JDI 08 Murray/Naputi

Nuclear Power Shared Negative
Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................3 Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................4 Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................5 Ext #1 - Status Quo Solves the Case............................................................................................................................................................6 Ext #2 - Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve........................................................................................................................................................7 Ext #2 - Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve........................................................................................................................................................8 Ext #2- Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve.........................................................................................................................................................9 Ext #3 - Long Timeframe..........................................................................................................................................................................10 Ext #4 - Shortages......................................................................................................................................................................................11 Ext #5 - Defaults........................................................................................................................................................................................12 Case Turns.................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Terrorism Turn...........................................................................................................................................................................................13 Ext- Nuclear Power -> Terrorism..............................................................................................................................................................14 Accidents Turn...........................................................................................................................................................................................15 Ext- Nuclear Power -> Accidents..............................................................................................................................................................16 Proliferation Turn.......................................................................................................................................................................................17 Environmental Racism Turn......................................................................................................................................................................18 Imperialism Turn.......................................................................................................................................................................................19 Tradeoff Turn.............................................................................................................................................................................................20 Economy Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................21 Economy Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................22 Ext #1 - Nuclear Energy Expensive...........................................................................................................................................................23 AT: CO2 Internal Link...............................................................................................................................................................................24 Warming Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................25 Ext #1- Too Slow.......................................................................................................................................................................................26 Ext #2A – Nuclear Power Emits C02 .......................................................................................................................................................27 Ext #2B - Can’t Build Enough Plants........................................................................................................................................................28 Free Market Counterplan Solvency...........................................................................................................................................................29 States Counterplan Solvency.....................................................................................................................................................................30 Carbon Tax Counterplan............................................................................................................................................................................31 Solvency Extensions..................................................................................................................................................................................32 Politics-Agenda Bad Net Benefit...............................................................................................................................................................33 AT: Counterplan Hurts the Economy........................................................................................................................................................34 Economy DA Links...................................................................................................................................................................................35 Spending DA Links....................................................................................................................................................................................36 Spending DA Links....................................................................................................................................................................................37 Politics Links- Agenda Good....................................................................................................................................................................38 Politics Links- Agenda Good.....................................................................................................................................................................39 Politics Links- Agenda Bad.......................................................................................................................................................................40 Politics Links- Agenda Bad.......................................................................................................................................................................41 Elections Links- Plan Unpopular...............................................................................................................................................................42 Elections Links- Plan Popular....................................................................................................................................................................43 McCain Solves the Aff...............................................................................................................................................................................44 Topicality 1NC- Alternative Energy = Not Nuclear..................................................................................................................................45

1

JDI 08 Murray/Naputi

2

JDI 08 Murray/Naputi

Solvency Frontline
1. Loan guarantees for nuclear power are already in place
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. Loan guarantees aren’t sufficient- plants may still not 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. Even if the process were to begin now, a nuclear plant won’t be online for 6 years
Melvin 07 (Becky Melvin, CNBC, Nuclear Energy Industry Powers Back Up, http://www.cnbc.com/id/22007461/) The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides incentives for new electricity generation, including renewable energy and nuclear power. The three biggest draws, say companies considering nuclear plants, are production tax credits of up to $6 billion, which will likely to be divided among the first nine newly-built units; regulatory risk insurance to cover licensing delays, worth up to $2 billion; and loan guarantees, which would cover most of the financing in case any of these multi-billion dollar projects wind up in default. For an unregulated energy provider like NRG Energy, federal incentives were a primary driver in plans to move forward with two new nuclear units in Texas, says Crane. The incentives were also important to UniStar, a joint venture between Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and French
electricity group EDF. UniStar plans to submit the second half of its application for a new reactor in Maryland by March of 2008. CEO George Vanderheyden says the company is also considering an application for a new reactor in New York. In all, 21 new reactor license applications for a total of 32 units are expected between now and 2009, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. More than half the proposals are for the southern part of the country. The Tennessee Valley Authority submitted a request in October to build two units in Alabama; Virginia-based Dominion received early site plan approval for a unit northwest of Richmond, Va. and South Carolina Electric and Gas, a unit of SCANA, is expected to submit a request for two units in December. “Whether we go ahead with one or two units is still up in the air,” says spokesman Robert Yanity. Decisions on the first set of applications are expected by the middle of 2011, according to

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell. Construction – which takes three to four years – can begin after that, putting the first new nuclear unit in operation by mid 2014 at the earliest.

3

JDI 08 Murray/Naputi

Solvency Frontline
4. It’s structurally impossible for the nuclear industry to expand: A. There is a big labor shortage
Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle, A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry, March 13, 2008, U.S. News & World Report, http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry_print.htm) The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade, concentrated in the South—not only nuclear generators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, and electricity transmission lines. All projects need skilled craft workers, and they are in drastically short supply. The utility Southern Co. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20,000 workers in the Southeast. That shortfall will balloon to 40,000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay is inching up and hours are
increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. Fluor says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-intoovertime 50-hour weeks that had been planned. Looking ahead, the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilledlabor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. But in the next five years, just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers—35

percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern," likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent report. The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago. "Parents, guidance counselors, and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with the intention of then attending a four-year college program," concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute. "High-paying skilled labor jobs, once considered excellent career options, are now perceived as second class."

B. There will be uranium shortages
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 enriched uranium from Russia. And most recently, we are blending down or diluting surplus weapons uranium into U.S. fuel. So we're running the global nuclear industry

on a secondary supply that pops pretty quick. And it's 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. 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

there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. given a reactor's low operating expenses.asp? idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+laws) 4. Sept. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17. Energy Publisher. or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. no nuclear power. Staff Writer.nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. No water. local politics. If defaults occur in the new round. There literally aren’t enough sites for nuclear power to expand Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. Put industry in control of fuel cycle management. critics worry federal costs will be huge. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. it has not assumed formal responsibility for one atom of fuel. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power.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.coopamerica. http://www. Indeed. in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island. the nuclear waste problem must be fixed.000 – or 2. director of energy program at Public Citizen. http://www. 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. Nuclear power surge coming. A number of power companies went bankrupt." says Tyson Slocum. 7. The federal government took responsibility for managing the fuel. Ralph Nader's consumerprotection group. June 3. but the federal government has proven incapable of providing that service.000 -. if we need to build 17. http://www. Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers. Furthermore. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal. There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites.000 new plants? 5 . New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. While the federal government has been very successful in collecting the fee.7 billion. due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power.S.or gas-fired facilities. For example: On Monday..500 or 3. The nuclear industry should establish responsibility for spent fuel management. and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. The Energy Policy Act of 1982 created a framework for managing used nuclear fuel. and nuclear energy producers were supposed to pay for the service through a fee. many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town.energypublisher. it has completely failed in collecting the waste. earthquakes. 28. Nuclear power won’t be sustainable without a solution for spent fuel Spencer 08 (Jack Spencer. especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling.com/article. Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding. NEI officials told The New York Times in July. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free. flooding. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen. which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. 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. Nuclear power needed to offset environmental laws. a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants. hurricanes. geography. In short.csmonitor. political instability and climate change itself. The federal government would still have roles to play in terms of providing oversight and taking title of the waste once the geologic repository is decommissioned. 2007. let alone. Christian Science Monitor. If nuclear power is going to have a sustainable rebirth in the U." In 2003. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5.cfm) 6. That huge startup cost might make financial sense.most plants won’t be built Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. 6. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. In late 2003. Defaults likely. 17. despite being legally obliged to do so beginning in 1998.4 and $6. but what happens to the fuel between the time it leaves the reactor and the time it is permanently disposed should be in the hands of industry.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Solvency Frontline 5. NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s. 2008.

Specialist in Energy Policy. Nuclear plants generate more than half the electricity in six states.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1 . nuclear power plants is greater than that from oil. which restarted May 22. electricity generation. Financing the next generation of nuclear power plants.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants. despite differences over energy policy. and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth.) Electricity production from U.S. ( ) Status quo solves.pdf) It's encouraging to know that.8 billion refurbishment.. Sept. D-N. support federal incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) Nevertheless. McCain says there is "no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power. R-Ariz. which currently comprises 104 licensed reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states. when the first large-scale commercial reactors were being ordered..” July 12. 2007. “Nuclear Energy Policy. several presidential candidates recognize the need for additional nuclear power. Science.the next president will support nuclear power Miller 07 (William H. natural gas. Resources.utah. nuclear power industry. Hillary Clinton. which accounts for more than half of U. http://publicutilities. Sens. 23.S. 2007. and hydropower. the outlook recently has been improving for the U. 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. http://sharp. after a 22-year shutdown and $1. D-Ill.sefora. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor. 2007.. and behind only coal.S." 6 . and John McCain. Barack Obama.Status Quo Solves the Case ( ) Nuclear power inevitable Holt 07 (Mark Holt. and Industry Division. (That number includes TVA’s Browns Ferry 1.Y.

And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved. Typically. That could be more risk than Wall Street is ready to assume — especially for the projects that go first. began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete.msnbc. Does nuclear power now make financial sense?. nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry. April 24. Even if all goes as proponents hope. To help reassure investors that the bonds are a safe investment.thenation. the loan guarantee — 80 percent of 80 percent — will only cover about two-thirds of the total cost. Even with vast government subsidies. ( ) An increase in loan guarantees is inadequate. 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. the first plants won’t come online before 2014 and will cost an estimated $4 billion each.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) Loan guarantees empirically haven’t inspired nuclear power expansion Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants.” 7 . Most of these projects are expected to be financed by bonds. "Wall street doesn't like nuclear power. as well as risk insurance. Senior Producer. the energy industry analyst. 2008. To do that. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2 . The fact is.5 billion.msn. MSNBC. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. “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. they face several important hurdles.” said Tezak. five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. What Nuclear Renaissance?. with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then. in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. these projects would be financed with 80 percent debt and 20 percent cash or equity put up by the owner of the plant. Using that math. 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. Congress to the rescue? Though the current interpretation of the rules could throw cold water on efforts to raise money. 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.there are problems in how they are applied Schoen 07 (John Schoen. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. Alabama. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility. But that critical guarantee has already hit a serious snag." says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. That's before cost overruns. Congress has provided loan guarantees for 80 percent of the financing for the first several projects to win NRC approval. http://www. it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget. many in the industry expect Congress to clarify the rules to provide more generous guarantees. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money." the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. “But it has the potential to be a deal breaker.com/id/16286304/) Nukes for sale But it’s far from clear that this new round of plants will ever be built. the power industry will have to convince state regulators and investors that the numbers add up. Before ground is broken for the first new plant. the TVA's Watts Bar 1.com/doc/20080512/parenti) In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984. http://www.

5 billion for each plant (depending on the size of the reactor). not to mention the huge liability risk of an accident — the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant. but McCain's idea of a crash construction program to build hundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just as unrealistic.)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. 8 . since 1996. and some nations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants.00.pdf) The maximum coverage available under the loan guarantee program—a guarantee on debt covering 80 percent of a plant’s construction costs. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s. 30.1812540.5 billion to $7. as they pose potentially significant risks and high costs to America’s taxpayers. http://www. There's no question that a nuclear plant. In his study.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. this provision removes Congressional authority and the safeguards in place through the appropriation process. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. 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. Initial analyses of the loan guarantee program have shown that DOE lacks the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement its program. for DOE to write unlimited loan guarantees without Congressional oversight. or the fact that we still have yet to devise a long-term method for the disposal of atomic waste. Lovins.com/time/health/article/0. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. The 30 plants currently being proposed use five reactor designs.time.S. Oct. so at most. In addition. 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. Is Nuclear Power Viable?. ( ) Incentives won’t revive nuclear power Walsh 08 (Bryan Walsh. and shifts the financial risk from private lenders to taxpayers. 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 nuclear industry attracted nothing.S. 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. covering 80 percent of construction costs would require guaranteeing debt with a face value of $4. the price of building a plant — all that concrete and steel — has risen dramatically in recent years. just because a plant is considered both innovative and commercially viable does not mean it will receive the maximum guarantee of 80 percent. argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. 2007.eesi. so it's up to government to do so." he says. Under the base-case assumptions.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) Most utilities won’t be eligible for guarantees CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.pdf) A provision of the Senate bill exempts DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec.cbo. 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. 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. an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers. Reports from the GAO and DOE’s Office of the Inspector General state that the necessary policies. and staff remain absent. More nuclear subsidies.5 ( ) The Department of Energy doesn’t have the resources to implement the loan guarantee program EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute." he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment. once it's up and running. let alone funded. 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). http://www. 15 of those plants would qualify as innovative. which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for. Lovins notes that the U.” May 2008. The Senate provision allows. At the same time. 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. http://www. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century. to say the least. 2008.5 billion [in nominal dollars] on the cumulative amount of loan guarantees for new nuclear plants over the 2008–2011 period. (The President’s budget proposed a limit of $18.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2 . June 6. a commitment that has not been proposed. while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk. This Issue Brief explores these issues raised by the 2007 energy bill provisions.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. the cleanest fossil fuel — but nuclear energy still seems like the power of yesterday. If adopted. titled "The Nuclear Illusion. Providing the maximum coverage to three plants based on each of the five reactor designs would result in roughly $100 billion in loan guarantees.html) That's debatable. Nuclear supporters like Moore who argue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs. among other things. and that no more than three plants based on each advanced reactor design can be considered innovative.8599. a plant design that has not been built in the United States) and commercially viable. in the case of nuclear technology. a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U. procedures. raising questions about DOE’s ability to manage its loan guarantee program. won't do the trick either. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns — the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear meltdown.

procedures. “The Administration believes that it is unwise to amend that authority while the program is still in the early stages of implementation.eesi. 2007. DOE chose to solicit preapplications prior to finalizing its regulations. DOE initiated its loan guarantee program for innovative technologies in fiscal year 2006.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-3007_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2.”29 Similarly. DOE did begin implementation. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) The Department of Energy is structurally incapable of implementing the loan guarantee programthere are a rash of bad policies and resource shortages EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. DOE had not taken steps to ensure that it had in place the critical policies. DOE first proposed transferring appropriations from other appropriated DOE accounts in May 2006.” though at the time of the report.pdf) Following the passage of EPACT 05 in 2005. “There are a number of additional steps that should be taken to foster the success of the loan guarantee program. and its approach to the LGP raised serious questions about whether this program and its financial risks would be well managed. DOE proposed transferring funds from some of its accounts to start the program.” it found. these had not yet been taken. “At the time of our review a full complement of Federal staff designated to administer the loan guarantee program was not in place and plans to utilize technical experts to assist in the administration of the program had not been fully developed. http://www. stating. and mechanisms necessary to ensure the program’ssuccess. it stated. paying specific attention to the lack of staff essential to implement the program.”26 Likewise. A report released by the GAO in February 2007 made note of the fact that many necessary policies and procedures for the program were still lacking: “At the time of our review. followed by a solicitation for preapplications to the program a few months later in August. Nevertheless.”27 The Inspector General’s report concluded. 9 . 30. 28 Along with a lack of both manpower and procedure in DOE’s loan guarantee program. its early actions in initial stages of the program raise doubts as well about its management. Oct. Without having received specific appropriations. “In reviewing audits of past governmental loan guarantee programs. the DOE Office of the Inspector General issued a report with many similar findings. leaving much of the program’s structure and authority in question. we found that the agencies involved had not always exercised due diligence during critical phases of the loan guarantee process. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expressed its concern about such an action. the GAO offered its review of the actions taken by DOE: “[It] should not have begun implementation of the LGP without a specific appropriation.”30 Even DOE’s own Office of the Inspector General noted prior actions by governmental agencies in similar situations were sometimes questionable. In its report released in September 2007. This was prior to having appropriations or regulations in place.31 Such findings demonstrate that the infrastructure required to carry out a successful loan guarantee program has yet to be attained at DOE.

Jun. A combination of factors—recent volatility in construction costs and natural gas prices. nuclear power’s history of construction cost overruns." said JohnMoens.Long Timeframe ( ) It’s takes a long time for new nuclear power plants to come online CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. doesn't mean those plants will definitely get built.pdf) The commercial viability of new nuclear capacity depends on investors’ perceptions of future market conditions and carbon dioxide constraints when investment decisions are finalized. 10 . At that point.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. So far. "We might have some eight plants in place by 2020. http://www." But. "There are so many things that can change in a hurry.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #3 . which may exceed 40 years. 12. "Even with the rising cost of materials. according to the Energy Information Administration. Moens says. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. nuclear industry specialist at the EIA .washingtonindependent. and uncertainty about future policy on carbon dioxide emissions—indicates that a wide range of costs are plausible for each of the technologies considered. http://www. The Washington Independent. these obstacles haven't stopped energy companies from submitting applications to the government for new plants. just because companies are applying to build new plants. that waiting period could stretch out much longer. so the construction of the first new nuclear plants would be unlikely to start until 2010 at the earliest. Pricey Alternative: Nuclear Energy." he said. and some may never be built Sood 08 (Suemedha Sood . "it sounds like more companies are getting interested in building the reactors and the list of companies that [the government] anticipates will apply has been growing rather than shrinking.” May 2008.cbo. just because of the delay in getting plants up and running. Those ranges demonstrate that the future competitiveness of each technology and thus the conclusions presented in this analysis are quite uncertain. 2008.S." If costs don't come down. is at least seven years away from any new plants getting built. the commercial viability of a new plant would depend on anticipated market conditions and policy outcomes over the operating life of the plant. "but there aren't going to be any by 2015. ( ) Plants won’t be built for years." he said. Licensing and regulatory approval for building new nuclear plants in the United States are expected to take about three years.com/view/nuclear-energy-an) Meserve points out that the U.

coopamerica. The capacity of the industry that builds nuclear plants and its suppliers of components is currently constrained and unlikely to expand rapidly enough for even tens of plants to be built in the next decade.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants.20 Additional costs could also come as supplies become scarce from increased construction of nuclear power plants.cbo.21 Such risks are difficult to quantify and therefore estimate. Oct.” Richard Haass. the supply of steel forgings necessary to build a reactor’s containment vessel—a structure that prevents radiation from leaking into the atmosphere —is limited. our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. the Brattle Group (a consulting firm) has pointed out that the skilled labor necessary to erect power plants is in short supply and could be slow to expand if asurge in the demand for nuclear plants occurred. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported cost overruns for the years 1966 through 1977 that ranged in each two-year period from 200 to 380 percent of the original estimated costs for construction. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. Replacing the 300. ( ) A rapid expansion would be counterproductive. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants.the more construction the more likely there will be shortages of materials and workers EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute.pdf) The cost to taxpayers from underestimated subsidy costs and possible loan guarantee defaults is potentially high. stated in a report on nuclear energy. trained personnel. the nuclear energy industry has experienced significant cost overruns.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.2 Also. 11 .3 ( ) Uranium shortages will thwart a robust nuclear energy program Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22. and safety controls. 2007. and so is the risk. we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. In its history within the United States. dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. http://www. it would take decades for sufficient nuclear capacity to be put in place before most utilities could consider substituting new nuclear capacity for existing coal plants. What’s more. President of the Council on Foreign Relations.Shortages ( ) Building plants would take decades.eesi.cfm) 7.labor and steel shortages CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #4 . For example. 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. sometimes reaching over 350 percent of the estimated costs for the project. As uranium supplies dwindle. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. 30.pdf) Even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented. http://www.” May 2008. “The rapid rate of nuclear reactor expansion required to make even a modest reduction in global warming would drive up construction costs and create shortages in building materials. prior to the start of construction. 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. http://www.

Cato Institute. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -. July 31.S. “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute.S.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003.” 12 ." But that's not all. leaving taxpayers at risk.org/pub_display. 2007. 2007. the equivalent of six or seven new power plants.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. 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 -.well above 50 percent. the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent.S. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.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.com/events/2007/10/30/loan-guarantee-provisions-in-the-2007-energy-bills-doesnuclear-power-pose-significant-taxpayer-risk-and-liability) Not only is the cost to the taxpayers potentially very high. U. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion.” June 21.400 Megawatts of new nuclear power.potentially at above market rates. http://www. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls.” said Michele Boyd. Oct.cato.” 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).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. http://www. 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. The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years.org/pressroom/release. ( ) Probability of defaults are over 50%. taxpayers. ( ) Over 50% of nuclear projects will default Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U. this is more than the $49. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U. 2003. http://www. relative to other electricity generation sources.S. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008. 30. According to the Congressional Research Service.hillheat. 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.tradewatch. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans.Defaults ( ) Defaults likely Hill Heat 07 (Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. U. 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.” “With those odds. so is the risk. legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #5 .

radiological.” says Paul Gunter.” Alex Matthiessen. terrorism causes extinction Alexander 03 (Yonah Alexander. to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Why are the United States and Israel. Opponents of the nuclear renaissance point to a host of serious concerns. Likewise. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism. chemical.5-foot steel-reinforced concrete containment structures protecting the reactor and other radioactive materials are “among the strongest structures built by man. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national. thus far at least. 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]. It is not surprising.emagazine.” ( ) And. Plant operator Entergy refutes these charges. Israel and its citizens. Unlike their historical counterparts. And according to Riverkeeper. considered attacking nuclear facilities. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e. E The Environmental Magazine.000 early fatalities. Washington Times) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed. Riverkeeper says that the proposed evacuation plans for the area are woefully inadequate. “They’re proposing a replay of a demonstrated failure. as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons. 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. regional and global security concerns. only 19 percent of Indian Point guards think they can protect the facility from a conventional assault. and the site is vulnerable to an airborne attack. Al Qaeda operatives have.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Case Turns Terrorism Turn ( ) Terrorist attacks are likely Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance. that on September 11.com/view/?3780) In spite of its obvious benefits. let alone a suicidal mission. double standards of morality. the religionization of politics. director of Hudson Riverkeeper. nuclear power plants pose an unacceptable risk. http://www. weak punishment of terrorists. 13 . by their own admission. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. nuclear power may simply be too risky.” He points out that NRC studies conclude that a serious accident at one of Indian Point’s two working reactors could cause 50. Aug. 28 2003. professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies. 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. biological. and our concerns about safety issues are heightened now that these plants are known terrorist targets. director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. “The financial risks have only gotten worse. 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. and says that the 3. 2001. “In the post-9/11 era. declares. therefore.g.

In researching the security around nuclear power plants. and an attractive target for terrorists. 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. http://www. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.cfm) 3. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured. National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. Jr. Robert Kennedy. without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext.Nuclear Power -> Terrorism ( ) Nuclear plants are easy terrorist targets Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like. What’s more. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina.coopamerica. 14 .

even though advanced reactor designs make such mishaps less likely. http://www.nirs. station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear power stations. As cited above.'' said David Lochbaum.. in part because of intermittent use.html) Accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 continue to shadow the industry.” According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. most often in the form of diesel generators.47 When both the grid and the back-up power fail. as a crowning point – nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. the director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union for Concerned Scientists in Washington. May 3. drought. even “off-line. are not terribly reliable. ``Nuclear power continues to pose serious risks that are unique among the energy options being considered for reducing global-warming emissions. ``One incident could put a stop to nuclear energy in the United States. every reactor site is equipped with back-up power. blizzards. and perhaps most compelling – hurricanes and cyclones. As is sensible. ( ) That turns the case. Feb.one accident could put a halt to any more nuclear expansion Boyd 08 (Robert S. of Allentown. 9.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. Director of the Southeast Office.” it is vital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock. Unfortunately these generators. but there is an elevated risk. McClatchy Newspapers.'' warned James Miller. United Nations. The loss of grid power will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis. the site is said to be in “station blackout. 15 .com/science/story/26864. Pa.48 Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change. which operates atomic reactors in Pennsylvania and Montana. Commission on Sustainable Development. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures.pdf) Finally. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years. the chief executive of PPL Corp. Overall blackout risk increases as the number of outages increases. Boyd.mcclatchydc. 2006. nuclear energy making comeback. tornados. 2008. nuclear reactors – all of them – depend on energy from the grid to operate. http://www. Despite doubts.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Accidents Turn ( ) Accidents likely Olson 06 (Mary Olson.

Here in the US. If there was an accident. 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. http://www. with thousands poisoned by radiation.Nuclear Power -> Accidents ( ) Accidents are super likely at nuclear power plants Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400. the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great. evacuation would be impossible. and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site.coopamerica. in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17.000 plants. and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. For example. there’s a plant just up the Hudson from New York City.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext. 16 .000 people.cfm) 4.

S. National Security First: Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Our conventional forces might even be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe. Miller. We should demand that countries like Iraq. Libya. (assistant professor of economics.shtml) The U. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. “During my 8 years in the White House. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons. every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. http://www.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Proliferation Turn ( ) Expansion of nuclear power increases the risk of proliferation Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. Smith College). or perhaps even a European city. and chemical weapons. January 23. 2002. Iran.cfm) 2. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt. and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. 17 . with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons.nationalreview. we need to get serious here at home. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries.S. we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy. Al Gore said. Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U. http://www. Here too. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us.. for example.coopamerica. nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders. 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.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. biological. and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. the technology is not there yet. but again.com/comment/comment-miller012302..

We have looked at barriers and fences. subservience.net/nuclear/factsheet. the effects of uncontrolled power. 1991. institutional. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other. The prison of racism confines us all. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest and colonialism. people of color and white people alike. a ministry to dismantle racism. All sites proposed for “temporary” and permanent storage of high level nuclear waste have been Native American lands. Brick by brick. stone by stone. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. The danger point of self-destruction seems to be drawing even more near. For the sake of the world and ourselves. of military buildups and violent aggression. restraints and limitations. ghettos and prisons. co-director of Crossroads. from the mining of uranium on Native American and Aboriginal lands. and unjust. will inevitably destroy us as well. which are the marks of our white prison. 2007. 155-6) To study racism is to study walls. to the targeting of black and Hispanic communities for new uranium processing facilities to the targeting of black and Hispanic and Native American communities for “low-level” nuclear waste dumps." p. the prison of individual. A small and predominantly white minority of the global population derives its power and privilege from the sufferings of vast majority of peoples of all color. once and for all. of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of no return.pdf) Nuclear power disproportionately affects communities of color. and greed. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate. Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power. and cultural racism can be destroyed. we dare not allow it to continue. ( ) Racism should be rejected Barndt 91 (Joseph Barndt. in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential God intends for us. the walls of racism. and powerlessness are cruel.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Environmental Racism Turn ( ) Nuclear power is environmental racism.energyjustice.it disproportionately affect communities of color Ewall 07 (Mike. http://www. Nov. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down. 18 . Environmental Justice. privilege. inhuman. "Dismantling Racism: The Continuing challenge to White America.

That ended his dalliance with nuclear power and nuclear weapons — but that didn’t stop Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney from using Saddam’s nuclear history as an excuse to invade his country and string him up. we’ve already devoted $800 billion to splendid little wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.co. I’m not making this up. This kind of central control can act as a powerful counterweight to excessive democratic tendencies in any country that buys into nuclear power. Arguably. Uncle Sam’s desperate attempts to revive nuclear power can perhaps best be understood as part of that ongoing effort at oil recovery. as we have seen. would then have an excuse to bomb Iran. and partly to thumb its nose at the likes of Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney — and perhaps to try to draw us into another war that would indelibly mark us for the next hundred years as enemies of Islam. foreign policy — being offered. Pakistan and other Islamic states may erupt if the US slaughters millions of Muslims with nuclear weapons. They have a special appeal around the world because they have become double-edged symbols of modernity.S. at least partly to secure U. withheld. Bush claims God directs him. Is this kind of thinking totally nuts? I don’t think so. The Iraq war made the Bush regime war criminals. 19 . and bargained over. http://www.nz/stories/HL0701/S00362. And now something similar is unfolding in Iran. The Bush-Chaney regime have been compared to desparate cornered animals who will resort to any crime to survive. In the past five years. If you are dependent on nuclear power for electricity and you are dependent on us for reactor fuel. There are 8 to 9 nuclear weapon states.htm) If Bush is not stopped and launches the attack.S. Oct. They are now desparate and selfjustifying criminals wrappped in the flag and other symbols of patriotism. And.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/) So why is Uncle Sam hell-bent on reviving nuclear power? I don’t have a firm answer and can only speculate.S. So perhaps Uncle Sam considers it worth investing a few hundred billion dollars of taxpayer funds to keep this all-purpose Swiss army knife of U.celsias. So clearly there are more important uses for nuclear power than just making electricity. 2007. Keep in mind that the Bush regime has no legitimate reasons for attacking Iran.S. ( ) Striking Iran would escalate into global nuclear war Ross 07 (Larry is the Secretary/Founder of The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association. 2007 issue that Dick Cheney has been mulling a plan to convince the Israeli’s to bomb the Iranian nuclear power plant at Natanz. I doubt if they would stay idle while the US conquered Iran. Newsweek reported in its October 1.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Imperialism Turn ( ) Nuclear power is the epitome of U. Perhaps from the viewpoint of both Washington and Wall Street. wind and other renewable energy alternatives lend themselves to smallscale.S. Even so. Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?. Because of this special characteristic. independent installations under the control of local communities or even households.S. Iran wants nuclear power plants partly to show how sophisticated and capable it has become. http://www. hoping to provoke the Iranians into striking back so that the U. solar. Witness North Korea. they have enormous appeal and can provide enormous bargaining power. Who knows where that could lead? Then I think of the present situation in the Middle East. nuclear power is preferable to renewable-energy alternatives because it is extremely capital-intensive and the people who provide the capital get to control the machine and the energy it provides. like shiny toy guns that can be loaded with real bullets.scoop. imperialism and causes a strike on Iran Montague 07 (Peter Montague. 4. you are in our pocket. On the other hand. oil supplies. It manufactured excuses and lies to attack Iraq and is now engaged in doing the same to justify the attack on Iran. nuclear reactors can provide excuses to invade and bomb when no other excuses exist. political control becomes a powerful (though unstated) part of the bargain. It provide a rationale for a large centralized bureaucracy and tight military and police security to thwart terrorists. Also. leading to US control of middle east oil resources. foreign policy available in our back pocket. they have less than 30% of Americans supporting them. Both Russia and China have strong defence links with Iran and each have nuclear weapon arsenals. anymore than it had for attacking Iraq. Saddam Hussein started down the road to nuclear power until the Israelis bombed to smithereens the Osirak nuclear plant he was building in 1981. the war momentum and slaughter can trigger a sequence of disastrous actions and reactions that can spiral out of control. some may be drawn into a major war that could spread beyond the middle east. or one of its close allies for delivery of fuel and removal of radioactive wastes. serving to further unite much of the Arab world against us. nuclear reactors have become essential tools of U. Particularly if they sign a contract with the U.

however.com/doc/20080512/parenti) This much seems clear: a handful of firms might soak up huge federal subsidies and build one or two overpriced plants. 2008. http://www. helps keep people distracted. geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Tradeoff Turn ( ) Nuclear buildup would trade off with better forms of energy Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. April 24. public safety will continue to be menaced by problems at new as well as older plants. But there will be no massive nuclear renaissance. solar. their minds off the real project of developing wind.thenation. Talk of such a renaissance. What Nuclear Renaissance?. While a new administration might tighten regulations. 20 .

Progress Energy Inc. nuclear power is actually in decline in the United States. It’s the Economics.. No nuclear reactors have been ordered and subsequently completed in the U. http://blogs. Rebecca Smith reports today in the WSJ (sub reqd. Even the bean counters can’t keep pace. http://www.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy Advantage Frontline 1. Exelon Corp. Wall Street Journal. Over the last five years. 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. can now think the money has been well spent.org/usa/news/nuclear-reactors-are-an-expens) At the dawn of the nuclear era. Fuel costs for nuclear power are miniscule. —skyrocketing construction costs. causing this prediction to prove false. High construction costs will translate into high electricity prices Johnson 08 (Keith Johnson. steel and copper. The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power’s favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide.greenpeace. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history. However. they win when legislation penalizes carbon-heavy sectors like coal (and even natural gas).S. Three Mile Island ghosts." According to Forbes. 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. though. 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.S. Why is that such a big deal? Coal plants have been shelved recently because of rising capital costs. nuclear power’s vulnerability puts it in a class by itself. and renewable energy isn’t immune. double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. or the biased.S. The Congressional Budget Office just finished a rosy-glasses report on nuclear economics. 2008. and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry.. The last nuclear reactor to be constructed in the United States was completed in 1996. since 1973. nuclear power became an economic disaster.S.S. Since nuclear plants don’t emit CO2. Nuclear energy is extremely expensive and unreliable Greenpeace 03 (Nuclear Reactors are an Expensive and Dangerous Source of Electricity.wsj. the risks of nuclear power are only part of the problem. The paper notes: Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc. When construction costs skyrocketed and operation and management costs spiraled out of control. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized that this "failure of the U. amid a growing shortage of skilled labor. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago. the head of the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that nuclear power would supply "electrical energy too cheap to meter. It’s economics. cost estimates for new nuclear power plants have been continually revised upward. Though all power sectors are affected to different degrees by rising capital costs. The dramatic decrease in nuclear construction can be directly tied to the meltdown at Three Mile Island. 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. the meltdown at Three Mile Island and the explosion at Chernobyl irreparably altered the image of nuclear power. or environmental protesters. And if those cost estimates are wrong? From the CBO: If those factors turned out not to reduce construction costs in the United States. Southern Co. The original cost estimate was $45 billion. 2003.S. a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York. and FPL Group Inc.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/) It turns out nuclear power’s biggest worry isn’t Yucca Mountain. the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar reactor took almost 23 years to build and cost nearly $8 billion." However. is the same: Who’s going to pay for it? 21 . Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman. "only the blind. unless substantial carbon dioxide charges were imposed. either—and the nuclear power industry enjoys healthy loan guarantees and other federal subsidies designed precisely to alleviate those kinds of uncertainties. nuclear capacity would probably be an unattractive investment even with EPAct incentives." 2. The horrific images of the Chernobyl disaster and the ever-growing death toll are a constant reminder of the dangers of nuclear power.. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. a disaster of monumental scale. Department of Energy compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75 reactors. Not exactly electricity "too cheap to meter. Even while acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. The question. May 19. Chronic escalation of construction costs coupled with high operation and maintenance costs have sealed nuclear power's economic fate. said Jim Hempstead. Notes the paper: A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.. utilities have canceled almost as many nuclear reactors as they have constructed. but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant. May 12." Despite talk of a renaissance.) on the biggest hurdle to the nascent nuclear-energy revival in the U. U. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement. The U.

U. financial history. Not only were no nuke plants getting built. But in the next five years. March 13. without the need for taxpayer guarantees or government-backed catastrophic liability insurance.nukefree. then shut. The utility Southern Co.usnews. Those who do so guarantee us all fifty more years of economic chaos and energy shortfalls. Predicting 15 million solar-heated homes by 1975.org 07 (Atomic Economics." concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry_print. no private company will assume the risk for new reactors either.org/facts/uninsurable) Fifty years ago the pushers of the "Peaceful Atom"---including Lewis Strauss. Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act. and that a "new generation" of reactors will somehow reverse a half-century of catastrophic economics. the industry took more than $100 billion in "stranded cost" payouts from state and federal sources. Harry Truman's Blue Ribbon Paley Commission reported that the future of American energy was with renewable sources. Nuclear power is a huge drain on the economy NukeFree. But after fifty years it hasn't happened. no utilities would step forward to build Ike's atomic reactors. Pledging to share the Peaceful Atom worldwide. perfecting photovoltaic (PV) technology to the point that cells made of silicon could transform sunlight into usable electric current. the Truman Administration knew that our best route to energy independence and economic security was with green power. and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with the intention of then attending a four-year college program. But the prospect of making homes and offices energy self-sufficient with PV rooftop installations was a monumental moment in technological history. New Hampshire for a total of $250 million turned into one for $7 billion.600 nuclear workers—35 percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age. Pay is inching up and hours are increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. "High-paying skilled labor jobs. That shortfall will balloon to 40. oil refineries. the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilledlabor shortage. atomic reactor construction was defined by epic cost overruns and delays.000 workers in the Southeast. Far from being cheap or reliable. "collapse" was "appalling. All projects need skilled craft workers. Long Island's $7 billion Shoreham operated briefly. bio-fuels. nuclear power plants have drained the American economy of hundreds of billions of dollars. decades late. the first of these plants is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget. Forbes compared the losses on nuke power to "a commitment bigger than the space program ($100 billion) [and] the Vietnam War ($111 billion). liquefied natural gas terminals.000 by 2011 because of the new construction. The two reactors proposed in the 1960s for Seabrook. which made the taxpayer and the victims of any potential disaster the ultimate insurers. Wind power is far cheaper than nukes. concentrated in the South—not only nuclear generators but coal plants.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy Advantage Frontline 3. Today the nuclear industry says all that is behind them. Looking ahead. and helps solve rather than worsen the global warming crisis." 22 .S." 4. Through the ensuing half-century. guidance counselors. That money could have financed green power sources that would have avoided the global warming crisis and freed the US from dependence on foreign energy sources. A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry. are now perceived as second class. In an essentially military decision. 2008. Overall. In 1953. It hasn't had to recruit for decades.S. And the renewable energy industry on which Eisenhower turned his back on 1953 has come of age. And despite today's hype about new designs. A year earlier. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20. But even with huge government subsidies. "Parents. Fluor says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-intoovertime 50-hour weeks that had been planned. but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. Solar. To invest in nukes is to throw still more good money at a bad technology. The scale of the During the deregulation crisis of 1999-2001.htm) The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade. http://www. Eisenhower turned the US away from green power. Reactor owners argued that nuclear power was too expensive to compete in a deregulated market. But in Finland." likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction. and that they were owed compensation for having risked their capital on an experiment that failed. can be installed quickly. Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission--promised electricity that would be "too cheap to meter. and electricity transmission lines. Nuclear power can’t increase jobs. The first cells were used to power space satellites. efficiency and conservation all have investors lining up for them. Dwight Eisenhower chose nuclear power instead. just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance. up to 19." The pledge has turned into the biggest lie in U. The key decision was made in 1953. once considered excellent career options. News & World Report. http://www. and they are in drastically short supply. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern.the skilled workers just don’t exist Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle. So in 1957. The industry promised that improving technology would entice private insurance companies to take the risk. said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent report. The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago. Bell Laboratories made an historic breakthrough.

delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. 23 .org/index. Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh.pubrecord. The Public Record. nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same power capacity in gas turbines. the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years. and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms.php?view=article&id=149%3Anuclear-not-only-way-to-generate-a-kwh-&option=com_content_) At $9 billion for an 1100 megawatt nuclear plant. http://www. 2008.Nuclear Energy Expensive ( ) Nuclear energy is very expensive and won’t solve for 10 years Severance 08 (Craig A.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1 . June 19. In addition to costing far more. Severance.

natural gas and wind. One report produced for the Edison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Federal carbon capture legislation seems likely to be enacted within the next several years.pennnet. Power Engineering.com/Articles/Article_Display. 2191 or other carbonlimiting legislation. The impetus. introduced by Sens. First.S. the implicit price paid for a ton of sequestered carbon is high enough that it likely will create a "huge advantage" to advance carbon capture technology and new power plant construction. "It will continue to have a significant role. Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner. certainly not in the United States. "Coal isn't going to be replaced." 24 .JDI 08 Murray/Naputi AT: CO2 Internal Link ( ) Future carbon regulations won’t hurt the economy Wagman 08 (David Wagman. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carbon capture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill. Repetto said he sees two primary economic outcomes for the electric power industry as a result of S. professor of Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven. higher efficiency coal plants will also be affected.) and John Warner (RVa. does not represent "the end of the United States' economic boom as we know it. When annual economic growth rates are factored in the potential effect represents a "very small difference" to the overall economy. "The bottom line is that if (carbon regulation) is phased in over time.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Much of the available analysis of S. it might cost as much as 3 percent of GDP" by 2030. aimed at limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants–among other emitters–can produce. While he agrees that carbon regulation will carry some costs. the economics of newer. 2191 suggests that even under worst-case assumptions the economy will continue to grow and "at quite a robust pace.3 trillion by 2050. Managing Editor." agreed Alex Klein of Emerging Energy Research. the more ambitious and short term the goal the more important it is to get the political architecture right. changing the relative economics between coal. however. he said. The analyses also lay heavy stock in how future greenhouse gas-limiting policies are structured. Managing Editor. At a minimum. president of the National Manufacturers Association was quoted as saying in a conference call with reporters earlier this year. of course. despite future carbon regulations Wagman 08 (David Wagman." Kraig Naasz.). http://pepei. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters." Not everyone agrees. less efficient power plants will likely look less attractive and be retired. the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest. At the same time. gross domestic product could be $5.com/Articles/Article_Display.pennnet. probably in our lifetime. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. is worry over possible climate change and the affect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment. Lieberman-Warner will be "a very high-cost option for all Americans. including coal-fired power plants. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn. Second. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner." said Robert Repetto. ( ) Economic growth will be robust. making room for new-builds. Power Engineering. http://pepei. Conn. Older." he said." said Yale University's Robert Repetto. Carbon regulation. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. he said. coal costs will likely rise.

There are emissions in the nuclear process 2. uranium prices have soared as existing reactors have worked through supplies from mothballed plants. is speculative.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. Director of the Southeast Office.5 to six.. all involve greenhouse gas emissions.” It is plain that a similar investment in efficiency in the USA and other energy-hog nations. http://www. the nuclear process is not emission-free. The shortfall in uranium mining can be at least partly made up in uranium enrichment (an outgrowth of atomic bomb development). NIRS argues that. even when mining. And just one percent of that capacity would be enough to support the construction of 210 nuclear weapons per year. “Even under an ambitious deployment scenario. Brice Smith admits that. 25 . Plan doesn’t expand fast enough to solve warming Olson 06 (Mary Olson. And the plant is fired by two large. A massive amount of new plants are needed Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance. he calculates that the proportion of electricity coming from nuclear sources would grow only slightly. E The Environmental Magazine. nuclear power emits far lower levels of greenhouse gases. A dozen new enrichment plants would produce thousands of tons of highly deadly plutonium each year. appropriate biomass and other sustainable power innovations! 2.emagazine. In the USA. Commission on Sustainable Development.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Warming Advantage Frontline 1. and that the enormous construction costs— estimated in the many trillions of dollars—would be much more effectively spent on renewable energy projects. One can only imagine the results if a fraction of the residual funds were invested in technology development in solar.” says the Union of Concerned Scientists. used to dissipate heat generated by the compressors. The cycle from uranium mining to milling and processing. Even with this growth. Demand is projected to exceed supply and push prices higher. from 16 to 20 percent over the period. This would roughly mean adding one new reactor every two weeks until 2050. United Nations. as well as waste storage and transportation. the industry is capable of building only half the 1. says Smith. he says. Nuclear power won’t solve warming. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion in Kentucky. emits highly destructive chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.½ the previous actual figure. including its potential to combat climate change.com/view/?3780) The uranium supply is also an issue. Uranium enrichment also aggravates both global warming and ozone depletion. but capacity is limited there. Although nukes avoid the smokestack problem. global warming emissions for at least two decades. and investment in wind energy worldwide would be a far more cost-effective use of capital.S. this however. too. On the spot market. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. The world’s capacity to enrich uranium would have to go up dramatically by a factor of 2. In his book Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change (IEER Press).500 new reactors needed to significantly offset global warming. in the next 60 years.pdf) An extensive 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology30 investigated the future of nuclear power. Even taking the $2 billion industry “guestimate.nirs. extremely dirty coal power plants. enrichment and fuel fabrication are taken into account.” it would require trillions of dollars to implement this supposed “fix. But to effectively challenge the global warming problem.2 reasons 1. The single remaining uranium enrichment plant in the U. a new reactor would have to come online somewhere in the world every 15 days on average between 2010 and 2050. when compared to fossil fuels. May 3. a huge nuclear expansion would increase the dangers of nuclear proliferation. http://www. 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. 2006. appropriate hydro. Also.S. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change. 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 -.

briefing/index. of Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative. May 6. ( ) Nuclear power is too slow to solve climate change Knight 08 (Matthew Knight.thenation. told CNN: "To get any appreciable impact on climate change you have to get 20 percent from renewable energies. and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. increasing costs. 2008. it hardly makes the most sense as a tool to quickly combat climate change.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1. It simply isn’t possible to build 17. A 2004 analysis in Science by Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow.that's three power plants every 30 days for the next 60 years.000 – or 2.com/doc/20080512/parenti) Even if a society were ready to absorb the high costs of nuclear power. the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. http://edition. critics say that nuclear power is going to provide too little. accidents. April 24." That represents a huge wave of investment that few seem willing to undertake. For nuclear power to achieve this figure would mean building 3000 nuclear plants -." 26 . cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport. proliferation.Too Slow ( ) Using nuclear to solve warming would take decades Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. 2008.500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years. Briefing: Nuclear power. http://www. national security.html) Putting all other arguments aside. too late. No time – Even if nuclear waste. lack of sites. estimates that achieving just one-seventh of the carbon reductions necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 500 parts per billion would require "building about 700 new 1. and it would require decades to accomplish. These plants take too long to build. Jeremy Rifkin. What Nuclear Renaissance?.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/17/Nuclear.000-megawatt nuclear plants around the world. ( ) Nuclear power isn’t fast enough to solve warming 10. CNN. president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and author of the Hydrogen Economy.

pg. 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. they depend on electric power from the external power grid to be able to come on-line. Nov. Unfortunately nuclear power is not a solution and it is further counterproductive to any real remedy for human impacts on climate.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. Director of the Southeast Office. the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make electric power.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2A – Nuclear Power Emits C02 ( ) Nuclear power emits just as much C02 as any traditional energy source Olson 06 (Mary Olson. A number of recent studies have found that when mining. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants. where uranium is enriched to make nuclear reactor fuel. Nuclear power is not free from carbon emissions. operating 6500 hours per year in Germany. 27 .pdf) While the nuclear reactors themselves release few greenhouse gases. Commission on Sustainable Development. concludes that a 1250 megaWatt nuclear power plant. As uranium supplies dwindle. Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power. (See Figure 3. Read on. a potent greenhouse gas.coopamerica. the nuclear fuel cycle is a significant contributor. 4. and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered.000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation’s dirty. Vice President Cheney has publicly stated5 a falsehood: he asserted that nuclear power is carbon-free. and enrichment of uranium fuel. one must closely examine the motives of anyone associated with nuclear schemes of any kind. science tells us that nuclear power plants are not the best way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.celsias.cfm) 7. Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?. http://www. dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium. http://www. 2007. A careful life-cycle analysis by the Institute for Applied Ecology in Darmstadt. transport. four are worse than nuclear from the viewpoint of greenhouse gas emissions. 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. 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. typically coal. produces greenhouse gases equivalent to 250.4 In the service of this disinformation campaign U. What’s more. 2006.000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents.6 Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially. (Lazy journalists are in the habit it repeating the industry mantra that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases.S. In other (unspecified) countries besides Germany.) Substantial carbon dioxide emissions accompany every stage of nuclear power production. in the emission of global warming gases (measured per kilowatt-hour of electricity made available). check in with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)].energyjustice. In 2001.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/) It certainly has little to do with global warming.S. the Institute study shows. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. This is nonsense.Every stage produces CO2 emissions Montague 07 (Peter Montague. and burial of nuclear wastes. nuclear power compares unfavorably to… * conservation through efficiency improvements * run-of-river hydro plants (which use river water power but require no dams) * offshore wind generators * onshore wind generators * power plants run by gas-fired internal combustion engines. Environmental Justice. and the disposition of wastes generated: it is also dependent upon a grid that is powered by other sources of energy.pdf) Nuclear power is being widely promoted as a “solution” to global climate change.3 Those selling the expansion of nuclear power are on a par with any salesman of counterfeit medicine. to the mining. especially plants that use both the electricity and the heat generated by the engine * power plants run by bio-fuel-powered internal combustion Of eleven ways to generate electricity (or avoid the need to generate electricity through efficiency and conservation) analyzed by the Institute. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. 5) The study concludes that. http://www.7 Nuclear power is not only dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of uranium fuel. we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. decommissioning. our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities. Enrichment Corporation. United Nations. ( ) Making nuclear power emits tons of C02 and relies on coal plants Ewall 07 (Mike.nirs. engines ( ) Uranium shortages will cause more emissions Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. and six are better. processing. which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22. 2007. This is due to the simple fact that nuclear reactors cannot “black start”8 – in other words. Even now when some Republicans have begun to acknowledge that perhaps we may have a carbon dioxide problem. the same power plant could produce as much as 750. transport. They’re not even close to being the best way. http://www.9 ( ) Nuclear power won’t solve. 93% of the nation’s reported emissions of CFC-114. Germany. from the manufacture and eventual dismantling of nuclear plants. processing.net/nuclear/factsheet. [For a great deal of additional solid information showing that nuclear power is no answer to global warming. At the time the 2005 energy bill was passed by a Republic-dominated Congress the official position of the Republican leadership was that global warming was a hoax. May 3. plus the eventual processing. Oct. were released from the U.

html) With virtually no greenhouse-gas emissions. reactors are touted as part of the solution to global warming. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1 billion tons annually. Nuclear power surge coming. At that rate. 28. Christian Science Monitor. 28. experts say. "Clearly.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. Christian Science Monitor. The US industry reached that level in the 1980s. 28 ." says David Schlissel a longtime nuclear industry analyst with consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2B . Even if the projects are successful and building proceeds at breakneck speed.Can’t Build Enough Plants ( ) They won’t be able to build enough plants to solve warming Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. this would not even replace the existing nuclear capacity expected to be retired during that time. the lead times are so long and costs so high that it's unclear that the US can build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn.html) The risks might be worth the cost if nuclear power can have a substantial impact in slowing global warming. But even under its most optimistic assessment. the world would need to build 21 new 1. 2007. Staff Writer. that the only reason building plans are under way is that the federal government has stepped in to guarantee investors against loan defaults. Over the next 15 months. Mass. ( ) Can’t build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in warming Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. [nuclear power companies] are not so confident or they wouldn't want the federal government and taxpayer to be guaranteeing the loans. Sept. Staff Writer. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a tidal wave of similar permit applications for up to 28 new reactors. They're so financially risky.csmonitor. But even some industry experts doubt that's possible. the Energy Information Administration recently projected that only about 53 nuclear power plants would be built by 2056. http://www. costing up to $90 billion to build. Nuclear power surge coming. says a Keystone Center report endorsed by the NEI. http://www.000-megawatt nuclear plants per year – about five of those annually in the US – for the next 50 years. But the renaissance may be less robust than it looks. 2007. the Keystone report said. the level set by some scientists as a goal for nuclear power.csmonitor. Sept.

such limits would encourage the use of nuclear technology by increasing the cost of generating electricity with conventional fossil-fuel technologies. The prospect that such legislation will be enacted is probably already reducing investment in conventional coal-fired power plants. http://www.cbo.pdf) This reappraisal of nuclear power is motivated in large part by the expectation that market-based approaches to limit greenhouse-gas emissions could be put in place in the near future. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. the most common greenhouse gas.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Free Market Counterplan Solvency ( ) Cap and trade would bolster the nuclear industry CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. 29 .” May 2008.1 If implemented. Several options currently being considered by the Congress—including “cap-andtrade” programs— would impose a price on emissions of carbon dioxide.

In several of those states. additional incentives that could further reduce the cost of nuclear power are under consideration. Texas.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi States Counterplan Solvency ( ) States are effective at promoting nuclear power CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.pdf) States and localities encourage investment in new nuclear capacity through a variety of policies. 30 . and New York. http://www. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. where most electricity-generation capacity is owned by utilities that charge regulated rates. California and a number of eastern states are considering legislation that would limit carbon dioxide emissions. however. has expanded a tax incentive initially designed to encourage investment in renewable energy technologies to apply to new nuclear capacity. Pennsylvania. financial risk is transferred from investors to customers. which leads to larger reductions in the cost of capitalintense technologies such as nuclear.” May 2008. the only states in that group that had proposed sites for new nuclear power plants were Maryland. Those provisions include allowing higher rates of return for nuclear power than for other technologies. allowing utilities to recover some construction costs before plants begin operations. To the extent that rate regulation guarantees that customers will reimburse utilities for the cost of building a new plant. Over half of the currently proposed new nuclear plants are sited in southeastern states. which could increase the competitiveness of nuclear and innovative fossil-fuel technologies. As of 2007. For instance. State incentives for new nuclear power plants are not limited to states with traditional regulation in place. and tax incentives.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. a state that allows markets a large role in setting electricity prices. Last.

they would be diluted as the number of nuclear projects increased. consequently. However. those that project higher future construction costs for nuclear plants or lower natural gas prices—nuclear technology would be a relatively expensive source of capacity. B EPAct incentives would probably make nuclear generation a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity. More immediately. even in the absence of carbon dioxide charges. 31 . regardless of EPAct incentives. CBO’s analysis yields the following conclusions: B In the absence of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives. under some plausible assumptions that differ from those CBO adopted for its reference scenario—in particular.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Carbon Tax Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should impose a carbon tax of $45 per ton of carbon emitted in the United States. conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of base-load capacity than coal technology. carbon dioxide charges would increase the competitiveness of nuclear technology and could make it the least expensive source of new base-load capacity. regardless of the incentives provided by EPAct. conventional fossil-fuel technologies would most likely be the least expensive source of new electricity-generating capacity. even without EPAct incentives. conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity. if construction costs for new nuclear power plants proved to be as high as the average cost of nuclear plants built in the 1970s and 1980s or if natural gas prices fell back to the levels seen in the 1990s. In particular. http://www. However. At charges below that threshold. B Uncertainties about future construction costs or natural gas prices could deter investment in nuclear power. Solvency: Carbon tax spurs nuclear energy and keeps prices lower.pdf) In the long run.it’s comparatively better than incentives CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. EPAct incentives by themselves could make advanced nuclear reactors a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity.cbo. B Carbon dioxide charges of about $45 per metric ton would probably make nuclear generation competitive with conventional fossil-fuel technologies as a source of new capacity. then new nuclear capacity would not be competitive. because some of those incentives are backed by a fixed amount of funding. Such variations in construction or fuel costs would be less likely to deter investment in new nuclear capacity if investors anticipated a carbon dioxide charge. B Also at roughly $45 per metric ton.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.” May 2008. but those charges would probably have to exceed $80 per metric ton in order for nuclear technology to remain competitive under either of those circumstances. Below about $5 per metric ton. CBO anticipates that only a few of the 30 plants currently being proposed would be built if utilities did not expect carbon dioxide charges to be imposed. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. carbon dioxide charges would probably make nuclear generation competitive with existing coal power plants and could lead utilities in a position to do so to build new nuclear plants that would eventually replace existing coal power plants.

pdf) The cost of new nuclear capacity would probably be higher if utilities attempted to build a large number of power plants over the next decade.pdf) Measuring the utilities’ costs across a range of potential carbon dioxide charges indicates which technologies might be competitive. nuclear generation would most likely become a more attractive investment for new capacity than conventional fossil-fuel generation (see the left panel of Figure 1-3). even without EPAct incentives. which emits nearly a metric ton of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity produced.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Solvency Extensions ( ) Carbon charges are comparatively more effective than loan guarantees CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. and consequently make new nuclear capacity a more attractive source of base-load generation.13 Although the imposition of carbon dioxide constraints would not directly decrease the cost of operating nuclear power plants. Newly built power plants based on conventional fossil-fuel technology are designed to burn fuel more efficiently than plants built in the past. 2008. The effect is most pronounced for coal. Thus.” May 2008. the study found that conventional fossil fuel technologies would probably remain the least expensive source of new generating capacity. such carbon dioxide capture-andstorage 32 . http://www. http://www. specialized steel forgings). potential carbon dioxide charges are more likely to influence the development of new nuclear capacity than EPAct incentives. For gauging the long-run competitiveness of nuclear generation.cbo. given certain assumptions about future legislative action and market outcomes.000 megawatts of capacity (roughly the capacityof five plants) qualified for the credit.” May 2008. nuclear generation would also become competitive with existing coal power plants. The effect on conventional generators fueled by natural gas would be less because they emit carbon dioxide at roughly half the rate of the average coal plant. which in all their variants emit at least some carbon dioxide. Many investors appear to anticipate some form of carbon dioxide charge in the near future. the comparison of costs is intended to indicate only whether nuclear technology would be a commercially viable choice for up to a few nuclear power plants. ( ) A carbon tax would spur nuclear energy by making it cost competitive WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. a survey conducted by Cambridge Energy Research Associates in 2006 found that about 80 percent of utility executives expected a carbon dioxide charge to be implemented within the next 10 years. ( ) Carbon tax solves. building all of the 30 proposed nuclear plants over the next 10 to 15 years—roughly the period of availability for the production tax credit—could significantly increase construction costs for nuclear power plants by increasing demand for scarce components that are necessary to build reactors (for example.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. Carbon charges make nuclear cheapest choice. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.incentives aren’t key CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. In general. http://www.org/EECarbon_charges_make_nuclear_cheapest_choice-0605086. A large wave of additions could also lead to higher costs by reducing the value of the production tax credits or by exhausting coverage under the loan guarantee program.000 megawatts of capacity would qualify. so utilities would be likely to choose nuclear to replace existing coal plants where possible.14 CBO’s analysis incorporates the assumption that no more than 6. To the extent that carbon dioxide charges are expected. For instance. But.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.world-nuclear-news. http://www. if lawmakers enacted legislation that resulted in a carbon dioxide charge of about $45 per metric ton. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. If the cost of emitting carbon dioxide was between $20 and $45 per metric ton. which means that each eligible plant’s allotment of credits would decrease if more than 6. but their emissions would still be substantial enough for the cost of producing electricity to be sensitive to carbon dioxide charges. the higher the costs to utilities of emitting carbon dioxide. the more competitive nuclear power would be because it is the only zero-emissions base-load technology.cbo. nuclear generation as an option for new capacity would probably be preferred over coal but not natural gas. May 6. conventional fossil-fuel technology would dominate nuclear technology. At the same carbon price. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. nuclear would become competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies even without other incentives.” May 2008.html) With carbon dioxide (CO2) charges of about $45 per tonne. in the absence of carbon charges or incentives. In the absence of both emission charges and EPAct incentives. the attractiveness of financing a new nuclear power plant depends on investors’ expectations about the costs of emitting carbon dioxide over the operating life of that plant.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. However.5 billion.pdf) Carbon dioxide constraints could encourage the use of nuclear technology by increasing the cost of generating electricity with fossil fuels. ( ) Carbon tax would spur investment into nuclear technology CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. EPAct limits production tax credits for nuclear power plants to a total of $7. Because competing base-load alternatives emit carbon dioxide. As of 2007. investment in new nuclear capacity would be more attractive relative to both the construction of new fossil-fuel capacity and the continued use of existing fossil-fuel capacity. such a policy would increase the cost of operating fossil-fuel power plants. Innovative fossil-fuel power plants that capture and store carbon dioxide are assumed to emit only about 10 percent of the carbon dioxide discharged into the atmosphere by the lowest emitting conventionalplants that burn fossil fuel—but they still emit carbon dioxide.

by far the best option is cap-andtrade. Detroit Free Press. Bloomberg outlines nationwide proposal to tax companies directly for their carbon emissions. E&E Daily senior reporter. While several lawmakers have proposed a cap and trade system -.S. who can offer comments on the Web site. And even if such a measure had a chance of passing. which would water down its overall effect. LN) Bloomberg was applauded by environmentalists on Friday for attempting to address the issue. but those technologies could be an option for new base-load capacity by the time new nuclear plants were deployed and might be the most competitive alternative to nuclear technology under carbon dioxide charges. 2007. Kreindler said pushing a carbon tax through Congress would be a guessing game of choosing a price without knowing whether it will result in emissions reductions.Dingell has said those plans tend to be unwieldy and not as effective. Arlen Specter (R-Pa. CLIMATE: CBO calls carbon tax 'most efficient' option to address warming. an earlier effort by President Bill Clinton to pass a carbon tax has been cited by many Democrats as the key reason the party lost its majority in the U. Environment and Energy Daily. but when it comes to fixing climate change.where emission limits and credits are divided among polluters and traded on an open market -. a spokesman for Environmental Defense. 33 . The bill's most unique feature involves a "safety valve" that limits the overall price for industry on how much companies would need to spend to comply with the program. "A carbon tax is going to carry with it a lot of pain. forcing a change in people's attitudes and a change in the way the business of the nation is done. February 14. 2007. cap-and-trade system.14 Politics-Agenda Bad Net Benefit ( ) Carbon charges are super unpopular in Congress Samuelsohn 08 (Darren Samuelsohn.S. ( ) Carbon tax is political suicide Hyde 07 (Justin Hyde. the tendency of lawmakers would be to drive the tax down as low as possible. and the only way it can be done is by conservation. Sept.) -..requested by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N. "Something's got to be done. LN) The CBO study -. “Mayor's 'pollution pricing' plan.compared a carbon tax with three alternative policies that use a market-based. demand for energy and emissions of greenhouse gases. noting that a system in Europe has failed to meet its goals." said Tony Kreindler. 2008. Nov. .. but said the problems of global warming will require tough choices. S. 27." Many policy experts maintain that carbon taxes would be the most effective way to reduce U.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi technologies had not been used at commercial power plants.M." Dingell said. Dingell unveils draft of gas tax: Diesel would get break from proposed increase. lawmakers have shown far greater interest in legislation establishing a cap-and-trade plan.) last summer cosponsored one of many cap-and-trade proposals circulating on Capitol Hill. Carbon taxes are the most politically unpopular option in Congress for addressing global warming.” Newsday. Bingaman and Sen. but many said the politically unpopular concept of a carbon tax would be a heavy lift in Congress and also does not guarantee the same benefits as the more widely supported approach of cap-and-trade. 1766. Changing the economic and personal incentives are the way you do that. LN) In an interview Wednesday. "It's not a baseless solution. 3. Instead. ( ) Carbon tax unpopular in Congress AP 07 (Associated Press. But as Dingell noted. He also acknowledged the unpopularity of any tax increase among his colleagues in Congress. House in 1994. Dingell said he would likely make significant changes to his plan before he introduces a bill in Congress based on feedback from constituents.

http://pepei.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi AT: Counterplan Hurts the Economy ( ) Future carbon regulations won’t hurt the economy Wagman 08 (David Wagman. "It will continue to have a significant role. he said." 34 . An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. Power Engineering." Not everyone agrees. changing the relative economics between coal. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. is worry over possible climate change and the affect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment. natural gas and wind." said Yale University's Robert Repetto. Power Engineering." he said.pennnet. Older. gross domestic product could be $5. First. introduced by Sens. including coal-fired power plants. ( ) Economic growth will be robust.). the implicit price paid for a ton of sequestered carbon is high enough that it likely will create a "huge advantage" to advance carbon capture technology and new power plant construction. making room for new-builds.com/Articles/Article_Display.3 trillion by 2050. it might cost as much as 3 percent of GDP" by 2030. the more ambitious and short term the goal the more important it is to get the political architecture right. At the same time. coal costs will likely rise. he said. the economics of newer. Second. 2191 or other carbonlimiting legislation.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Much of the available analysis of S.S.) and John Warner (RVa." agreed Alex Klein of Emerging Energy Research. When annual economic growth rates are factored in the potential effect represents a "very small difference" to the overall economy. While he agrees that carbon regulation will carry some costs. certainly not in the United States. Repetto said he sees two primary economic outcomes for the electric power industry as a result of S.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Federal carbon capture legislation seems likely to be enacted within the next several years. Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner." Kraig Naasz. despite future carbon regulations Wagman 08 (David Wagman. 2191 suggests that even under worst-case assumptions the economy will continue to grow and "at quite a robust pace. professor of Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven. The analyses also lay heavy stock in how future greenhouse gas-limiting policies are structured. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn. Managing Editor. the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest. At a minimum. higher efficiency coal plants will also be affected. president of the National Manufacturers Association was quoted as saying in a conference call with reporters earlier this year. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carbon capture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill. Lieberman-Warner will be "a very high-cost option for all Americans. The impetus. probably in our lifetime. Conn. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters. less efficient power plants will likely look less attractive and be retired. http://pepei.com/Articles/Article_Display. however. Managing Editor.pennnet. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner. Carbon regulation. of course. "The bottom line is that if (carbon regulation) is phased in over time. "Coal isn't going to be replaced. One report produced for the Edison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U. does not represent "the end of the United States' economic boom as we know it." said Robert Repetto. aimed at limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants–among other emitters–can produce.

pdf) Some environmental economists.npecweb. we will be stuck with their polar opposites (i. the most wasteful. 2007. the largest of these projects all involve central nuclear or coal fired electrical generating stations that will last between 50 and 75 years and that depend on an electrical grid distribution system.e. Whether for nuclear or non-nuclear energy projects.. In this case. Dec.org/Articles/20071219-Sokolski-NRO-AnAlGoreChristmas.. 19. It’s an Al Gore Christmas: Congress hands out energy-loan guarantees. the loser centralized systems the government chose to subsidize heavily rather than the ones the market might pick). one that fiscal conservatives have long propounded. questionable projects tend to crowd out smaller more worthy contenders in gobbling up the subsidies. have a more basic complaint. First. 35 . a project that cannot compete against other enrichers who have already successfully raised private capital to operate in the US—will get far more guaranteed loans than any micro wind project might.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy DA Links ( ) Loan guarantees encourage government intervention in the economy Sokolski 07 (Henry Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington. these loan guarantees (which also include some of the environmentalists’ favorites) are certain to distort the market. Second. the loan guarantee program for “clean” and “innovative” systems will only get in the way of the real innovation that reliance on market mechanisms and private capital would otherwise propel. http://www. If it turns out that it is more economical to produce electricity locally in smaller generators or to rely less on the grid to distribute the electricity or its products.C. however. D. This means that projects like USEC’s multibillion dollar enrichment program. National Review Online.

Feb. 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. delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. and perpetual taxpayer funds for thousands of years to maintain the nuclear waste. The Public Record. 2003.State. legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. relative to other electricity generation sources. 2007.org/pressroom/release.S. 2008. so the industry is pushing for hundreds of billions more.tradewatch. The nation is now reeling from the aftermath of people buying homes they could not afford. Cato Institute. Arjun Makhijani: Nuclear is not the right alternative energy source. http://www. “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DNmakhijani_26edi.cato. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default on these nuclear loans to be at least 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. nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same power capacity in gas turbines.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. taxpayers.46215a2. 36 . The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. which will cost the taxpayers billions or possibly even tens of billions of dollars over time. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans.S. The federal government has long been in default of its obligations to existing nuclear plant operators to take the waste away from their sites.5 billion in Federally guaranteed loans for new nuclear plants. http://www.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. the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years.org/pub_display. Instead. June 19. 2008.” 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). Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh. This massive new outlay for nuclear power would eclipse all public funds for all other energy sources combined. the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent. 26. This initial pork would be followed by taxpayer subsidies for fuel enrichment. 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 -. because someone was reckless enough to loan them the money. In addition to costing far more.html) New nuclear plants would add to the country's problem of nuclear waste.pubrecord. This will only be enough to fund two plants. Faced with such bad numbers. ( ) Nuclear waste disposal would cost tens of billions Makhijani 08 (Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.well above 50 percent. U. ( ) Loan guarantees will cost taxpayers billions Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U. http://www.org/index.400 Megawatts of new nuclear power. http://www.” “With those odds.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Spending DA Links ( ) 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.S. Do we want our utilities to buy power plants they can’t afford? The taxpayer funded banquet for the nuclear industry would not end with power plants. Nuclear utilities have had to take the government to court to recover added storage expenses. the nuclear industry has admitted it cannot find backing from Wall Street. Congress has authorized $18." But that's not all.ART.” ( ) Loan guarantees would cause runaway spending on future nuclear projects Severance 08 (Craig A. plant decommissioning costs.potentially at above market rates. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.Edition1. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U. and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -.dallasnews.” said Michele Boyd. the industry is turning to taxpayers.php?view=article&id=149%3Anuclear-not-only-way-to-generate-a-kwh-&option=com_content_) At $9 billion for an 1100 megawatt nuclear plant. the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. Dallas News. Severance.” June 21. July 31.

The subsidy cost is defined as “the estimated net present value of long-term cost to the federal government of guaranteeing the loans over the entire period that the loans are outstanding. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls. especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. If defaults occur in the new round. 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.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. in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island. NEI officials told The New York Times in July. leaving taxpayers at risk. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen. Because this cost is estimated.”19 37 .JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Spending DA Links ( ) Over half of plants will default and it’ll cost billions Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. ( ) Defaults likely.4 and $6.means we’ll have to pay millions Hill Heat 07 (Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008.eesi. DOE has not yet established a procedure for determining these costs." In 2003. so is the risk. DOE would issue a loan for 80 percent of these costs. NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s. http://www. That huge startup cost might make financial sense. it is possible for shortfalls to occur if the cost estimate is too low. because the money to fund any shortfall will ultimately come from taxes paid to the federal government.7 billion.”17 Furthermore.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. Christian Science Monitor. not through the annual appropriations process. A number of power companies went bankrupt.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003. http://www. 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.or gas-fired facilities. should shortfalls occur. 28. Staff Writer. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal." says Tyson Slocum. a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants. and may be different for each project. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers. 2007. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?.”16 The subsidy cost is like an insurance premium.” the GAO says. excluding administrative costs. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated.18 This becomes an issue for taxpayers as well. “Under federal law. critics worry federal costs will be huge.csmonitor. but it currently has no policies or procedures for doing so. According to the Congressional Research Service. this is more than the $49.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. 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.S. “Although [loan guarantee program] LGP guidelines call for borrowers to be charged fees to cover program costs. In late 2003. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5. 2007. Ralph Nader's consumer-protection group. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free. Despite the risk of loss. U. shortfalls in subsidy costs are funded by a permanent indefinite appropriation. director of energy program at Public Citizen. 30.pdf) If a loan guarantee is granted. “the program could result in substantial financial costs to taxpayers if DOE underestimates total program costs. http://www. ( ) Shortfalls in loan estimations would force the federal gov’t to foot the bill EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. 30. For example: On Monday.com/events/2007/10/30/loan-guarantee-provisions-in-the-2007-energy-bills-doesnuclear-power-pose-significant-taxpayer-risk-and-liability) Not only is the cost to the taxpayers potentially very high. and the nuclear industry would in turn pay a subsidy cost to the Department. 2007. these costs are to be covered by the federal government. Nuclear power surge coming. Oct. resulting in a loss to the federal government. The GAO reports that “DOE will have to estimate the subsidy cost to determine the fees to charge borrowers. Oct. Sept. given a reactor's low operating expenses. The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years. New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp.hillheat.” the GAO notes.

others object on environmental grounds. Some foes worry that financial incentives will deepen the federal deficit. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Domenici and Idaho Republican Sens. a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. according to Bloomberg News. leaving the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee uncertain how to proceed as it tries to wrap up work on comprehensive energy legislation. But the reactor riddle is particularly hard to solve because of the varied reasons driving the opposition. The nuclear knot is not the only issue holding up the committee. 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. "There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner. 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." Bush said at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. the largest trade association for the industry. An aide said the committee continues to consider insurance. August 4." said Mitch Singer." the institute warned in a report on the conference. Weeks of work by the committee staff have not yet led to concrete answers. The Senate's version. 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. 2005." Nuclear energy advocates. A nuclear reactor has not been ordered in the United States since the 1970s. continue to face some stiff political opposition from lawmakers who remain concerned over continued waste problems in some states. ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are contentious in Congress Choe 05 (Stan Choe. ( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C. "It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. along with the less likely option of investment tax credits to cover up-front construction costs." one exasperated committee aide said late last week. and more conservation. Oct. such as wind. It is also trying to figure out. so a conference committee would have to settle the question. NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear. though. and still others worry that the reactors will become new terrorist targets. And at a June conference. needs more nuclear energy. safer nation. "We would like to see a mosaic of financial incentives in there. The House's version doesn't include those packages. The concern over nuclear waste has been further exacerbated by delays in the Yucca Mountain national repository plan. 2007. 38 . it said. 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. But even if the Senate does find a solution. The country. becoming the first president to visit a nuclear plant in 26 years when he recently stopped by a Maryland plant.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times. The Charlotte Observer. leading to this year's effort. 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. passed in June." The battle is most pitched on Capitol Hill. Utility executives say Congress should give the nuclear industry flexibility to choose what combination of incentives would be best for them. The energy bill passed by the House last month does not include the nuclear incentives. Senators included loan guarantees in energy legislation in the last Congress. May 16. A 2003 study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology advocates combining the ideas of nuclear plants' proponents and opponents. "Everything is on the table. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. where Congress is hashing out an energy bill that could help a nascent nuclear resurgence explode or fade. That attempt to write a comprehensive national energy bill failed. loan guarantees and production tax credits. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo met with a group of nuclear energy officials in March to begin deciphering what incentives might be feasible. among other things. the fight is far from over.it sparks huge political battles in Congress National Journal 05 (National Journal's CongressDaily. noting that new ideas are still welcome until the committee starts marking up nuclear issues next week. The flip side of the argument is that if new reactors are not built. Are we ready for a nuclear comeback?. But a move in that direction is now stalled in the intersection between what is politically palatable and economically feasible. Without incentives such as liability limits and tax restructuring. is packed with incentives to get the nuclear industry rolling. 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. 2005 Senate Panel Slowed By Nuke Aid Talk.Agenda Good ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are super contentious. if only the federal government could offer incentives to limit the risks of building and operating new reactors. "It's not a question of one incentive over the other. Those guarantees were dropped during conference talks with the House in favor of production tax credits that would not kick in until a nuclear reactor comes on line. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. even though both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate energy committee support the industry. a free-market think tank in New York City. LN) President Bush has been a champion for the nuclear industry. such as a subsidy for new reactors and loan guarantees for their construction. 1. utility executives say they cannot afford to invest in new reactors and move through the complex and expensive regulatory process. Daks. http://findarticles. the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change. despite the combined opposition from fiscal conservatives and lawmakers who are concerned about nuclear waste. but it also needs more renewables. There is also the question of where to store nuclear waste for thousands of years.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links.

Domenici said he enjoys the give-and-take with fellow members of Congress. he has taken the less contentious approach of seeking tax credits for the developers. Albuquerque Journal. who helped steer Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment when he was Senate Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s. said his new post produces even more headaches than balancing a federal budget. Instead. No one -.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links.including Domenici -. But it has its rewards. October 12.ever said it would be easy. LN) Domenici managed to avoid similar controversy over his beloved nuclear power incentives by not insisting that Congress adopt controversial loan guarantees for construction of nuclear power plants. and feels good about doing something to make America less dependent on the turbulent Middle East. as well. "There are obviously a lot of views about energy problems in America. Journal Washington Bureau. 2003. Energy Policy Proves Divisive." Domenici said. 39 .Agenda Good ( ) Loan guarantees are way contentious in Congress Coleman 03 (Michael Coleman. Domenici.

" USEC said. the ability to bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants. NUCLEAR POWER: Former NRC head Curtiss discusses future of Yucca. in terms of funding new nuclear.5 billion for nuclear power facilities and $2 billion for advanced nuclear facilities for the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle. the establishment of the loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an important piece of this. included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H.the AFL-CIO's Building & Construction Trades Department -.R. But from a financial standpoint. Ohio. union department president Mark Ayers said the current federal loan guarantee program of $18. "Our primary mission is to secure an extension of the loan guarantee program to 'kick start' the renewal of nuclear power generation in this country. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. 2008.S. 2764) signed Wednesday by President George W." Ayers said that during this Congress.S. May 16. unions and Democrats EnergyWashington Week 08 (NEI Touts Union Support. "Nuclear power is a preferred path for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while providing reliable baseload electric generation. Support for nuclear power from a major Democratic constituency -. ( ) Plan popular with interest groups. In a May 6 speech at the NEI annual "nuclear energy assembly" May 5-7 in Chicago. Congress just in the appropriations process.R.. 24. So there's a lot of support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward. LN) Jim Curtiss: Well. expansion of nuclear in U. LN) USEC Inc.5 billion for new nuclear projects "is not sufficient in either duration or dollars. according to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) news release. but opposed by others because of nuclear waste and other concerns. supported by some as a clean energy source because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases. "The rebuilding of the industrial infrastructure to construct and fuel a new generation of nuclear power plants is an important step toward energy security. Newsroom Notes. 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. intends to pursue a DOE loan guarantee for construction of its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon. ( ) Loan guarantees popular in Congress Daily Record 07 (USEC applauds Congress. USEC on December 27 commended Congress and the Bush administration for supporting the nuclear renaissance through the loan guarantee program administered by the DOE. Bush. USEC. The financial community. LN) The president of a major labor union--citing nuclear energy as a carbon-free technology--says the group's "primary mission" this Congress is to win an expansion of the federal loan guarantee program for nuclear energy and other clean-energy technologies to help "kick start" a resurgence of the nuclear industry. Jan. 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. Feb.5 billion in energy projects." 40 . The U.5 billion for energy projects. Dec. The company said it expects to submit an application for the guarantee when the DOE invites nuclear projects to apply. The company also applauded the bipartisan federal recognition of the contribution that nuclear power makes in providing clean and efficient electricity for the United States." ( ) Congress supports loan guarantees for nuclear power E & E News 08 (Environment and Energy Publishing. 2007. here before they left town in December. 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.S. I think there are a number of dimensions of that. including $18. Bush. Department of Energy. Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches intends to pursue a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for the construction of the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon. 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.Agenda Bad ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are bipartisan Nuclear News 08 (USEC to apply for DOE loan guarantee. authorized $18. which was included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H. adding. including $18. 28. IL.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links.5 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear projects. The role of nuclear energy in combating climate change is controversial. LN) USEC Inc." Stating that "more and more interest groups are recognizing the need for nuclear energy in combating global warming trends. 2008. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. 2764) signed on December 26 by President George W. 2008. 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.is significant in light of upcoming debates over federal climate change legislation. a Bethesda-based global energy company. These amounts are the maximum loan guarantees available and are not direct loans or subsidies for any energy project. has in recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently. Ohio.

Nov.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia. 5.world-nuclear-news. while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. only 20 percent disapprove. wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants. at 28%. Seventy-five percent of Americans agree that electric companies should prepare now so that new nuclear plants could be built if needed within the next decade. 56 percent of respondents agreed. Last April.” Only 20 percent disapprove. 2007. wind. The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong.” Again. In a national survey conducted last April. if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity. 41 . April 29. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans believe “it is appropriate for the federal government to provide some financial assistance to jump-start nuclear. Similarly ( ) Incentives for nuclear power are popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. 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. with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/eightoutoften/) Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help jump-start construction of carbon-free energy technologies. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits “as an incentive to companies . 66 percent agreed. 62 percent of Americans agree “we should definitely build more nuclear power plants. to build solar. 71 percent agreed. the survey found.nei. if needed. Energy security was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents.Agenda Bad ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power is overwhelmingly popular with the American public.” 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice.” Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. wind and other carbon-free energy technologies in order to meet the national clean-air and carbon reduction goals and reduce the cost to consumers of building the facilities. while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. http://www.” In last April’s survey. Opinion favours nuclear. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade. it’s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies. and three percent do not have an opinion. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants. A majority of Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear. and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants. “Given the priority status that Americans affix to air quality concerns.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. hydro and renewable energy.prefer our specific evidence NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute.” said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti. In the new survey. http://www. 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan guarantees for companies “that build solar. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of new electric-generating facilities.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities. with 33% opposing it. according to a new national survey of 1. Overall. The new telephone survey was conducted Oct.000 adults. Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy Technologies. Asked to choose which of four issues seem “most important. solar. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA. 2008. with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. In the new survey. it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating. 59 percent said that.

2007." the institute warned in a report on the conference.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Elections Links. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Daks. a free-market think tank in New York City.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times. "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. 42 .Plan Unpopular ( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C. 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear. 1. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. And at a June conference. Oct. http://findarticles.

Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear. if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity. April 29. 66 percent agreed.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/eightoutoften/) Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help jump-start construction of carbon-free energy technologies. wind. it’s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies.000 adults. In a national survey conducted last April. 62 percent of Americans agree “we should definitely build more nuclear power plants. Seventy-five percent of Americans agree that electric companies should prepare now so that new nuclear plants could be built if needed within the next decade. Energy security was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents. if needed. with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits “as an incentive to companies to build solar. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans believe “it is appropriate for the federal government to provide some financial assistance to jump-start nuclear.” Again.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia. at 28%. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade. 56 percent of respondents agreed. while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear.” said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti. 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. Nov. Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy Technologies. http://www. and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants. with 33% opposing it. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants. 5. 2007. ( ) Nuclear super popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants. Overall. Similarly. In the new survey.” Only 20 percent disapprove. hydro and renewable energy.Plan Popular ( ) Nuclear power to offset carbon emissions is overwhelmingly popular with the American public.” 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan guarantees for companies “that build solar. only 20 percent disapprove. 2008.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089. wind and other carbon-free energy technologies in order to meet the national clean-air and carbon reduction goals and reduce the cost to consumers of building the facilities. The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong. according to a new national survey of 1. solar. and three percent do not have an opinion. 59 percent said that. Last April.” In last April’s survey. Opinion favours nuclear. the survey found. In the new survey. http://www. A majority of Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear. with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies.nei. The new telephone survey was conducted Oct. “Given the priority status that Americans affix to air quality concerns. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. 71 percent agreed. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of new electric-generating facilities. it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating.prefer our specific evidence NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Elections Links. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA.world-nuclear-news. while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. Asked to choose which of four issues seem “most important.” Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose. 43 .

says Jason Grumen.. chief energy policy adviser to the Obama campaign. with $18.and cost billions of dollars each.wsj. With Federal Help.” and went on to explain that REI plans to open 10 solar-powered stores in Arizona. but that it likely will be “consistent with” past measures he has supported that would have directed hundreds of millions of dollars to the construction of new nuclear plants.5 billion for nuclear. Presidential Divide There is an assumption that the government will offer more loan guarantees. ( ) McCain solves the aff Krause 08 (Reinhardt Krause. He told reporters at a news conference that a pending Senate bill on climate change. "(Obama) believes that the loan guarantees in the current act were substantial and sufficient. “It’s a great question. John McCain made clear today that he is not comfortable with subsidies for solar power. the outdoor recreation and clothing cooperative.though the approval process can be far longer -. 2008. which he hails as a clean technology that can help reduce carbon emissions. “I’m a little wary–I have to give you straight talk–about government subsidies. LN) The presidential election may be key to nuclear's revival. New Nuclear Plants Are On Their Way. is there are no federal incentives to help defray the costs.” he said. she said. http://blogs. a senior director at credit rater Fitch. 2008. “It doesn’t go far enough as far as nuclear power is concerned in my estimation. May 13. which have helped push up the price of corn and increase the price of food. They take 4-5 years to build -.5 billion. the availability of low-interest rate government credit is vital to large-scale projects like nuclear plants." said Robert Hornick. Hornick says. Investor’s Business Daily. “There isn’t anything significant on the federal side to help us make the right decisions.” But he does support help for nuclear power plants. McCain listened to the chief executive of REI. Republican John McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. “When government jumps in and distorts the market. explain what her company is doing to minimize its impact on the climate. which would establish industry limits on emissions that he favors. she noted. not subsidies. California and Oregon (in sunnier markets. including coal. He asked her a simple question: “What do you want me to do?” Sally Jewel replied." 44 .” he said. McCain a big supporter. He said over-subsidization of the solar industry in the 1970s led to “some pretty shoddy material. then there’s unintended consequences as well as intended. but Obama has signaled no additional atomic aid.” McCain replied that he preferred for the federal government to invest in research and development. An aide to the Arizona senator said Tuesday that McCain hasn’t decided exactly what form of support is needed. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized loan guarantees for several technologies. Costs vary depending on how much electricity the power plants generate.5 Bil In Loan Guarantees. June 23. Not so fast. "He is eager to make sure that the (DOE) acts efficiently to move forward with those loan guarantees but he believes that nuclear power has received more than fair treatment in recent legislation." Others put the per-plant cost at $5 billion to $8 billion. He cited his long-time opposition to ethanol subsidies.com/washwire/2008/05/13/mccain-raises-concerns-about-subsidies-for-solar-power/) Sen.5 billion for loans -. doesn't get you too far. Congress has authorized $42.$18.” she said. With banks short of capital. "The range seems to be between $6 billion or $7 billion to $10 billion to build one plant. The problem. needs to add more help for nuclear power. At a roundtable conducted in the foggy foothills of the Cascade Mountains in North Bend. $18. though he has supported incentives for nuclear power plants and thinks more federal support is needed to encourage the industry. solar. than the rain-soaked one he was in at the moment). Wash.” he said. “We’re trying to do the right thing without really any incentives. Democrat Barack Obama isn't likely to support extending loan guarantees. McCain Raises Concerns About Subsidies for Solar Power. "So you can see how the federal loan guarantee program.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi McCain Solves the Aff ( ) McCain would provide incentives to the industry WSJ 08 (Wall Street Journal. wind and nuclear." Grumen said.

45 . geothermal energy.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Topicality 1NC. Limits. not an alternative energy. D. and wind power. solar energy. for example biogas.pearsoned.including current forms of energy limits our generic disad links and counterplans. Violation.Nuclear power is a current energy source. Interpretation. The sources generally have low pollution implications and use renewable resources.allowing increases in current forms of energy explodes the topic and doubles the research burden for the neg. tidal power.Alternative Energy = Not Nuclear A.html) alternative energy Energy obtained from sources other than fossil fuels or nuclear power. Standards1.co. 2. Ground.uk/wps/media/objects/2768/2834452/glossary/glossary. (Chapter 10) B.Alternative energy is an energy to replace fossil fuels or nuclear power Pearson Education 01 (http://wps. It’s a voter for competitive equity and education. C. hydroelectric power.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful