This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi
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.
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi
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.
Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. hurricanes.or gas-fired facilities. especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. June 3. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling. New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. Furthermore. The federal government took responsibility for managing the fuel.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. 6. 7. director of energy program at Public Citizen.7 billion. 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. it has completely failed in collecting the waste.. given a reactor's low operating expenses. but the federal government has proven incapable of providing that service.asp? idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+laws) 4. no nuclear power. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen. there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy. In late 2003. if we need to build 17.4 and $6.csmonitor. Put industry in control of fuel cycle management. despite being legally obliged to do so beginning in 1998. many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. geography.com/article.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. For example: On Monday.cfm) 6. Ralph Nader's consumerprotection group. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal. Sept. 17. NEI officials told The New York Times in July. http://www. which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Nuclear power won’t be sustainable without a solution for spent fuel Spencer 08 (Jack Spencer. it has not assumed formal responsibility for one atom of fuel. Energy Publisher. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free. and nuclear energy producers were supposed to pay for the service through a fee.000 -." says Tyson Slocum. 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 needed to offset environmental laws. Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding. Staff Writer. In short. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power. If nuclear power is going to have a sustainable rebirth in the U. 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. http://www. The Energy Policy Act of 1982 created a framework for managing used nuclear fuel. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5.000 new plants? 5 . Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17. The nuclear industry should establish responsibility for spent fuel management. and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts. That huge startup cost might make financial sense. earthquakes. critics worry federal costs will be huge. a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants. http://www. local politics. Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. 2007.000 – or 2.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Solvency Frontline 5.S.energypublisher. No water.most plants won’t be built Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton.nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. the nuclear waste problem must be fixed. or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. If defaults occur in the new round.coopamerica.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. A number of power companies went bankrupt. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers. Nuclear power surge coming. due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power." In 2003. There literally aren’t enough sites for nuclear power to expand Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. 2008. let alone. Indeed. There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. 28. in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island. While the federal government has been very successful in collecting the fee. Christian Science Monitor. NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s. political instability and climate change itself. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. flooding.500 or 3. 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. Defaults likely.
sefora. Sept. Resources. 2007. “Nuclear Energy Policy. Science. which currently comprises 104 licensed reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states.S. which restarted May 22. D-N. Financing the next generation of nuclear power plants. Sens.8 billion refurbishment.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) Nevertheless." 6 . 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. Specialist in Energy Policy.. and John McCain.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1 . nuclear power plants is greater than that from oil. and hydropower. when the first large-scale commercial reactors were being ordered.utah.Y. 23. ( ) Status quo solves. http://publicutilities. several presidential candidates recognize the need for additional nuclear power. which accounts for more than half of U. McCain says there is "no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power. support federal incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants. after a 22-year shutdown and $1. and Industry Division. despite differences over energy policy. R-Ariz.Status Quo Solves the Case ( ) Nuclear power inevitable Holt 07 (Mark Holt.S. 2007. the outlook recently has been improving for the U. http://sharp.S. and behind only coal.the next president will support nuclear power Miller 07 (William H.” July 12. (That number includes TVA’s Browns Ferry 1.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants.) Electricity production from U. Barack Obama. D-Ill..pdf) It's encouraging to know that. 2007. electricity generation. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor. Nuclear plants generate more than half the electricity in six states. and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth. natural gas. nuclear power industry.. Hillary Clinton.
Most of these projects are expected to be financed by bonds. five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. What Nuclear Renaissance?. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money. To do that. the energy industry analyst. http://www.” said Tezak. Congress to the rescue? Though the current interpretation of the rules could throw cold water on efforts to raise money. ( ) An increase in loan guarantees is inadequate. The fact is. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986.com/doc/20080512/parenti) In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance. the TVA's Watts Bar 1. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. “But it has the potential to be a deal breaker. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. the first plants won’t come online before 2014 and will cost an estimated $4 billion each. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors.msnbc. MSNBC. 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. Typically. in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979.” 7 . Even if all goes as proponents hope. began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then.com/id/16286304/) Nukes for sale But it’s far from clear that this new round of plants will ever be built.there are problems in how they are applied Schoen 07 (John Schoen. 2008. 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. Even with vast government subsidies. But that critical guarantee has already hit a serious snag." says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Does nuclear power now make financial sense?. That's before cost overruns. 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. Senior Producer. Alabama.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2 . “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. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) Loan guarantees empirically haven’t inspired nuclear power expansion Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti.thenation. and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved. nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry. the power industry will have to convince state regulators and investors that the numbers add up. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18. Before ground is broken for the first new plant. many in the industry expect Congress to clarify the rules to provide more generous guarantees. To help reassure investors that the bonds are a safe investment. That could be more risk than Wall Street is ready to assume — especially for the projects that go first. the loan guarantee — 80 percent of 80 percent — will only cover about two-thirds of the total cost." the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. they face several important hurdles. as well as risk insurance. "Wall street doesn't like nuclear power. blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash. April 24. 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.5 billion. http://www. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants.msn. Congress has provided loan guarantees for 80 percent of the financing for the first several projects to win NRC approval.
http://www. Lovins. so at most. not to mention the huge liability risk of an accident — the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant. and some nations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants.S. Initial analyses of the loan guarantee program have shown that DOE lacks the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement its program.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) Most utilities won’t be eligible for guarantees CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. Lovins notes that the U. http://www. Under the base-case assumptions. 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. so it's up to government to do so. covering 80 percent of construction costs would require guaranteeing debt with a face value of $4.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. and staff remain absent. If adopted.1812540. Providing the maximum coverage to three plants based on each of the five reactor designs would result in roughly $100 billion in loan guarantees. a plant design that has not been built in the United States) and commercially viable. At the same time. let alone funded.5 billion for each plant (depending on the size of the reactor). to say the least.5 billion to $7.5 ( ) The Department of Energy doesn’t have the resources to implement the loan guarantee program EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. as they pose potentially significant risks and high costs to America’s taxpayers." he says. this provision removes Congressional authority and the safeguards in place through the appropriation process.)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. There's no question that a nuclear plant. (The President’s budget proposed a limit of $18. Nuclear supporters like Moore who argue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns — the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear meltdown. and that no more than three plants based on each advanced reactor design can be considered innovative.cbo. The 30 plants currently being proposed use five reactor designs. 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. This Issue Brief explores these issues raised by the 2007 energy bill provisions. a commitment that has not been proposed.com/time/health/article/0. 2008. procedures. The Senate provision allows. Reports from the GAO and DOE’s Office of the Inspector General state that the necessary policies. http://www.8599. just because a plant is considered both innovative and commercially viable does not mean it will receive the maximum guarantee of 80 percent. but McCain's idea of a crash construction program to build hundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just as unrealistic. 2007. for DOE to write unlimited loan guarantees without Congressional oversight." he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s. 30.S.pdf) The maximum coverage available under the loan guarantee program—a guarantee on debt covering 80 percent of a plant’s construction costs. In his study.eesi. an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers. or the fact that we still have yet to devise a long-term method for the disposal of atomic waste. titled "The Nuclear Illusion. 15 of those plants would qualify as innovative.5 billion [in nominal dollars] on the cumulative amount of loan guarantees for new nuclear plants over the 2008–2011 period. and shifts the financial risk from private lenders to taxpayers.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. once it's up and running. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for. while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk. 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. Is Nuclear Power Viable?.00. 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. since 1996. In addition. ( ) Incentives won’t revive nuclear power Walsh 08 (Bryan Walsh. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century. the price of building a plant — all that concrete and steel — has risen dramatically in recent years.pdf) A provision of the Senate bill exempts DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec.time. More nuclear subsidies. won't do the trick either. 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. in the case of nuclear technology. a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U. the cleanest fossil fuel — but nuclear energy still seems like the power of yesterday. June 6. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. the nuclear industry attracted nothing. 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. 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). Oct. raising questions about DOE’s ability to manage its loan guarantee program. 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. among other things.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2 .html) That's debatable. 8 .” May 2008. argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents.
stating. the GAO offered its review of the actions taken by DOE: “[It] should not have begun implementation of the LGP without a specific appropriation.eesi. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expressed its concern about such an action. DOE had not taken steps to ensure that it had in place the critical policies. “The Administration believes that it is unwise to amend that authority while the program is still in the early stages of implementation. and mechanisms necessary to ensure the program’ssuccess. “In reviewing audits of past governmental loan guarantee programs. it stated.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.31 Such findings demonstrate that the infrastructure required to carry out a successful loan guarantee program has yet to be attained at DOE. In its report released in September 2007. Nevertheless.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-3007_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. DOE initiated its loan guarantee program for innovative technologies in fiscal year 2006. followed by a solicitation for preapplications to the program a few months later in August. leaving much of the program’s structure and authority in question. DOE proposed transferring funds from some of its accounts to start the program. Without having received specific appropriations. DOE first proposed transferring appropriations from other appropriated DOE accounts in May 2006. http://www. and its approach to the LGP raised serious questions about whether this program and its financial risks would be well managed. 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. the DOE Office of the Inspector General issued a report with many similar findings.pdf) Following the passage of EPACT 05 in 2005. 2007. its early actions in initial stages of the program raise doubts as well about its management. Oct. 30. we found that the agencies involved had not always exercised due diligence during critical phases of the loan guarantee process. DOE chose to solicit preapplications prior to finalizing its regulations. 9 . these had not yet been taken. “There are a number of additional steps that should be taken to foster the success of the loan guarantee program.”27 The Inspector General’s report concluded.” it found.”26 Likewise. This was prior to having appropriations or regulations in place. 28 Along with a lack of both manpower and procedure in DOE’s loan guarantee program.”30 Even DOE’s own Office of the Inspector General noted prior actions by governmental agencies in similar situations were sometimes questionable. DOE did begin implementation. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2. paying specific attention to the lack of staff essential to implement the program. procedures. “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.” though at the time of the report.”29 Similarly.
The Washington Independent. A combination of factors—recent volatility in construction costs and natural gas prices." he said. Licensing and regulatory approval for building new nuclear plants in the United States are expected to take about three years. nuclear power’s history of construction cost overruns. Pricey Alternative: Nuclear Energy. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. so the construction of the first new nuclear plants would be unlikely to start until 2010 at the earliest." said JohnMoens. and some may never be built Sood 08 (Suemedha Sood .washingtonindependent. doesn't mean those plants will definitely get built. just because of the delay in getting plants up and running. At that point.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. "We might have some eight plants in place by 2020. just because companies are applying to build new plants. Jun. that waiting period could stretch out much longer.” May 2008. "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. which may exceed 40 years. Those ranges demonstrate that the future competitiveness of each technology and thus the conclusions presented in this analysis are quite uncertain. Moens says. "There are so many things that can change in a hurry." But.S. nuclear industry specialist at the EIA . 12." If costs don't come down. according to the Energy Information Administration. ( ) Plants won’t be built for years.com/view/nuclear-energy-an) Meserve points out that the U." he said. "but there aren't going to be any by 2015. and uncertainty about future policy on carbon dioxide emissions—indicates that a wide range of costs are plausible for each of the technologies considered. So far. http://www. these obstacles haven't stopped energy companies from submitting applications to the government for new plants. http://www.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #3 . 2008. the commercial viability of a new plant would depend on anticipated market conditions and policy outcomes over the operating life of the plant.Long Timeframe ( ) It’s takes a long time for new nuclear power plants to come online CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. "Even with the rising cost of materials. 10 .cbo. is at least seven years away from any new plants getting built.
dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium.20 Additional costs could also come as supplies become scarce from increased construction of nuclear power plants.000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants. http://www. 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. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants. Oct. 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.the more construction the more likely there will be shortages of materials and workers EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. trained personnel. our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. and safety controls. 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. For example. which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.coopamerica. http://www. http://www. 30.” Richard Haass.3 ( ) Uranium shortages will thwart a robust nuclear energy program Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power.Shortages ( ) Building plants would take decades.labor and steel shortages CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.” May 2008. 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.21 Such risks are difficult to quantify and therefore estimate.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.cbo. 11 . In its history within the United States. ( ) A rapid expansion would be counterproductive. 2007.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. Replacing the 300. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. 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.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. 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.pdf) Even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented. prior to the start of construction.2 Also. What’s more.pdf) The cost to taxpayers from underestimated subsidy costs and possible loan guarantee defaults is potentially high. As uranium supplies dwindle. President of the Council on Foreign Relations.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #4 . and so is the risk. stated in a report on nuclear energy. 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. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. sometimes reaching over 350 percent of the estimated costs for the project.cfm) 7. “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. the nuclear energy industry has experienced significant cost overruns.
” “With those odds.S. 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. U. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans. 2003. the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls. 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. U.hillheat.” 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). relative to other electricity generation sources. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion.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." But that's not all.400 Megawatts of new nuclear power. 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 -. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program.S.” June 21. “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power.tradewatch. Cato Institute. 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.cato.well above 50 percent.S. According to the Congressional Research Service.org/pressroom/release. ( ) Probability of defaults are over 50%. Oct. July 31. http://www.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. http://www. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134) The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the cost of building 8. leaving taxpayers at risk. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute.Defaults ( ) Defaults likely Hill Heat 07 (Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?.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.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #5 . The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003. this is more than the $49. ( ) Over 50% of nuclear projects will default Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -. so is the risk. 2007.S. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008.” said Michele Boyd.potentially at above market rates. the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. http://www.” 12 . 30. 2007. taxpayers.
weak punishment of terrorists. Why are the United States and Israel. http://www. Opponents of the nuclear renaissance point to a host of serious concerns.5-foot steel-reinforced concrete containment structures protecting the reactor and other radioactive materials are “among the strongest structures built by man. terrorism causes extinction Alexander 03 (Yonah Alexander. “In the post-9/11 era. “They’re proposing a replay of a demonstrated failure. E The Environmental Magazine.” Alex Matthiessen. nuclear power plants pose an unacceptable risk. Unlike their historical counterparts. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism. “The financial risks have only gotten worse. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. 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]. considered attacking nuclear facilities. professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies.000 early fatalities.g. 2001. let alone a suicidal mission. therefore. by their own admission. thus far at least. biological. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. Riverkeeper says that the proposed evacuation plans for the area are woefully inadequate. Plant operator Entergy refutes these charges. director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS).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. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national. 28 2003. double standards of morality. 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.emagazine. the religionization of politics. regional and global security concerns. that on September 11. director of Hudson Riverkeeper. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e. and the site is vulnerable to an airborne attack. and says that the 3. 13 . as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons. It is not surprising. only 19 percent of Indian Point guards think they can protect the facility from a conventional assault. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. 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. 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. radiological. Washington Times) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed. nuclear power may simply be too risky. chemical.” says Paul Gunter.” He points out that NRC studies conclude that a serious accident at one of Indian Point’s two working reactors could cause 50. Israel and its citizens.com/view/?3780) In spite of its obvious benefits. and our concerns about safety issues are heightened now that these plants are known terrorist targets. to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Likewise. Aug. And according to Riverkeeper. Al Qaeda operatives have. declares.” ( ) And.
and an attractive target for terrorists.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm) 3.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext. without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. What’s more. Jr. 14 . Robert Kennedy. to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants.Nuclear Power -> Terrorism ( ) Nuclear plants are easy terrorist targets Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. http://www. and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like. 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. National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina.coopamerica. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant. In researching the security around nuclear power plants.
nuclear reactors – all of them – depend on energy from the grid to operate. 15 . Feb. but there is an elevated risk. United Nations. the director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union for Concerned Scientists in Washington. and perhaps most compelling – hurricanes and cyclones. even though advanced reactor designs make such mishaps less likely. which operates atomic reactors in Pennsylvania and Montana.” it is vital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. ( ) That turns the case. the site is said to be in “station blackout. Commission on Sustainable Development. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change.com/science/story/26864.pdf) Finally. ``Nuclear power continues to pose serious risks that are unique among the energy options being considered for reducing global-warming emissions. McClatchy Newspapers. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times.48 Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat. blizzards. station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear power stations. As cited above. Unfortunately these generators.mcclatchydc.'' said David Lochbaum.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Accidents Turn ( ) Accidents likely Olson 06 (Mary Olson.” According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. every reactor site is equipped with back-up power. in part because of intermittent use. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years. 2008. 9. nuclear energy making comeback. Pa. as a crowning point – nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather. even “off-line. tornados. of Allentown. ``One incident could put a stop to nuclear energy in the United States.'' warned James Miller. 2006.one accident could put a halt to any more nuclear expansion Boyd 08 (Robert S. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures. May 3. the chief executive of PPL Corp. Despite doubts.nirs. The loss of grid power will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis. Boyd.47 When both the grid and the back-up power fail. are not terribly reliable. drought. most often in the form of diesel generators. http://www.. Overall blackout risk increases as the number of outages increases. As is sensible. http://www.html) Accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 continue to shadow the industry. Director of the Southeast Office.
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext.coopamerica. http://www. 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. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great.Nuclear Power -> Accidents ( ) Accidents are super likely at nuclear power plants Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. 16 . Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment.000 plants. and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. If there was an accident.000 people. with thousands poisoned by radiation.cfm) 4. the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years. there’s a plant just up the Hudson from New York City. in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17. Here in the US. For example. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400. 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.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.
17 . every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Smith College). Miller. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries. Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U. January 23. with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons. we need to get serious here at home. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach. and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. National Security First: Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us. 2002. and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. “During my 8 years in the White House.shtml) The U. Al Gore said. 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. Here too.S. http://www. for example. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant. (assistant professor of economics. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world.coopamerica.S. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. biological..nationalreview. the technology is not there yet.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy. and chemical weapons. Iran. Libya.. but again. or perhaps even a European city. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders.cfm) 2. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Proliferation Turn ( ) Expansion of nuclear power increases the risk of proliferation Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. Our conventional forces might even be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe. We should demand that countries like Iraq. http://www.com/comment/comment-miller012302. we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue.
2007. but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest and colonialism. co-director of Crossroads. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other. people of color and white people alike. Brick by brick. the effects of uncontrolled power.pdf) Nuclear power disproportionately affects communities of color. inhuman. stone by stone. a ministry to dismantle racism. the walls of racism. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Environmental Racism Turn ( ) Nuclear power is environmental racism. and unjust. 1991. once and for all. the prison of individual. http://www. 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. The danger point of self-destruction seems to be drawing even more near. subservience. in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential God intends for us. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty.it disproportionately affect communities of color Ewall 07 (Mike. and greed. privilege. and powerlessness are cruel. "Dismantling Racism: The Continuing challenge to White America. 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. institutional. For the sake of the world and ourselves. and cultural racism can be destroyed.net/nuclear/factsheet. Environmental Justice. restraints and limitations. will inevitably destroy us as well. of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of no return. All sites proposed for “temporary” and permanent storage of high level nuclear waste have been Native American lands. The prison of racism confines us all. ghettos and prisons. ( ) Racism should be rejected Barndt 91 (Joseph Barndt. of military buildups and violent aggression. from the mining of uranium on Native American and Aboriginal lands. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate. which are the marks of our white prison. we dare not allow it to continue. 155-6) To study racism is to study walls. Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power. Nov. 18 . We have looked at barriers and fences.energyjustice." p.
So clearly there are more important uses for nuclear power than just making electricity. Who knows where that could lead? Then I think of the present situation in the Middle East. hoping to provoke the Iranians into striking back so that the U. Arguably.htm) If Bush is not stopped and launches the attack. There are 8 to 9 nuclear weapon states. nuclear reactors can provide excuses to invade and bomb when no other excuses exist.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Imperialism Turn ( ) Nuclear power is the epitome of U. Oct. On the other hand. They are now desparate and selfjustifying criminals wrappped in the flag and other symbols of patriotism.S. they have enormous appeal and can provide enormous bargaining power. Even so. wind and other renewable energy alternatives lend themselves to smallscale. like shiny toy guns that can be loaded with real bullets. http://www. If you are dependent on nuclear power for electricity and you are dependent on us for reactor fuel. Saddam Hussein started down the road to nuclear power until the Israelis bombed to smithereens the Osirak nuclear plant he was building in 1981. I’m not making this up. political control becomes a powerful (though unstated) part of the bargain.co. 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. 4. It manufactured excuses and lies to attack Iraq and is now engaged in doing the same to justify the attack on Iran. ( ) Striking Iran would escalate into global nuclear war Ross 07 (Larry is the Secretary/Founder of The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association. or one of its close allies for delivery of fuel and removal of radioactive wastes. withheld. we’ve already devoted $800 billion to splendid little wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.S. Both Russia and China have strong defence links with Iran and each have nuclear weapon arsenals. anymore than it had for attacking Iraq. solar. I doubt if they would stay idle while the US conquered Iran. This kind of central control can act as a powerful counterweight to excessive democratic tendencies in any country that buys into nuclear power.scoop. The Bush-Chaney regime have been compared to desparate cornered animals who will resort to any crime to survive. Because of this special characteristic. independent installations under the control of local communities or even households. And now something similar is unfolding in Iran. foreign policy — being offered. Iran wants nuclear power plants partly to show how sophisticated and capable it has become. Newsweek reported in its October 1. would then have an excuse to bomb Iran. at least partly to secure U. 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. They have a special appeal around the world because they have become double-edged symbols of modernity. 2007 issue that Dick Cheney has been mulling a plan to convince the Israeli’s to bomb the Iranian nuclear power plant at Natanz. leading to US control of middle east oil resources. imperialism and causes a strike on Iran Montague 07 (Peter Montague. the war momentum and slaughter can trigger a sequence of disastrous actions and reactions that can spiral out of control. Pakistan and other Islamic states may erupt if the US slaughters millions of Muslims with nuclear weapons. Witness North Korea.S. In the past five years. serving to further unite much of the Arab world against us.S. Is this kind of thinking totally nuts? I don’t think so. It provide a rationale for a large centralized bureaucracy and tight military and police security to thwart terrorists.S. as we have seen. some may be drawn into a major war that could spread beyond the middle east. Perhaps from the viewpoint of both Washington and Wall Street. 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. foreign policy available in our back pocket. and bargained over. they have less than 30% of Americans supporting them. The Iraq war made the Bush regime war criminals. And. oil supplies. http://www. Bush claims God directs him. 19 . Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?. 2007.nz/stories/HL0701/S00362. nuclear reactors have become essential tools of U. Particularly if they sign a contract with the U.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. you are in our pocket.celsias. Keep in mind that the Bush regime has no legitimate reasons for attacking Iran. Also. Uncle Sam’s desperate attempts to revive nuclear power can perhaps best be understood as part of that ongoing effort at oil recovery. 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.S.
thenation.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. however. solar. geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid. Talk of such a renaissance. their minds off the real project of developing wind. public safety will continue to be menaced by problems at new as well as older plants. April 24. 2008. But there will be no massive nuclear renaissance. http://www. What Nuclear Renaissance?.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Tradeoff Turn ( ) Nuclear buildup would trade off with better forms of energy Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. 20 . helps keep people distracted. While a new administration might tighten regulations.
The last nuclear reactor to be constructed in the United States was completed in 1996. The paper notes: Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc. U. Department of Energy compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75 reactors. 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. When construction costs skyrocketed and operation and management costs spiraled out of control.. or the biased. nuclear power’s vulnerability puts it in a class by itself.S. However.org/usa/news/nuclear-reactors-are-an-expens) At the dawn of the nuclear era. Nuclear energy is extremely expensive and unreliable Greenpeace 03 (Nuclear Reactors are an Expensive and Dangerous Source of Electricity.. The original cost estimate was $45 billion.. the meltdown at Three Mile Island and the explosion at Chernobyl irreparably altered the image of nuclear power. Though all power sectors are affected to different degrees by rising capital costs. "only the blind. a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York. or environmental protesters. Rebecca Smith reports today in the WSJ (sub reqd. Notes the paper: A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U." 2. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history. The question.) on the biggest hurdle to the nascent nuclear-energy revival in the U. The horrific images of the Chernobyl disaster and the ever-growing death toll are a constant reminder of the dangers of nuclear power. cost estimates for new nuclear power plants have been continually revised upward. amid a growing shortage of skilled labor. Over the last five years. they win when legislation penalizes carbon-heavy sectors like coal (and even natural gas). It’s the Economics. 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.greenpeace.S. It’s economics. Not exactly electricity "too cheap to meter." Despite talk of a renaissance. Why is that such a big deal? Coal plants have been shelved recently because of rising capital costs. and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry. steel and copper. Chronic escalation of construction costs coupled with high operation and maintenance costs have sealed nuclear power's economic fate. http://blogs. Fuel costs for nuclear power are miniscule. a disaster of monumental scale. The dramatic decrease in nuclear construction can be directly tied to the meltdown at Three Mile Island. 2008. Exelon Corp. Progress Energy Inc. can now think the money has been well spent. unless substantial carbon dioxide charges were imposed. nuclear power is actually in decline in the United States.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy Advantage Frontline 1. but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant. and FPL Group Inc. nuclear power became an economic disaster. The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power’s favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide. High construction costs will translate into high electricity prices Johnson 08 (Keith Johnson. 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. Even the bean counters can’t keep pace.. —skyrocketing construction costs. Even while acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. The U. 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. since 1973. the head of the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that nuclear power would supply "electrical energy too cheap to meter." According to Forbes. And if those cost estimates are wrong? From the CBO: If those factors turned out not to reduce construction costs in the United States.wsj.S. Three Mile Island ghosts. nuclear capacity would probably be an unattractive investment even with EPAct incentives." However.S. either—and the nuclear power industry enjoys healthy loan guarantees and other federal subsidies designed precisely to alleviate those kinds of uncertainties. May 12. though. The Congressional Budget Office just finished a rosy-glasses report on nuclear economics.S. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized that this "failure of the U.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/) It turns out nuclear power’s biggest worry isn’t Yucca Mountain. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck.S. Since nuclear plants don’t emit CO2. said Jim Hempstead. the risks of nuclear power are only part of the problem. http://www. Southern Co. May 19. the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar reactor took almost 23 years to build and cost nearly $8 billion. Wall Street Journal. Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman. causing this prediction to prove false. 2003. utilities have canceled almost as many nuclear reactors as they have constructed. and renewable energy isn’t immune. double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. No nuclear reactors have been ordered and subsequently completed in the U. is the same: Who’s going to pay for it? 21 . Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago.
Predicting 15 million solar-heated homes by 1975.nukefree." concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute. are now perceived as second class. And despite today's hype about new designs. perfecting photovoltaic (PV) technology to the point that cells made of silicon could transform sunlight into usable electric current. 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. In an essentially military decision. "High-paying skilled labor jobs. Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act. once considered excellent career options. Forbes compared the losses on nuke power to "a commitment bigger than the space program ($100 billion) [and] the Vietnam War ($111 billion). But the prospect of making homes and offices energy self-sufficient with PV rooftop installations was a monumental moment in technological history." likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction. "collapse" was "appalling. no private company will assume the risk for new reactors either. The industry promised that improving technology would entice private insurance companies to take the risk. the Truman Administration knew that our best route to energy independence and economic security was with green power. Solar. New Hampshire for a total of $250 million turned into one for $7 billion. Not only were no nuke plants getting built. The key decision was made in 1953. just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance. Wind power is far cheaper than nukes. Pledging to share the Peaceful Atom worldwide. and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with the intention of then attending a four-year college program. Nuclear power can’t increase jobs. Long Island's $7 billion Shoreham operated briefly. In 1953. All projects need skilled craft workers. without the need for taxpayer guarantees or government-backed catastrophic liability insurance.S. The first cells were used to power space satellites. Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission--promised electricity that would be "too cheap to meter.org/facts/uninsurable) Fifty years ago the pushers of the "Peaceful Atom"---including Lewis Strauss. But after fifty years it hasn't happened. But in Finland.S. which made the taxpayer and the victims of any potential disaster the ultimate insurers. guidance counselors. up to 19.usnews. http://www. That shortfall will balloon to 40.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy Advantage Frontline 3. Dwight Eisenhower chose nuclear power instead. concentrated in the South—not only nuclear generators but coal plants. A year earlier. Far from being cheap or reliable. To invest in nukes is to throw still more good money at a bad technology. A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry. "Parents. And the renewable energy industry on which Eisenhower turned his back on 1953 has come of age. The two reactors proposed in the 1960s for Seabrook. the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilledlabor shortage." The pledge has turned into the biggest lie in U. 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. Reactor owners argued that nuclear power was too expensive to compete in a deregulated market.org 07 (Atomic Economics. liquefied natural gas terminals. and helps solve rather than worsen the global warming crisis. 2008. The utility Southern Co. Overall. News & World Report.000 workers in the Southeast. the industry took more than $100 billion in "stranded cost" payouts from state and federal sources. and that they were owed compensation for having risked their capital on an experiment that failed. and electricity transmission lines.000 by 2011 because of the new construction. U. then shut. nuclear power plants have drained the American economy of hundreds of billions of dollars." 4. Today the nuclear industry says all that is behind them. Harry Truman's Blue Ribbon Paley Commission reported that the future of American energy was with renewable sources. Those who do so guarantee us all fifty more years of economic chaos and energy shortfalls. oil refineries. but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry_print. bio-fuels. Nuclear power is a huge drain on the economy NukeFree. can be installed quickly. and they are in drastically short supply. Bell Laboratories made an historic breakthrough.htm) The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade. Looking ahead. But in the next five years. said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent report. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern. the first of these plants is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget. and that a "new generation" of reactors will somehow reverse a half-century of catastrophic economics. atomic reactor construction was defined by epic cost overruns and delays. March 13. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. So in 1957. The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago.600 nuclear workers—35 percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age. financial history. efficiency and conservation all have investors lining up for them. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20. Eisenhower turned the US away from green power. Through the ensuing half-century. decades late. The scale of the During the deregulation crisis of 1999-2001. no utilities would step forward to build Ike's atomic reactors. Pay is inching up and hours are increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. http://www. But even with huge government subsidies.the skilled workers just don’t exist Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle." 22 .
delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. 23 .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.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1 . In addition to costing far more. nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same power capacity in gas turbines. http://www. Severance. The Public Record. the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years. June 19.pubrecord.Nuclear Energy Expensive ( ) Nuclear energy is very expensive and won’t solve for 10 years Severance 08 (Craig A. 2008. Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh. and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms.org/index.
making room for new-builds. the more ambitious and short term the goal the more important it is to get the political architecture right.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi AT: CO2 Internal Link ( ) Future carbon regulations won’t hurt the economy Wagman 08 (David Wagman. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. http://pepei. professor of Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven. ( ) Economic growth will be robust. the economics of newer.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Much of the available analysis of S. Repetto said he sees two primary economic outcomes for the electric power industry as a result of S. president of the National Manufacturers Association was quoted as saying in a conference call with reporters earlier this year.S. gross domestic product could be $5. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. less efficient power plants will likely look less attractive and be retired. is worry over possible climate change and the affect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment. Power Engineering. of course. 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." he said." agreed Alex Klein of Emerging Energy Research. Managing Editor. The analyses also lay heavy stock in how future greenhouse gas-limiting policies are structured. "It will continue to have a significant role.pennnet. aimed at limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants–among other emitters–can produce. coal costs will likely rise. At the same time. At a minimum. however. he said.com/Articles/Article_Display. One report produced for the Edison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U. Power Engineering." said Yale University's Robert Repetto. While he agrees that carbon regulation will carry some costs. http://pepei." Not everyone agrees. "The bottom line is that if (carbon regulation) is phased in over time." Kraig Naasz. "Coal isn't going to be replaced.com/Articles/Article_Display. he said. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carbon capture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill. introduced by Sens. including coal-fired power plants. Managing Editor. certainly not in the United States.). First. 2191 suggests that even under worst-case assumptions the economy will continue to grow and "at quite a robust pace. Conn. natural gas and wind. higher efficiency coal plants will also be affected." said Robert Repetto. changing the relative economics between coal.3 trillion by 2050. Second.) and John Warner (RVa.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. does not represent "the end of the United States' economic boom as we know it. Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn. Older. The impetus. despite future carbon regulations Wagman 08 (David Wagman. Lieberman-Warner will be "a very high-cost option for all Americans." 24 . Carbon regulation. 2191 or other carbonlimiting legislation. When annual economic growth rates are factored in the potential effect represents a "very small difference" to the overall economy. probably in our lifetime. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner. the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest.pennnet. it might cost as much as 3 percent of GDP" by 2030.
500 new reactors needed to significantly offset global warming. And just one percent of that capacity would be enough to support the construction of 210 nuclear weapons per year. from 16 to 20 percent over the period.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Warming Advantage Frontline 1. Nuclear power won’t solve warming. in the next 60 years. Demand is projected to exceed supply and push prices higher. new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U. Nuclear Information and Resource Service.½ the previous actual figure.5 to six. 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 -. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change.emagazine. http://www. uranium prices have soared as existing reactors have worked through supplies from mothballed plants. used to dissipate heat generated by the compressors. 2006. This would roughly mean adding one new reactor every two weeks until 2050. is speculative. One can only imagine the results if a fraction of the residual funds were invested in technology development in solar. Also. extremely dirty coal power plants.nirs. United Nations..” it would require trillions of dollars to implement this supposed “fix. as well as waste storage and transportation. he calculates that the proportion of electricity coming from nuclear sources would grow only slightly. emits highly destructive chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). appropriate biomass and other sustainable power innovations! 2. Plan doesn’t expand fast enough to solve warming Olson 06 (Mary Olson. On the spot market. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion in Kentucky. But to effectively challenge the global warming problem. too. Even taking the $2 billion industry “guestimate. and investment in wind energy worldwide would be a far more cost-effective use of capital. says Smith. 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.” It is plain that a similar investment in efficiency in the USA and other energy-hog nations. appropriate hydro. he says. the nuclear process is not emission-free. In his book Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change (IEER Press). There are emissions in the nuclear process 2. And the plant is fired by two large.S. including its potential to combat climate change.2 reasons 1.S. Although nukes avoid the smokestack problem. but capacity is limited there. the industry is capable of building only half the 1. even when mining. “Even under an ambitious deployment scenario.” says the Union of Concerned Scientists. The world’s capacity to enrich uranium would have to go up dramatically by a factor of 2. http://www. Even with this growth. when compared to fossil fuels. The single remaining uranium enrichment plant in the U.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. a huge nuclear expansion would increase the dangers of nuclear proliferation. NIRS argues that. Commission on Sustainable Development.com/view/?3780) The uranium supply is also an issue. and that the enormous construction costs— estimated in the many trillions of dollars—would be much more effectively spent on renewable energy projects. In the USA. this however. Uranium enrichment also aggravates both global warming and ozone depletion. May 3. The shortfall in uranium mining can be at least partly made up in uranium enrichment (an outgrowth of atomic bomb development). Brice Smith admits that.pdf) An extensive 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology30 investigated the future of nuclear power. enrichment and fuel fabrication are taken into account. a new reactor would have to come online somewhere in the world every 15 days on average between 2010 and 2050. Director of the Southeast Office. global warming emissions for at least two decades. A massive amount of new plants are needed Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance. all involve greenhouse gas emissions. E The Environmental Magazine. nuclear power emits far lower levels of greenhouse gases. 25 . The cycle from uranium mining to milling and processing. A dozen new enrichment plants would produce thousands of tons of highly deadly plutonium each year.
( ) Nuclear power is too slow to solve climate change Knight 08 (Matthew Knight. May 6. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change.000 – or 2.com/2008/TECH/science/04/17/Nuclear." 26 ." That represents a huge wave of investment that few seem willing to undertake. What Nuclear Renaissance?. 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. These plants take too long to build. president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and author of the Hydrogen Economy.000-megawatt nuclear plants around the world.cnn.briefing/index. increasing costs. http://edition. For nuclear power to achieve this figure would mean building 3000 nuclear plants -. told CNN: "To get any appreciable impact on climate change you have to get 20 percent from renewable energies.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1. Briefing: Nuclear power. critics say that nuclear power is going to provide too little. too late.thenation.that's three power plants every 30 days for the next 60 years. No time – Even if nuclear waste.500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years. ( ) Nuclear power isn’t fast enough to solve warming 10. it hardly makes the most sense as a tool to quickly combat climate change. the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time.Too Slow ( ) Using nuclear to solve warming would take decades Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. April 24. and it would require decades to accomplish. Jeremy Rifkin. proliferation. lack of sites.com/doc/20080512/parenti) Even if a society were ready to absorb the high costs of nuclear power. cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport. national security. 2008.html) Putting all other arguments aside. accidents. 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. CNN. 2008. http://www. A 2004 analysis in Science by Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow. It simply isn’t possible to build 17. of Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative.
4 In the service of this disinformation campaign U. 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. Environmental Justice. http://www.net/nuclear/factsheet. and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered. Vice President Cheney has publicly stated5 a falsehood: he asserted that nuclear power is carbon-free.Every stage produces CO2 emissions Montague 07 (Peter Montague. old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities. decommissioning. processing. Enrichment Corporation. Director of the Southeast Office. 2006.energyjustice. the Institute study shows. were released from the U. and six are better. and the disposition of wastes generated: it is also dependent upon a grid that is powered by other sources of energy.celsias. from the manufacture and eventual dismantling of nuclear plants. and burial of nuclear wastes. concludes that a 1250 megaWatt nuclear power plant. This is due to the simple fact that nuclear reactors cannot “black start”8 – in other words. A careful life-cycle analysis by the Institute for Applied Ecology in Darmstadt. 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. United Nations. Unfortunately nuclear power is not a solution and it is further counterproductive to any real remedy for human impacts on climate. to the mining.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. http://www. where uranium is enriched to make nuclear reactor fuel. plus the eventual processing. Nuclear power is not free from carbon emissions. Commission on Sustainable Development. dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium. 2007. (Lazy journalists are in the habit it repeating the industry mantra that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. In 2001. one must closely examine the motives of anyone associated with nuclear schemes of any kind. a potent greenhouse gas. the nuclear fuel cycle is a significant contributor. science tells us that nuclear power plants are not the best way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. (See Figure 3. 27 . they depend on electric power from the external power grid to be able to come on-line. Even now when some Republicans have begun to acknowledge that perhaps we may have a carbon dioxide problem. processing.pdf) Nuclear power is being widely promoted as a “solution” to global climate change.S. pg. 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. the same power plant could produce as much as 750. This is nonsense. and enrichment of uranium fuel. These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation’s dirty. Nuclear Information and Resource Service.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/) It certainly has little to do with global warming. Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?.S. Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power. ( ) Making nuclear power emits tons of C02 and relies on coal plants Ewall 07 (Mike.6 Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially. transport. the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make electric power.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. A number of recent studies have found that when mining. http://www.coopamerica.000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. 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. which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.7 Nuclear power is not only dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of uranium fuel.) Substantial carbon dioxide emissions accompany every stage of nuclear power production. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants. Germany. 5) The study concludes that.000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. produces greenhouse gases equivalent to 250.cfm) 7. 93% of the nation’s reported emissions of CFC-114. What’s more. In other (unspecified) countries besides Germany. four are worse than nuclear from the viewpoint of greenhouse gas emissions.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. check in with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)]. [For a great deal of additional solid information showing that nuclear power is no answer to global warming. engines ( ) Uranium shortages will cause more emissions Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. 2007. 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. typically coal. As uranium supplies dwindle. Read on. Nov. in the emission of global warming gases (measured per kilowatt-hour of electricity made available).pdf) While the nuclear reactors themselves release few greenhouse gases. operating 6500 hours per year in Germany. http://www.nirs. 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. May 3. They’re not even close to being the best way. transport.9 ( ) Nuclear power won’t solve. 4.3 Those selling the expansion of nuclear power are on a par with any salesman of counterfeit medicine. Oct.
http://www. Nuclear power surge coming. Mass. Sept. 28. Even if the projects are successful and building proceeds at breakneck speed. the world would need to build 21 new 1. They're so financially risky. this would not even replace the existing nuclear capacity expected to be retired during that time.html) With virtually no greenhouse-gas emissions.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. says a Keystone Center report endorsed by the NEI. that the only reason building plans are under way is that the federal government has stepped in to guarantee investors against loan defaults.Can’t Build Enough Plants ( ) They won’t be able to build enough plants to solve warming Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. Sept.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. But even some industry experts doubt that's possible. At that rate. Over the next 15 months. the Keystone report said. 2007. 2007. experts say. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a tidal wave of similar permit applications for up to 28 new reactors.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2B . the level set by some scientists as a goal for nuclear power." says David Schlissel a longtime nuclear industry analyst with consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge. 28. But the renaissance may be less robust than it looks. "Clearly. http://www. reactors are touted as part of the solution to global warming.csmonitor. Staff Writer. But even under its most optimistic assessment. Staff Writer. Christian Science Monitor. Christian Science Monitor.000-megawatt nuclear plants per year – about five of those annually in the US – for the next 50 years. 28 . ( ) Can’t build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in warming Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. Nuclear power surge coming. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1 billion tons annually.html) The risks might be worth the cost if nuclear power can have a substantial impact in slowing global warming. [nuclear power companies] are not so confident or they wouldn't want the federal government and taxpayer to be guaranteeing the loans. costing up to $90 billion to build. The US industry reached that level in the 1980s. 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. the Energy Information Administration recently projected that only about 53 nuclear power plants would be built by 2056.csmonitor.
such limits would encourage the use of nuclear technology by increasing the cost of generating electricity with conventional fossil-fuel technologies. the most common greenhouse gas. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. http://www. 29 .gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. Several options currently being considered by the Congress—including “cap-andtrade” programs— would impose a price on emissions of carbon dioxide.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Free Market Counterplan Solvency ( ) Cap and trade would bolster the nuclear industry CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.” May 2008.1 If implemented.cbo. The prospect that such legislation will be enacted is probably already reducing investment in conventional coal-fired power plants.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.
allowing utilities to recover some construction costs before plants begin operations. and tax incentives. As of 2007. To the extent that rate regulation guarantees that customers will reimburse utilities for the cost of building a new plant. additional incentives that could further reduce the cost of nuclear power are under consideration. State incentives for new nuclear power plants are not limited to states with traditional regulation in place. which could increase the competitiveness of nuclear and innovative fossil-fuel technologies. http://www. and New York. For instance. Pennsylvania.cbo. has expanded a tax incentive initially designed to encourage investment in renewable energy technologies to apply to new nuclear capacity. California and a number of eastern states are considering legislation that would limit carbon dioxide emissions. the only states in that group that had proposed sites for new nuclear power plants were Maryland. a state that allows markets a large role in setting electricity prices. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. which leads to larger reductions in the cost of capitalintense technologies such as nuclear.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi States Counterplan Solvency ( ) States are effective at promoting nuclear power CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. Over half of the currently proposed new nuclear plants are sited in southeastern states. Those provisions include allowing higher rates of return for nuclear power than for other technologies. Texas. financial risk is transferred from investors to customers. where most electricity-generation capacity is owned by utilities that charge regulated rates.pdf) States and localities encourage investment in new nuclear capacity through a variety of policies. 30 . however. Last.” May 2008. In several of those states.
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.cbo. conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of base-load capacity than coal technology. However. regardless of the incentives provided by EPAct. B Uncertainties about future construction costs or natural gas prices could deter investment in nuclear power. under some plausible assumptions that differ from those CBO adopted for its reference scenario—in particular. More immediately. http://www. At charges below that threshold. 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. because some of those incentives are backed by a fixed amount of funding. B EPAct incentives would probably make nuclear generation a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity. In particular.pdf) In the long run. consequently. Solvency: Carbon tax spurs nuclear energy and keeps prices lower. However.it’s comparatively better than incentives CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. they would be diluted as the number of nuclear projects increased. 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. 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 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. 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. B Also at roughly $45 per metric ton. 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. 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. then new nuclear capacity would not be competitive. Below about $5 per metric ton. even without EPAct incentives. 31 . 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 EPAct incentives. EPAct incentives by themselves could make advanced nuclear reactors a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity. conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity.” May 2008. CBO’s analysis yields the following conclusions: B In the absence of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives. even in the absence of carbon dioxide charges. conventional fossil-fuel technologies would most likely be the least expensive source of new electricity-generating capacity. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.
cbo.000 megawatts of capacity (roughly the capacityof five plants) qualified for the credit. the study found that conventional fossil fuel technologies would probably remain the least expensive source of new generating capacity. If the cost of emitting carbon dioxide was between $20 and $45 per metric ton. Thus. 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.13 Although the imposition of carbon dioxide constraints would not directly decrease the cost of operating nuclear power plants.” May 2008. which means that each eligible plant’s allotment of credits would decrease if more than 6. At the same carbon price.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. nuclear generation would also become competitive with existing coal power plants. if lawmakers enacted legislation that resulted in a carbon dioxide charge of about $45 per metric ton. 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. nuclear generation as an option for new capacity would probably be preferred over coal but not natural gas. To the extent that carbon dioxide charges are expected. 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. but their emissions would still be substantial enough for the cost of producing electricity to be sensitive to carbon dioxide charges. http://www. EPAct limits production tax credits for nuclear power plants to a total of $7. 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. ( ) Carbon tax would spur investment into nuclear technology CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. As of 2007. http://www. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. in the absence of carbon charges or incentives. and consequently make new nuclear capacity a more attractive source of base-load generation. May 6.” May 2008. 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.pdf) Carbon dioxide constraints could encourage the use of nuclear technology by increasing the cost of generating electricity with fossil fuels. such carbon dioxide capture-andstorage 32 . Newly built power plants based on conventional fossil-fuel technology are designed to burn fuel more efficiently than plants built in the past. 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.cbo. 2008.5 billion.pdf) Measuring the utilities’ costs across a range of potential carbon dioxide charges indicates which technologies might be competitive. such a policy would increase the cost of operating fossil-fuel power plants. For instance. However.incentives aren’t key CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.org/EECarbon_charges_make_nuclear_cheapest_choice-0605086. Many investors appear to anticipate some form of carbon dioxide charge in the near future. nuclear would become competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies even without other incentives. 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. specialized steel forgings). the higher the costs to utilities of emitting carbon dioxide. For gauging the long-run competitiveness of nuclear generation.000 megawatts of capacity would qualify. 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). so utilities would be likely to choose nuclear to replace existing coal plants where possible. which in all their variants emit at least some carbon dioxide. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.14 CBO’s analysis incorporates the assumption that no more than 6.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. 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. potential carbon dioxide charges are more likely to influence the development of new nuclear capacity than EPAct incentives. http://www. given certain assumptions about future legislative action and market outcomes. In general. ( ) A carbon tax would spur nuclear energy by making it cost competitive WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. In the absence of both emission charges and EPAct incentives. ( ) Carbon tax solves.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Solvency Extensions ( ) Carbon charges are comparatively more effective than loan guarantees CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. http://www. even without EPAct incentives. the more competitive nuclear power would be because it is the only zero-emissions base-load technology. which emits nearly a metric ton of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity produced.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. conventional fossil-fuel technology would dominate nuclear technology. But. Because competing base-load alternatives emit carbon dioxide. Carbon charges make nuclear cheapest choice. The effect is most pronounced for coal.” May 2008. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.cbo.world-nuclear-news.html) With carbon dioxide (CO2) charges of about $45 per tonne.
Instead. ( ) Carbon tax is political suicide Hyde 07 (Justin Hyde. House in 1994.where emission limits and credits are divided among polluters and traded on an open market -. but when it comes to fixing climate change. And even if such a measure had a chance of passing. Dingell unveils draft of gas tax: Diesel would get break from proposed increase. E&E Daily senior reporter. LN) The CBO study -. "A carbon tax is going to carry with it a lot of pain. Bingaman and Sen.M." Dingell said. forcing a change in people's attitudes and a change in the way the business of the nation is done.) last summer cosponsored one of many cap-and-trade proposals circulating on Capitol Hill.. which would water down its overall effect. cap-and-trade system. Dingell said he would likely make significant changes to his plan before he introduces a bill in Congress based on feedback from constituents. 2008. by far the best option is cap-andtrade. 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. 27. Detroit Free Press.” Newsday. Bloomberg outlines nationwide proposal to tax companies directly for their carbon emissions.S. ( ) Carbon tax unpopular in Congress AP 07 (Associated Press.Dingell has said those plans tend to be unwieldy and not as effective. 3. S. . 2007. 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. 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. 2007. "Something's got to be done. February 14.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi technologies had not been used at commercial power plants. and the only way it can be done is by conservation. but said the problems of global warming will require tough choices. who can offer comments on the Web site.requested by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N. Sept. Arlen Specter (R-Pa. 33 . He also acknowledged the unpopularity of any tax increase among his colleagues in Congress. But as Dingell noted. LN) In an interview Wednesday. the tendency of lawmakers would be to drive the tax down as low as possible." said Tony Kreindler. 1766. lawmakers have shown far greater interest in legislation establishing a cap-and-trade plan. “Mayor's 'pollution pricing' plan.) -. a spokesman for Environmental Defense. While several lawmakers have proposed a cap and trade system -.. demand for energy and emissions of greenhouse gases. "It's not a baseless solution. Carbon taxes are the most politically unpopular option in Congress for addressing global 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." Many policy experts maintain that carbon taxes would be the most effective way to reduce U.compared a carbon tax with three alternative policies that use a market-based.S.14 Politics-Agenda Bad Net Benefit ( ) Carbon charges are super unpopular in Congress Samuelsohn 08 (Darren Samuelsohn. Changing the economic and personal incentives are the way you do that. Nov. LN) Bloomberg was applauded by environmentalists on Friday for attempting to address the issue. Environment and Energy Daily. noting that a system in Europe has failed to meet its goals. 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. CLIMATE: CBO calls carbon tax 'most efficient' option to address warming.
"It will continue to have a significant role. natural gas and wind. he said. Power Engineering. the more ambitious and short term the goal the more important it is to get the political architecture right. Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Much of the available analysis of S. is worry over possible climate change and the affect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment. Managing Editor. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carbon capture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill. probably in our lifetime. Managing Editor. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again." Not everyone agrees.com/Articles/Article_Display. Repetto said he sees two primary economic outcomes for the electric power industry as a result of S. 2191 or other carbonlimiting legislation. The analyses also lay heavy stock in how future greenhouse gas-limiting policies are structured." agreed Alex Klein of Emerging Energy Research. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters. Second. ( ) Economic growth will be robust. professor of Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven. changing the relative economics between coal. 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. Conn.) and John Warner (RVa. president of the National Manufacturers Association was quoted as saying in a conference call with reporters earlier this year. 2191 suggests that even under worst-case assumptions the economy will continue to grow and "at quite a robust pace. aimed at limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants–among other emitters–can produce. The impetus.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi AT: Counterplan Hurts the Economy ( ) Future carbon regulations won’t hurt the economy Wagman 08 (David Wagman. gross domestic product could be $5. however. 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.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display. "The bottom line is that if (carbon regulation) is phased in over time." said Robert Repetto." Kraig Naasz." he said. he said. introduced by Sens. While he agrees that carbon regulation will carry some costs.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. the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest. making room for new-builds. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. certainly not in the United States." 34 .3 trillion by 2050. less efficient power plants will likely look less attractive and be retired. it might cost as much as 3 percent of GDP" by 2030. coal costs will likely rise. of course. First. http://pepei.pennnet. http://pepei. Lieberman-Warner will be "a very high-cost option for all Americans. One report produced for the Edison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U. Older.). "Coal isn't going to be replaced. despite future carbon regulations Wagman 08 (David Wagman. the economics of newer. higher efficiency coal plants will also be affected. At a minimum. including coal-fired power plants. At the same time. Carbon regulation. Power Engineering." said Yale University's Robert Repetto.S.
2007. D.npecweb. one that fiscal conservatives have long propounded. 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. Second.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. 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.pdf) Some environmental economists. however. http://www. This means that projects like USEC’s multibillion dollar enrichment program. It’s an Al Gore Christmas: Congress hands out energy-loan guarantees.org/Articles/20071219-Sokolski-NRO-AnAlGoreChristmas. First. the loser centralized systems the government chose to subsidize heavily rather than the ones the market might pick). questionable projects tend to crowd out smaller more worthy contenders in gobbling up the subsidies.. we will be stuck with their polar opposites (i. 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. 35 . National Review Online.e. the most wasteful. 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. have a more basic complaint. Whether for nuclear or non-nuclear energy projects. Dec. 19. In this case..
S.S. Instead.State.400 Megawatts of new nuclear power. Nuclear utilities have had to take the government to court to recover added storage expenses. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans. 2008.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.html) New nuclear plants would add to the country's problem of nuclear waste. June 19. 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. 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 -.dallasnews. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U.tradewatch. 2007. Dallas News. legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. so the industry is pushing for hundreds of billions more.org/index. taxpayers. Arjun Makhijani: Nuclear is not the right alternative energy source. Feb. U.” “With those odds. Faced with such bad numbers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default on these nuclear loans to be at least 50 percent.org/pub_display. http://www.” said Michele Boyd. 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. 2008. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. because someone was reckless enough to loan them the money. the industry is turning to taxpayers. Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh. “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power. This massive new outlay for nuclear power would eclipse all public funds for all other energy sources combined. Congress has authorized $18. Cato Institute. This initial pork would be followed by taxpayer subsidies for fuel enrichment. delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -. which will cost the taxpayers billions or possibly even tens of billions of dollars over time. http://www. ( ) 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. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report." But that's not all. The Public Record.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DNmakhijani_26edi.46215a2. Severance.ART. relative to other electricity generation sources. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. 26.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.” ( ) Loan guarantees would cause runaway spending on future nuclear projects Severance 08 (Craig A. 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. plant decommissioning costs. 2003.Edition1. July 31.cato.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. and perpetual taxpayer funds for thousands of years to maintain the nuclear waste. 36 . the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent. the nuclear industry has admitted it cannot find backing from Wall Street. The federal government has long been in default of its obligations to existing nuclear plant operators to take the waste away from their sites. http://www.S. nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same power capacity in gas turbines.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.” 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).org/pressroom/release. This will only be enough to fund two plants. and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms. In addition to costing far more. The nation is now reeling from the aftermath of people buying homes they could not afford.potentially at above market rates. the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years.5 billion in Federally guaranteed loans for new nuclear plants. http://www.pubrecord. ( ) Loan guarantees will cost taxpayers billions Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.” June 21.
That huge startup cost might make financial sense. In late 2003.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. For example: On Monday. If defaults occur in the new round. 2007. “Although [loan guarantee program] LGP guidelines call for borrowers to be charged fees to cover program costs. 2007.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003.or gas-fired facilities. Staff Writer. given a reactor's low operating expenses.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?. Ralph Nader's consumer-protection group. http://www. shortfalls in subsidy costs are funded by a permanent indefinite appropriation. http://www. DOE has not yet established a procedure for determining these costs. resulting in a loss to the federal government. 28.”17 Furthermore. NEI officials told The New York Times in July. critics worry federal costs will be huge.” the GAO notes.4 and $6. A number of power companies went bankrupt. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen. U. leaving taxpayers at risk. because the money to fund any shortfall will ultimately come from taxes paid to the federal government. excluding administrative costs. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers. Sept.S." In 2003. NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s. “the program could result in substantial financial costs to taxpayers if DOE underestimates total program costs. director of energy program at Public Citizen.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.18 This becomes an issue for taxpayers as well. 30. 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. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008. should shortfalls occur. 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. Christian Science Monitor. this is more than the $49. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls.”19 37 . Oct. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free.”16 The subsidy cost is like an insurance premium. these costs are to be covered by the federal government.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Spending DA Links ( ) Over half of plants will default and it’ll cost billions Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. Despite the risk of loss. ( ) Shortfalls in loan estimations would force the federal gov’t to foot the bill EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. ( ) Defaults likely. According to the Congressional Research Service. and may be different for each project. 2007. The GAO reports that “DOE will have to estimate the subsidy cost to determine the fees to charge borrowers. it is possible for shortfalls to occur if the cost estimate is too low. and the nuclear industry would in turn pay a subsidy cost to the Department. so is the risk. Nuclear power surge coming.csmonitor. but it currently has no policies or procedures for doing so. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated.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. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal. Because this cost is estimated.hillheat. DOE would issue a loan for 80 percent of these costs. 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.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.pdf) If a loan guarantee is granted. especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. “Under federal law.eesi. The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years. Oct. in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island. not through the annual appropriations process. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5.” the GAO says.7 billion. a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new 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. 30. http://www." says Tyson Slocum.
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. 38 . Without incentives such as liability limits and tax restructuring. The Charlotte Observer. is packed with incentives to get the nuclear industry rolling. 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. Daks. safer nation." Nuclear energy advocates.Agenda Good ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are super contentious. The country. 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. and still others worry that the reactors will become new terrorist targets. "It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. passed in June. But the reactor riddle is particularly hard to solve because of the varied reasons driving the opposition. NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear. "We would like to see a mosaic of financial incentives in there. A nuclear reactor has not been ordered in the United States since the 1970s. ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are contentious in Congress Choe 05 (Stan Choe. Senators included loan guarantees in energy legislation in the last Congress. The energy bill passed by the House last month does not include the nuclear incentives. where Congress is hashing out an energy bill that could help a nascent nuclear resurgence explode or fade. There is also the question of where to store nuclear waste for thousands of years. 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." Bush said at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. needs more nuclear energy. such as a subsidy for new reactors and loan guarantees for their construction.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times. That attempt to write a comprehensive national energy bill failed. But even if the Senate does find a solution. The Senate's version. Utility executives say Congress should give the nuclear industry flexibility to choose what combination of incentives would be best for them. along with the less likely option of investment tax credits to cover up-front construction costs. The House's version doesn't include those packages. LN) President Bush has been a champion for the nuclear industry. such as wind. but it also needs more renewables. leaving the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee uncertain how to proceed as it tries to wrap up work on comprehensive energy legislation. May 16. Oct. becoming the first president to visit a nuclear plant in 26 years when he recently stopped by a Maryland plant. loan guarantees and production tax credits. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued. http://findarticles. noting that new ideas are still welcome until the committee starts marking up nuclear issues next week. the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change. Some foes worry that financial incentives will deepen the federal deficit. It is also trying to figure out. August 4. a free-market think tank in New York City. But a move in that direction is now stalled in the intersection between what is politically palatable and economically feasible. "There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner. 1. the largest trade association for the industry. Weeks of work by the committee staff have not yet led to concrete answers. 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. utility executives say they cannot afford to invest in new reactors and move through the complex and expensive regulatory process. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Domenici and Idaho Republican Sens. 2005. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. though. others object on environmental grounds. 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community." one exasperated committee aide said late last week. "It's not a question of one incentive over the other. the fight is far from over. The concern over nuclear waste has been further exacerbated by delays in the Yucca Mountain national repository plan. it said. continue to face some stiff political opposition from lawmakers who remain concerned over continued waste problems in some states. Are we ready for a nuclear comeback?. The nuclear knot is not the only issue holding up the committee. 2005 Senate Panel Slowed By Nuke Aid Talk. 2007." said Mitch Singer.it sparks huge political battles in Congress National Journal 05 (National Journal's CongressDaily. and more conservation. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo met with a group of nuclear energy officials in March to begin deciphering what incentives might be feasible. And at a June conference." the institute warned in a report on the conference. A 2003 study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology advocates combining the ideas of nuclear plants' proponents and opponents. ( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C." The battle is most pitched on Capitol Hill. among other things. a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "Everything is on the table. The flip side of the argument is that if new reactors are not built. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. An aide said the committee continues to consider insurance. according to Bloomberg News. if only the federal government could offer incentives to limit the risks of building and operating new reactors. 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. even though both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate energy committee support the industry. despite the combined opposition from fiscal conservatives and lawmakers who are concerned about nuclear waste. so a conference committee would have to settle the question. 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. leading to this year's effort.
Domenici. Albuquerque Journal. 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. said his new post produces even more headaches than balancing a federal budget." Domenici said. Energy Policy Proves Divisive. he has taken the less contentious approach of seeking tax credits for the developers.ever said it would be easy. No one -.including Domenici -. who helped steer Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment when he was Senate Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s. 39 . Journal Washington Bureau. "There are obviously a lot of views about energy problems in America. Instead.Agenda Good ( ) Loan guarantees are way contentious in Congress Coleman 03 (Michael Coleman. as well.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. and feels good about doing something to make America less dependent on the turbulent Middle East. 2003. Domenici said he enjoys the give-and-take with fellow members of Congress. But it has its rewards. October 12.
Congress just in the appropriations process. including $18. authorized $18." USEC said. 28. ( ) Loan guarantees popular in Congress Daily Record 07 (USEC applauds Congress. 2008. Dec. May 16. 24. 2007.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear projects. ( ) Plan popular with interest groups.R. included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H. 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.is significant in light of upcoming debates over federal climate change legislation." 40 . has in recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently. These amounts are the maximum loan guarantees available and are not direct loans or subsidies for any energy project. IL.5 billion for nuclear power facilities and $2 billion for advanced nuclear facilities for the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle.. a Bethesda-based global energy company. USEC. 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. So there's a lot of attention with Wall Street talking with the industry about the importance of some of the things that Congress has done.the AFL-CIO's Building & Construction Trades Department -. 2764) signed on December 26 by President George W. Department of Energy.5 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities. expansion of nuclear in U. Jan.5 billion in energy projects. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. The role of nuclear energy in combating climate change is controversial. union department president Mark Ayers said the current federal loan guarantee program of $18.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. 2008. in terms of funding new nuclear. the ability to bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants. USEC on December 27 commended Congress and the Bush administration for supporting the nuclear renaissance through the loan guarantee program administered by the DOE. 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. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. "Nuclear power is a preferred path for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while providing reliable baseload electric generation. 2764) signed Wednesday by President George W.Agenda Bad ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are bipartisan Nuclear News 08 (USEC to apply for DOE loan guarantee.S. Ohio. So there's a lot of support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward.R. 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. Support for nuclear power from a major Democratic constituency -. but opposed by others because of nuclear waste and other concerns. In a May 6 speech at the NEI annual "nuclear energy assembly" May 5-7 in Chicago. the establishment of the loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an important piece of this. LN) USEC Inc. "The rebuilding of the industrial infrastructure to construct and fuel a new generation of nuclear power plants is an important step toward energy security.5 billion for new nuclear projects "is not sufficient in either duration or dollars. 2008. The financial community. Bush. which was included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H.5 billion for energy projects. The company said it expects to submit an application for the guarantee when the DOE invites nuclear projects to apply. Newsroom Notes.S. NUCLEAR POWER: Former NRC head Curtiss discusses future of Yucca." Stating that "more and more interest groups are recognizing the need for nuclear energy in combating global warming trends. LN) Jim Curtiss: Well. 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. Bush. including $18. Ohio. intends to pursue a DOE loan guarantee for construction of its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon. according to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) news release. LN) USEC Inc." ( ) Congress supports loan guarantees for nuclear power E & E News 08 (Environment and Energy Publishing. Feb. The U. supported by some as a clean energy source because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases. unions and Democrats EnergyWashington Week 08 (NEI Touts Union Support. here before they left town in December. 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.S. adding. I think there are a number of dimensions of that. 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. But from a financial standpoint." Ayers said that during this Congress. "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.
000 adults. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants. Similarly ( ) Incentives for nuclear power are popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News.” Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose. if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of new electric-generating facilities. “Given the priority status that Americans affix to air quality concerns. April 29. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits “as an incentive to companies . 2007. http://www. only 20 percent disapprove. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. 5. Energy security was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear. 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. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear.nei.Agenda Bad ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power is overwhelmingly popular with the American public. to build solar.” Again. Opinion favours nuclear. 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. according to a new national survey of 1. 41 . with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. with 33% opposing it. and three percent do not have an opinion. 62 percent of Americans agree “we should definitely build more nuclear power plants. Overall. 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.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants. In a national survey conducted last April. 59 percent said that. Asked to choose which of four issues seem “most important. if needed.” said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089. The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong.prefer our specific evidence NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade. The new telephone survey was conducted Oct. while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. Last April. hydro and renewable energy. solar.” Only 20 percent disapprove. advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities. 2008. Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy Technologies.” 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice. wind. Nov. 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. 71 percent agreed. 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan guarantees for companies “that build solar. A majority of Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns. 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. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc.world-nuclear-news. 56 percent of respondents agreed. 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. at 28%. In the new survey. with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour.” In last April’s survey. 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. the survey found. it’s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies.
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Elections Links. Oct. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued.Plan Unpopular ( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C. 1. Daks. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects." the institute warned in a report on the conference. NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear. 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. a free-market think tank in New York City. And at a June conference. 2007. http://findarticles. the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times. 42 .
with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour. In a national survey conducted last April.” 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice.Plan Popular ( ) Nuclear power to offset carbon emissions is overwhelmingly popular with the American public. “Given the priority status that Americans affix to air quality concerns. 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. it’s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits “as an incentive to companies to build solar. hydro and renewable energy. 59 percent said that. http://www.” In last April’s survey. Nov.nei. 43 . wind. 71 percent agreed.” said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti.000 adults. 66 percent agreed. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants. wind and advanced-design 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. A majority of Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Elections Links.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089. Energy security was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents.” Only 20 percent disapprove.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia. Asked to choose which of four issues seem “most important. 2008. advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear. April 29. In the new survey. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of new electric-generating facilities. Overall. 62 percent of Americans agree “we should definitely build more nuclear power plants. 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. In the new survey. and three percent do not have an opinion. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. The new telephone survey was conducted Oct. if needed. it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating. 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan guarantees for companies “that build solar. while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. ( ) Nuclear super popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. Similarly. and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants. if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear. 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. 2007. solar.” Again. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade. the survey found. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA. http://www. 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. 5. only 20 percent disapprove. according to a new national survey of 1. The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong. with 33% opposing it.world-nuclear-news. Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy Technologies.prefer our specific evidence NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute.” Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose. Opinion favours nuclear. Last April. with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. at 28%.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.
May 13. she noted. http://blogs. which would establish industry limits on emissions that he favors. "So you can see how the federal loan guarantee program.$18.” he said. than the rain-soaked one he was in at the moment). explain what her company is doing to minimize its impact on the climate. the outdoor recreation and clothing cooperative.5 Bil In Loan Guarantees. is there are no federal incentives to help defray the costs. ( ) McCain solves the aff Krause 08 (Reinhardt Krause.though the approval process can be far longer -.” he said. McCain a big supporter. $18.5 billion. doesn't get you too far. McCain Raises Concerns About Subsidies for Solar Power. 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. chief energy policy adviser to the Obama campaign. With banks short of capital. 2008. Congress has authorized $42. With Federal Help. says Jason Grumen. Wash.wsj. "(Obama) believes that the loan guarantees in the current act were substantial and sufficient." said Robert Hornick. but Obama has signaled no additional atomic aid. LN) The presidential election may be key to nuclear's revival. Not so fast. which have helped push up the price of corn and increase the price of food. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized loan guarantees for several technologies. including coal. “It doesn’t go far enough as far as nuclear power is concerned in my estimation. which he hails as a clean technology that can help reduce carbon emissions. “When government jumps in and distorts the market." Grumen said." 44 . He cited his long-time opposition to ethanol subsidies.” McCain replied that he preferred for the federal government to invest in research and development. “There isn’t anything significant on the federal side to help us make the right decisions. At a roundtable conducted in the foggy foothills of the Cascade Mountains in North Bend. she said. Costs vary depending on how much electricity the power plants generate. Hornick says. Democrat Barack Obama isn't likely to support extending loan guarantees. not subsidies..” he said. John McCain made clear today that he is not comfortable with subsidies for solar power. California and Oregon (in sunnier markets.” she said. needs to add more help for nuclear power. though he has supported incentives for nuclear power plants and thinks more federal support is needed to encourage the industry. the availability of low-interest rate government credit is vital to large-scale projects like nuclear plants. "The range seems to be between $6 billion or $7 billion to $10 billion to build one plant. "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. a senior director at credit rater Fitch. June 23. The problem. Investor’s Business Daily.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi McCain Solves the Aff ( ) McCain would provide incentives to the industry WSJ 08 (Wall Street Journal. He said over-subsidization of the solar industry in the 1970s led to “some pretty shoddy material. Presidential Divide There is an assumption that the government will offer more loan guarantees. They take 4-5 years to build -. with $18. 2008. He told reporters at a news conference that a pending Senate bill on climate change. An aide to the Arizona senator said Tuesday that McCain hasn’t decided exactly what form of support is needed. then there’s unintended consequences as well as intended. McCain listened to the chief executive of REI.com/washwire/2008/05/13/mccain-raises-concerns-about-subsidies-for-solar-power/) Sen. solar. wind and nuclear. “It’s a great question." Others put the per-plant cost at $5 billion to $8 billion. He asked her a simple question: “What do you want me to do?” Sally Jewel replied. “I’m a little wary–I have to give you straight talk–about government subsidies. “We’re trying to do the right thing without really any incentives. Republican John McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. New Nuclear Plants Are On Their Way.5 billion for loans -.5 billion for nuclear.and cost billions of dollars each.” and went on to explain that REI plans to open 10 solar-powered stores in Arizona.” But he does support help for nuclear power plants.
and wind power. tidal power.uk/wps/media/objects/2768/2834452/glossary/glossary. Ground. It’s a voter for competitive equity and education.allowing increases in current forms of energy explodes the topic and doubles the research burden for the neg. 2. Violation. for example biogas.Nuclear power is a current energy source.Alternative Energy = Not Nuclear A. solar energy. not an alternative energy.co.Alternative energy is an energy to replace fossil fuels or nuclear power Pearson Education 01 (http://wps. hydroelectric power.pearsoned. (Chapter 10) B. The sources generally have low pollution implications and use renewable resources. Interpretation.html) alternative energy Energy obtained from sources other than fossil fuels or nuclear power. Limits.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Topicality 1NC. Standards1. C. D.including current forms of energy limits our generic disad links and counterplans. 45 . geothermal energy.