will default on their loan repayments, leaving taxpayers at risk. U.S. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls. The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years. According to the Congressional Research Service, this is more than the $49.7 billion
spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008.

Over 50% of nuclear projects will default Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group
and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power,” June 21, 2003, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134) The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the cost of building 8,400 Megawatts of new nuclear power, the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan

guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -- well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for the risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources." But
that's not all. The bill also authorizes the federal government to enter into power purchase agreements wherein the federal government would buy back power from the newly built plants -- potentially at above market rates.

PROBABILITY OF DEFAULTS ARE OVER 50%- IT’LL COST TAXPAYERS BILLIONS Public Citizen 07 (Congress Should Not Bow to Nuclear Industry Demands for More Than $50 Billion in Loan
Guarantees to Build New Nuclear Reactors, July 31, 2007, http://www.tradewatch.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2488) These loan guarantees would put taxpayers – rather than investors – on the hook to pay back the loans should any of the plants default. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent.” “With those odds, U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans,” said Michele Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U.S. taxpayers.” Although the company receiving the guarantee is expected to pay the “subsidy cost” of the guarantee (the net present value of the anticipated cost of defaults), a June 2007 CBO report on the recently passed Senate energy bill concluded that it is “more likely

that DOE’s loan guarantee portfolio will have more projects where the subsidy fee has been underestimated than overestimated.”


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Terrorism Turn
NUCLEARK POWER= TERRORISM Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic
Renaissance, E The Environmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780) In spite of its obvious benefits, nuclear power may simply be too risky. Opponents of the nuclear renaissance point to a host of serious concerns. “They’re proposing a replay of a demonstrated failure,” says Paul Gunter, director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). “The financial risks have only gotten worse, and our concerns about safety issues are heightened now that these plants are known terrorist targets.” Alex Matthiessen, director of Hudson Riverkeeper, declares, “In the post-9/11 era, nuclear power plants pose an unacceptable risk.” He points out that NRC studies conclude that a serious accident at one of Indian Point’s two working reactors could cause 50,000 early fatalities. Al Qaeda operatives have, by their own admission, considered attacking nuclear facilities. And according to Riverkeeper, only 19 percent of Indian Point guards think they can protect the facility from a conventional assault, let alone a suicidal mission. Riverkeeper says that the proposed evacuation plans for the area are woefully inadequate, and the site is vulnerable to an airborne attack. Plant operator Entergy refutes these charges, and says that the 3.5-foot steel-reinforced concrete containment structures protecting the reactor and other radioactive materials are “among the strongest structures built by man.”

TERRORISM LEADS TO EXTINCTION Alexander 03 (Yonah Alexander, professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Aug. 28 2003,
Washington Times) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications

of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for
decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical

contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Nuclear Power = Terrorism
NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE EASY TERRORIST TARGETS Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power,
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm) 3. National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant. What’s more, Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice, to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured, without adequate

evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina, and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Accidents Turn
NUCLEAR POWER IS INHERENTLY UNSAFE- ACCIDENTS ARE INEVITIBLE Olson 06 (Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Confronting
a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change, Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations, May 3, 2006, http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdf) Finally, as a crowning point – nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather. As cited above, nuclear reactors – all of them – depend on energy from the grid to operate. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years, even “off-line,” it is vital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock. As is sensible, every reactor site is equipped with back-up power, most often in the form of diesel generators. Unfortunately these generators, in part because of intermittent use, are not terribly reliable.47 When both the grid and the back-up power fail, the site is said to be in “station blackout.” According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear power stations.48 Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat, drought, blizzards, tornados, and perhaps most compelling – hurricanes and cyclones. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures. The loss of grid power will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis, but there is an elevated risk. Overall blackout risk increases as the number of outages increases. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times.

Boyd 08 (Robert S. Boyd, McClatchy Newspapers, Feb. 9, 2008, Despite doubts, nuclear energy making comeback, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/science/story/26864.html) Accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 continue to shadow the industry, even though advanced reactor designs make such mishaps less likely. ``One incident could put a stop to nuclear energy in the United States,'' warned James Miller, the chief executive of PPL Corp. of Allentown, Pa., which operates atomic reactors in Pennsylvania and Montana.

``Nuclear power continues to pose serious risks that are unique among the energy options
being considered for reducing global-warming emissions,'' said David Lochbaum, the director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union for Concerned Scientists in Washington.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Ext- Nuclear Power - Accidents
ACCIDENTS WILL HAPPEN Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power,
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm) 4. Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere

accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, with thousands poisoned by radiation. Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population centers. For example, there’s a plant just up the Hudson from
New York City. If there was an accident, evacuation would be impossible.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Proliferation Turn
Expansion of nuclear power increases the risk of proliferation Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power,
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm) 2. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al

Gore said, “During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries. Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands Prolif leads to extinction Miller 02 (James D. Miller, (assistant professor of economics, Smith College), January 23, 2002, National
Security First: Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction., http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-miller012302.shtml) The U.S. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us. We should demand that countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders. Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U.S., or perhaps even a European city, with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach. Our conventional forces might even be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons, for example, we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic, biological, and chemical weapons.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Nuclear energy is extremely expensive and unreliable Greenpeace 03 (Nuclear Reactors are an Expensive and Dangerous Source of Electricity, May 19, 2003,
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/nuclear-reactors-are-an-expens) At the dawn of the nuclear era, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that nuclear power would supply "electrical energy too cheap to meter." However, the meltdown at Three Mile Island and the explosion at Chernobyl irreparably altered the image of nuclear power, causing this prediction to prove false. The dramatic

decrease in nuclear construction can be directly tied to the meltdown at Three Mile Island.
The horrific images of the Chernobyl disaster and the ever-growing death toll are a constant reminder of the dangers of nuclear power. However, the risks of nuclear power are only part of the problem. It has been the nuclear industry's inability to manage the construction and operation of its nuclear reactors that has solidified public opposition to nuclear power in the United States. Chronic escalation of construction costs coupled with high operation and maintenance costs have sealed nuclear power's economic fate.

When construction costs skyrocketed and operation and management costs spiraled out of control, nuclear power became an economic disaster. The U.S. Department of Energy compared
nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75 reactors. The original cost estimate was $45 billion. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized that this "failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumental scale." According to Forbes, "only the blind, or the biased, can now think the money has been well spent." Despite talk of a renaissance, nuclear power is actually in decline in the United States. U.S. utilities have canceled almost as many nuclear reactors as they have constructed. No nuclear reactors have been ordered and subsequently completed in the U.S. since 1973. The last nuclear reactor to be constructed in the United States was completed in 1996; the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar reactor took almost 23 years to build and cost nearly $8 billion. Not exactly electricity "too cheap to meter."

Loan guarantees will cost billions Public Citizen 07 (Congress Should Not Bow to Nuclear Industry Demands for More Than $50 Billion in Loan
Guarantees to Build New Nuclear Reactors, July 31, 2007, http://www.tradewatch.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2488)

These loan guarantees would put taxpayers – rather than investors – on the hook to pay back the loans should any of the plants default. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent.” “With those odds, U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans,” said Michele Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U.S. taxpayers.” Although the company receiving the guarantee is expected to pay the “subsidy cost” of the guarantee (the net present value of the anticipated cost of defaults), a June 2007 CBO report on the recently passed Senate energy bill concluded that it is “more likely that DOE’s loan guarantee portfolio will have more projects where the subsidy fee has been underestimated than overestimated.”


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



HIGH CONSTRUCTION COSTS WILL TRANSLATE INTO HIGH ELECTRICITY PRICES Johnson 08 (Keith Johnson, It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman, Wall Street Journal, May
12, 2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powersbogeyman/) It turns out nuclear power’s biggest worry isn’t Yucca Mountain, Three Mile Island ghosts, or environmental protesters. It’s economics. Rebecca Smith reports today in the WSJ (sub reqd.) on the biggest hurdle to the nascent nuclear-energy revival in the U.S.—skyrocketing construction costs. Though all power sectors are

affected to different degrees by rising capital costs, nuclear power’s vulnerability puts it in a class by itself. Notes the paper: A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected
cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry. Over the last five years, cost estimates for new nuclear power plants have been continually revised upward. Even the bean counters can’t keep pace. The paper notes: Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York. Why is that such a big deal? Coal plants have been shelved recently because of rising capital

costs, and renewable energy isn’t immune, either—and the

nuclear power industry enjoys healthy loan guarantees and other federal subsidies designed precisely to alleviate those kinds of uncertainties. It matters because nuclear power’s ability to provide electricity at a competitive price compared to regular sources like coal and natural gas depends largely on those construction costs. Fuel costs for nuclear power are miniscule. The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power’s favor is to put a
big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide. Since nuclear plants don’t emit CO2, they win when legislation penalizes carbon-heavy sectors like coal (and even natural gas). The Congressional Budget Office just finished a rosy-glasses report on nuclear economics. Even while acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates, the CBO took heart from promises made by manufacturers of next-generation reactors and a single on-time and on-budget project in Japan to project cheaper nuclear construction costs in the future. And if those cost estimates are wrong? From the CBO: If those factors turned out not to reduce construction costs in the United States,

nuclear capacity would probably be an unattractive investment even with EPAct incentives, unless substantial carbon dioxide charges were imposed. Everybody from John McCain to Newt
Gingrich to Patrick Moore is pitching more nuclear power as a zero-emissions answer to America’s energy needs. The question, though, is the same: Who’s going to pay for it?


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



NUCLEAR POWER CAN’T GROW FAST ENOUGH TO SOLVE WARMING Olson 06 (Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Confronting
a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change, Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations, May 3, 2006, http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdf) An extensive 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology30 investigated the future of nuclear power, including its potential to combat climate change. MIT’s nuclear boosters project that expanding nuclear

generating capacity worldwide to 1000 billion watts would be required to address the climate problem to any meaningful degree. This would roughly mean adding one new reactor every two weeks until 2050. In the USA, some of the last reactors to be built (Vogtle 1 & 2) cost
more than $4 billion each! The industry has recently asserted that it will be possible to build reactors for $ 2 billion31 -- ½ the previous actual figure; this however, is speculative. Even taking the $2 billion industry “guestimate,” it would require trillions of dollars to implement this supposed “fix.” It is plain that a similar investment in efficiency in the USA and other energy-hog nations, and investment in wind energy worldwide would be a far more cost-effective use of capital. One can only imagine the results if a fraction of the residual funds were invested in technology development in solar, appropriate hydro, appropriate biomass and other sustainable power innovations!

Making nuclear power emits tons of C02 and relies on coal plants Ewall 07 (Mike, Environmental Justice, Nov. 2007, Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power,

While the nuclear reactors themselves release few greenhouse gases, the nuclear fuel cycle is a significant contributor. In 2001, 93% of the nation’s reported emissions of CFC-114, a potent greenhouse gas, were released from the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, where uranium is enriched to make nuclear reactor fuel. These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation’s dirty, old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities. Uranium shortages will cause more emissions Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power,
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm) 7. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants,

we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. What’s more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



1. There are emissions in the nuclear process 2. A massive amount of new plants are needed Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance, E The Environmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780) The uranium supply is also an issue. On the spot market, uranium prices have soared as existing

reactors have worked through supplies from mothballed plants. Demand is projected to exceed supply and push prices higher. The shortfall in uranium mining can be at least partly made up in uranium enrichment (an outgrowth of atomic bomb development), but capacity is limited there, too. Uranium enrichment also aggravates both global warming and ozone depletion. The single remaining
uranium enrichment plant in the U.S., Paducah Gaseous Diffusion in Kentucky, emits highly destructive chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used to dissipate heat generated by the compressors. And the plant is fired by two large, extremely dirty coal power plants. Although nukes avoid the smokestack problem, the nuclear process is not emission-free. The cycle from uranium mining to milling and processing, as well as waste storage and transportation, all involve greenhouse gas emissions. In his book Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change (IEER Press), Brice Smith admits that, when compared to fossil fuels, nuclear power emits far lower levels of

greenhouse gases, even when mining, enrichment and fuel fabrication are taken into account. But to effectively challenge the global warming problem, he says, a new reactor would have to come online somewhere in the world every 15 days on average between 2010 and 2050. Even with this growth, he calculates that the proportion of electricity coming from nuclear sources
would grow only slightly, from 16 to 20 percent over the period. Also, says Smith, a huge nuclear expansion would increase the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The world’s capacity to enrich uranium would have to go up dramatically by a factor of 2.5 to six. A dozen new enrichment plants would produce thousands of tons of highly deadly plutonium each year. And just one percent of that capacity would be enough to support the construction of 210 nuclear weapons per year. NIRS argues that, in the next 60 years, the industry is capable of building only half the 1,500 new reactors needed to significantly offset global warming, and that the enormous construction costs—estimated in the many trillions of dollars—would be much more effectively spent on renewable energy projects. “Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants

could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades,” says the Union of Concerned Scientists.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



NUCLEAR POWER EMITS JUST AS MUCH C02 AS ANY TRADITIONAL ENERGY SOURCE Olson 06 (Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Confronting
a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change, Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations, May 3, 2006, http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdf) Nuclear power is being widely promoted as a “solution” to global climate change. Unfortunately nuclear power

is not a solution and it is further counterproductive to any real remedy for human impacts on climate.3 Those selling the expansion of nuclear power are on a par with any salesman of counterfeit
medicine; one must closely examine the motives of anyone associated with nuclear schemes of any kind.4 In the service of this disinformation campaign U.S. Vice President Cheney has publicly stated5 a falsehood: he asserted that nuclear power is carbon-free. Nuclear power is not free from carbon emissions. A number of recent

studies have found that when mining, processing, and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make
electric power.6 Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially.7 Nuclear power is not only dependent upon fossil fuels for the

production of uranium fuel, decommissioning, and the disposition of wastes generated: it is also dependent upon a grid that is powered by other sources of energy, typically coal. This is due to the
simple fact that nuclear reactors cannot “black start”8 – in other words, they depend on electric power from the external power grid to be able to come on-line. Transition away from the combustion of fossil fuels cannot be accomplished solely by the expansion of nuclear power since it depends on the grid being powered up before reactors can come on-line.9


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NUCLEAR POWER ARE SUPER CONTENTIOUS- IT SPARKS HUGE POLITICAL BATTLES IN CONGRESS National Journal 05 (National Journal's CongressDaily, May 16, 2005 Senate Panel Slowed By Nuke Aid Talk, LN) The idea sounded simple enough for a Congress controlled by business-friendly Republicans: Utility companies said they could help offset the high cost of oil by putting a greater reliance on nuclear energy, if only the federal government could offer incentives to limit the risks of building and operating new reactors. But a move in that direction is now stalled in the intersection between what is politically palatable and economically feasible, leaving the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee uncertain how to proceed
as it tries to wrap up work on comprehensive energy legislation. "Everything is on the table," one exasperated committee aide said late last week, noting that new ideas are still welcome until the committee starts marking up nuclear issues next week. The nuclear knot is not the only issue holding up the committee. It is also trying to figure out, among other things, how to settle disputes between states and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over where to allow liquefied natural gas import terminals and relicensing hydroelectric dams. But the reactor riddle is

Some foes worry that financial incentives will deepen the federal deficit, others object on environmental grounds, and still others worry that the reactors will become new terrorist targets. There is also the question of where to store nuclear
particularly hard to solve because of the varied reasons driving the opposition. waste for thousands of years. The flip side of the argument is that if new reactors are not built, the cost of electricity might become even more tied to the price of oil as aging reactors leave the power grid and are taken out of service. A nuclear reactor has not been ordered in the United States since the 1970s. Without incentives such as liability limits and tax restructuring, utility executives say they cannot afford to invest in new reactors and move through the complex and expensive regulatory process. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Domenici and Idaho Republican Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo met with a group of nuclear energy officials in March to begin deciphering what incentives might

Senators included loan guarantees in energy legislation in the last Congress, despite the combined opposition from fiscal conservatives and lawmakers who are concerned about nuclear waste. Those guarantees were dropped
be feasible. Weeks of work by the committee staff have not yet led to concrete answers. during conference talks with the House in favor of production tax credits that would not kick in until a nuclear reactor comes on line. That approach would not address the issue of companies taking on huge financial risks with no return during the years of construction and licensing hearings that predate the production and sale of energy from the reactor. That attempt to write a comprehensive national energy bill failed, leading to this year's effort. But even if the Senate does find a solution, the fight is far from over. The energy bill passed by the House last month does not include the nuclear incentives, so a conference committee would have to settle the question. President Bush has instructed the Energy Department to work with Congress to offer federal risk insurance to mitigate costs incurred by bureaucratic delays in the licensing of new nuclear plants once they have been built. An aide said the committee continues to consider insurance, loan guarantees and production tax credits, along with the less likely option of investment tax credits to cover up-front construction costs. Utility executives say Congress should give the nuclear industry flexibility to choose what combination of incentives would be best for them. "It's not a question of one incentive over the other," said Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the largest trade association for the industry. "We would like to see a mosaic of

Nuclear energy advocates, though, continue to face some stiff political opposition from lawmakers who remain concerned over continued waste problems in some states, even though both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate energy committee support the industry.
financial incentives in there."

The concern over nuclear waste has been further exacerbated by delays in the Yucca Mountain national repository plan.


Choe 05 (Stan Choe, The Charlotte Observer, August 4, 2005, Are we ready for a nuclear comeback?, LN) President Bush has been a champion for the nuclear industry, becoming the first president to visit a nuclear
plant in 26 years when he recently stopped by a Maryland plant. "There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation," Bush said at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, according to Bloomberg News. "It is time for this country to start building

The battle is most pitched on Capitol Hill, where Congress is hashing out an energy bill that could help a nascent nuclear resurgence explode or fade. The Senate's version, passed in June, is packed with incentives to get the nuclear industry rolling, such as a subsidy for new reactors and loan guarantees for their construction. The House's version doesn't include those packages. A 2003 study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology advocates combining the ideas of nuclear plants'
nuclear power plants again."


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



proponents and opponents. The country, it said, needs more nuclear energy, but it also needs more renewables, such as wind, and more conservation.

Politics Links- BIPART
CONGRESS SUPPORTS LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NUCLEAR POWER E & E News 08 (Environment and Energy Publishing, NUCLEAR POWER: Former NRC head Curtiss
discusses future of Yucca, expansion of nuclear in U.S., Jan. 24, 2008, LN) Jim Curtiss: Well, I think there are a number of dimensions of that. The financial community, in terms of funding new nuclear, has in recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently. Thirty years ago I don't think you would have had that kind of view right after Three Mile Island until we saw the improved operation of the plants. But from a financial standpoint, the ability to bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants. Of the 18 companies that have announced plans to go through the permitting process for 32 plants none of those companies has yet decided to build a plant. So there's a lot of attention with Wall

Street talking with the industry about the importance of some of the things that Congress has done, the establishment of the loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an
important piece of this. The Department of Energy recently published guidance on how they're going to implement that program that's very positive and has a loan guarantee program that will provide for the risk support that we're going to need as we get back into nuclear construction. The U.S. Congress just in the appropriations process, here before they left town in December, authorized $18.5 billion for loan guarantees for

nuclear projects. So there's a lot of support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward.

Daily Record 07 (USEC applauds Congress, Dec. 28, 2007, LN) USEC Inc. commended Congress and the administration for their strong support for the renaissance of the nuclear power industry through the loan guarantee program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy, included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H.R. 2764) signed Wednesday by President George W. Bush. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38.5 billion in energy projects, including $18.5 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities. USEC, a Bethesda-based global energy company, intends to pursue a DOE loan guarantee for construction of its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Incentives for nuclear power are popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News, April 29, 2008, Opinion favours nuclear, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia, while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. A survey of 1000 US citizens carried out by Bisconti Research and published by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) found broad support for possible future nuclear construction projects, strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants, and even

stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanced-design nuclear power plants. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear, hydro and renewable energy, with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade, if needed, while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. Overall, 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA, with 33% opposing it, with
the proportion of people "strongly" in favour, at 28%, double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times, 58

percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. And at a June conference, sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a free-market
think tank in New York City, doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued, the political climate

for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change," the institute warned in a report on the conference.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich





UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Nuclear Power Solves Warming
Nuclear power key to solve warming Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance, E The Environmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780) Nuclear power has already won some powerful allies in the environmental community. Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense says, “We should all keep an open mind about nuclear power.” Jared Diamond, best-selling author of Collapse, says, “To deal with our energy problems we need everything available to us, including nuclear power,” which should be “done carefully, like they do in France, where there have been no accidents.” To which Stewart Brand, another apostate green who founded The Whole Earth Catalog and Whole Earth Review, adds, “The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.” James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia theory about the planet’s self-regulating systems, has called for, to quote The Independent, “a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power.” Actor Paul Newman visited New York’s Indian Point plant and praised its climate role. In many cases, these environmentalists see nuclear as only a temporary fix. Even if nuclear power isn’t an absolute panacea, it is necessary to solve any warming Bowman 08 (FRANK L. (SKIP) BOWMAN, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute,
Remarks at the Nuclear Energy Assembly, Facing Facts, MAY 6, 2008, Nuclear Energy Institute, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/bowmanspeech_050508/) The most recent World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency, perhaps the pre-eminent global energy forecast, showed world nuclear capacity increasing by about 12 percent from today’s 368 gigawatts even in its business-as-usual scenario. IEA also produced a “450 Stabilization Scenario,” to identify what must happen to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million. In that scenario, world nuclear capacity must more than double – from 368 gigawatts today to 833 gigawatts in 2030. Obviously, that

additional nuclear capacity does not shoulder the entire carbon reduction load: end-use energy efficiency, improved efficiency of coal-fired power plants, major gains in CO2 capture and storage are also necessary – but without nuclear power, we simply can’t get there.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Nuclear Power Solves Warming
NUCLEAR SOLVES THE ECONOMY AND WARMING CDP 08 (Congressional Documents and Publications, May 12, 2008, Analyses Show Lieberman-Warner Depends
on Significant Nuclear Energy Increases, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, LN) The expansion of nuclear energy will be a key debate if the America's Climate Security Act - S.2191 (LiebermanWarner) cap-and-trade bill comes to the Senate Floor. As economic analyses show, significant carbon

reductions are contingent on the construction of extensive numbers of new nuclear plants.
FACT: Economic analyses show Lieberman-Warner would require massive development of nuclear energy, up to 268 new plants by 2030, according to the Energy Information Agency's (EIA) most recent analysis: that's two and a half times the number of plants we have operating today - an increase so massive and unrealistic as to be fictional. In addition to EIA, the chart below shows the necessary projections as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF): EIA's analysis further showed that merely limiting the construction of new nuclear plants dramatically increased allowance costs and electricity costs, while decreasing reductions in carbon emissions. This clearly indicates that nuclear energy is

the key to reducing carbon emissions and reducing the costs of any such effort. Proponents of climate change legislation can't continue to reject the world's largest source of carbonfree energy. However, any large-scale development of nuclear energy will face several challenges including regulatory predictability and waste management, but perhaps the most significant challenge will be the scale of the financing needed to accommodate such a large number of projects. The Electric
Power Research Institute's projection of 64 new plants by 2030, which is considered an extremely optimistic goal by industry experts, would require the industry to find financing of approximately $384 billion. Companies looking to build just one or two plants may need financing equal to half of their total market capitalization. CEO's will not gamble the health of their companies if the financial risks are too high or if political support is shaky. One of the ways the federal government can address this situation is by helping to create a stable financing platform upon which executives can base their decisions. Loan guarantees is one such tool. If proponents of climate

change legislation are serious about reducing carbon emissions, it's time to stop dodging the issue and embrace nuclear energy. Robust construction of emissions-free nuclear plants requires
robust support from the Congress now.

NUCLEAR POWER CAN SOLVING WARMING EVEN WITH VAST INCREASES IN ELECTRICITY USAGE Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic
Renaissance, E The Environmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780) The case for Dominion as a friend of the Earth is based on a few simple facts: It generates 45 percent of Connecticut’s electricity and 30 percent of Virginia’s without taking a huge toll in smokestack-emitted global warming gas. In fact, there are no smokestacks, because (aside from the occasional release of radioactive material) the only thing nuclear power plants vent is steam. What’s more, in contrast to the

modest current capacity of wind and solar power, nukes can produce very large amounts of electricity—enough to counter global warming by taking highly polluting coal-burning plants offline even as electricity demand increases.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



Nuclear power key to energy independence Huber and Mills 05 (Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills, Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power, City Journal,
Winter 2005, http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_nuclear_power.html) The power has to come from somewhere. Sun and wind will never come close to supplying it. Earnest though they are, the people who argue otherwise are the folks who brought us 400 million extra tons of coal a year.

The one practical technology that could decisively shift U.S. carbon emissions in the near term would displace coal with uranium, since uranium burns emission-free. It’s time even for Greens to embrace the atom. It must surely be clear by now, too, that the political costs of depending so heavily on oil from the Middle East are just too great. We need to find a way to stop funneling $25 billion a year (or
so) of our energy dollars into churning cauldrons of hate and violence. By sharply curtailing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we would greatly expand the range of feasible political and military options in dealing with the countries that breed the terrorists. The best thing we can do to decrease the Middle East’s hold on us is to turn off the spigot ourselves. For economic, ecological, and geopolitical reasons, U.S. policymakers ought to promote electrification on the demand side, and nuclear fuel on the supply side, wherever they reasonably can.

Nuclear would lower electricity prices and solve our dependence on foreign energy Spencer 07 (Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,” The Heritage Foundation, Nov.15, 2007, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm) The near death of the U.S. nuclear energy industry has harmed both investors and consumers. First, ratepayers eventually pay for the increased costs of generating electricity. More important, by
removing nuclear energy from America's energy portfolio, anti-nuclear activists have limited the choices available to America's energy producers and consumers. Limiting choice has two inevitable results: higher prices and lower quality.Without nuclear energy as an option and with coal being frowned upon, utilities started moving toward natural gas power plants. This growing reliance on natural gas has

caused electricity prices to follow the volatility of natural gas prices. As demand for natural gas has increased, prices have become even more volatile.Perhaps more ominously, it positions the United States to increase its reliance on foreign energy significantly. Today, America's energy
dependence is largely a function of foreign petroleum and the transportation sector. The nation gets only about 2 percent of its electricity from oil-fired plants. However, the growing U.S. dependence on natural gas is beginning to exceed domestic supply. This has resulted in increasing natural gas imports. Importing energy is not necessarily a problem if those resources are coming from stable, friendly countries, but foreign natural gas reserves are located largely in many of the same, less predictable countries that have large petroleum reserves.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



A2: Accidents
2008, http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/02/nuclear_energy_the_new_alterna.html) Forrest J. Remick, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at Penn State University, calls nuclear power "very safe." The industrial accident rate for nuclear plants is 14.6 times less than for all manufacturing industries, Remick asserts in an article on the Penn State Web site. As well, no member

of the public has been killed or injured from radiation during the nearly 50 years that commercial nuclear plants have been operating in the U.S., according to Remick and others. Gard said the
money spent on another Fermi plant would be better used to help reduce energy demand in Michigan, by offering incentives for homes and businesses to install energy- efficient appliances and equipment, for instance. If forced to choose, Gard said he'd rather see a coal plant that captures its carbon dioxide than a new nuclear plant generating more nuclear waste. For their part, Consumers Energy officials have said it would take too long to permit a nuclear plant here before demand outpaces supply. The utility plans to install additional pollution controls for a new coal plant in Bay County, leaving room for carbon capture technology in the future, said Jeff Holyfield, a Consumers spokesman. Last year, Cravens, of Long Island, N.Y., published a book, with references, called "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy."

She said most

people don't realize that a nuclear plant can't explode like a nuclear bomb, and the industry's two most prominent accidents weren't as catastrophic as many people believe. According to a fact sheet from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the partial meltdown of the reactor core at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 "led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community." The accident caused the NRC "to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight" and "had the effect of enhancing safety," the agency says. The 1986 Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine was much worse, but involved a bad reactor design that is not used in the U.S., Cravens and others argue. Twenty-eight workers died in the first four months
after the Chernobyl accident, but the majority of 5 million residents living in contaminated areas around the site received only small radiation doses, according to the NRC. Soot in the air from coal generation, on the

other hand, is estimated to cause more than 20,000 premature deaths a year in the U.S.,
according to a study done by a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Radiation from nuclear plants is a concern. But that's why the reactor at Fermi is shielded by 10-12 inches of steel and about 12 feet of concrete, said John Austerberry, a DTE spokesman. The plant also has numerous backup water and power systems to make sure the reactor operates safely. Adrian Heymer is a senior director at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group in Washington, D.C. After a 30-year lull following the Three Mile Island incident, U.S.

The NRC has revamped its licensing process, and the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides incentives for utilities to
utilities have recently submitted 17 applications for as many as 30 new reactors around the country, Heymer said.

construct new plants. DTE could be eligible for up to $300 million in incentives for Fermi 3. France already gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. The U.S. gets more than half of its power from coal, and 20 percent from more than 100 nuclear reactors. The next generation of U.S. nuclear plants will be even safer than the current fleet, Heymer said. The industry hopes to move to an integrated spent fuel management system, with advanced recycling and processing. That would reduce waste and eliminate generating a stream of plutonium during recycling "that makes things go bang," Heymer said. "The systems are very reliable," he said of the next generation of nuclear plants. "You've got less to go wrong. They are simpler, with fewer components, fewer moving components, so there's less to break down. Your probability of

having an event that causes the fuel to melt is a lot lower. ... "The probability of having a Three Mile Island type event today, with existing plants, is about 1 in 100,000. "The probability on some of the new designs is close to 1 in 500 million."


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



A2: Accidents
NEW PLATS ARE SAFE- WE AREN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR OLD PLANTS Schoen 07 (John Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC, Does nuclear power now make financial sense?, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/) Proponents of new plants point to several changes that they say will be advantageous in getting the next generation of plants off the drawing boards: Standardized designs: The existing fleet of U.S. power plants was largely custom-built, a one-at-a-time process that all but insured delays in approval and construction, along with runaway costs. Today, with several standard designs already approved by the NRC, builders of nuclear power plants say they are much better able to manage costs and maintain quality control. Large, standardized components are expected to be built off-site and then
delivered and assembled at the plant. Improved safety features: New designs include “passive safety” features; for example, “gravity-fed” water supplies to cool a reactor core if it overheats, reducing the risk of pump failure. In some cases, nuclear proponents say, design simplifications have reduced both risk and cost.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN ACCIDENT IN THE US IS NIL Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, “Nuclear Energy
Policy,” July 12, 2007, http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) In terms of public health consequences, the safety record of the U.S. nuclear power industry

in comparison with other major commercial energy technologies has been excellent. During approximately 2,700 reactor-years of operation in the United States,15 the only incident at a commercial nuclear power plant that might lead to any deaths or injuries to the public has been the Three Mile Island accident, in which more than half the reactor core melted. Public exposure to radioactive materials released during that accident is expected to cause fewer than five deaths (and
perhaps none) from cancer over the subsequent 30 years. A study of 32,000 people living within 5 miles of the reactor when the
accident occurred found no significant increase in cancer rates through 1998, although the authors noted that some potential health effects “cannot be definitively excluded.” The relatively small amounts of radioactivity released by nuclear plants during normal operation are not generally believed to pose significant hazards, although some groups contend that routine emissions are unacceptably risky. There is substantial scientific uncertainty about the level of risk posed by low levels of radiation exposure; as with many carcinogens and other hazardous substances, health effects can be clearly measured only at relatively high exposure levels. In the case of radiation, the assumed risk of low-level exposure has been extrapolated mostly from health effects documented among persons exposed to high levels of radiation, particularly Japanese survivors of nuclear

The consensus among most safety experts is that a severe nuclear power plant accident in the United States is likely to occur less frequently than once every 10,000 reactor-years of operation. (For the current U.S. fleet of about 100 reactors, that rate would yield an average of one severe accident every 100 years.) These experts believe that most severe accidents would have small public health impacts, and that accidents causing as many as 100 deaths would be much rarer than once every 10,000 reactor-years. On the other hand, some experts challenge the
bombing in World War II.

complex calculations that go into predicting such accident frequencies, contending that accidents with serious public health consequences may be more frequent.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



A2: Accidents
REACTORS ARE CLOSELY REGULATED- THIS PREVENTS ANY ACCIDENTS Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, “Nuclear Energy Policy,” July 12, 2007, http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) A fundamental concern in the nuclear regulatory debate is the performance of NRC in issuing and enforcing nuclear safety regulations. The nuclear industry and its supporters have regularly complained
that unnecessarily stringent and inflexibly enforced nuclear safety regulations have burdened nuclear utilities and their customers with excessive costs. But many environmentalists, nuclear opponents, and other groups charge NRC with being too close to the nuclear industry, a situation that they say has resulted in lax oversight of nuclear power plants and routine exemptions from safety requirements.

Primary responsibility for nuclear safety compliance lies with nuclear plant owners, who are required to find any problems with their plants and report them to NRC. Compliance is also monitored directly by NRC, which maintains at least two resident inspectors at each nuclear power plant. The resident inspectors routinely examine plant systems, observe the performance of reactor personnel, and prepare regular inspection reports. For serious safety violations, NRC often dispatches special inspection teams to plant sites. In response to congressional criticism, NRC has reorganized and overhauled many of its procedures. The Commission has moved toward “risk-informed regulation,” in which safety enforcement is guided by the relative risks identified by detailed individual plant studies. NRC’s risk-informed reactor oversight system,inaugurated April 2, 2000, relies on a series of performance indicators to determine the level of scrutiny that each reactor should receive. NEW SAFETY MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, “Nuclear Energy
Policy,” July 12, 2007, http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States raised concern about nuclear power plant security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes several reactor security provisions, including requirements to revise the security threats that nuclear plant guard forces must be able to

defeat, regular force-on-force security exercises at nuclear power plants, and the fingerprinting of nuclear facility workers. THE INDUSTRY HAS LEARNED FROM PAST MISTAKES- NO NEW ACCIDENTS Stuckey 07 (Mike Stuckey, Senior News Editor, MSNBC, New nuclear power ‘wave’ — or just a ripple?,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16272910/) In the U.S., chastened nuclear operators focused on improving safety and efficiency at existing plants. They were successful: There have been no notable U.S. accidents since Three Mile Island and the U.S. reactor fleet has produced at about 90 percent of licensed capacity since 2001, up considerably from efficiency figures of the early 1980s. Nuclear plants today produce about 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States. Industry improvements are “an outgrowth, in all honesty, of the Three Mile Island accident," NEI's Kerekes said, "because the steps that were taken after that do a better job

of sharing information in our industry and applying best practices.”


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



SAFETY MEASURES PREVENT TERRORISM Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, “Nuclear Energy Policy,” July 12, 2007, http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) Nuclear power plants have long been recognized as potential targets of terrorist attacks, and critics have long questioned the adequacy of the measures required of nuclear plant operators to defend against such attacks. All commercial nuclear power plants licensed by NRC have a series of physical barriers against access to vital reactor areas and are required to maintain a trained security force to protect them. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, NRC began a “top-to-bottom” review of its security requirements. A key element in protecting nuclear plants is the requirement that simulated terrorist attacks, monitored by NRC, be carried out to test the ability of the plant operator to defend against them. The severity of attacks to be prepared for are specified in the form of a “design basis threat” (DBT). After more than a year’s review, on April 29, 2003, NRC changed the DBT to “represent the largest reasonable threat against which a regulated private guard force should be expected to defend under existing law.” The details of the revised DBT were not released to the public. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required NRC to further revise the DBT based on an assessment of terrorist threats, the potential for multiple coordinated attacks, possible suicide attacks, and other criteria. NRC approved the DBT revision based on those requirements on January 29, 2007. The revised DBT does not require nuclear power plants to protect themselves against deliberate aircraft attacks. NRC contended that nuclear facilities were already required to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions, no matter what the cause, and that active protection against airborne threats was being addressed by U.S. military and other agencies. EPACT05 also requires NRC to conduct force-on-force security exercises at nuclear power plants every three years (which was NRC’s previous policy), authorizes firearms use by nuclear security personnel (preempting some state restrictions), establishes federal security coordinators, and requires fingerprinting of nuclear facility workers.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



NO RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACK ON PLANTS Huber and Mills 05 (Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills, Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power, City Journal, Winter 2005, http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_nuclear_power.html) How worried should we really be in 2005 that accidents or attacks might release and disperse a nuclear power plant’s radioactive fuel? Not very. Our civilian nuclear industry has dramatically improved its procedures and safety-related hardware since 1979. Several thousand reactor-years of statistics since Three Mile Island clearly show that these power plants are extraordinarily reliable in normal operation. And uranium’s combination of power and super-density makes the fuel less of a terror risk, not more, at least from an engineering standpoint. It’s easy to “overbuild” the protective walls and containment systems of nuclear facilities, since—like the pyramids—the payload they’re built to shield is so small. Protecting skyscrapers is hard; no builder can afford to erect a hundred times more wall than usable space. Guaranteeing the integrity of a jumbo jet’s fuel tanks is impossible; the tanks have to fly. Shielding a nuclear plant’s tiny payload is easy—just erect more steel, pour more concrete, and build tougher perimeters. In fact, it’s a safety challenge that we have already met. Today’s plants split atoms behind super-thick layers of steel and concrete; future plants would boast thicker protection still. All the numbers, and the strong consensus in the technical community, reinforce the projections made two decades ago: it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a serious release of nuclear materials from a U.S. reactor. TERRORIST WON’T TARGET PLANTS- EVEN IF THEY DID THEY WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO PENETRATE THE DOME Johnston 08 (Rob Johnston, Jan. 9, 2008, Ten myths about nuclear power, http://www.spikedonline.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/) Since 11 September 2001, several studies have examined the possibility of attacks by a large aircraft on reactor containment buildings. The US Department of Energy sponsored an independent computer-modelling study of the effects of a fully fuelled Boeing 767-400 hitting the reactor containment vessel. Under none of the possible scenarios was containment breached (21). Only the highly specialised US ‘bunker busting’ ordnance would be capable – after several direct strikes – of penetrating the amount of reinforced concrete that surrounds reactors. And besides, terrorists have already demonstrated that they prefer large, high visibility, soft targets with maximum human casualties (as in the attacks on New York, London, Madrid and Mumbai) rather than well-guarded, isolated, low-population targets.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



WASTE IS NOT A REAL ISSUE- ITS ALL POLITICAL Holt 07 (Mark Holt is head of the Energy and Minerals Section of the Congressional Research Service’s
Resources, Science, and Industry Division since 1997, “Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?” Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html) I think the Keystone report they do make the point that most experts do not see it as a major physical problem dealing with the physical waste -- at least in the short term. So if there's no Yucca Mountain, if

Yucca Mountain is delayed for decades even, that's a relatively short period of time as far as interim storage goes. It's not really a technical and safety issue, but the concern about surface storage being permanent, meaning -- we talked also last night about the millions of years. Once you get into that time frame, obviously, surface storage is not nearly as secure as a repository. So that would be a concern there. But as far as the near-term policymaking issue, it often is more of a legal and regulatory problem than perhaps a real physical safety problem. NEW PLANTS DON’T CREATE WASTE- ITS ALL RECYCLED Freeman 07 (Marsha, Debunking the Myths About Nuclear Energy, Feb. 2, 2007,
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3405_nuclear_myths.html) A: There is no such thing as nuclear "waste." This is a term used in popular parlance by anti-nuclear ideologues to frighten the public, and its elected representatives. More than 95% of the fission products created in commercial power plants can be reprocessed and recycled. The spent fuel from a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant, which has operated over 40 years, can produce energy equal to 130 million barrels of oil, or 37 million tons of coal. In reprocessing, fissionable uranium-235 and plutonium are separated from the high-level fission products. The plutonium can be used to make mixed-oxide fuel, which is currently used to produce electrical power in 35 European nuclear reactors. The fissionable uranium in the spent fuel can also be reused. From the remaining 3% of high-level radioactive products, valuable medical and other isotopes can be extracted.


UMKC SDI 2008 Winfrey/Dietrich



NUCLEAR POWER PREVENTS PROLIFERATION Johnston 08 (Rob Johnston, Jan. 9, 2008, Ten myths about nuclear power, http://www.spikedonline.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/) More nuclear plants (in Britain and elsewhere) would actually reduce weapons proliferation. Atomic warheads make excellent reactor fuel; decommissioned warheads (containing greatly enriched uranium or plutonium) currently provide about 15 per cent of world nuclear fuel (19). Increased demand for reactor fuel would divert such warheads away from potential terrorists. Nuclear build is closely monitored by the IAEA, which polices anti-proliferation treaties.

NUCLEAR POWER DOES NOT CAUSE PROLIFERATION Freeman 07 (Marsha, Debunking the Myths About Nuclear Energy, Feb. 2, 2007, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3405_nuclear_myths.html)
Q: But if the United States goes ahead now with reprocessing, doesn't making this technology available increase the risk that other nations will develop nuclear weapons? A: No nation has ever developed a nuclear

weapon from a civilian nuclear power plant. If a nation has the intention to develop nuclear weapons, it must obtain the specific technology to do so. Israel is an example of a nation that has no civilian nuclear power plants, but has developed nuclear weapons. The nonproliferation argument—that controlling technology will reduce the risk of weapons proliferation—is an historically demonstrable false one. Nations make decisions based on their security and military requirements, not on which technologies are available.


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)//-->