Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

1

NUCLEAR POWER AFFIRMATIVE
Note – you need the nuclear power good / bad file in order to effective read this affirmative (as this file includes almost none of the nuclear power good impacts, or extensions to the leadership advantage). You can also add natural gas or climate impacts to the 1ac (you should add climate impacts or remove the warming card). nuclear power affirmative...........................................................................................................................................................1 1ac...............................................................................................................................................................................................3 1ac...............................................................................................................................................................................................4 1ac...............................................................................................................................................................................................5 1ac...............................................................................................................................................................................................6 1ac...............................................................................................................................................................................................7 1ac...............................................................................................................................................................................................8 1ac...............................................................................................................................................................................................9 1ac.............................................................................................................................................................................................10 1ac.............................................................................................................................................................................................11 1ac.............................................................................................................................................................................................12 1ac.............................................................................................................................................................................................13 1ac.............................................................................................................................................................................................14 1ac.............................................................................................................................................................................................15 1ac.............................................................................................................................................................................................16 1ac.............................................................................................................................................................................................17 topicality – nuclear power is alternative energy.......................................................................................................................18 topicality – nuclear power is alternative energy.......................................................................................................................19 topicality – nuclear power is alternative energy.......................................................................................................................20 topicality – nuclear power is clean energy...............................................................................................................................21 topicality - nuclear power is renewable....................................................................................................................................22 high energy prices kill economic growth..................................................................................................................................23 loan guarantees key to keeping electricity prices low..............................................................................................................24 at: solving electricity prices is too long a timeframe................................................................................................................25 Solvency – electricity prices ....................................................................................................................................................26 solvency – electricity prices.....................................................................................................................................................27 solvency – electricity prices.....................................................................................................................................................28 solvency – electricity prices ....................................................................................................................................................29 nuclear power solves natural gas price volatility......................................................................................................................30 nuclear power solves natural gas price volatility......................................................................................................................31 nuclear construction solves the u.s. economy...........................................................................................................................32 nuclear power solves cost of meeting greenhouse regulations.................................................................................................33 nuclear power boosts job growth..............................................................................................................................................34 inherency - current loan guarantees fail – aren’t big enough...................................................................................................35 inherency - current loan guarantees fail - aren’t big enough....................................................................................................36 inherency - current loan guarantees fail – aren’t big enough...................................................................................................37 inherency - current loan guarantees fail – timeframes for project financing too short............................................................38 inherency - current loan guarantees fail – timeframes for project financing too short............................................................39 inherency - current loan guarantees fail - exclude advanced technology.................................................................................40 inherency – current loan guarantee program is delayed...........................................................................................................41 electricity Capital costs high – external financing key.............................................................................................................42 Normal means for loan guarantees is the DOE........................................................................................................................43 solvency – expanded loan guarantees key to new construction...............................................................................................44 solvency – expanded loan guarantees key to new construction...............................................................................................45 solvency – expanded loan guarantees key to new construction...............................................................................................46 loan guarantees solve – other sectors prove.............................................................................................................................47 AT: Loan Guarantees are Risky Investments / Expensive........................................................................................................48 new construction key to prevent nuclear industry collapse......................................................................................................49 at: construction costs too high..................................................................................................................................................50 at: capital markets lack enough capital for loan guarantees.....................................................................................................51 100% guarantee key to solvency..............................................................................................................................................52 100% guarantee key to solvency..............................................................................................................................................53

Michigan 7 weeks 2 Nuclear power aff at: plan too small – not enough new power plants...................................................................................................................54 at: alternate causality to new construction – generic................................................................................................................55 at: alternate causality to new construction - generic.................................................................................................................56 at: alternate causality to new construction – generic................................................................................................................57 AT: No Solvency---technological problems block investment.................................................................................................58 AT: No Solvency – Worker Shortages......................................................................................................................................59 AT: No Solvency – Worker Shortages......................................................................................................................................60 AT: No solvency – supply chain / manufacturing.....................................................................................................................61 at: waste siting blocks nuclear expansion.................................................................................................................................62 at: waste siting blocks nuclear power expansion......................................................................................................................63 Yucca Approved Now...............................................................................................................................................................64 yucca mountain is key incentive for nuclear power.................................................................................................................65 Yucca mountain good – AT: Prolif............................................................................................................................................66 Yucca Mountain good – AT: Radiation leakage .......................................................................................................................67 AT: Transportation accidents ...................................................................................................................................................68 at: transportation accidents.......................................................................................................................................................69 Plan Leads to Dry Cask Storage...............................................................................................................................................70 dry cask storage solves.............................................................................................................................................................71 Dry Cask storage solves...........................................................................................................................................................72 Dry Cask Solvency---Nuclear Industry Competitiveness........................................................................................................73 borehole drilling solves waste disposal....................................................................................................................................74 u.s. accepting waste imports now.............................................................................................................................................75 consolidation of the industry good...........................................................................................................................................76 at: framework............................................................................................................................................................................77 at: framework............................................................................................................................................................................78 at: coal disad.............................................................................................................................................................................79 AT: Federalism..........................................................................................................................................................................80 AT: Federalism..........................................................................................................................................................................81 at: spending...............................................................................................................................................................................82 at: alternate incentives counterplans.........................................................................................................................................83 at: iaea counterplan...................................................................................................................................................................84 at: u.s. government nuclear power counterplan........................................................................................................................85 AT: Sunsets CP.........................................................................................................................................................................86 at: delay counterplan.................................................................................................................................................................87 at: lopez counterplan – lng disad..............................................................................................................................................88 at: lopez counterplan – lng disad..............................................................................................................................................89 at: lopez counterplan – lng disad..............................................................................................................................................90 at: lopez counterplan – liability disad.......................................................................................................................................91 at: lopez counterplan – liability disad.......................................................................................................................................92 AT: Ban subsidies CP / Free market.........................................................................................................................................93 at ban subsidies / free market cp...............................................................................................................................................94 at: ban subsidies / free market counterplan..............................................................................................................................95 at: state production tax counterplan for nuclear power............................................................................................................96 at: production tax credit counterplan........................................................................................................................................97 at: production tax credit counterplan........................................................................................................................................98 at: private sector loan guarantee counterplan...........................................................................................................................99 states – 2ac – federal signal key to investor confidence.........................................................................................................100 states 2ac – federal signal key to investor confidence............................................................................................................101 states – 1ar – federal signal key to investor confidence.........................................................................................................102 states – 2ac – licensing turn....................................................................................................................................................103 states 1ar – licensing turn.......................................................................................................................................................104 states – 2ac – skilled workers turn..........................................................................................................................................105 states – 2ac – lawsuits turn.....................................................................................................................................................106 states – presidential support key to investor confidence........................................................................................................107 regulatory uncertainty destroys nuclear power.......................................................................................................................108 investor confidence key to new construction ........................................................................................................................109

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff Plan:

3

1AC
The federal government should substantially expand loan guarantees for domestic civilian nuclear power. Observation 1 – the electricity industry Nuclear power is on the verge of a substantial revival but limits on the amount of federal loan guarantees block investment in new construction Bhambhani, 08 (Dipka, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, 6/9, “Limits on loan guarantee program seen blunting its impact on nuclear revival,” lexis) //DH Representatives of the Energy Department, Wall Street and industry told senators last week that DOE's $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is not enough to substantially promote a revival of nuclear power in the US. In a roundtable discussion, four senators were reminded that nuclear plants are capital-intensive and require utilities to spend tens of millions of dollars to prepare to build the units.
"These new nuclear plants are very high-cost ? capital-intensive plants that can't be financed on individual companies' balance sheets," said Nuclear Energy Institute President Frank "Skip" Bowman. "I don't think Congress has done everything in all respects to help promote this obvious need for new nuclear plants." Bowman said the cost of electricity is increasing and the nuclear plants would help lower those expenses. Wall Street analysts told the lawmakers that investors are uncomfortable financing such long-term projects that are subject to the

whims of politics and regulatory change.
Among the issues for investors is DOE's loan-guarantee program. The program, a provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for the department to cover up to 100% of a loan for a clean energy project, up to 80% of the cost of the entire project if the loan comes from the Federal Financing Bank at the Treasury Department. DOE would cover up to 90% of the total cost of a loan that comes from another lending institution. Under the program, DOE would act as a sort of cosigner to the financing. In April, DOE announced that it plans to conduct solicitations this summer for advanced energy projects that may qualify for up to $38.5 billion in federal loan guarantees (IE, 14 April, 14). $18.5 billion of that amount is earmarked for nuclear plants, with another $2 billion for uranium-enrichment facilities.

In an interview after the roundtable, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon agreed that the $18.5 billion would barely cover the construction of three nuclear plants. Spurgeon said, "for us to be able to put the amount of nuclear energy into use that we believe is required in order for us to meet both energy needs and reduce our carbon emissions, requires many more nuclear plants than can be supported by the current cap on loan guarantees." The Congress must appropriate more money or eliminate the cap on the guarantees, the assistant secretary said. "The subsidy cost is paid by the applicants. Just like with the Export-Import Bank, this is not something that, run properly, would cost the taxpayer a dime," Spurgeon said.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

4

1AC
This limit is the single most critical determinant of the nuclear renaissance – it has to be expanded before the election or the nuclear industry will collapse Maize, 08 (Kennedy, Power Magazine, “Super Tuesday, Super Bowl XLII, and the nukes”, April, lexis) //DH The nuclear renaissance is likely to slow next year with a new tenant in the White House and many key regulatory positions in flux. Nuclear industry leaders are especially concerned that rules for construction loan guarantees will fall victim to the “wait and see” disease that infects those inside the Beltway every four years. If those rules aren’t in place before this November’s election, the nuclear renaissance may revert to the Dark Ages.
The convergence was too obvious to ignore. February 5, 2008, political Super Tuesday, saw voters in 24 states make their choices for Republican and Democratic nominees for president. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, given up for politically dead three months earlier, was triumphant on the Republican side. On the Democratic side, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama found themselves virtually tied for the lead and headed for a long slog to a nomination. Two days earlier, an astonishing upset saw the New York Giants, a wild-card playoff qualifier, beat the overwhelming favorite New England Patriots in pro football’s Super Bowl XLII. Also on Tuesday, Feb. 5, some 500 folks assembled in a fancy hotel conference room a scant block from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in Rockville, Md., at the 4th annual Platts Nuclear Energy conference to discuss the future of nuclear power in the U.S. What’s the connection to the Super Bowl? Was the meeting’s kickoff on Super Tuesday a reminder that politics, probably more than engineering, will determine the fate of the alleged nuclear renaissance? Gaming the system The Giants’ victory was a lesson that nothing in football, politics, or business-no matter how clear and obvious it appears-is certain. Entering the game, the Pats were masters of the universe, undefeated in 18 consecutive games, winner of three Super Bowls in the past seven years. The point spread favored the New Englanders by a dozen. The smart money said, “Take the points.” The speculators said, “Take the Giants.” The prevailing wisdom said, “Take the Pats.” Vegas bookies took a $2.6 million bath as the smart money and the speculators won the day. The prevailing wisdom in the nuclear industry is that its revival is already under way, with concerns about greenhouse gas emissions crippling coal, price volatility clobbering natural gas, and inherent problems (dispatchability) limiting renewables. James Miller, PPL Corp.’s CEO, described the industry’s perspective succinctly. Nuclear, he said, “is the last man standing.” Several applications for the new, untested combined construction and operating licenses (COLs) are now docketed at the NRC, triggering a 42-month (that’s right, more than three years) review process. This is what passes for expedient regulatory action in our federal government. Bob Borchardt, who runs the NRC’s office for new reactors, told attendees at the Platts meeting that the agency has received five COL requests (not all of them complete), covering eight nuclear units. Questions of economics, finance, and political feasibility dominated the conference. Players in the nuke arena converged in Maryland to discuss worthy issues such as how to maximize the opportunities of the NRC’s COL approach, how to manage new plant construction at existing operating plants, how to deal with the cost problems imposed by a global supply chain for commodities and services, and how to find and successfully exploit a new, inexperienced workforce.

But the main theme of the meeting was inevitably political, in this most political of years. On the minds of many utility resource planners at the conference: how to get a nuclear generation project financed and concrete poured, given the ticking policy time bomb of the November 2008 election and the installation of a new president of whatever political persuasion. Even a president friendly to nuclear power will have to learn the issues, appoint new people, and endure a transition of several months. All of that will mean delay-and time, it is said, is money. For the nuclear industry, the key to the time game is implementing construction loan guarantees authorized in the now holy writ of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Without the full faith and credit of the U.S. government behind the loans, lenders likely will seek usurious interest rates on the debt. “Loan guarantees,” said Michael Wallace, a Constellation Energy executive vice president, “are most critical.” Baltimore-based Constellation has plans for a new unit at the existing Calvert Cliffs site in southern Maryland (Figure 1). Constellation owns two nuclear units at Calvert Cliffs that bid power into the PJM competitive wholesale market. PPL’s Miller said, “Without loan guarantees, we are out” of the market for new nuclear generation. PPL, based in Allentown, Pa., owns a single merchant nuclear plant that bids into PJM.
UniStar Nuclear Energy and Constellation Energy remain committed to the future of nuclear power, as evidenced by a February announcement of their intention to apply for a COL for an addition to their Nine Mile Point nuclear plant in upstate New York. UniStar is also working with PPL and Ameren UE to develop COL applications for new reactors in Pennsylvania and Missouri, respectively; it’s working with newly formed Amarillo Power to pursue a new reactor in Texas. Ken Hughey of Entergy Corp., which is currently trying to spin off its merchant nuclear operations into a separate, publicly traded company, noted that his company’s plans for new nuclear units at the existing Grand Gulf site in Mississippi (Figure 2) and at River Bend in Louisiana, are for state-regulated plants. He said that loan guarantees are “very useful” for regulated plants but essential for merchant plants, which Entergy operates in several states. Last December, Congress authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and $2 billion for uranium enrichment projects. According to Constellation’s Wallace, that amount is adequate for three or four projects to go forward.

The nuclear industry is playing “beat the clock” with the loan guarantees. If the guarantees don’t materialize before a new administration marches into Washington, several speakers told the Platts conference, the nuclear renaissance could become the Dark Ages. The repeated message was that the Department of Energy must get out a solicitation for the loan guarantees within a matter of weeks to be sure that an incoming administration of either party can’t put a hold on them.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

5

1AC
An economic trainwreck in the electricity sector is inevitable – utility companies lack the capital to simultaneously upgrade the grid, infrastructure and meet new demand – this will cause electricity price spikes that will destroy the economy Farrell 7 –President and CEO, Dominion Power (Thomas, 02-19-07, “Averting a Potential Capital Crisis in the Power Sector”,
http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/narucroundtableextended //VR)

But the word “felicitous” really is appropriate in the present instance. Last fall, I gave a speech in which I described the potential for an “energy train wreck” looming ahead for our country if we do not grapple with some serious challenges. I cited four key issues: • First, a growing imbalance between energy supplies and consumer demands. • Second, our congested and inadequate energy transportation network. • Third, rising environmental costs and uncertainties. • And, fourth, the nation’s aging fleet of electric generating stations.
Today, I want to expand on that theme. Unfortunately, all of those challenges are still there.

If we do not rise to meet these challenges—and do it soon—our country’s economy could derail. No 21st-century economy can move forward unless it is running along a strong, dynamic and reliable energy infrastructure. When the power stops flowing, both the knowledge economy and the information superhighway shut down.
This means that those of us in the electric industry have quite a bit of “track” to lay in the next few decades in the form of new transmission lines. We also have many “engines” to build in terms of new power stations. And we need to determine how to make those engines run cleaner and more efficiently to meet ever-tightening environmental requirements. Most of all, the people in this room—that includes regulators, staff members and industry representatives—will have to work together wisely and innovatively to ensure the capital resources are there to get the job done. I am confident we can do it. We have done it before. But if we do not work together, the challenges may not be met. And then, I am afraid, the energy

train wreck could be inevitable.
So just how big is the problem? Let me try to quantify it. Nationally,

projected demand for energy is expected to jump about 50 percent over the next 25 years. That means our nation will need 245 gigawatts of new electric generating capacity by 2030, according
to the Energy Information Administration. A gigawatt is, of course, a thousand megawatts, or enough to power almost 800,000 homes. In the Dominion service area in Virginia, we expect to see demand increase by 4,000 megawatts over just the next 10 years.

Conservation and demand-side management programs must and will be a part of this equation, both nationally and in Virginia. But there has been no indication so far that even the best such policies will be able to put much of a dent in the nation’s growing appetite for electricity.
Add it all up nationwide, translate it into dollars, and the industry estimates that it could cost more than $275 billion in new generation to meet this growth. Additional tens of billions will be required for transmission and distribution—big wires, small wires, transformers, cross arms, poles—you name it. And there is more: environmentally, the emissions limits continue to tighten. The industry projects about $50 billion in compliance costs for nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury from now through 2025. We should expect federal regulation of greenhouse gases in the not-too-distant future, a view reinforced by policy statements from the leadership of both major political parties. Controlling carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels will be very expensive. The bottom-line impact on power generation in the United States for carbon limitations may range anywhere from $70 billion to $300 billion.

Now total up all of those dollars—new generation, improvements to transmission and distribution, emissions controls, and now carbon—and the number is staggering. Total investment required by our nation’s electric industry could be somewhere between $400
billion and $650 billion over the next 25 years. Cambridge Energy Research Associates last week issued its own estimate for capital expenditure requirements for the power industry across all of North America. It is just as daunting, maybe more so. CERA estimates that the capital expenditure spending in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and elsewhere on the continent could top $800 billion in just the next 15 years. Let me put our own nation’s predicament in perspective another way: The market capitalization of all of the investor-owned electric utilities in the United States is about $550 billion, give or take a few billion. That is the total value investors place on the shares of all of the publicly owned electric utility companies—and this number includes some like Dominion that have natural gas distribution companies, oil and gas exploration and production units, and other assets.

So the investment that electric utilities will need to make over the next 25 years is about equal to their entire worth on the stock market in 2007, maybe substantially more. That is an astounding challenge.
If we are given the tools, I am convinced we can get the job done. Our industry has always been good at designing, engineering and constructing the infrastructure to meet the needs of our customers. But we have to get the money to buy the tools so we can lay the track and build the locomotives. What we are facing—potentially—is a crisis in capital. As I said, it will take a huge investment to meet the energy needs of our country— $400 billion to $650 billion. Some of it will be debt; some of it will be equity. Yes, the spending will be strung out over 25 years, but it is still a substantial sum of money—even for a country the size of the United States.

Remember, too, that we will not be alone in looking to the capital markets for new funding. Electric utilities compete every day with airlines and computer makers and home builders and every other sort of business to get investors and lenders to look our way. At the end of the day, investors and lenders want only the best risk-based return for their dollars. They cut us no
slack just because we provide a basic public necessity.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

6

1AC
This train wreck is starting now – electricity prices are skyrocketing and are the vital internal link to economic collapse EnergyTechStocks.com, 6/30/08 (“U.S. Power Agency Warns High Electricity Prices Could Plague America ‘For Years to Come,” http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=1396) //DH America’s federal power agency has warned that high power prices could plague the nation “for years to come.” Citing high commodity prices for natural gas and coal, which were the fuel sources for 18% and 50%, respectively, of U.S. electricity generation in 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said this “may be the beginning of significantly higher power prices that will last for years to come.” The agency didn’t say exactly how high it thinks prices could rise, but EnergyTechStocks.com has learned that one major U.S. electric utility is now assuming in its internal forecasts that power prices in its region will double within five years or less. The FERC assessment, rendered on June 19, is particularly worrisome since sky-high electric rates would appear to represent an even greater threat to the U.S. economy than high gasoline prices. That’s because electricity is an even more pervasive aspect of American economic life than gasoline. Indeed, after the oil shocks of the 1970s, all American business essentially became electrified in order to improve efficiency, meet new environmental regulations, and minimize exposure to another oil shock. With U.S. presidential candidate John McCain now leading the charge for cars and trucks that run on electricity, the prospect of sharply higher electric rates for years to come could put a dent in this promising alternative approach to personal transportation. In discussing the future of power on June 19, FERC chairman Joseph Kelliher outlined what might be described as a “nowin” situation that the U.S. finds itself in. He reportedly said, “The United States cannot simultaneously make the massive investments necessary to assure our electricity supply, make additional large investments to confront climate change, and lower electricity prices. Doing so would likely result in failure.” For a U.S. energy official to make such a dour public statement is extraordinary – and a clear warning to investors that, as much as inflationary pressures are starting to hit the U.S. economy, worse lies ahead. This causes global nuclear war Mead, 1992 (Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Summer 1992, p. 28.) But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

7

1AC
States are acting now to provide incentives but it won’t work without a sustained federal commitment. A federal signal of substantially expanding loan guarantees is vital to spurring new construction and immediately creating capacity for grid investments that will lower electricity prices and boost competitiveness Bowman, 08 - President and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, CQ Congressional Testimony, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction”, 6/19, lexis) //DH In terms of new nuclear plant construction, one of the most significant financing challenges is the cost of these projects relative to the size, market value and financing capability of the companies that will build them. New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at least $6 to 7 billion. U.S. electric power companies do not have the size, financing capability or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects on balance sheet, on their own-particularly at a time when they are investing heavily in other generating capacity, transmission and distribution infrastructure, and environmental controls. These first projects must have financing support-either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of investment recovery from state governments, or both. The states are doing their part. Throughout the South and Southeast, state governments have enacted legislation or implemented new regulations to encourage new nuclear plant construction. Comparable federal government commitment is essential. The modest loan guarantee program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act was a small step in the right direction, but it does not represent a sufficient response to the urgent need to rebuild our critical electric power infrastructure. We believe the United States will need something similar to the Clean Energy Bank concept now under consideration by a number of members of Congress-a government corporation, modeled on the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to provide loan guarantees and other forms of financing support to ensure that capital flows to clean technology deployment in the electric sector. Creation of such a financing entity should be an integral component of any climate change legislation. Such a concept serves at least two national imperatives. First, it addresses the challenge mentioned earlier-the disparity between the size of these projects relative to the size of the companies that will build them. In the absence of a concept like a Clean Energy Bank, new nuclear plants and other clean energy projects will certainly be built, but in smaller numbers over a longer period of time. Second, federal loan guarantees provide a substantial consumer benefit. A loan guarantee allows more leverage in a project's capital structure, which reduces the cost of capital, in turn reducing the cost of electricity from the project. Electricity consumers-residential, commercial and industrial-are already struggling with increases in oil, natural gas and electricity prices. The high cost of energy and fuel price volatility has already compromised the competitive position of American industry. We know that the next generation of clean energy technologies will be more costly than the capital stock in place today. In this environment, we see a compelling case for federal financing support that would reduce consumer costs. If it is structured like the loan guarantee program authorized by Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, in which project sponsors are expected to pay the cost of the loan guarantee, such a program would be revenue-neutral and would not represent a subsidy.
The public benefits associated with a robust energy loan guarantee program-lower cost electricity, deployment of clean energy technologies at the scale necessary to reduce carbon emissions-are significant. That is why the U.S. government routinely uses loan guarantee programs to support activities that serve the public good and the national interest-including shipbuilding, steelmaking, student loans, rural electrification, affordable housing, construction of critical transportation infrastructure, and for many other purposes.

Achieving significant expansion of nuclear power in the United States will require stable and sustained federal and state government policies relating to nuclear energy. The new nuclear power projects now in the early stages of development will not enter service
until the 2016-2020. Like all other advanced energy technologies, continued progress requires sustained policy and political support.

In closing let me assure you that the U.S. nuclear industry is moving forward as quickly as we are able to license, finance and build new nuclear plants in the United States. Seventeen companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many
as 31 new reactors. Nine applications for construction and operating licenses are currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a total of 15 new plants. We expect four to eight new U.S. nuclear plants in operation by 2016 or so. Assuming those first plants are meeting their construction schedules and cost estimates, the rate of construction would accelerate thereafter. With the necessary investment stimulus and financing

support, we could see approximately 20,000 MW of new nuclear capacity (that would be about 15 plants) on line in the 2020 to 2022 time frame, and 65,000 to 70,000 megawatts (or 45 to 50 plants) by 2030. These plants will produce clean, safe, reliable electricity, around the clock, at a stable price, immune to price volatility in the oil and natural gas markets.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

8

1AC
Utilities won’t be able to access capital markets without the backing of the federal government – banks are waiting for a federal symbol of support Roy et al, 07- Managing Director of Export and Agency Finance Group, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Mini, Comments in response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies, 7/2, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment29.pdf) //DH Summarized below are the consensus views of the six banks named above regarding the minimum conditions necessary for a workable loan guarantee program as authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that can achieve the twin goals of supporting the financing of new nuclear plants in the United States while adequately protecting the U.S. taxpayer. We believe many new nuclear construction projects will have difficulty accessing the capital markets during construction and initial operation without the support of a federal government loan guarantee. Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political, regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power, including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. We believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable. A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment Sands, 08 (Derek, “Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants,” Inside Energy with Federal Lands, 4/28, lexis) //DH Despite new licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants, uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors, and may make loan guarantees essential to attracting them, a
nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week. In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee, lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry, an environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power. James Asselstine, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as a retired managing director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers, told lawmakers that

the changes made

so far are still untested, and that investors remain wary. residual uncertainties associated with the new, but as yet untested NRC licensing process, will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to move forward with new nuclear plant commitment," Asselstine said. Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants, a point that investors are watching, he said. "The federal loan guarantee can help to facilitate the availability of debt financing for up to 80% of the total cost of the plant," Asselstine said. "Given
"Some factors, such as magnitude, complexity, and large initial capital investment, including engineering design costs, of a new nuclear project, and the magnitude for a new nuclear plant investment, this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies, including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project."

Federal loan guarantees boost the U.S. economy immediately by attracting foreign investment and lowering interest rates Zawatsky, 08 – chief executive officer of havePower, LLC. (Jay, “Inside Track: Going Nuclear on Energy”, The National Interest, 4/9, http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=17332] //DH How much does this all cost? Less than you would think. Far from breaking the bank, it will actually enrich the treasury. The cost to build it all is $3 trillion over ten years. But, no worries: Establish a federal lending institution, along the lines of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, to create a secondary market for revenue-based loans originated by existing commercial lenders to the utilities and the hydrogen retailers. Money would flow into these loans from all around the world, because they would be backed by physical plant and equipment producing the world’s most important commodity, power. Money flowing into the United States would stabilize the free-falling dollar. Interest rates would go down. This would make us all richer to boot, as the stock market (in which most people have a substantial portion of their retirement savings), reacting to lower budget deficits, lower interest rates and energy security, would move higher in a sustainable way.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

9

1AC
Observation 2 – Nuclear power leadership Nuclear power is inevitable globally - expanding nuclear power construction is vital to U.S. technological leadership – both to support technological innovation and reduce risks of proliferation BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND
U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH

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

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

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

is perceived as a major technological leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology.
As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market.

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

dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves

nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied.

The percentage of nuclear materials, including separated plutonium, that are subject to U.S. consent rights will diminish over time as new suppliers of nuclear materials and facilities take a larger share of the international nuclear market. Unless the U.S. is able to compete effectively in the international market as a supplier of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology, the quantity of the nuclear materials around the globe that the U.S. has control over will diminish significantly in the future. This may not immediately weaken the effectiveness of the nonproliferation regime since all the major suppliers have adopted the export
guidelines of the Nuclear Supplier Group. However, only the U.S., Australia and Canada have consent rights over enrichment and reprocessing of the nuclear materials subject to their agreements. Consequently, if there is a major decline in the U.S. share of the international nuclear

market, the U.S. may not be as effective as it has been in helping to ensure a rigorous system of export controls.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

10

1AC
A poorly managed international nuclear power transition risks proliferation, terrorism and accidents Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 22) Inevitably, there will be a high degree of government involvement in nuclear power, even in market economies, to regulate safety, waste, and proliferation risk. This is, in itself, another challenge for nuclear power. There is considerable variation in how different countries approach the issues of safety, proliferation, and waste management. This often complicates the role of governments in setting international rules – especially for preventing proliferation, but also for safety and waste management – that serve common interests. Poor safeguarding of nuclear materials or facilities in any nation could result in acquisition of nuclear explosives by a rogue state or terrorist group for use in another nation. The Chernobyl accident demonstrated the potential for radioactivity to spread across borders and thus the importance of uniformly high safety standards and advanced safety technologies (such as western reactor containment designs). Proliferation leads to extinction. Victor A Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis, Summer 2002, Survival, p.87-90 In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed towards a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear “six shooters” on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather together on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. Nuclear terrorism will cause extinction Sid-Ahmed, 4 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

11

1AC
U.S. leadership is vital technological innovation necessary to adapt nuclear power so it can solve global poverty Robinson and Orient, 04 - *Professor of Chemistry and Founder of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine AND ** executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (Arthur and Jane, The New American, “Science, Politics and Death”, 6/14, http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/358) Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress. Without it, stagnation, regression and untold human deaths will result.
The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding, there is no shortage of energy. Scientists define everything that man can perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy," including all physical objects. These forms of energy differ, however, in how easily mankind can make use of them by means of current technology. Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is, by far, the safest, cleanest and least

expensive energy source available with current technology. Its use improves the standard of living, increases the quality and length of human life, and maximizes technological progress. The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country and our world would be very different. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. Moreover, very large portions of the world's poor and underdeveloped people would have been able to lift themselves from poverty - provided they had a laboratory of liberty in which to do so - and to escape the horrible conditions in which they lead lives of desperation, constantly at the edge of death.
Many people strongly desire to help humanity. They spend their lives in efforts to increase the quantity and quality of human life. Most other people, even though they do not work actively toward these goals, share the same values. They passively support things that improve human life.

Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support nuclear power. They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power derived from coal, oil and natural gas, and of hydroelectric power. Their interest in solar power, biofuel power, wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large quantities of inexpensive useful energy.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

12

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

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

13

1AC
Poverty is a form of structural violence that is equivalent to an ongoing nuclear war against the poor; it is also the root cause of all other violence James Gilligan professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence. Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes. 1996. P. 191-196 The deadliest form of violence is poverty.
You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi’s observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their violent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By “structural violence” I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society’s collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting “structural” with “behavioral violence,” by

which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavioral violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals
and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes.

[Continued… (9 Paragraphs Later…)]
The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closes to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy in the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the “structural violence” to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased

dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide—or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000) deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

14

1AC
Only nuclear power can meet baseload energy needs that can meet energy requirements for solving poverty and desalination Domenici, 04- Senator of the United States (Pete, A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy. pg. 218219//DG I’m a strong champion of a vision wherein nuclear materials play a vital role in ensuring reliable energy supplies for the world. In my vision, nuclear energy can be one of the tools by which we help the world obtain clean sources of reliable energy that can be used to dramatically advance standards of living around the world. If we are to ameliorate some of the causes of war, proliferation, and terrorism-such as poverty-we must ensure that other countries have access to clean energy supplies to drive their engines of economic development. The seeds of unrest and terrorism will be far less fertile as the standards of living of all peoples are raised toward our own. Nuclear energy offers solutions to some of the crucial issues facing the world today. Nuclear technologies can provide power for emerging economies while protecting our environment; supply energy for the hydrogen economy while conserving fossil fuels for other uses in an environmentally friendly manner; desalinate water for the world's growing population; improve people's health through application of nuclear medicine; add to the safety of our food supply through irradiation; and improve the safety of industrial products and techniques. I strongly support the continued development of nuclear power both here and abroad. New nuclear power plants offer emission-free power sources, help maintain diversity of fuel supply, enhance energy security, meet growing electricity demand, protect consumers against the volatility in the prices of home heating oil and natural gas, and provide an economically competitive supply of energy for our growing economy. I would also argue that nuclear power has the potential to break the proliferation cycle by burning weapons-useable materials in commercial reactors, turning atoms for weapons into atoms for energy. I believe that once the new plants are built, the industry will show the public that nuclear power plants can be built economically and operated safely, consistent with the public's demands. With those new plants, the industry will be able to convince the investment community that new plant construction is a solid investment opportunity, not one to be shunned.
The industry is taking the necessary measures to be ready to make a decision on ordering a new nuclear plant when the market conditions are ripe. As the economy recovers, the need for new electricity supplies will increase both nationally and regionally, and the market will absorb the overbuilding of new gas plants in the recent past. At that point in time, utilities will make decisions whether to build new

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

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

15

1AC
Expanding nuclear power is vital to averting global warming and collapse of the biosphere – loan guarantees are the trigger point to prime the pump for a full scale clean energy revolution Ritch, 05 - director general of the World Nuclear Association and former U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (John, “The Key to Our Energy Future”, 4/25, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501345.html) //DH Carbon fuel emissions -- 900 tons each second -- continue unabated, even as science warns that we are fast reaching a point of irreversible global warming with consequences for sea levels, species extinction, epidemic disease, drought and severe weather events that will disrupt all civilization. To avert climate catastrophe, greenhouse emissions must be reduced over the next 50 years by 60 percent -- even as population growth and economic development are combining to double or triple world energy consumption. Every authoritative energy analysis points to an inescapable imperative: Humankind cannot conceivably achieve a global clean-energy revolution without a rapid expansion of nuclear power to generate electricity, produce hydrogen for tomorrow's vehicles and drive seawater-desalination plants to meet a fast-emerging world water crisis. This reality requires a tenfold increase in nuclear energy during the 21st century. Fortunately, advances in technology and practice can facilitate this expansion by meeting legitimate public concerns: ? Safety. In the two decades since Chernobyl, the global nuclear industry has built an impressive safety record that draws on 12,000 reactor-years of practical experience. A network of active cooperation on operational safety now links every nuclear power reactor worldwide. ? Arms Proliferation. Illicit weapons programs of rogue regimes pose an ever-present risk. But strong, universal safeguards can ensure that civil nuclear facilities do not increase that risk. Security for the environment and against terrorism need not conflict. ? Cost. Steady reductions in operational and capital costs have already made nuclear energy highly competitive. Once governments begin to impose a real price on environmental damage -- through emissions trading or carbon taxes -- the balance will tilt decisively toward nuclear. ? Waste. In truth, waste is nuclear power's greatest comparative asset. Unlike carbon emissions, the volume is minimal and can be reliably contained and managed. For a half-century, the civil nuclear industry has safely stored and transported all end products from electricity generation. For long-term storage, a scientific consensus favors deep geological repositories. Governments worldwide must follow the lead of Finland, Sweden, the United States and France by moving to construct such sites. The scope of the environmental crisis requires that governments accelerate the nuclear renaissance. One essential element will be a comprehensive post-Kyoto treaty on climate. It must include all major nations and yield a steady, long-term contraction in global emissions. The key is an emissions-trading mechanism that yields efficiency in clean-energy investment and a net flow of investment from North to South. This economic assistance will be the most cost-effective in history if it prevents the globally destructive greenhouse emissions that will otherwise occur in the developing world. Another key is investment. Full-scale nuclear investment is still impeded by the absence of carbon penalties, the short-term bias of deregulated energy markets and the fact that 21st-century nuclear reactors have not yet achieved economies of scale. Governments must prime the pump using start-up aids such as loan guarantees and tax credits for first-of-a-kind engineering costs. We need multinational investment, too. Today the major U.N. development institutions reflexively embrace unscientific prejudice while the International Atomic Energy Agency works alone to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Governments must now direct the World Bank and the U.N. Development and Environment Programs to pursue a cleanenergy vision with nuclear power in a central role. Recently, leading academic institutions in 25 countries formed a partnership called the World Nuclear University to build standards for a globalizing nuclear profession. To support this effort, governments worldwide should marshal their own resources -- and we must summon the great philanthropies -- to supply a global infusion of scholarship funds for studies in peaceful nuclear science. Today technology is spurring a growth in world population and energy consumption that jeopardizes the future of our biosphere. Wisely used, modern technology can also be our salvation.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

16

1AC
A federal commitment to nuclear power is the vital internal link to restoring U.S. nuclear power leadership Fertel, 05 - Senior Vice President And Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute (Marvin, CQ Congressional Testimony, “NUCLEAR POWER'S PLACE IN A NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY,” 4/28, lexis) //DH Industry and government will be prepared to meet the demand for new emission-free baseload nuclear plants in the 2010 to 2020 time frame only through a sustained focus on the necessary programs and policies between now and then. As it has in the past, strong Congressional oversight will be necessary to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the federal government's nuclear energy programs, and to maintain America's leadership in nuclear technology development and its influence over important diplomatic initiatives like nonproliferation. Such efforts have provided a dramatic contribution to
global security, as evidenced by the U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreement to recycle weapons-grade material from Russia for use in American reactors. Currently, more than 50 percent of U.S. nuclear power plant fuel depends on converted Russian warhead material. Nowhere is continued congressional oversight more important than with DOE's program to manage the used nuclear fuel from our nuclear power plants. Continued progress toward a federal used nuclear fuel repository is necessary to support nuclear energy's vital role in a comprehensive national energy policy and to support the remediation of DOE defense sites. Since enactment of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE's federal repository program has repeatedly overcome challenges, and challenges remain before the Yucca Mountain facility can begin operation. But as we address these issues, it is important to keep the overall progress of the program in context. There is international scientific consensus that a deep geologic repository is the best solution for long-term disposition of used military and commercial nuclear power plant fuel and high-level radioactive byproducts. The Bush administration and Congress, with bipartisan support, affirmed the suitability of Yucca Mountain for a repository in 2002. Over the past three years, the Energy Department and its contractors have made considerable progress providing yet greater confirmation that this is the correct course of action and that Yucca Mountain is an appropriate site for a national repository. --During the past year, federal courts have rejected significant legal challenges by the state of Nevada and others to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the 2002 Yucca Mountain site suitability determination. These challenges questioned the constitutionality of the Yucca Mountain Development Act and DOE's repository system, which incorporates both natural and engineered barriers to contain radioactive material safely. In the coming year, Congress will play an essential role in keeping this program on schedule, by taking the steps necessary to provide increased funding for the project in fiscal 2006 and in future years. Meeting DOE's schedule for initial repository operation requires certainty in funding for the program. This is particularly critical in view of projected annual expenditures that will exceed $1 billion beginning in fiscal 2007. Meeting these budget requirements calls for a change in how Congress provides funds to the project from monies collected for the Nuclear Waste Fund. The history of Yucca Mountain funding is evidence that the current funding approach must be modified. Consumer fees (including interest) committed to the Nuclear Waste Fund since its f6rmation in 1983 total more than $24 billion. Consumers are projected to pay between $750 million to $800 million to the fund each year, based on electricity generated at the nation's 103 reactors. This is more than $2 million per day. Although about $8 billion has been used for the program, the balance in the fund is nearly $17 billion. In each of the past several years, there has been a gap between the annual fees paid by consumers of electricity from nuclear power plants and disbursements from the fund for use by DOE at Yucca Mountain. Since the fund was first established, billions of dollars paid by consumers of electricity from nuclear power plants to the Nuclear Waste Fund-intended solely for the federal government's used fuel programin effect have been used to decrease budget deficits or increase surpluses. The industry believes that Congress should change the funding mechanism for Yucca Mountain so that payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund can be used only for the project and be excluded from traditional congressional budget caps. Although the program should remain subject to congressional oversight, Yucca Mountain appropriations should not compete each year for funding with unrelated programs when Congress directed a dedicated funding stream for the project. The industry also believes that it is appropriate and necessary to consider an alternative perspective on the Yucca Mountain project. This alternative would include an extended period for monitoring operation of the repository for up to 300 years after spent fuel is first placed underground. The industry believes that this approach would provide ongoing assurance and greater confidence that the repository is performing as designed, that public safety is assured, and that the environment is protected. It would also permit DOE to apply evolving innovative technologies at the repository. Through this approach, a scientific monitoring program would identify additional scientific information that can be used in repository performance models. The project then could update the models, and make modifications in design and operations as appropriate. Congressional committees like this one can help ensure that DOE does not lose sight of its responsibility for used nuclear fuel management and disposal, as stated by Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The industry fully supports the fundamental need for a repository so that used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of the nation's nuclear weapons program are securely managed in an underground, specially designed facility. World-class science has demonstrated that Yucca Mountain is the best site for that facility. A public works project of this magnitude will inevitably face challenges. Yet, none is insurmountable. DOE and its contractors have made significant progress on the project and will continue to do so as the project enters the licensing phase.

Congressional oversight also can play a key role in maintaining and encouraging the stability of the NRC's regulatory process. Such stability is essential for our 103 operating nuclear plants and equally critical in licensing new nuclear power plants.
Congress played a key role several years ago in encouraging the NRC to move toward a new oversight process for the nation's nuclear plants, based on quantitative performance indicators and safety significance. Today's reactor oversight process is designed to focus industry and NRC resources on equipment, components and operational issues that have the greatest importance to, and impact on, safety. The NRC and the industry have worked hard to identify and implement realistic security requirements at nuclear power plants. In the three-and-a-half years since 9/11, the NRC has issued a series of requirements to increase security and enhance training for security programs. The industry complied-fully and rapidly. In the days and months following Sept. 11, quick action was required. Orders that implemented needed changes quickly were necessary. Now, we should return to the orderly process of regulating through regulations. The industry has spent more than $1 billion enhancing security since September 2001. We've identified and fixed vulnerabilities. Today, the industry is at the practical limit of what private industry can do to secure our facilities against the terrorist threat. NRC Chairman Nils Diaz and other commissioners have said that the industry has achieved just about everything that can be reasonably achieved by a civilian force. The industry now needs a transition period to stabilize the new security requirements. We need time to incorporate these dramatic changes into our operations and emergency planning programs and to train our employees to the high standards of our industry-and to the appropriately high expectations of the NRC. Both industry and the NRC need congressional oversight to support and encourage this kind of stability. CONCLUSION Electricity generated by America's nuclear power plants over the past half-century has played a key part in our nation's growth and prosperity. Nuclear power produces over 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States today without producing air pollution. As our energy demands continue to grow in years to come, nuclear power should play an even greater role in meeting our energy and environmental needs. The nuclear energy industry is operating its reactors safely and efficiently. The industry is striving to produce more electricity from existing plants. The industry is also developing more efficient, nextgeneration reactors and exploring ways to build them more cost-effectively. The public sector, including the oversight committees of the U.S. Congress, can help maintain the conditions that ensure Americans will continue to reap the benefits of our operating plants, and create the conditions that will spur investment in America's energy infrastructure, including new nuclear power plants. One important step is passage of comprehensive energy legislation that recognizes nuclear energy's contributions to meeting our growing energy demands, ensuring our nation's energy security and protecting our environment. Equally important, however, is the need to ensure effective and efficient implementation of existing laws, like the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and to provide federal agencies with the resources and oversight necessary to discharge their statutory responsibilities in the most efficient way possible.

The commercial nuclear power sector was born in the United States, and nations around the world continue to look to this nation for leadership in this technology and in the issues associated with nuclear power. Our ability to influence critical international policies in areas like nuclear nonproliferation, for example, depends on our ability to maintain a leadership role in prudent deployment, use and regulation of nuclear energy technologies here at home, in the United States, and on our ability
to manage the technological and policy challenges-like waste management-that arise with all advanced technologies.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

17

1AC
Our argument is completely independent of the question of OVERALL U.S. leadership – only the plan can access leadership in the context of nonproliferation BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf) //DH Presently, the U.S. continues to be at the forefront in meeting the challenges facing the nonproliferation regime. It has, among other things, worked with the UK and the IAEA to persuade Libya to dismantle its programs of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. has also collaborated with its European allies as well as Russia and the PRC in crafting UN Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and called upon that government’s leaders to suspend its sensitive nuclear activities. At the same time the U.S. has supported the diplomatic efforts of the European Union and others to offer Iran economic and energy incentives if Tehran agrees to forego its enrichment and reprocessing activities and the construction of its heavy water production reactor. The United States worked with the PRC, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (i.e., South Korea) to persuade the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (i.e., North Korea) to freeze its nuclear activities and to allow IAEA inspectors into North Korea in return for energy and economic assistance. The U.S. also led initiatives to provide the states of the former Soviet Union with financial and technical assistance in strengthening the material accountancy, control and protection measures of nuclear weapons and materials at risk. If the United States hopes to continue to exercise strong and specific influence internationally in nonproliferation matters in the future, it can best achieve this objective by remaining an active player in international nuclear affairs by providing advanced nuclear power systems, uranium enrichment services and nuclear fuel to other countries; and by maintaining its ability to develop and apply advanced nuclear technologies. A revival of nuclear power in the United States with new nuclear power plant orders should greatly help enhance U.S. power and influence in international nuclear affairs, but we must also seek to once again be a major supplier of nuclear power technology and equipment world-wide. Conversely, if the U.S. nuclear power program starts to diminish significantly through the retirement of old nuclear power plants without new replacements, then its voice in civil nuclear matters and nonproliferation will decline internationally, even though the U.S. may remain a superpower on the political level.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

18

TOPICALITY – NUCLEAR POWER IS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Alternative energy is any non-carbon energy Cohen, 06 – coordinator of the Energy Project for Middle East Solutions (Bertram, “Advanced Energy Technologies”, Energy Project - Briefing No. 2, http://www.middleeastsolutions.com/Neutralize.html) The term alternative energy sources is meant to designate alternatives to carbon fuels such as nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, hydro power, oil sands, alcohol fuels from biomass, geothermal, ocean waves, etc., etc. If you have already heard of it, it is probably a familiar alternative energy source. The Energy Project is NOT addressing ANY of these energy sources. There is also conservation and increased efficiency. This is part of the total response although these are not technologies but rather a more responsible way to use energy. Nuclear power is geothermal Tucker, 06 - author of Terrestrial Energy (William, Transcript of an AEI Conferency, 10/6, http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1394/transcript.asp) //DH Now what is geothermal energy? Terrestrial energy? Well, it occurs when molten rock comes close to the surface… volcanoes and other formations. That heat, all that generated heat at the center of the earth, comes in contact with ground water, and when that happens you get steam. You get these fumaroles, these steam fills that exist in [indiscernible] and other places. If you
harness that steam you can produce electricity. That is what a geothermal plant is. Now, where does the heat at the center of the earth come from? Well, there seemed to be two sources. First is that when the solar system itself was coalescing out of a dust cloud where lots of impacts … and the planets formed by big chunks of rock cladding other chunks of rock and adhering, there was a lot of heat built up in that process, and that residual heat probably accounts for about 40 percent of the heat that is left in the earth. The other 60 percent, the majority of the heat at the center of the earth comes from those two tiny elements at the bottom of the chart there, thorium and uranium. Each constitutes about one percent of the earth’s crust, but they are radioactive. They are disintegrating at a very slow rate, and when they disintegrate they give off terrestrial - they give off heat. And that heat, the heat from those two tiny radioactive elements is, in fact, the energy that raises the temperatures at the center of the earth to 7,000 degrees. So what do we do when we use coal to create electricity? While we take the stored solar energy that we find in the earth in the form of coal, we mine it; we bring it to the surface. We concentrate it. We ignite it; we set off a chain reaction that releases all that stored heat. We use the heat to boil water to produce steam to drive turbines to create electricity. What do we do with a nuclear plant? We take the terrestrial energy that is stored

in the earth. We mine it. Concentrate it. We ignite it. We start a chain reaction. We release all that latent heat. We use that to boil water to produce steam to drive turbines to create electricity. So a nuclear plant is, in fact, simply a refined version of a geothermal plant; it is terrestrial energy. This is why, when Albert Einstein
signed the famous letter to President Roosevelt in 1939, he turned to the three scientists that had brought it to him, and he said, “For the first time in history, man will be using energy not derived from the sun.” Now, how did we find out about all this? Well, back in 1905 a much younger Albert Einstein formulated what became probably the most famous equation of the 20th century, which was E = mc 2. How many people heard of this? Very good.

Nuke power is alternative energy Tomain, 5 - Dean Emeritus and the Wilbert & Helen Ziegler Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati (Joseph P, “BIOETHICS SYMPOSIUM: BIOFUELS AND THE NEW ENERGY ECONOMY: Smart Energy Path: How Willie Nelson Saved the Planet,” 36 Cumb. L. Rev. 417, 2005) <The nuclear power industry is promoted as an alternative to fossil fuel plants by a twenty-year extension of the PriceAnderson Act, which provides liability limitations in the case of a nuclear accident. n88 Research and development funding is authorized for advanced reactor designs and for the development, construction, and operation of prototype nuclear plants. n89 In the past, each nuclear power plant constructed in the United States was built according to a unique design which added to construction costs. By way of contrast, other countries (Japan and France most notably) built standardized plants. If construction costs can be lowered, then nuclear plants can become cost competitive with coal and natural gas power plants. n90>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

19

TOPICALITY – NUCLEAR POWER IS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Alternative energy includes nuclear power Random House, 06 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alternative+energy&r=66) alternative energy noun energy, as solar, wind, or nuclear energy, that can replace or supplement traditional fossil-fuel sources, as coal, oil, and natural gas. Recent legislation defines nuclear power as alternative energy Winter, 07 (Drew, EJ Magazine, “Nuclear Renaissance”, http://www.ejmagazine.com/2007b/pdfs/nuclear.pdf The reason for the sudden interest in nuclear power is due largely to a streamlined licensing process and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The act, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., grants numerous subsidies to utilities building nuclear power plants. These plants are listed as an alternative energy source along with wind, solar and other so-called green options. Subsidies include up to $125 million in annual tax credit, an 80 percent loan on construction costs and other benefits for reactors using new technology. Alternative energy includes nuclear – it’s distinct from renewable Pfafflin et al, 06 (James, Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering: Volumes 1 and 2, p. 199) Alternative energy sources include geothermal energy when and where is available, all kinds of waste heat and waste heat from nuclear plants. Renewable energy sources include wind energy, tidal energy, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and, above all, the abundant solar energy. Alternative energy is all energy not based on fossils National Resources Defense Council, no date found (New York City-based, non-profit, non-partisan international environmental advocacy group, http://www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/a.asp //VR) Alternative energy - energy that is not popularly used and is usually environmentally sound, such as solar or wind energy (as opposed to fossil fuels). Alternative energy is energy without fossils- various sources agree Economy watch, No date found (web portal on the World Economy with a special coverage on US Economy and Indian Economy, .http://www.economywatch.com/alternative-energy/ //VR) A fuel that is used as an alternative to a fossil fuel is known as alternative energy. The term normally implies that the alternative energy fuels are basically not traditional fuels and also have lesser impact on the environment. The term may be used in order to differentiate from the fossil fuels, while they are also used in an interchangeable way with the term renewable energy. There are various definitions of the term alternative energy. As per the Oxford Dictionary alternative energy may be defined as the energy that is fuelled in a way that is not harmful for the environment and does not eat up enormous amounts of natural resources. According to the Princeton WordNet alternative energy is a form that is extracted from sources which do not affect the environment in a negative way or consume substantial amount of natural resources. According to Responding to Climate Change 2007 alternative energy is a form of energy that is drawn from the untraditional sources of energy like winds, compressed natural gases, hydroelectricity and solar sources. The Natural Resources Defense Council opines that alternative energy is one, which is peripheral and is more environment-friendly compared to other types of fuels like fossil fuels. In the respect of environment-friendliness the alternative energy forms are similar to wind energy and solar energy. The Materials Management Services opines that the alternative energy is another name for sources of fuel that have not been extracted from fossil fuels. As per the definition provided by them alternative energy can also be used as an alternative for the renewable energy forms. Some of the common examples of alternative energy are wind energy, wave energy, solar energy, tidal energy and biomass. Nowadays there are various sites that are providing the latest information on the various forms of alternative energy.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

20

TOPICALITY – NUCLEAR POWER IS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Alternative energy is hydrogen, wind, nuclear, coal, carbon sequestration, biomass, and solar Stegner Symposium 8 (03-08-08, Alternative energy: Seeking climate change solutions, includes scientists, engineers, economists, and policy analysts, offering perspectives from industry, government, the academy, non-profit organizations, and research and development. http://www.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/stegner/symposia/2008/brochure.pdf //VR) The symposium opens by sketching the dynamic scientific, political, social, and economic facets of the energy issue. We will assess current energy consumption and its implications for climate change and national security. We will look briefly at the science of climate change and its effects on our world. We then will examine how we now regulate energy and how that regulation has been disconnected from a transition to alternative forms of power. And we will explore the concept of “stabilization wedges”—or reducing greenhouse gas emissions in discrete blocks—and how that concept may form an umbrella for how the nation and the world might move toward alternative energy. The symposium then shifts to investigating the promise and limitations of specific alternative energy sources. We begin this assessment from the vantage of the entities that provide much of our power, electric utilities, and the constraints they face in procuring fuel to deliver energy to the public. We then turn to exploring a panoply of alternative energies that may help solve the climate change problem: hydrogen, wind, nuclear, coal and carbon sequestration, biomass, and solar. We also will investigate reforms underway in the fossil fuel industry and the “demand-side” approach of reducing consumption through conservation and efficiency. Nuclear power is alternative energy Hasan, no date - President of the Altenews Company (Russell, “Introduction to Alternative Energy,” http://www.altenews.com/Alternative%20Energy%20Overview.pdf One last kind of alternative energy to discuss is nuclear power. Often classified as a traditional power source, it is possible to think of nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants do not produce air pollution, so they are clean compared to oil, gas and coal. However, nuclear power produces radioactive waste as a byproduct, and nuclear reactor accidents can have catastrophic effects, so the environmental value of nuclear is debatable. However, it cannot be denied that nuclear power can replace fossil fuels to some extent as they run out, and there are many countries around the world that are currently planning to build new nuclear power plants.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

21

TOPICALITY – NUCLEAR POWER IS CLEAN ENERGY
Nuclear power is clean in the production of electricity – it gives off zero emissions Beller, 4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//DH When questioned on whether it was time to start building nuclear plants, former Clinton-Gore Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson said at the National Press Club on October 4th, "Nuclear Energy is Clean." 39 He said this because nuclear power plants do not emit acid rain, arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium, selenium, boron, chromium, copper, fluorine, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, zinc, beryllium, chlorine, cobalt, manganese, tin, antimony, or radioactive elements thallium, thorium, uranium, radium, radon, or polonium. 40 These materials are all toxic in large amounts, and thousands of tons are placed into our environment because we burn coal. 41 Some are released at the mines, some [*49] in stack gases and fly ash, and some as solids for landfill waste or to be used in construction materials. 42 All energy technologies, including nuclear, have some of this burden because all manufacturing in the United States gets half its electricity from the burning of coal. For already constructed nuclear power plants however, this burden is infinitesimal compared to any other energy source including renewables. Of all sources of energy, nuclear plants generate 75 percent of America's non-emitting electricity. 43

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

22

TOPICALITY - NUCLEAR POWER IS RENEWABLE
Renewable energy comes from a source that is abundant. The Business Dictionary, 7 (BusinessDictionary.com, “Renewable Energy,” 2007, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/renewable-energy.html, AG) Derived from resources that are naturally regenerative or are practically inexhaustible, such as biomass, heat (geothermal, solar, thermal gradient), moving water (hydro, tidal, and wave power), and wind energy. Municipal sold waste may also be considered a source of renewable (thermal) energy. Nuclear power is renewable energy – inexhaustible. Lightfoot et. al, 6 – Mechanical Engineer, B App. Sc. (UBC), MBA.(Concordia), Manheimer – Ph.D, Naval Research Laboratory, Meneley – Fast reactor physics researcher and designer, Stanford – author of technical publications pertaining mainly to experiments in nuclear physics, reactor physics, and fast-reactor safety (Douglas Lightfoot, Wallace Manheimer, Daniel Meneley, George Stanford, “Nuclear Fission Inexhaustible,” 12/9/06, http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Fora%20Input/CCC2006/Nuclear%20Paper%2006_05.htm, AG) In 1983, Bernard L. Cohen [Cohen, 1983] showed quantitatively that uranium as nuclear fission fuel is, for all practical purposes, inexhaustible, given the use of fuel efficient breeder reactors. This idea had also been suggested earlier by others [Lewis, 1968]. The aim of this paper is to support this claim and show that technology is close at hand to take full advantage of this endless resource. When energy sources such as hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal are termed “renewable”, what is really meant is that they are inexhaustible. If, for all practical purposes, nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible, then it too is one of the “renewables”. Moreover, nuclear fission has much greater capacity to provide energy than all of the other "renewable" energies put together. The paper in Track 1 of this conference, “A Strategy for
Adequate Future World Energy Supply and Carbon Emission Control” [Lightfoot, 2006], makes the case that nuclear fission is the only source of energy large enough to replace fossil fuels on the scale required that is available now.

The amount of nuclear power is functionally infinite. Comby, 6 – founder and president of the international association Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, postgraduate qualification in nuclear physics from the National University of Advanced Technology (Bruno, “The Benefits of Nuclear Energy,” May 06, http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/BENEFITS-of-NUCLEAR.pdf, AG)
By 2100, oil and natural gas reserves will likely be exhausted. This leaves coal and nuclear energy. As an environmentalist the idea of developing more coal, the most polluting energy source on the planet, and the greatest contributor to global warming, is simply not acceptable. The process of sequestration or isolating millions and billions of tons of carbon dioxide is nothing but a pleasant dream at this point, still unproven and unlikely to be put into wide-spread practice. Nuclear power:

Nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable, compact, competitive and practically inexhaustible. Today over 400 nuclear reactors provide base-load electric power in 30 countries. Fifty years old, it is a relatively mature technology with the assurance of great improvement in the next generation.
(Hundreds of nuclear reactors furnish reliable and flexible shipboard power: military ships of course. But the technology is adaptable to civilian maritime transport.) Clean: Nuclear energy produces almost no carbon dioxide, and no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides whatsoever. These gases are produced in vast quantities when fossil fuels are burned.

One gram of uranium yields about as much energy as a ton of coal or oil - it is the famous “factor of a million”. Nuclear waste is correspondingly about a million times smaller than fossil fuel waste, and it is totally confined.
Nuclear waste:

Nuclear power will never run out – all over the world. Comby, 6 – founder and president of the international association Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, postgraduate qualification in nuclear physics from the National University of Advanced Technology (Bruno, “The Benefits of Nuclear Energy,” May 06, http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/BENEFITS-of-NUCLEAR.pdf, AG) Inexhaustible: Uranium is found everywhere in the crust of the Earth – it is more abundant than tin, for example. Major deposits are found in Canada and Australia. It is estimated that increasing the market price by a factor ten would result in 100 times more uranium coming to market. Eventually we will be able to recover uranium from sea water where 4 billion tons are dissolved. Reprocessing nuclear fuel can be considered renewable UCS, 6 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “What Bush Means When He Says Nuclear Power.” 1/31, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/what-bush-means-when-he-says.html) //DT For instance, if Bush uses the term "renewable" nuclear energy or "recycling," he is likely referring to reprocessing spent fuel to extract the plutonium for eventual use as new reactor fuel. Phrases such as "new, safer technologies" and "solving the nuclear waste problem" also refer to reprocessing but are disingenuous; new reprocessing technologies would still make weapon-usable materials accessible to terrorists and nations, and would change the form and increase the volume of nuclear waste, thereby kicking the waste problem down the road.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

23

HIGH ENERGY PRICES KILL ECONOMIC GROWTH
Energy prices are the most important factor determining economic growth Lugar, 07 – US Senator (Richard, “U.S. Energy Security and the 2008 Presidential Election,” 12/18, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2007/~/media/files/events/2007/1218_lugar/20071218_lugar.pdf) Second, transformational energy policies are likely to be a requirement for achieving our economic and social aspirations here at home. In an era when exploding global demand for energy creates high prices and fears of scarcity, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to underperform. Our ability to address social security, health care, education, and overall budget problems will be heavily encumbered over both the short and the long run if we do not mitigate our energy import dependence. Almost any scenario for recession will be deepened by high energy costs. Moreover, many of the most severe recession scenarios involve sustained energy disruptions due to terrorism, war, embargo, or natural disaster.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

24

LOAN GUARANTEES KEY TO KEEPING ELECTRICITY PRICES LOW
Loan guarantees are necessary to ensure low prices – current efforts are insufficient Howard 07, Angelina, Nuclear Energy Institute PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: CAN
NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18, L/n, rday

As we further refined that, and met with our utilities and met with Wall Street, as the companies are moving forward with their decision-making and truly understanding how to finance these plants, the loan guarantee program became more important because of the -- of the importance of being able to finance at the lowest possible rate, and the loan guarantee affords the companies to borrow at a lower rate. And so we've been working now with a focus on getting that Department of Energy program and a loan guarantee office established, established so it will be a well-run program that does not offer loan guarantees for those programs that are projects that might be risky and in a chance of default, Jim. And then getting sufficient availability of the loan guarantee funds so that -- through the appropriations process -- so that the program can be funded in order to be able to support any number of nuclear, including coal projects. A $4 billion program won't get you there. And so that's where we truly are working now. Loan guarantees are vital to reducing electricity prices Crane 7 –Senior Vice President Exelon Corp. President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear (Christopher, 04-24-07, speech to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/cranetestimony042407extended/ //VR) In addition, loan guarantees provide substantial consumer benefits. The cost of electricity to all consumers—residential, commercial and industrial—will increase significantly in the years ahead, due to sustained upward pressure on natural gas prices and heavy capital investment in new transmission facilities, environmental control technologies and new generating capacity. A sustained period of upward pressure on electricity prices has negative implications for U.S. economic growth and the competitiveness of American industry in a global marketplace. An effective loan guarantee program can reduce electricity costs significantly, providing substantial benefits to electricity consumers. For example, according to financial modeling performed by the Nuclear Energy Institute: 1. A new nuclear plant with an overnight capital cost of just over $2,800 per kilowatt will produce electricity for approximately $84 per megawatt-hour in its first year of operation, if the plant is financed with equal amounts of debt and equity (assuming debt financing was available for such a project, which is unlikely). 2. The same plant, with a federal loan guarantee for 80 percent of project cost, will produce electricity in its first year for approximately $59 per megawatt-hour, because of the higher leverage and the fact that debt is less costly than equity. 3. The plant financed with a loan guarantee thus delivers a consumer benefit of $25 per megawatt-hour, or approximately $275 million per year for the average new nuclear plant.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

25

AT: SOLVING ELECTRICITY PRICES IS TOO LONG A TIMEFRAME
1. Loan guarantees immediately free up investment capital for grid stability – our Bowman evidence says this allows utilities to defray costs and keep rates low 2. Loan guarantees also have the immediate effect of encouraging foreign investment and decreasing interest rates, freeing up more capital – that’s Zawatsky 3. Covering construction costs prevents rate shocks immediately by freeing up capital Farrell 7 –President and CEO, Dominion Power (Thomas, 02-19-07, “Averting a Potential Capital Crisis in the Power Sector”,
http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/narucroundtableextended //VR) We are a capital-intensive industry that is facing dramatic increases in planned capital expenditures. Money flows freely across industries and across promising new global markets, as each of us is keenly aware. And the smart money will flow to the smartly regulated. Incentives for efficiency and innovation will benefit the customer in the long term. Utilities that know they can keep at least part of the benefits from efficiencies and innovations will strive to create them. Second, the regulatory model should also recognize that utilities cannot be held hostage to years-long regulatory lag in recovering the cost of their projects. In the case of a new nuclear unit, we are talking about billions of dollars. No matter how large a utility is, it cannot

afford to provide a loan of that size to its customers and not see any cash for four or five years or more. Coverage of construction work in progress in current rates not only reduces the stress on a utility’s capital structure; it also reduces the rate shock experienced by customers.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

26

SOLVENCY – ELECTRICITY PRICES
Expanding nuclear power is vital to price stability Bowman 6- President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, 9-3-06, Speech to House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended //VR) The Strategic Value of Nuclear Power: Platform for the Future Any discussion of the future of nuclear energy must begin with a factual understanding of the status of nuclear energy in the United States today. The operating performance and strategic value of America’s 103 operating nuclear power plants is the platform from which the next generation of nuclear power will be launched. Nuclear power represents 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply today—precisely the same percentage as 10 years ago, even though there are six fewer reactors than a decade ago and even though total U.S. electricity supply has increased by 25 percent in that period. Nuclear power has maintained its market share thanks to dramatic improvements in the reliability, safety, productivity and management of U.S. nuclear plants. On average, U.S. nuclear plants operate at around 90 percent capacity factors, year in and year out—the highest level of any form of electricity generation. Improved productivity at our nuclear plants satisfied 20 percent of the growth in electricity demand over the last decade. Nuclear power serves a number of important national needs. First, nuclear power plants contribute to the fuel and technology diversity that is the core strength of the U.S. electric supply system. This diversity is at risk because today’s business environment and market conditions in the electric sector do not encourage investment in large, new capital-intensive technologies, particularly the advanced nuclear power plants and advanced coal-fired power plants best-suited to supply baseload electricity. Second, nuclear power plants provide future price stability that is not available from electric generating plants fueled with natural gas. More than 90 percent of all new electric generating capacity added over the past five years is fueled with natural gas. Natural gas has many desirable characteristics and should be part of our fuel mix, but over-reliance on any one fuel source leaves consumers vulnerable to price volatility and supply disruptions. Volatility in natural gas prices over the last several years is likely to continue, thanks partly to unsustainable demand for natural gas from the electric sector. This volatility subjects the U.S. economy to potential damage. Because the operating costs of nuclear power plants are stable, they dampen price volatility in the electricity and natural gas markets. Nuclear power plants also reduce the pressure on natural gas supply, thereby relieving cost pressures on other users of natural gas that have no alternative fuel source.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

27

SOLVENCY – ELECTRICITY PRICES
Nuclear power is the only form of energy that can provide reliable baseload generation Colvin 7 –President Emeritus Nuclear Energy Institute (Joe, 02-07-07, “More Nuclear Energy: Why America Needs It Now”, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/miamichamberextended) First, then, the importance of nuclear energy to the energy mix of the United States. The great strength of this country’s energy portfolio is, in fact, its diversity of energy sources. Each energy source has its advantages, and its corresponding uses, in our electricity generating system. Taken together, they complement one another. We have abundant coal and nuclear resources for baseload generation, natural gas for intermediate and peaking demand, and hydro and renewables as intermittent additives to the electricity supply. Construction costs for coal and nuclear facilities are relatively high, but operating costs are quite low and stable. Natural gas facilities can be built relatively quickly, but operating costs are high and production costs are volatile. Today, 56 percent of Florida’s electricity is produced by natural gas plants. Nuclear power is unique in that it can provide reliable baseload generation—electricity produced around the clock, every day—while emitting no air pollutants or greenhouse gases. Additionally, nuclear power is not susceptible to interruptions of fuel deliveries as Florida experienced during the hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005. There are 103 commercial nuclear reactors operating in the United States today. They produce 20 percent of this nation’s electricity. Five of those reactors are here in Florida—two at St. Lucie and two at Turkey Point, operated by Florida Power & Light Co., and one at Crystal River, operated by Progress Energy. Together, they produce 13 percent of Florida’s electricity. And they prevent, in an average year, the emission of nearly 21 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. In terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that is the equivalent—annually—of removing practically half of all passenger cars on Florida’s roads today. Unfortunately, what has happened over the past 15 years in Florida and other parts of the country is that we have underinvested in new nuclear and coal generating facilities. During this time, we have built 290,000 megawatts of new gas-fired power plants, but only 11,000 megawatts of new nuclear and coal. Yet, nuclear and coal together generate 70 percent of the U.S. electricity supply, and provide price stability, unlike the price volatility of power plants fueled with natural gas. New nuclear plant construction can help rebalance fuel diversity in the electricity sector while providing electricity at stable prices. That leads me to our second topic—the nuclear renaissance in this country.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

28

SOLVENCY – ELECTRICITY PRICES
Nuclear power is the only technology that can meet baseload demand Spurgeon 7 - ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, (Dennis, HEARING OF THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL, March 7, L/n rday) Today, 103 nuclear reactors generate roughly 20 percent of America's electricity. U.S. electricity demand is anticipated to grow by 50 percent over the next 25 years. The equivalent of 45 to 50 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactors must be built just to maintain that 20 percent share. The U.S. is at a critical juncture in the future of nuclear power in the United States. Unlike many of our international research partners, our nuclear industry has not been heavily supported financially or politically over the past 30 years. Today, the need for increased electric generating capacity is clear and hopefully undisputed. Fortunately, we do have a growth option that allows us to have a diversified electric generation portfolio that includes a significant carbon emissions-free component, and that is nuclear power. To support near term domestic expansion of the nuclear industry, the FY 2008 budget requests $114 million for the Nuclear Power 2010 program to support continued cost share efforts with industry to reduce the barriers to deployment of new nuclear power plants in the United States. We anticipate the NRC will soon vote -- actually, I think it's tomorrow -- on approval of the Early Site Permit for the Exelon Generation Company's Clinton site in Central Illinois, which represents a major accomplishment in the Energy Department's efforts to address the barriers and stimulate deployment of new nuclear power plants in the United States. But nuclear power is the only proven base load producer of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases. It is vital that our current fleet of reactors be expanded in order to meet our needs for carbon-free, dependable and economic electric power. Any serious effort toward expanding global use of nuclear energy will inevitably require us to address the spent fuel and proliferation challenges that a company such an expansion. Nuclear energy increases key to price stability NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry, 02-21-08, Nuclear Energy Expansion Will Proceed Cautiously Over Next Decade, Wall Street Analysts Told, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/wallstreet/ //VR) “The need for new baseload generating capacity is unmistakable,” Rowe said. “The electric sector’s dependence on natural gas exposes our customers to unpleasant price volatility, and our companies to unwelcome political stress and regulatory pressure. And uncertainty over future controls on carbon emissions will cast a cloud over coal-fired generation for as long as we avoid our responsibility to address the climate change issues squarely.” Nuclear power plants operating in 31 states provide more than 70 percent of all U.S. electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or controlled pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The outstanding performance of the nuclear energy industry provides a “solid platform” to increase the nation’s reliance on nuclear energy, Bowman said. Early estimates for 2007 show that U.S. nuclear power plants posted all-time record highs in electricity production and efficiency. U.S. nuclear plants generated approximately 807 billion kilowatt-hours (kwh) of electricity last year, exceeding by more than two percent the previous record-high of 788.5 billion kwh of electricity set in 2004. Nuclear energy generates nearly 20 percent of total U.S. electricity supply, even though nuclear power plants constitute only 10 percent of installed generating capacity.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

29

SOLVENCY – ELECTRICITY PRICES
Baseload power generation is vital – renewables can’t provide it Numark and Terry, 03 – Neil and Michael, *President @ Numark Associtates and **member @ Sustainable Energy Institute + Senior Associate @ Numark Associates (“New Nuclear Construction: Still On Hold”, December 2003, http://www.pur.com/pubs/4310.cfm)/AK What do recent trends in reserve margins and future deregulation policy mean for nuclear? A key point is the declining share of traditional baseload power sources in the generating mix. It is important to emphasize that the recent overbuild of generating capacity in this country has come almost entirely in the form of nonutility generators building gas turbines. Rising gas prices already challenge the wisdom of having built a large number of these gas-fired units to meet electricity demand in deregulated markets. The current circumstances should lead energy companies and investors in coming years to look again to traditional baseload technologies as the best means of ensuring adequate capacity, recognizing that their higher capital costs are offset by their lower and more predictable fuel costs. Investment in additional baseload capacity will become increasingly important as the economy grows in the coming years, and it is difficult to imagine power producers adding baseload capacity without a significant contribution from nuclear. Consider the other options: * Coal Plants. Investment in new coal plants-already the largest source of baseload electricity-would run the risk of worsening economics due to carbon constraints that seem inevitable in the next few years and are already proceeding at the state level. (It must be noted, however, that the Bush administration's recent New Source Review decision, which allows the oldest coal plants to upgrade without installing pollution control equipment, effectively holds down the average cost of baseload power, a negative for nuclear's prospects as well as public health.) * Gas Turbines. Meanwhile, gas prices of late clearly show that fuel to be a choice ill-suited to baseload generation. We could come to regret future reliance on gas for baseload generation, which could be a high-cost option, or worse still, could reduce electric reliability in the event of a significant gas supply interruption. * Renewables. Renewables will continue to gain market share, but it may take decades before they provide a significant portion of the country's baseload generation capacity. Wind energy costs, for example, are down about 90 percent since the 1980s, from 80 cents/kWh to about 4 cents/kWh today, and the industry is poised to reach 6,000 MW of installed generating capacity nationwide by the end of this year.9 But as a recent report for the World Wildlife Fund observes, "Since wind is an intermittent electricity generator and does not provide power on an 'as needed' basis, it loses some value on a per kilowatt-hour basis, compared to traditional electric generation that can provide baseload power. On the other hand, wind provides benefits in terms of reduced emissions and elimination of fuel risk that can more than make up for this lost value."10 As well as biomass derived from energy crops, geothermal may be better suited to baseload generation, but the degree of market penetration is expected to be relatively modest. Even given their higher capital costs, nuclear plants, once built, have generally lower operating costs than their fossil-fired counterparts-an advantage that will increase as greater restrictions are placed on fossil fuel pollutants. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 2002 was the fourth successive year in which "nuclear energy was the low-cost leader for baseload production of electricity," with production costs of 1.71 cents/kWh, in comparison with coal-fired power plants, 1.85 cents/kWh; natural gas plants, 4.06 cents/kWh; and oil-fired plants, 4.41 cents/kWh. Increased demand will make investment in new baseload capacity imperative in coming years. It is highly likely that when this occurs, nuclear power will be the only available technology well-suited to baseload operation that can contribute substantially to meeting this demand without also contributing to global warming, urban ozone pollution, acid rain and other environmental and public health impacts of burning fossil fuels.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

30

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES NATURAL GAS PRICE VOLATILITY
Nuclear power solves natural gas price volatility Bowman, 06 – President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, CQ Congressional Testimony, 9/13, lexis) //DH First, nuclear power plants contribute to the fuel and technology diversity that is the core strength of the U.S. electric supply system. This diversity is at risk because today's business environment and market conditions in the electric sector do not encourage investment in large, new capitalintensive technologies, particularly the advanced nuclear power plants and advanced coal- fired power plants best-suited to supply baseload electricity. Second, nuclear power plants provide future price stability that is not available from electric generating plants fueled with natural gas. More than 90 percent of all new electric generating capacity added over the past five years is fueled with natural gas. Natural gas has many desirable characteristics and should be part of our fuel mix, but over-reliance on any one fuel source leaves consumers vulnerable to price volatility and supply disruptions. Volatility in natural gas prices over the last several years is likely to continue, thanks partly to unsustainable demand for natural gas from the electric sector. This volatility subjects the U.S. economy to potential damage. Because the operating costs of nuclear power plants are stable, they dampen price volatility in the electricity and natural gas markets. Nuclear power plants also reduce the pressure on natural gas supply, thereby relieving cost pressures on other users of natural gas that have no alternative fuel source. New nuclear plants are vital to preventing natural gas price volatility Wallace, 05 - President , Constellation Generation Group (Mike, CQ Congressional Testimony, “NUCLEAR POWER 2010 INITIATIVE,” 4/26, lexis) //DH However, despite the impressive gains in reliability and output, there are obviously limits to how much capacity we can derive from our existing nuclear power plants. The time has come to create the business conditions under which we can build new nuclear power plants in the United States. We believe there are compelling public policy reasons for new nuclear generating capacity. First, new nuclear power plants will continue to contribute to the fuel and technology diversity that is the core strength of the U.S. electric supply system. This diversity is at risk because today's business environment and market conditions in the electric sector make investment in large, new capital-intensive technologies difficult, particularly the advanced nuclear power plants and advanced coal-fired power plants best suited to supply baseload electricity. More than 90 percent of all new electric generating capacity added over the past five years is fueled with natural gas. Natural gas has many desirable characteristics and should be part of our fuel mix, but over-reliance on any one fuel source leaves consumers vulnerable to price spikes and supply disruptions. Second, new nuclear power plants provide future price stability that is not available from electric generating plants fueled with natural gas. Intense volatility in natural gas prices over the last several years is likely to continue, thanks partly to unsustainable demand for natural gas from the electric sector, and subjects the U.S. economy to potential damage. Although nuclear plants are capital-intensive to build, the operating costs of nuclear power plants are stable and can dampen volatility of consumer costs in the electricity market. Third, new nuclear plants will reduce the price and supply volatility of natural gas, thereby relieving cost pressures on other users of natural gas that have no alternative fuel source. And finally, new nuclear power plants will play a strategic role in meeting U.S. clean air goals and the nation's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. New nuclear power plants produce electricity that otherwise would be supplied by oil-, gas- or coal-fired generating capacity, and thus avoid the emissions associated with that fossil-fueled capacity. In summary, nuclear energy represents a unique value proposition: new nuclear power plants would provide large volumes of electricity cleanly, reliably, safely and affordably. They would provide future price stability and serve as a hedge against price and supply volatility. New nuclear plants also have valuable environmental attributes. These characteristics demonstrate why new nuclear plant construction is such an imperative in the United States.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

31

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES NATURAL GAS PRICE VOLATILITY
Nuclear energy is key to price stability which is crucial to the US energy economy Fertel, 4 – Marvin S., Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer @ the Nuclear Energy Institute (Congressional testimony FDCH, march 4, “Nuclear Power Generation”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)/AK The Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants New nuclear plants will be essential in the years ahead to achieve a number of critically important public policy imperatives for our country’s energy supply and electricity market. First, new nuclear power plants will continue to contribute to the fuel and technology diversity that is the core strength of the U.S. electric supply system. This diversity is at risk because today’s business environment and market conditions make investment in large, new capital-intensive technologies difficult, notably the advanced nuclear power plants and advanced coal-fired power plants best suited to supply baseload electricity. More than 90 percent of all new electric generating capacity added over the past five years is fueled with natural gas. Natural gas has many desirable characteristics and should be part of our fuel mix, but “over-reliance on any one fuel source leaves consumers vulnerable to price spikes and supply disruptions.”2 Second, new nuclear power plants provide future price stability that is not available from electric generating plants fueled with natural gas. Intense volatility in natural gas prices over the last several years is likely to continue, and subjects the U.S. economy to potential damage. Although nuclear plants are capital-intensive to build, the operating costs of nuclear power plants are stable and can dampen volatility of consumer costs in the electricity market. Third, new nuclear plants will reduce the price and supply volatility of natural gas, thereby relieving cost pressures on other users of natural gas that have no alternative fuel source. Expanding nuclear power is vital to reducing natural gas volatility Crane 7 –Senior Vice President Exelon Corp. President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear (Christopher, 04-24-07, speech to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/cranetestimony042407extended/ //VR) Nuclear energy is a strategic national asset, and new nuclear power plants are essential if the United States hopes to meet its energy and environmental goals. Consider the following facts: 1. Nuclear power is essential in any program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The average nuclear plant avoids 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. The 682 million metric tons prevented by America’s 103 nuclear power plants in 2005 is equal to the annual emissions from 96 percent of the country’s passenger cars. In addition, nuclear power plants also avoid emissions of criteria pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury, thereby reducing the clean-air compliance burden and costs that would otherwise fall on power plants and industries burning fossil fuels 2. Nuclear power plants can reduce pressure on natural gas supply, thereby helping to mitigate the volatility in natural gas prices. Compared to an equivalent-size gas-fired power plant, a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant saves approximately 54 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year—enough natural gas to serve over 600,000 residential customers. Nuclear power is comparatively better than natural gas – supplies and prices are more stable Wise 6 -CHAIRMAN, GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (STAN, HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR ENERGY OVERSIGHT, September 13, L/n rday Though there has been a lot of investment in natural gas power generation in recent years, supply and prices are volatile and are expected to continue to be just that. Nuclear has the additional advantages in terms of reduction of carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels. My testimony compares some of the differences between what I refer to as nuclear then and nuclear now and how it is expected to be if we expand nuclear power generation capacity. Many of the cost, safety, productivity and public support conditions have improved with time over the past two decades. Further improvements in technology and greater use of standard plant design suggests that the new plants will be built and operated more competitively than once was the case.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

32

NUCLEAR CONSTRUCTION SOLVES THE U.S. ECONOMY
Building new nuclear power revitalizes the U.S. economy Zawatsky, 08 – chief executive officer of havePower, LLC. (Jay, “Inside Track: Going Nuclear on Energy”, The National Interest, 4/9, http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=17332] //DH So that solves the trade deficit, the energy deficit and the environmental issue. But what about the budget deficit? Easy: We need to increase the capacity of the nuclear plants and secure them against terrorist attack. We need to build the electrolyzers and compressors to be placed at every service station in America, to convert water into compressed hydrogen to fuel cars and trucks. We need to increase the capacity of the power-transmission lines to deliver the larger supply of electricity to the service stations. We need to build the plug-in hybrids and the appliances for rapid recharging. All of this building and manufacturing adds wages and profits to the economy. The nuclear facilities are built here, with American labor and American equipment. The electric transmission lines are built here, with American labor and equipment. The electrolyzers and compressors and plug-in hybrids should be built here, with American labor and equipment. And these are high-wage positions in engineering, construction and manufacturing. The added wages and profits mean substantially higher income tax collections (without raising tax rates). On the expense side of the ledger, military spending, to maintain the forward posture of our forces to keep the oil flowing to our country, could be reduced substantially. Increased revenue and reduced spending. That’s the sweet sound of deficit reduction that you’re hearing. Boosting nuclear construction is vital to sustaining economic growth Bowman, 08 - President and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, CQ Congressional Testimony, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction”, 6/19, lexis) //DH But construction of these new nuclear plants will have other benefits too. At the peak of construction, a nuclear plant will employ 2300 skilled workers and, on completion, approximately 700 workers to operate and maintain the plant. New nuclear plant construction will also lead to new investment in the supply chain- in new manufacturing facilities to produce pumps, valves, pipe, electrical cable and other equipment and components. That will create more jobs, new opportunities and higher economic growth, and allow the United States to reclaim economic opportunity that has moved overseas over the last several decades. Nuclear power key to the U.S. economy Nunn, 04- Senator of the United States, chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (Sam, “A Brighter tomorrow: Fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy”. Pg. 186) //DG To meet unanticipated commercial and geopolitical challenges, America's energy should come from diverse sources. A diverse supply of energy is a strategic and economic imperative for the United States, and indeed, for all nations. We are only too well aware of the difficulties placed on the exercise of our foreign policy due to our dependence on imported oil. Our chemical industry is hamstrung as well. There are no substitutes for petroleum feedstocks, and the fertilizer industry is increasingly hurt by rising natural gas prices. The recent high level of natural gas prices is slowing the rate of economic recovery and job growth. Diversifying the sources of electricity generation, for example, with nuclear power generation can free up fossil fuels for uses that have no other substitutes, such as for petrochemicals, resulting in a cleaner environment, more U.S. jobs, and more efficient uses of raw materials.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

33

NUCLEAR POWER SOLVES COST OF MEETING GREENHOUSE REGULATIONS
GHG emissions regulation crashes the economy without nuclear power Nuclear Energy Institute, 3 (“Powering the Future with Environmentally Sound Nuclear Energy: The Ecological Stewardship of the Nuclear Energy Industry,” 2003, http://www.nei.org/filefolder/environment-ecology_book_2003.pdf) A number of countries are discovering that they will suffer severe economic losses, including billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs in some countries, in complying with the goals of the Kyoto accords. They are also finding that the loss in economic production and jobs will be much less severe if they include emission-free nuclear energy in their plans to meet the Kyoto goals. Some countries, such as Japan, South Korea and several European nations, will rely heavily on nuclear energy in meeting their environmental goals, while other countries are rethinking their plans to curtail or eliminate nuclear power in light of this environmental imperative. Finland, in fact, recently decided to build a new nuclear plant to help meet its energy and environmental goals.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

34

NUCLEAR POWER BOOSTS JOB GROWTH
Nuclear power plant construction provides valuable construction and manufacturing jobs – allowing the U.S. to regain a global economic advantage Bowman 6-20 President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, (Frank L., States News Service, Testimony before the Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, “GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION,” 2008, L/n, rday) But construction of these new nuclear plants will have other benefits too. At the peak of construction, a nuclear plant will employ 2300 skilled workers and, on completion, approximately 700 workers to operate and maintain the plant. New nuclear plant construction will also lead to new investment in the supply chain- in new manufacturing facilities to produce pumps, valves, pipe, electrical cable and other equipment and components. That will create more jobs, new opportunities and higher economic growth, and allow the United States to reclaim economic opportunity that has moved overseas over the last several decades. Nuclear energy is key to job employment which helps the economy PR Newswire, 8 (“VIDEO from Medialink and the CASEnergy Coalition: Nuclear Energy's Resurgence Promises to Spur Job Growth”, June 19, 2008, Proquest)/AK white paper examines the job growth potential for existing and future nuclear power plants and finds that nuclear plants are a boon to local economies. Altogether, 12,000 to 21,000 new jobs will be added to the U.S. market if some 30 reactors currently planned for construction are built. These are long-term jobs that would exist throughout the operation of the reactor, promising decades of employment. -- Each nuclear plant provides 400 to 700 high-paying jobs. -- Depending on construction methods, each new reactor could require as many as 4,000 workers per project at peak periods. -- According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual salary for nuclear engineers is $82,900 - approximately $8,000 more than all other engineering disciplines except petroleum engineering. -- Each of the country's 104 reactors generates an estimated $430 million a year in total output for the local community, and nearly $40 million per year in total labor income.
The

Nuclear energy development is key to the domestic economy – billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs Kotek, 8- MANAGER OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON POLICY & ANALYSIS, Inc (John, “HEARING OF THE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES” 6/20, lexis, rday) Now, restoring a robust nuclear energy industry will also have a positive effect on employment and on our nation's economy. Our Council is presently conducting a study of these economic and employment impacts, but it's safe to say they run in the billions of dollars and the tens of thousands of jobs. We plan to complete our study later this year and will be pleased to share the results with the committee.
Nuclear power increases job growth Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony/ //VR) The construction of those plants in the United States will have benefits beyond low-cost, clean electricity. At the peak of construction, a nuclear plant will employ 2300 skilled workers. Upon completion, approximately 700 workers will be required to operate and maintain the plant. Those workers receive excellent benefits and earn pay that is, on average, 40 percent above the wages earned by workers doing similar work in non-nuclear facilities. The plants bring increased tax revenue, economic stability, and prosperity.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

35

INHERENCY - CURRENT LOAN GUARANTEES FAIL – AREN’T BIG ENOUGH
Exisiting loan guarantees aren’t enough to substantially expand nuclear power Krause, 08 (Reinhardt, “New Nuclear Plants Are On Their Way, With Federal Help”, Investor’s Business Daily, 6/23, lexis)//DH With $18.5 billion up for grabs, the Energy Department's loan guarantee program is expected to restart building nuclear plants in the U.S. after a three-decade hiatus. However, the nuclear industry's resurgence could be short-lived. The $18.5 billion may be enough to partially fund only three or four nuclear plants, analysts say. About a dozen proposals are expected to vie for the financing. The DOE will begin the review process later this summer. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects up to 21 applications by year-end to build 32 reactors. The presidential election may be key to nuclear's revival. Democrat Barack Obama isn't likely to support extending loan guarantees. Republican John McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. With banks short of capital, the availability of low-interest rate government credit is vital to large-scale projects like nuclear plants. They take 4-5 years to build -- though the approval process can be far longer -- and cost billions of dollars each. Costs vary depending on how much electricity the power plants generate. "The range seems to be between $6 billion or $7 billion to $10 billion to build one plant," said Robert Hornick, a senior director at credit rater Fitch. "So you can see how the federal loan guarantee program, with $18.5 billion, doesn't get you too far." Others put the per-plant cost at $5 billion to $8 billion. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized loan guarantees for several technologies, including coal, solar, wind and nuclear. Congress has authorized $42.5 billion for loans -- $18.5 billion for nuclear. Current loan guarantees aren’t big enough to foster new construction Williams, 8 – Selina, of Dow Jones Newswire (“UPDATE:US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too SmallNRC”, March 10, 2008, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm)/AK LONDON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the country's next generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and could ultimately hinder companies from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave of new nuclear would need assistance as there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's been 30 years since one was built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG). "But once we demonstrate that, we should be able to finance the next wave with commercial loans," Wallace told Dow Jones Newswires on the sidelines of a utilities conference.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

36

INHERENCY - CURRENT LOAN GUARANTEES FAIL - AREN’T BIG ENOUGH
The cap on existing loan guarantees can’t finance enough projects Bennett et al, 7 – Vice President for Public Affairs; (Matt Bennett, Rob Keast, senior policy advisor, and John Dyson, Third Way Trustee, “Another Inconvenient Truth: Solving Global Warming and Energy Security Requires Nuclear Power,” 4/23/07 http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/84/Third_Way_Nuclear_Memo.pdf) //DT Raise the Loan Guarantee Ceiling DOE, via regulations, states that no more than $5 billion in loan guarantees can be provided for the entire program in FY2007. Given the high capital costs of just one nuclear plant, this ceiling should be raised to allow more plants and spur new technology, not just in the nuclear arena, but also for renewable energies and clean coal efforts. Provide Sufficient Resources to the NRC for New Reactor Applications As noted above, there are already pending applications to build as many as 31 new reactors. These applications require rigorous review by the NRC. As such, the agency should be provided with the appropriate resources, staff and authority necessary to carry out their duties in a timely and professional manner Current loan guarantees are insufficient – they’re underfunded, and not perceived by industry or investors as permanent Electricity Journal 7 (Economics of Nuclear Power and Proliferation Risks in a Carbon-Constrained World, December, L/n rday) The 2005 National Energy Policy Act included several subsidies to jumpstart low-carbon-emission resources, the most important of which involved federal loan guarantees. In May 2007, DOE released a second draft of its loan guarantee rules. The draft rule provides for the federal government to guarantee 90 percent of the debt, so long as the amount does not exceed 80 percent of the total project cost. DOE also indicated that it was considering a significant minimum equity stake on the part of any developer, and that guarantees should be limited to five projects that use the same technology. Three features of the program diminish its value: first, the government-backed debt cannot be stripped from the total debt; second, the non-guaranteed fraction of debt is subordinated to the covered piece; and finally, DOE's fiscal 2008 budget proposes $9 billion in total loan guarantees of which $4 billion would be allocated to nuclear plants and coal with carbon sequestration. A banker contacted by the trade journal Nucleonics Week commented that the first two features devalue the debt from a possible AAA rating to "single B or double D."16 Also, $4 billion in loan guarantees might cover just one or two new units. In general, most prospective nuclear builders regard these provisions as potentially valuable, but uncertain, unlikely to be sustained over the long term, and not a tipping point for a nuclear investment. Finally, it is important to emphasize that government subsidies do not reduce the cost of nuclear power; they spread risk and cost to taxpayers and reduce prices to ratepayers. Loan guarantees expanded at the end of 2007 but aren’t enough to expand nuclear construction UCS, 07 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees Shrivel,” 12/19, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-loan-guarantees.html) The nuclear industry is touting the passage of the omnibus appropriations bill as a victory, but in fact Congress did not rally behind loan guarantees for nuclear power. The industry was lobbying for $50 billion in loan guarantees to attract reluctant Wall Street investors. It didn't get it.
When the budget-battle dust settled, Congress officially gave nuclear little to crow about. The only indication that lawmakers support loan guarantees for particular energy sources is in a paragraph-long

It set a ceiling of $38.5 billion, with capped amounts of $18.5 billion for new nuclear reactors, $2 billion for new nuclear fuel uranium enrichment facilities, $6 billion for coal-based power generation
"report" that accompanied the omnibus bill. This nonbinding paragraph spelled out the limit for loan guarantees for various energy sources. with carbon capture and storage, $2 billion for coal gasification, and $10 billion for renewable energy development.

Significantly, the funding levels in the report "are recommended obligation levels and not an appropriation of funds," Rep. Peter
Visclosky (D-Ind.) wrote in a December 17 "dear colleague" letter. Visclosky is chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. In his letter, the congressman pointed out that the omnibus bill merely restated 2005 energy legislation provisions, which require the Department of Energy to obtain approval from the House Appropriations Committee for any plan to solicit loan guarantee applications.

Given the projected costs of building new reactors, the measure is hardly a victory for the nuclear industry. Cost estimates have escalated to as much as $12 billion to $18 billion for the kind of twin unit facilities most utility applicants favor. Under this recommended program, a successful nuclear loan guarantee applicant could do little more than fund one or two projects.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

37

INHERENCY - CURRENT LOAN GUARANTEES FAIL – AREN’T BIG ENOUGH
Loan Guarantees were abysmally under funded by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 – more funding is necessary to jump-start the nuclear power industry Howard 07, Angelina, Nuclear Energy Institute PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18, L/n, rday But let's look at some of those provisions we talked briefly about -- the loan guarantees, the production tax credits, the standby support, other policies truly of our federal government that encourage the development of new nuclear. The Loan Guarantee program is truly the one that's the most critical, because that's the one that addresses the ability to finance at a lower rate. And that is the one that we are working hard today. Department of Energy is having a public hearing on their latest proposal and draft rules on the implementation a loan guarantee office and program, because that helps in the ability to finance through construction and overall lower the cost of the facilities. And the loan guarantees are the utilities that are both in regulated and in merchant space are interested in loan guarantees. At some stage, the thought was that those that were in rate- based would go forward in rate-based environment and cost recovery. And then others who were looking to build into a merchant environment would really be needing the loan guarantees. But those that are in rate-based have told us that it will lower the cost of power. They have to do everything that they can to lower the overall cost of the unit. And therefore, all are interested in seeing this policy put together. And from a utility standpoint -- and I think Jim would echo that; I think he did this morning, if you were here -- this is important for all lower-emitting generation, it's not just nuclear. And to date, what we've seen from a funding standpoint of the Loan Guarantee program it is woefully underfunded and not really able to address either development of the new clean-coal technology nor nuclear. But again, we are working and hope to see that change with the implementation, and perhaps some additional legislation and clean- up legislation will be needed. Current loan guarantees and other incentives aren’t enough to overcome investor uncertainty Electricity Journal 7, (Financing New Nuclear Capacity: Will the "Nuclear Renaissance" Be a Self-Sustaining Reaction?, April, L/n, rday) The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) is an important development in the financing of new nuclear capacity in the near to middle term in the U.S. Key features of the Act - including production tax credits (PTCs), loan guarantees, funding support, and standby support - are intended to provide significant incentives for new nuclear development, construction, and operation. It remains unclear, however, whether the incentives being offered are sufficient to spur construction of significant new nuclear capacity in light of power market uncertainty, utility investor wariness, and the need to raise significant - and economically priced - capital before a nuclear construction project can be launched. Several observations can be made regarding
EPAct from financial and economic points of view:

* Although EPAct contains a number of significant benefits for new nuclear capacity, certain elements - notably details of the loan guarantee program - have yet to be fully defined through the rulemaking process. * Wall Street remains somewhat skeptical of new nuclear financing, in part because uncertainty continues to surround many aspects of the market. * Securitization and related financial techniques could play an important role. * Creative approaches to risk management and insurance will also be important. * Putting elements in place will require frequent and close interaction among energy companies, nuclear consortia, industry groups, bankers, and federal and state regulators and legislators-as well as targeted insight from economic consultants. Without an aggressive, coordinated effort to resolve these issues and to bring new financial tools and techniques to bear, financing for new nuclear capacity runs the risk of remaining uneconomic in the current environment. The so-called "nuclear renaissance" would then amount to nothing more than construction of perhaps a half-dozen new nuclear power plants, i.e., just enough plants to exhaust the direct subsidies available under EPAct.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

38

INHERENCY - CURRENT LOAN GUARANTEES FAIL – TIMEFRAMES FOR PROJECT FINANCING TOO SHORT
Congressional nuclear loan guarantees are ineffective due to overconditioning and lack of flexibility- this makes nuclear expansion risky and uneconomical Adams, 8 - health physicist at T. G. Adams and Associates (Theodore G. Adams, Buffalo News, “Federal loan guarantees key to nuclear plant construction”, June 8, http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/365369.html)/AK With America’s greenhouse-gas emissions increasing daily, it is time to stimulate the use of nuclear energy. Only then will we be able to deal with the challenges of atmospheric pollution and climate change, while meeting our nation’s growing need for electricity. Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the United States, but few, if any, are likely to get beyond the drawing- board stage until the government provides loan guarantees. Because high up-front costs have made nuclear plant construction potentially risky, Wall Street investors say federal loan guarantees are needed in the event that unanticipated delays from intervention or litigation drive up the cost of construction, as happened during the 1980s. To facilitate the construction of new plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved several plant sites, certified designs for new reactors and modified its plant licensing process. If nuclear plant construction proceeds pretty much on schedule, loan guarantees will cost taxpayers nothing. Congress two years ago approved loan guarantees for the first few new nuclear plants. But it conditioned the loan guarantees on being awarded no later than 2009 and then only to companies possessing a joint license to construct and operate a new nuclear plant. Since no company has yet to obtain such a license from the commission and the 2009 window is fast closing, the deadline for eligibility should be extended. The Bush administration and Congress need to take prompt action. Since nuclear power accounts for more than 70 percent of carbon-free electricity generation in the United States, not to increase its use would be folly. Nuclear power is safe and reliable. And it’s produced here in this country, free of foreign interference. Some environmental groups claim that renewable energy sources can meet our needs and that nuclear power is no longer necessary. But renewable sources like solar and wind, while part of the answer to global warming, cannot provide the large amounts of base-load electricity needed to drive our economy. Solar panels and wind turbines generate power only intermittently, requiring back-up energy from fossil fuels. Although strongly supported and promoted by the federal government and many states, solar and wind combined provide only 3 percent of the nation’s electricity, compared to 52 percent from coal and 20 percent from nuclear power.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

39

INHERENCY - CURRENT LOAN GUARANTEES FAIL – TIMEFRAMES FOR PROJECT FINANCING TOO SHORT
Current loan guarantee programs are worthless – timeframes must be extended to finance projects Adams 6-8 health physicist at T.G.Adams and Associates (Theodore G., “Federal loan guarantees key to nuclear plant construction,” Buffalo News, 2008, L/n, rday) Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the United States, but few, if any, are likely to get beyond the drawing-board stage until the government provides loan guarantees. Because high up-front costs have made nuclear plant construction potentially risky, Wall Street investors say federal loan guarantees are needed in the event that unanticipated delays from intervention or litigation drive up the cost of construction, as happened during the 1980s. To facilitate the construction of new plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved several plant sites, certified designs for new reactors and modified its plant licensing process. If nuclear plant construction proceeds pretty much on schedule, loan guarantees will cost taxpayers nothing. Congress two years ago approved loan guarantees for the first few new nuclear plants. But it conditioned the loan guarantees on being awarded no later than 2009 and then only to companies possessing a joint license to construct and operate a new nuclear plant. Since no company has yet to obtain such a license from the commission and the 2009 window is fast closing, the deadline for eligibility should be extended. The Bush administration and Congress need to take prompt action. Since nuclear power accounts for more than 70 percent of carbon-free electricity generation in the United States, not to increase its use would be folly. Nuclear power is safe and reliable. And it's produced here in this country, free of foreign interference. The two-year disbursement deadline blocks loan guarantees Ling, 08 (Katherine, Environment and Energy Daily, 6/6, “NUCLEAR POWER: Senators push to increase cap for loan guarantees,” lexis) //DH Spurgeon = Assistant Secretary for Energy Time crunch The $18.5 billion cap may not even come into play if Congress sticks to the current two-year deadline for disbursement, Spurgeon added, saying that next September's deadline is not enough time to get a combined construction and operating license through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOE has asked for a two-year extension in the 2009 budget request. But Skip Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said DOE needed until at least 2012 to get the funds to "the first movers" who obtain the licenses and he advised having no time limit at all.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

40

INHERENCY - CURRENT LOAN GUARANTEES FAIL - EXCLUDE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
Current DOE loan guarantees exclude advanced nuclear technologies Bowman, 06 – President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, Cq Congressional Testimony, 9/13, lexis) //DH The Department of Energy recently published initial guidelines, developed jointly with the Office of Management and Budget, under which it will implement the loan guarantee program, with an initial solicitation for projects, subject to a $2billion cap on the initial round of loan guarantees. Nuclear projects were not included in the initial solicitation; large coalfired projects, using advanced technologies like integrated gasification combined cycle, are also effectively excluded by the $2-billion cap. The Department has indicated that nuclear projects will be covered by formal regulations to be developed over the next year. The nuclear industry believes that the initial loan guarantee guidelines produced by DOE and OMB compromise the legislative intent of Title XVII and significantly erode the value of the loan guarantees. The procedures outlined in the guidelines are so restrictive and so conditional that they would not support financing of a nuclear power plant.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

41

INHERENCY – CURRENT LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM IS DELAYED
Loan guarantees are being held up by administrative delays – preventing any distribution until the next administration Congressional Quarterly 08 (Big Step on the Road to Yucca, 6/9, L/n, rday) This month, the Energy Department is scheduled to accept bids for $20.5 billion in federal loan guarantees Congress has authorized to help the nuclear power industry. Without such guarantees, Wall Street will probably be reluctant to help finance many of the proposed projects. "The loan guarantees have a critical role to play in moving forward with the development of new nuclear plants," said Richard Myers, vice president of policy for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group. It isn't certain, though, whether the Energy Department will actually allocate the guarantees before Bush leaves office. In fact, the department hasn't taken the preliminary step of releasing its methodology for calculating the value of nuclear plants and the risks of default, something environmental groups and fiscal watchdog organizations are watching carefully. A Government Accountability Office report is expected out next week.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

42

ELECTRICITY CAPITAL COSTS HIGH – EXTERNAL FINANCING KEY
The electricity industry is facing huge, inevitable capital costs for upgrading base generation capabilities Bowman 6- President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, 9-3-06, Speech to House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended //VR) It is now clear, however, that the construction of massive amounts of gas-fired capacity placed unsustainable demand on natural gas supply, and subjected consumers of electricity and natural gas to punishing price volatility. It is equally clear that U.S. electricity markets need new baseload generating capacity in the near term, and that the U.S. electric industry is on the threshold of a major long-term construction cycle for new baseload generating capacity and new electric transmission. Consensus estimates suggest that the industry, over the next 15-20 years, must invest $400 billion to $500 billion in new nuclear plants, new coal-fired plants and new transmission lines, and an additional $40 billion to $60 billion for environmental controls on existing coal-fired capacity. This new capital spending is a challenge to the electric power industry, which is already stressed financially. In 2005, the electric power industry’s operating cash flow was not sufficient to cover capital expenditures and operating costs, according to a recent report by The Brattle Group, an economic consulting firm.1 The Brattle Group report also noted a significant deterioration in credit quality in recent years. At the end of 1999, 75 percent of regulated utilities were rated BBB+ or higher; at the end of end of 2005, only 45 percent were rated BBB+. Among unregulated companies, 15 percent were rated below investment grade in 2000; at the end of last year, 40 percent had slipped below investment grade. In a recent report, Lehman Brothers warned of increasing financial stress in the electric sector. Stress on cash flows (largely due to substantial increases in natural gas, coal, and emission allowance costs) has two negative impacts: lower bond ratings and thus higher cost of debt, and lower returns on equity, which make the stock less attractive to equity investors. According to Lehman Brothers: “Infrastructure investments and high fuel costs spell rate shock, demand destruction, and regulatory risk for traditional utilities. The projected 10 percent-plus [rate] increases through the next four years could pain consumers, pressure politicians, and harden regulators. … Historically, electric utility under-earning coincides with free cash flow turning negative (which happened in late 2005). … Our free cash estimates imply that earned returns could drop to the nine percent ROE [return on equity] area in the coming years, a deficit of over 250 basis points versus projected allowed levels.”2 The challenges associated with financing new high-capital-cost baseload technologies is particularly acute in restructured electricity markets, which represent one-half of all the states. Cambridge Energy Research Associates expressed concern over this issue in a recent report (“U.S. Power Sector: In the Swing,” July 2006): “[S]ome markets still lack the financial incentives necessary for new plants to be built. … Most competitive regions have a ‘missing money’ problem: energy market margins typically pay for only a fraction of fixed costs for new power plants. … Although many regions will need new power plants in two to six years, building new power plants to sell into competitive markets does not appear to be an attractive strategy. … Only a fraction of [a new plant’s] fixed costs [capital and operation and maintenance] can be recovered through selling energy alone in all markets. … Capacity market payments generally don’t make up the shortfall.” The financing challenge is somewhat more acute for companies interested in investing in new nuclear power plants, because the size of the investment (typically $3 billion to $4 billion for a single nuclear power plant, including interest during construction) is large relative to the size of the companies that will build them. The electric power companies that have announced interest in new nuclear power plants have market values ranging from approximately $30 billion to below $10 billion. Even for a $30 billion company, financing one or two $3 billion or $4 billion nuclear facilities will strain its financing capability.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

43

NORMAL MEANS FOR LOAN GUARANTEES IS THE DOE
DOE is in charge of loan guarantees Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc (Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf) //markoff <One solution to this problem has been suggested by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) which has stated its opinion regarding the application of Section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) to Title XVII. 2 U.S.C. 661c(b). By letter dated April 20, 2007, the GAO articulated the legal basis to conclude that DOE already has the requisite legal authority to issue loan guarantees based upon the payment in full of costs from borrowers without the need for additional authority provided in advance in an annual appropriations Act: The language of section 1702(b) [of EPAct 20051 makes clear that Congress contemplated two possible paths for making loan guarantees under title XVII. DOE, consistent with FCRA (2 U.S.C. 9 661c(b)), could issue loan guarantees pursuant to appropriations for that purpose (EPACT, 8 1702(b)(l)); or DOE could issue loan guarantees if it receives payments by borrowers of the "full cost of the obligation" (EPACT, 1702@)(2)). To read section 1702(b) as subjecting title XVII loan guarantees to the requirements of FCRA would read subsection (b)(2) out of the law, and we cannot do that; we have to give meaning to all of the enacted language. E.g., 70 Comp. Gen. 351,354 (1991); 29 Comp. Gen. 124, 1% (1 949). See also 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 9 46:06 at 193-94 (& ed. 2000). Section 1702(b)(2) is clearly inconsistent with FCRA, and it is a later enacted, more specific law. It is well established that a later enacted, specific statute will typically supersede a conflicting previously enacted, general statute to the extent of the inconsistency. E.g., Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1024 (1984); B-255979, Oct. 30, 1995. For these reasons, we conclude that EPACT section 1702(b)(2) allows DOE to issue loan guarantees if the borrowers pay the "full cost of the obligation." The alternative path clearly represents authority to make loan guarantees independent of and notwithstanding the earlier, more general FCRA requirements.> Letter from the General Counsel of the GAO to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Letter B-3087 15 (Apr. 20,2007).>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

44

SOLVENCY – EXPANDED LOAN GUARANTEES KEY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION
Expanding the amount of loan guarantees is the most important step for new nuclear construction Bhambhani, 08 (Dipka, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, 6/9, “Limits on loan guarantee program seen blunting its impact on nuclear revival,” lexis) //DH
DOE has not yet issued a solicitation for new nuclear projects that would be financed through the loan guarantee program, and the department cannot award the assistance to utilities until they file for a construction and operating license (COL) at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Bowman said the loan guarantee program is "hamstrung" by the loan volume. He said of the nine applications for 15 plants currently pending before NRC, only four to eight would be online by 2016. "Part of the reason is financing. But that $18.5 billion that's available for nuclear, wouldn't even support that modest approach, that first wave of four to eight plants," Bowman said. Paul Farr, PPL Corporation's chief financial officer, said "financing is the most significant aspect and most daunting prospect" in deciding to build a nuclear plant, and even filing a COL. Farr said PPL is spending about $80 million to $100 million to prepare its COL application, which it expects to file with NRC in September. It is planning on a loan guarantee. He noted, "$18.5 billion is nowhere near sufficient."
Building a 1,600-MW unit could cost $10 billion, for a company that may have $20 billion in assets, Farr said. "This is very clearly as much as anything else a financing exercise. The technology can be operated. It's the legal, regulatory and political risk of permitting. It's the new process of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's the first stage of this DOE loan guarantee process," Farr said. During the discussion, Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, one of the three senators that called the meeting, said he also supports getting rid of the limit on loan guarantees. "We ought not to have any cap," he said. Democratic Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware, Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma were also on the panel. Voinovich solicited comments from Wall Street analysts about what it would take for the Street to invest in nuclear plants and whether eliminating a cap on loan guarantees would entice investors. "If the market knew that the cap was off, and we were going full speed, would that make a difference?" he asked analysts. Analysts said financing is a hurdle because a nuclear project is initially capital-intensive and is also subject to some volatility because of potential political or regulatory changes over the course of the five- to 10-year project. Also last week, two industry experts, Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh, released a paper, "The Nuclear Illusion," in which they say a nuclear renaissance will not happen because of the high capital costs and the unwillingness of Wall Street to invest. The report said there were 439 nuclear plants operating as of the end of 2007. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 31 units were under construction in 13 countries. All but five of those projects were in Asia or Eastern Europe. Yet, the Asian Development Bank has never financed one, nor has the World Bank, for the most part, the report said; it invested in one in 1959.

Economic evidence confirms, the report said, that "new nuclear plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market because of their excessive costs and financial risks and the high uncertainty of both." "Turning ambitions into actual investments, firm orders, and operating plants faces fundamental obstacles that are now first and foremost economic," the report said.
'Get it done faster' Inhofe said the country must somehow find a way to get more plants built. "We can't resolve the [energy-demand] problem without a huge nuclear component," Inhofe said. There are 33 applications for new plants at the NRC. "Our job is to streamline this thing to get it done faster," he said. Carper said, "One of the best ways to screw this [nuclear] renaissance up is missteps." "One Three-Mile Island [disaster] and we're dead, hopefully not literally," he added.

Carper said he would support including in climate change legislation next year a "clean energy" fund to provide incentives to utilities for nuclear plants. "We cannot accomplish reducing carbon in what our goals are without nuclear," Inhofe said. "We cannot get there with the current nuclear title." "We have got to have loan guarantees that are robust to encourage the financing. We need to have incentives that have some degree of parody. We subsidize wind and solar 20 times what we do nuclear," Inhofe said.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

45

SOLVENCY – EXPANDED LOAN GUARANTEES KEY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION
Federal loans guarantees are key to the surivial of the nuclear industry Pellet, 08 -- Contributing Editor for linkedin (Jennifer “Betting on Nuclear. Chief Executive” , June 20th 2008. ABI/INFORM Global database. http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=1501525191&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=4&VInst=P ROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1214848955&clientId=17822) "New nuclear has to be a component in solving the greenhouse gas issue," he asserts. "Twenty percent of the power in the U.S. right now is nuclear. If we sit around and let those plants reach the end of their lives and shut down, we're going to have a very serious problem." He's far from alone in that thinking. While no company has opened a new nuclear plant on American soil in 30 years, more than a dozen companies have filed or signaled intent to file for permits to build plants. PPL, which already runs two nuclear generators in Susquehanna, Pa., is among them. The company is seeking U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval to construct and operate a new generating unit near its Susquehanna planta move that will position it for the option to seek federal credits and nuclear loan guarantees and begin a 4.5-year construction process. To Miller, the nation's reliance on coal and the likelihood of legislation that limits carbon emissions make the nuclear bet a no-brainer. But, he concedes, it's a big bet. "The cost of new nuclear construction, including financing costs, will run on the order of $10 billion," says Miller, who has shepherded PPL's growth from a market cap of $12 billion when he joined the company in 2001 to its current $18 billion. "So it's critically important to the future of nuclear energy that the federal government continues the availability of loan guarantees so that these projects can be financed and leveraged at 80 percent debt and 20 percent equity. Without that, these projects are too large for any utility in the U.S. to tackle." Federal action key to getting investors on board Morse, 07-- Washington Post Staff Writer (Dan, “Money Matters in Debate Over New Reactor Project; Financing, Rather Than Safety, Appears to Be Key Factor in Whether Plans Proceed” Washington Post Staff Writer 2007, September 5. The Washington Post,p. B.5. ProQuest) It's not the greenies who worry those aiming to build a new nuclear reactor in Southern Maryland. It's the green. This seemed perfectly clear at a recent community meeting in Calvert County, where Constellation Energy has proposed the first new reactor project in the United States in nearly 30 years. The price tag: about $4.5 billion. "Without the federal loan guarantees, this whole thing will come to a stop," George Vanderheyden, a Constellation executive, said while
standing outside the hotel conference room where the meeting was about to start. Ten feet from him, a row of environmentalists greeted Calvert residents with stacks of brochures. "Threatened Communities," from Greenpeace, showed rows of grave markers next to a nuclear cooling tower. Vanderheyden showed little concern and later said his company could dispel such notions during the long approval process for the reactor. What concerns him more -- and what appears to be the larger factor in whether the Calvert reactor gets built -- is taking place 55 miles away in Washington. There, nuclear companies such as Constellation, along with Wall Street bankers, are lobbying hard to get the

federal government to help kick-start construction of a series of reactors. Their argument: Nuclear power is clean energy that can reduce greenhouse gases. Wall Street investors could help finance new reactors. But they're skittish, remembering nuclear projects in the 1970s and 1980s dogged by regulatory delays, cost overruns and the Three Mile Island meltdown. The government, according to the nuclear industry, should protect investors if the initial projects go bad.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

46

SOLVENCY – EXPANDED LOAN GUARANTEES KEY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION
Loan guarantees are a prerequisite to new construction Riccio, 08 - Nuclear Policy Analyst at Greenpeace (Jim, World Watch, “Nuclear Power Crawling Forward,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5447) In the United States, no new nuclear construction was initiated in 2007, though one reactor was restarted after a 22-year shutdown, and construction resumed on a reactor that had been stalled since 1988.33 Nuclear corporations submitted applications for seven new reactors in 2007, the first ones proposed in at least 30 years, and government regulators expect applications for another 22 reactors in 2008.34 Yet even nuclear industry officials have questioned whether new reactors are economically viable without government subsidies. The president of Constellation Generation Group, an energy company that is planning to build a reactor in the state of Maryland, has stated that it will not build nuclear plants without loan guarantees.35 Nuclear development is still hamstrung by investment costs – loan guarantees are critical Public Utilities Fortnightly 8, (“Nuke Revival: When It Rains, It Pours,” January, L/n, rday) Despite the hype, at this time only three companies have submitted complete construction and operating license applications to NRC, and none has committed to building plants. New nuclear plants are estimated to cost more than $5 billion and are prone to costly construction delays. Despite these risks, not everyone is convinced that government financial support is warranted.
"The whole point of it is to take risk off of the industry to launch them into the construction mode," said David Kraft, director of Nuclear Energy Information Service. "In essence, you're given a blank check whether you perform or not."

without a loan guarantee program, bond issuers would charge "prohibitive interest rates." She added that big operators are "highly unlikely" to default because of their risk-averse mindset. Exelon has picked a site in Texas but has yet to file a completed license application with NRC.
Marilyn Kray, vice president of nuclear project development at Exelon, disagrees, pointing out that Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group, termed the loan guarantees a "very positive development" that will help sustain the first handful of new plants. "From the beginning, we wanted a limited stimulus for a limited number of new plants for a limited time period," he said.

Expanding loan guarantees is vital to new construction CSM, 7 (“Nuclear power surge coming”, Mark Clayton, 9/27, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0928/p01s05usgn.html)/AK Now, the Senate version of a new energy bill includes a provision that could provide tens of billions of dollars more in federal-loan guarantees. On Tuesday, the Energy Department announced it would provide up to $2 billion in federal risk insurance for the first six new nuclear-plant projects, protecting them against losses from regulatory or legal delays. "In my view, these kinds of taxpayer subsidies are vital to the industry, and they wouldn't be building any of these new nuclear plants without them," says Doug Koplow, president of Earth Track, a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm that analyzes subsidies for all forms of energy, including biofuels.
The nuclear industry gets about $9 billion a year in federal subsidies, he calculates, trailing only oil and coal in federal energy aid. That amount could go far higher if companies were to begin defaulting on guaranteed loans, he adds.

The nuclear industry has already put Congress on notice that it could require loan guarantees of at least $20 billion for planned projects – and more later, NEI officials told The New York Times in July. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal- or gas-fired facilities. For example: On Monday, New
Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5.4 and $6.7 billion. That huge startup cost might make financial sense, given a reactor's low operating expenses, especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

47

LOAN GUARANTEES SOLVE – OTHER SECTORS PROVE
Loan guarantees will work- empirical examples NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry, April 2008, “Financing New Nuclear Power Plants”, http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Financing_New_Nuclear_Power_Plants_0408.pdf //VR) The federal government uses loan guarantees widely and successfully to ensure investment in critical infrastructure, including shipbuilding, transportation infrastructure, exports of U.S. goods and services, affordable housing, and many other purposes. The government manages a successful loan guarantee portfolio of $1.1 trillion. The energy loan guarantee program is not a subsidy. Unlike other federal loan guarantee programs, project developers are required to pay the cost of the loan guarantee, as well as the full cost of administering the program. The program addresses market imperfections that otherwise would restrict access to capital or impose inordi-nately high financing costs on projects. The Office of Management and Budget noted that federal credit programs, such as the energy loan guarantee program, “effectively fill the gaps created by market imperfections.” The Department of Energy finalized the loan guarantee program in October 2007. According to the final rule, a guarantee may cover 100 per-cent of the project debt, provided the debt does not exceed 80 percent of the project’s cost. In December 2007, Congress authorized DOE to grant $18.5 billion worth of loan guarantees to new nuclear projects. Now that the rules and authorization are in place, the industry expects solicitations from DOE for nuclear projects in 2008. At that time, companies will submit applications and begin to negotiate terms and conditions of the guarantee.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

48

AT: LOAN GUARANTEES ARE RISKY INVESTMENTS / EXPENSIVE
Full investment is more cost-effective than partial financing for both sides – it also involves less risk of default Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc (Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf) //markoff <The effort in the Proposed Rule to avoid any guarantee of 100% of project debt is delinquent in meeting its apparent objective, which presumably is to mitigate risk to taxpayers. It also is inconsistent with the statute. DOE'S Interim Guidelines for the Loan Guarantee Program provided a preference for guaranteeing 80% of project debt, which itself was limited to 80% of project cost, 7 1 Fed. Reg. 4645 1 (Aug. 14,2006), and this was met with considerable resistance based upon the apparent intent and plain language of Title XVII which unambiguously provided for guarantees to be issued up to 80% of project cost. (Section 1702(c) of EPAct 2005.) Under the Proposed Rule, DOE could issue a guarantee that conformed to the statutory mandate allowing a guarantee 80% of project cost, but it does so by limiting the guarantee to 90% of project debt and allowing project debt to exceed 80% of project cost. Hence, rather than simply guaranteeing $80 of a $100 project with $20 in equity, the Proposed Rule would allow a guarantee of $80 on the same $100 project, where the project borrows an additional $8.88 and reduces the equity contribution to $1 1.12. This approach does not effectively mitigate risk, but rather it would actually increase project risk by reducing the equity commitment necessary from the parties at greatest risk and, therefore, with the greatest motivation to reduce project risk. Moreover, project risk is increased by replacing equity with debt that is likely to be high cost, that will increase the project's annual fixed charge, and that is subject to default (as compared to equity whose return is residual and which is not subject to placing the project in default). The flawed logic in the rule is perhaps best exemplified by flipping the equations. Would anyone reasonably think that guaranteeing 100% of debt would involve more risk if debt were just 20% of project cost and the equity contribution were 80%? By the same token, a 100% guarantee of a project with debt at 80% of project cost likely involves less risk to the government than guaranteeing 90% of the debt at 88.88% of project cost. Little of value is accomplished by insisting upon non-guaranteed debt in lieu of equity that would otherwise be provided.> Lenders will check bad investments Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc (Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf) //markoff 3. DOE Can Rely Upon Lenders to Mitigate Risk Even without requiring a non-guaranteed tranche of debt, and without any regulations requiring that lenders assume a duty of care regarding the loan, DOE should expect that lenders will exercise a high degree of care in placing debt that is subject to a federal loan guarantee. Large financial institutions have reputations to protect, have disciplined internal processes for evaluating risk and assessing credit quality, and would not have any interest in participating in any loans that might be viewed as having increased default risk, without regard to the protections afforded by a federal loan guarantee. Clearly, the federal loan guarantee facilitates a lender's ability to take some risk, which is the purpose of Title XVII. But, in viewing this fact, DOE should take into account the considerable efforts that lenders will undertake to nevertheless assure that any such loans are creditworthy. DOE can expect that an Administrative Agent or Lending Agent which facilitates the financing of a given project will be hyper-concerned about its reputation as well as the risk of litigation, in which an agent might be held liable to other lenders. These mechanisms alone will assure that there is a high degree of discipline among lenders for the first wave of nuclear power projects. A non-guaranteed tranche of debt therefore is unnecessary to impose market discipline.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

49

NEW CONSTRUCTION KEY TO PREVENT NUCLEAR INDUSTRY COLLAPSE
Without new construction, the U.S. nuclear industry will actually contract – existing plants will shut down Williams, 8 – Selina, of Dow Jones Newswire (“UPDATE:US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too SmallNRC”, March 10, 2008, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm)/AK Jaczko = NRC regulator Nuclear power is on the verge of a revival in the U.S. due to efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, reversing three decades of stagnation following the 1979 disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Last September, NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) became the first company in 30 years to file an application to build new nuclear power plants. Jaczko said around 50 new nuclear reactors would be needed to replace the country's aging plants and keep the amount of electricity produced from nuclear steady at 20%.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

50

AT: CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOO HIGH
Federal incentives key to lower costs – no plants will be build without loan guarantees Totty, 08 (Michael Energy “(A Special Report); The case for -- and against -- Nuclear Power.” 2008, June 30) Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.1. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new plant would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are unusually high. As we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down as lenders become more comfortable. Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanent subsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to remember that although nuclear energy has been around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is more like an emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going. It's also true that a shortage of parts and skills is raising the cost of new plants. But if we start building more plants, the number of companies supplying parts will increase to meet the demand, lowering the price.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

51

AT: CAPITAL MARKETS LACK ENOUGH CAPITAL FOR LOAN GUARANTEES
The market can afford capital- the amount is relatively small NEI 7 (Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry 05-24-07, DOE Loan Guarantee Program Needs Work, Morgan Stanley Executive Tells Nuclear Industry , http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/doeloanguaranteeprogramneedswork/ //VR) Holzschuh estimated that about $3.5 billion per year will be needed for the next 15 years to finance the construction of the new nuclear power plants that are planned. Given that U.S. power and utility capital accumulation averaged about $80 billion per year over the past five years, the amount of investment capital needed to bankroll new plant construction relative to the amount of money historically available “is quite a small number. We have very large and deep capital markets and private capital around the world.” Describing the investment community’s view of new plant financing, “We’re ready and willing,” Holzschuh said. Lawrence Makovich, managing director of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, gave conferee attendees an overview of the enormous infrastructure needs in the nation’s electricity sector. Overall, the electricity industry needs $900 billion of investment over the next 15 years, he said, with $350 billion needed for new electric generating capacity. “We are on the front end of an enormous wave of investment,” Makovich said.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

52

100% GUARANTEE KEY TO SOLVENCY
A 100% guarantee is vital to reassuring investors Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc (Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf) //markoff <The loan guarantee program is essential to the process of establishing a framework for future private financing once the first wave of nuclear plants "prove out" the NRC licensing process and a track record has been established for the first 3-5 plants put in operation for each of the five advanced reactor technologies that are being pursued. Moreover, providing 100Qh guarantee coverage of the debt is not only necessary because commercially viable financing is not available on an unguaranteed basis, but also because a 100% U.S. government guarantee will enable lenders and borrowers to maximize the efficiency of the existing marketplace. There is a deep, well-established market in government-guaranteed debt, and notwithstanding the fact that an underlying project involves nuclear energy or other advanced technology, this existing market provides a large amount of available capital and liquidity that can help make this Loan Guarantee Program efficient and successful. However, this will not be possible, if the DOE'S rules require that there be a tranche of nonguaranteed debt and that each lender hold a pro rata share of this non-guaranteed debt. The U.S. financial markets are highly efficient at matching the right capital to the right risk profile. Safe investments, such as U.S. government obligations, go to those who apply a premium to that safety. Risky investments go to those investors willing to accept risk in exchange for an appropriate reward. Any program that attempts to tie risky, non-guaranteed loans to safe, government-backed loans fails to recognize the market's preference for self-selection. Such a program has the curse of making every investor unhappy. The risk averse investor is forced to take risk, and those with an appetite for more risk are forced to buy guaranteed paper. Many of the investors in the government-guaranteed debt markets actually have charter or regulatory restrictions that prohibit them from investing in riskier securities. Thus, a "no stripping" requirement and the requirement for a non-guaranteed tranche of debt would erect a significant barrier to the ability to access this market, because many of these market participants cannot, or will not want to, take on the risks of non-guaranteed debt. This result is counter to the policy objectives of Title XVII.> a 100% guarantee is necessary to keep costs down and open energy markets Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc (Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf) //markoff <Moreover, the "no stripping" requirement combined with the prohibition on pari passu security structures creates a form of "hybrid" debt for which there is no natural, existing market. At best, market participants would incur significantly higher average cost of financing, as well as unnecessary transaction costs to achieve project structures that would enable the project's debt to be placed with its appropriate constituents in the existing marketplace. Such structures would not only be inefficient, but also could amount to a form of "synthetic" stripping that undercuts the purpose of the requirement. At worst, the barriers to access to the capital markets could be insurmountable. Either way, the "hybrid" debt structure runs counter to the purposes of Title XVII, does nothing to enhance the Secretary's ability to issue guarantees based on a reasonable prospect of repayment, and unnecessarily increases costs to electricity customers.
The "no stripping" requirement, along with the requirement for a non-guaranteed tranche of debt appears to have been proposed with the intent to encourage a rigorous evaluation of the creditworthiness of a project. However, the no stripping provision is a very poor proxy requirement for determining project creditworthiness, because the feasibility of the "hybrid" credit instrument is limited by the lack of a market for such instruments, as described above. The restrictions on achieving a 100% guaranteed instrument, combined with the prohibition on pari passu security

structures, render the loan guarantee program unusable for new nuclear power. Moreover, allowing stripping alone would not lead to a viable loan guarantee program. Rather than such mechanisms, DOE should focus on assessing the financial strength of the underlying project.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

53

100% GUARANTEE KEY TO SOLVENCY
Expanding loan guarantees to cover 100 percent of project debt is vital to stimulating nuclear construction Crane 7 –Senior Vice President Exelon Corp. President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear (Christopher, 04-24-07, speech to the House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/cranetestimony042407extended/ //VR) Nuclear Energy Industry Perspective on the Minimum Conditions Necessary for a Successful Energy Loan Guarantee Program The Loan Guarantee Must Cover 100 Percent of Project Debt

The Energy Policy Act authorizes the secretary of energy to guarantee up to 80 percent of total project cost. In its August 2006 guidelines for the energy loan guarantee program, the Department of Energy determined that the guarantee would cover only 80 percent of the project debt, not 80 percent of the project cost. This approach would reduce the guarantee to “80 percent of 80 percent”—e.g., only 64 percent of the total project cost—would be covered by the guarantee. The investment
banks that will provide the debt financing for new nuclear projects have indicated that it will not be possible to fund the remaining “20 percent of 80 percent” in the un-guaranteed debt markets on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, there is no basis in law or administrative practice for restricting the guarantee to 80 percent of project debt. The

policy limiting coverage under federal loan guarantees to 80 percent of the loan amount is an administrative guideline in OMB Circular No. A-129. It is not a statutory requirement, and the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 does not address the issue of percentage loan coverage for federal loan guarantees.
OMB Circular A-129 (Part II, Section 3a) states that “[p]rivate lenders who extend credit that is guaranteed by the Government should bear at least 20 percent of the loss from a default.” Thus, the policy is not mandatory but suggestive in nature. Circular A-129 also provides flexibility in the application of the guideline on 80 percent loan coverage. It states: “The policies and standards of this Circular do not apply when they are statutorily prohibited or are inconsistent with statutory requirements.” The guideline for 80 percent coverage of debt is inconsistent with the requirement in Energy Policy Act Section 1702 (c), which authorizes that “a guarantee by the secretary shall not exceed an amount equal to 80 percent of the project cost.” The application of Circular No. A-129 would prevent the secretary from ever reaching the statutory cap. Administrative practice in other federal loan guarantee programs also allows for flexibility in setting loan guarantee limits up to statutory caps.

The fiscal 2007 budget included $238 billion in new loan guarantee commitments; $177.2 billion of that provided 100 percent loan coverage. The fiscal 2008 budget proposal included $289 billion in new loan guarantee commitments; $217 billion of that provided 100 percent loan coverage. Clearly, 100 percent coverage of the debt portion of the financing is the rule in federal loan guarantee programs, and the approach taken by DOE in its August 2006 guidelines is an egregious exception to that rule. Federal investment key—need a 100% guarantee Burne 07—editor for LinkedIN (Katy “Nuclear Renaissance Lags As Loan Guarantees See Extended Delays” Power Finance & Risk. London: Sep 3, 2007.Proquest) The first is a requirement that a portion of a project's borrowings, about 10%, be non-guaranteed. "Guarantees below 100% are unusual and do pose some complications for the rating," said Standard & Poor's in a July 9 report, adding the rating would be substantially lower than the DoE's implied AAA rating if there was any uncertainty over whether government guarantees would be enforceable. According to Turnage, the only workable solution is a 100% guarantee, which he says is not atypical at the Export-Import Bank or Overseas Private Investment Corporation. "I can build a nuclear plant in Mexico on terms and conditions I can't do in New Mexico," he laments.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

54

AT: PLAN TOO SMALL – NOT ENOUGH NEW POWER PLANTS
Confidence in first projects key to expanding all nuclear power
NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry, 02-21-08, Nuclear Energy Expansion Will Proceed Cautiously Over Next Decade, Wall Street Analysts Told, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/wallstreet/ //VR) The industry’s expectations are that four to eight new nuclear plants will be generating electricity by 2016 or so, with a second wave of new power plants under construction as the first group commences commercial operation, the Nuclear Energy Institute’s president and chief executive officer, Frank L. (Skip) Bowman said during a briefing attended by more than 75 analysts. “The exact number will, of course, depend on many factors – forward prices in electricity markets, capital costs of all baseload electric technologies, commodity costs, environmental compliance costs for fossil-fueled generating capacity, natural gas prices and more,” Bowman said. “The confidence gained by success with the first projects will support the decision-making process for follow-on projects.” Bowman described new nuclear plant construction as “a risk-management exercise” and said that the industry continues the work that has been under way for the past decade to identify and remove or mitigate the business risks associated with these multi-billion-dollar projects. “We have mobilized experts in licensing and regulation, financing, construction management, political affairs, public support, supply chain and work force. Seventeen entities developing license applications for up to 31 new reactors did not just happen. It has been carefully planned,” Bowman said. Five license applications for seven potential new reactors were filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007, Bowman noted, and another 11 to 15 applications could be filed this year. Progress Energy just two days ago announced the filing of a license application for two possible reactors at its Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant in North Carolina. Analyses from several sources show that, with debt-financing support from the federal government in the form of loan guarantees or helpful rate policies at the state level that support investment recovery, new nuclear power plants will be competitive with the nation’s other large energy sources – coal-fired and natural gas-fired power plants. “Implementation of the federal loan guarantee program is going well. And a number of states in the South and Southeast have passed legislation providing companies with incentives to build new nuclear capacity and providing assurance of investment recovery,” Bowman said.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

55

AT: ALTERNATE CAUSALITY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION – GENERIC
Financing is the most important choke point blocking nuclear power Ling, 08 (Katherine, Environment and Energy Daily, 6/6, “NUCLEAR POWER: Senators push to increase cap for loan guarantees,” lexis) //DH Last year's first round of solicitations did not include nuclear because $4 billion in loan guarantees was available --- not nearly enough for even one nuclear plant. The fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill included $38.5 billion worth of loan guarantees in report language, including $18.5 billion for new nuclear power plants to be disbursed over two years. But industry officials said that is not enough money and not enough time. John Gilbertson, managing director at Goldman Sachs, said financing remained the most formidable "chokepoint" to overcome for new nuclear plants. "You can solve the financing chokepoint problem by expanding, placing no limit or having some evergreen nature in the loan guarantee program," Gilbertson said. Once the financing obstacle is removed, other issues like the manufacturing supply could be solved, he said. Robert Hornick, senior director at Fitch Ratings, added the $18.5 billion severely limited the amount of new nuclear construction, which already faces significant difficulties as one project's capital expenditures may be equal to or greater than some power companies' capitalization. These credit implications applied to companies that are either merchant -- those who rely on market prices -- or regulated -those who receive guaranteed rate returns from state regulators, Hornick said. DOE Assistant Secretary Dennis Spurgeon said getting the loan guarantees to companies was key as it could save ratepayers about 40 percent -- the difference in the cost of power under a conventionally financed project, with a 50-50 debt equity, and a project with a loan guarantee, with a 80-20 debt equity. Loan guarantees are the most important incentive for new construction EnergyWashington Week, 07 (1/3, “2007 Momentum On New Reactors Depends Heavily On DOE Delivering”, lexis) //DH The Energy Department is not known as a regulator but rather for its research and development programs. Last year's energy law however gave the department new authorities that included implementing new rules that would promote the expansion of various energy sources, most notably nuclear power. So far, the department has made little progress on implementing many of the incentive-based programs, including loan guarantees and a "standby" regulatory risk insurance program. It's the loan guarantees that the industry is most concerned with. The industry is working closely with DOE on creating a plan to implement the loan guarantees, which are described by NEI's Peterson as "probably the most important to the industry in terms of going forward with new plants." DOE's draft guidelines for the loan guarantee program have been met with broad criticism, with investors and others charging that they are far too restrictive and conditional to spur the financing Congress intended the program to incite. To be
eligible for the loan guarantees authorized by EPAct, project must be advanced and proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But as the guidelines are currently written, they only cover renewable energy sources. DOE sources say the criteria for nuclear power is something the department intends to work on in 2007. "So making sure that the loan guarantee provisions come out of DOE and OMB as the Congress intended is probably one of the most significant issues we have going forward in 2007," said Peterson. "We are trying to work with DOE to make sure that they can be developed as quickly as possible but are still the right rules that come out based on the energy legislation," said Peterson. The loan guarantee provision of EPAct covers up to 80 percent of total project cost; allows for more highly leveraged capital structure; and reduces the overall project cost by reducing weighted average cost of capital. A DOE source says the department is currently seeking input from the industry. The source pointed out, though, that there is no rush since there are no nuclear projects set to begin construction any time soon. The industry counters this notion, arguing that it is trying to attract and secure

investment before breaking ground on any new plants. "Obviously with COLs coming out in 2007 we need to have those loan guarantees in place," said Peterson. To make matters worse, much of DOE's progress in aiding in the licensing of the next fleet of nuclear reactors depends heavily on funding increases. The Nuclear Power 2010 program, in which DOE subsidizes the cost of filing early site permit and COL applications
with NRC as a means to navigate the new and untested regulatory structure, needs a funding increase. The three applications DOE is sharing the cost to move forward plan to file with NRC in 2007. But appropriations for fiscal year 2007 remain in a state of flux. Incoming Democrats set to head the appropriations committees in Congress announced in December they planned to keep funding static at FY-06 levels with a year-long continuing resolution. "We would like to get an increase in Nuclear Power 2010 to try and close out as much of the first-of-a-kind engineering on the new reactor designs as we can and a CR and any hiccup in the congressional appropriations process makes that harder to do," said Peterson.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

56

AT: ALTERNATE CAUSALITY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION - GENERIC
The lack of adequate loan guarantees is the single biggest obstacle to new construction Bowman 8 - retired Admiral and president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, (Skip, “HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: AN OVERVIEW,” 6/19/2008 L/N ADM. BOWMAN: The major obstacle is the one that I addressed in my -- both my written and oral testimony -- and it's the financing of this. These plants are expensive. I would dare say that on a megawatt hour basis, they're not any more expensive than any of the new power plants that we're going to see coming down the line. We've done a great deal of work on granularity of exactly how much it's going to cost to build a new nuclear plant. REP. BURGESS: Are advances in technology helping bring that price down or are they actually contributing to the cost increase? ADM. BOWMAN: The advances in technology are not so revolutionary that we don't understand them. They're more evolutionary off existing systems than we have today but we -- in each case we have a different way to ensure a little bit more safety in this new generation of power plant. But the single thing that is an impediment today is the loan guarantee program and financing these large high cost nuclear plants on a relatively small market capitalization business so that if you put it on the balance sheet of a $7 billion business -- if you put a $7 billion project on a $7 billion business -- Wall Street will have a field day with lowering the debt ratings. Other incentives are already in place – expanding loan guarantees is the crucial last step Spurgeon 7 - ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, (Dennis, HEARING OF THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL, March 7, L/n rday) MR. SPURGEON: Well I think we are doing it at this point. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a major breakthrough relative to starting to eliminate some of the barriers that have been standing in the way of having no nuclear power. There has been uncertainty of the regulatory process here to fore. And when you are talking about major three to four billion dollar investments you've got to have pretty good certainty that if you start down this path and try to finance this kind of project that you are in fact going to be able to get a license to construct and eventually operate the facility. So the standby support provision in the Energy Policy Act is very important in that. That is basically an insurance policy that protects the sponsor against regulatory and or litigation delays. New reactor type standardization is something that we have needed in this industry that is something that we know do have and we are supporting. What the department is being is really a catalyst for leveraging a public money to encourage private activity in the nuclear arena. So we've been operating under the 2010 Program as a 50/50 cost share. So we are supporting the first plants through the regulatory process. We are also supporting the both from a standardization but from the early site permit standpoint. We are trying to get the- some of the environmental issues off the table before the major commitments for funds are made. And then finally the last piece of this puzzle is to provide eventually a nuclear energy is authorized to be part of the lone guarantee program. That would go forward which looks for ways to then allow plants to be financed. Perhaps with a greater degree of debt as opposed to equity which lowers the cost to the consumer substantially for the cost bust bar electric power. So we have the tools now and those tools are working. We have some 30 new nuclear plants that are in one stage or another of consideration. Many of them in your region.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

57

AT: ALTERNATE CAUSALITY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION – GENERIC
High construction costs is the key factor deterring nuclear power plant construction in the status quo Numark and Terry, 03 – Neil and Michael, *President @ Numark Associtates and **member @ Sustainable Energy Institute + Senior Associate @ Numark Associates (“New Nuclear Construction: Still On Hold”, December 2003, http://www.pur.com/pubs/4310.cfm)/AK Where doubts arise, however, is whether these improvements will translate into expanded use of nuclear power generation, in the form of advanced reactor construction. The high capital costs of nuclear plants continue to be the main obstacle to new plant construction, particularly in deregulating markets that have favored technologies with short lead times and the potential for quick recovery of capital costs. In addition, although public opposition to nuclear has declined, remaining concerns over plant safety and nuclear waste disposal continue to present risk factors as far as the investment community is concerned. Skeptics believe investors will continue to shy away from nuclear in the coming decades, especially given the specter of capital cost overruns that plagued the nuclear industry in the 1970s.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

58

AT: NO SOLVENCY---TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS BLOCK INVESTMENT
Even if there are technological troubles with nuclear power---the vital internal link is the perceived economic risks World Nuclear Assocation, 3 (Andrew Paterson, “Using Federal Credit to Mitigate Critical Financial Risks on Early Orders for New Reactors”, 2003, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/restore/pat-rest.htm)/AK A next generation of nuclear power plants in the US would be built within more of a "risk-based" marketplace than the regulated one in which the previous plants were built. During the 1990s, utilities acquired more confidence in the current LWR and PWR technology and their ability to prevent accidents and curb downtime. Operators dramatically raised capacity factors for the US fleet of 103 reactors from below 70% in the late 1980s to well over 90% in 2002. Continued low and stable fuel prices (<US$5 per MWh), and swift relicensing since 1998, dramatically aided the competitiveness of nuclear power; such that with just 12% of US capacity, nuclear reactors provided 20% of the country’s electricity in 2001. Based on surveys of key owners and investment firms, business risks, not operating and technical challenges, pose the biggest hurdles to future orders. Progress was made in the US on key "showstopper" issues, notably approval by the White House and Congress to proceed with licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository in July 2002, and movement on the renewal of Price-Anderson third party indemnification. However, several critical business risks remain: * A lack of commissioning certainty without full clarity of NRC licensing procedures on the combined Construction and Operating License (COL), which remains untested in court. * Concerns about "earnings dilution" for owner utilities due to a long construction cycle and high capital costs (>US$1600 per kWe), especially for the first orders. * Demand side uncertainty for both pricing and dispatch outlook as a result of controversy about FERC policies and a current glut of gas-fired capacity (>200 000 MWe). * Unprecedented equity devaluations and debt restructuring pressures in the utility and energy sector in the wake of huge energy trading losses and price manipulation scandals, which directly affect cost and availability of private finance, particularly in merchant power.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

59

AT: NO SOLVENCY – WORKER SHORTAGES
Plan solves - Building new nuclear plants is vital to expanding the nuclear workforce Howard, 7 - Angie, Vice President Office of the President Nuclear Energy Institute (2-5-07, “Achieving Excellence in Human Performance: Nuclear
Energy Training and Education”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/americannuclearsocietyextended //VR)

Yes, we do have a looming workforce crisis. The average age of employees in the industry is 48 years—one of the oldest of any major industries in the country. Retirement and attrition will create the need to essentially re-staff the existing fleet over the next 10 years. We need to get the younger generation into the industry. But the industry is hiring, and we have employment opportunities that are attractive to talented young people, both in the craft and in the professional engineering and management fields. Research among college engineering students has shown that the prospect of building new plants is the single most important factor in attracting new talent to the nuclear energy industry. Social responsibility, creativity, learning opportunities, compensation—these are the other priorities when young people look for in a career today. Workers will increase- industry attracting potentials Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony/ //VR) Training of skilled technicians and craft personnel — such as operators, technicians, electricians, welders, pipe-fitters and other maintenance workers—is essential to sustain the highly qualified work force needed to continue efficient, reliable electricity production. To attract workers to skilled craft careers and provide appropriate training and education, the industry has participated in the formation of 10 state-based consortia and other collaborative arrangements among state governments, industry and academia. In the areas of radiation protection, operations, and maintenance, 17 industrycommunity college collaborative training programs have been launched in 14 states, most within the past three years, to bring younger workers into these fields. The industry also is working with organized labor to develop training and other programs to provide the cadre of highly skilled workers that our future requires. NEI supports the application of federal prevailing wage requirements, contained in the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 as amended, to loan guarantees authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Industry efforts and college programs solve workforce shortages Howard 07, Angelina, Nuclear Energy Institute PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: CAN
NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18, L/n, rday

Work force is clearly another issue that we're trying to look forward to the future of how do we provide that technical work force. The existing fleet in this country, and in fact in some other countries, came out of the nuclear navies that some of those countries had. The nuclear navy has cut back significantly, so that pipeline is not nearly as large as it once was. But we're taking an aggressive approach and changing that approach and working in a consortium between universities, community colleges and the industry. That in order to attract young people to go into the community college, if they're not going directly into college, this is more to address the technician and skilled craft. And the community colleges are really providing that pipeline that the U.S. Navy did to the existing fleet. And that is a program that is greatly being stepped up, both from the standpoint of the technicians that will be involved in the operations and maintenance of the plants, but we're also now trying to develop those particular types of skills that will be important from a construction and constructability standpoint. So I think the work force will be there. We've just got to simply make sure that the work force of the future understands where the jobs will be, and that will be a partnership.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

60

AT: NO SOLVENCY – WORKER SHORTAGES
Building new plants is vital to expanding the nuclear workforce Howard, 7 - Angie, Vice President Office of the President Nuclear Energy Institute (2-5-07, “Achieving Excellence in Human Performance: Nuclear Energy Training and Education”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/americannuclearsocietyextended //VR) And, finally, Number Four—New Plant Pressures on Current Workforce. Yes, new plant activities are putting additional pressure on scarce utility human resources in areas like operations training, licensing and engineering, not to mention the project management and construction skills that will be needed. But, utility announcements of plans to build new plants and the resulting media coverage are raising the interest level of young people in careers in our industry. This new plant activity has also resulted in new job creation at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And vendors are aggressively hiring in nuclear-related disciplines. What young people are hearing is that, right now, 14 companies or consortia have publicly announced plans to apply for licenses for up to 33 new nuclear reactors. The first applications for a license to construct and operate a new nuclear plant will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later this year. Free-market economics solves workforce issues – empirically proven in the 60s and 70s Ganthner 7 Areva Corp. (Ray, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: "AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY IN A GLOBALIZED ECONOMY" SESSION II: WHAT IS THE INVESTMENT CLIMATE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY?; June 18, L/n, rday I would just like to add that from an industrial standpoint, I think that the country certainly has the capacity to be able to build the required number of nuclear plants that we were talking about here, 20 to 30 plants by 2025. The question is still the will. If you look at the base that we had back in the early 1960s and '70s, when we started the first nuclear commercialization efforts, and the plants we have now, we didn't have a trained force to work on nuclear plants; we didn't have all the engineering; we didn't have the designs, didn't have the infrastructure to build the plants. But at one time in the early '70s, we were working and building 150 nuclear plants or more at the same time in this country. Without any kind of base to start from, we did that in the 10 years from early 1960s to early early 1970s period. We now look at another generation of nuclear plants starting in the next few years. We've already got a base of a large nuclear industry in place. We're starting off much better than we would have started off 40 years ago. So I think the industrial capacity will rise to the occasion. I'm a market optimist. I think the market will respond. What it takes is strong signals from the eventual users of these nuclear plants, the electric utilities, the power generation companies, to signal to the market that it's real. And the market will make the required investments, and the workforce will be there.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

61

AT: NO SOLVENCY – SUPPLY CHAIN / MANUFACTURING
Capability arguments are irrelevant- it will develop with the industry Howard 7- Vice President, Office of the President Nuclear Energy Institute (Angie, 02-15-7, “Achieving Excellence in Human Performance: Nuclear Energy Training and Education”, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/americannuclearsociety/) Finally, we are seeing the first signs of revival in the supply chain for new nuclear plant construction. In manufacturing, for instance, Babcock & Wilcox recently renewed its federal accreditation for manufacturing nuclear-grade components. And there is manufacturing capability overseas in Japan and France. U.S. nuclear companies have already placed orders with Japanese companies for long-lead, heavy-forgings for reactor components. The supply chain will respond as market demand dictates. The more it looks like new nuclear plants will be built, the more U.S. capability will be developed. Today, 14 companies and consortia have announced that they are preparing to submit license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build up to 32 new reactors. These companies are selecting technologies from two NRCcertified reactor designs, and two more designs that are under review by the NRC. These application submittals are expected beginning in 2007. Every major nuclear fleet operator is involved in some way, as well as some newcomers to the industry. Different companies are moving at different speeds, but the momentum is real. Material shortages won’t block new construction Bowman 8 - retired Admiral and president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, (Skip, “HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: AN OVERVIEW,” 6/19/2008 L/N REP. BURGESS: Is there any difficulty in getting the actual reactors and materials that are needed to build the plant? ADM. BOWMAN: That has not become a problem. We are certainly aware of the bottlenecks in the infrastructure because we haven't built in a long time. We're aware that the rest of the world is going in this direction. Those people who are in that first wave that I discussed earlier, those four to eight plants that might be on line by 2016 are already buying long lead time components, in some cases those long lead time components have been delivered. If they aren't delivered the companies are in the queue. So that's not causing the difficulty. U.S. manufacturing capability increasing in the status quo Flint 8- Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (Alex, 03-12-08, Speech to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/march_12_2008_written_testimony/ //VR) In addition, NEI is working aggressively to revitalize the United States’ nuclear manufacturing infrastructure. The global nuclear renaissance will require additional capacity for a range of products from very small components to ultra-heavy steel forgings and castings. To the extent possible, we are working to see that additional global capacity established in the United States.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

62

AT: WASTE SITING BLOCKS NUCLEAR EXPANSION
The spent fuel issue can be postponed – current on site storage solves Diaz, 06 – PhD, Florida (Nils, HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR ENERGY OVERSIGHT, September 13, L/n rday Commercial nuclear fuel has been and is safely and secured stored on site or off site in wet pools or dry storage casts and safety transported when needed. A viable, practical and credible solution to the end of the fuel cycle is sorely needed here and abroad, but it's not needed immediately, and it must not be a prerequisite for the growth of nuclear energy. Waste problems have been solved- New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Plant could hold all waste produced for decades Cravens, 2002 (Gwyneth, “Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks”, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_weapons_cravens.aspx, REQ) Challenges regarding subterranean disposal have already been solved. Because of breakthrough methodologies evolved during construction (by the Energy Department) and certification (by the EPA), New Mexico's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is the world's first successful deep geologic repository for the permanent isolation of federal (as opposed to commercial) nuclear waste. It is a model for other nations. For political reasons, WIPP is permitted by Congress and the state of New Mexico to accept only certain military waste. But nearly 1,000 detailed studies, as well as an innovation in probabilistic risk assessment invented by WIPP's scientists, have demonstrated that its remoteness, size, and stable geological and climatological features make it the safest place to store any type of waste. In fact, if enlarged or annexed, the WIPP could hold all U.S. nuclear waste generated for decades to come. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership reduces long-term storage needs for spent fuel CFR, 2006 (Lionel Beehner, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and Foreign Policy”, April 25, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl_nuclear_power_and_foreign_policy.html, REQ)
Waste disposal. "No country has yet to solve this problem," says Charles Ferguson, a CFR fellow for science and technology. "Who wants a long-term nuclear waste depository in their backyard or home state?" Spent fuel, if not disposed of properly, could contaminate water supplies or, worse, be used by terrorists to create a dirty bomb. Efforts in Britain to reprocess nuclear waste proved too expensive. Yet

The Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, announced in February, includes a $120 million plan to remove radioactive material with long half lives, such as plutonium, via chemical processing in favor of storing nuclear fuel with shorter half-lives, which as Ferguson points out, "may only need a few hundred years before it decays to relatively safe levels," as opposed to tens of thousands of years. Some experts say for such a plan to be effective it may require between $100 billion and $200 billion over the next twenty to thirty years.
a growing number of countries—including Japan, France, and Russia—have begun costly projects to recycle used nuclear fuel in burner reactors for future energy purposes.

The total amount of all nuclear waste is trivial Bowman 7 –President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, 05- 24- 07, “The Changing Climate for Nuclear Energy”, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/bowmanassembly/ //VR) All the used fuel from all the nuclear plants that have ever operated in America would only cover one football field 7 yards deep. This is a trivial amount of material. Our 103 operating plants produce 2,000 tons a year, compared to, say, 1.5 billion tons of CO2 a year from our coal-fired power plants. Interim storage solves waste concerns Totty, 08 (Michael Energy “(A Special Report); The case for -- and against -- Nuclear Power.” 2008, June 30) Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.1. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
The long-term disposal of nuclear waste is also a problem -- but it's mainly a policy issue, not a technical one. Most experts agree that the best way to dispose of waste is deep underground, where radioactive materials can be prevented from entering the environment and where it can be guarded against theft or terrorist attack. In the U.S., the Energy Department picked Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada for a repository, but political wrangling has so far blocked proceeding with the site, and final approval is considered a long shot. Even if approved, it won't be able to begin accepting waste for a decade or more.

In the meantime, interim storage in deep pools next to nuclear plants is considered sufficiently safe to meet the industry's needs until well into the future. The amount of waste produced is relatively small; all the waste produced so far in the U.S. would only cover a football field about five yards deep. Older, cooler fuel can also be stored for decades in dry casks.
Longer term, advanced fuel recycling and reprocessing can reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored. While reprocessing wouldn't eliminate the need for a long-term repository, it can reduce the amount, heat and radioactivity of the remaining waste.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

63

AT: WASTE SITING BLOCKS NUCLEAR POWER EXPANSION
Interim storage solves the waste issue Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 190-191) CP Arguably, the whole subject of permanent nuclear waste disposal has been unnecessarily complicated by demands that a site be completely stable and uncontaminated for hundreds of thousands of years, which may simply be an unattainable standard. If wastes are stored retrievably, so that as technology evolves and more is learned about sites, they can be moved and re-stored, a central storage facility really does not have to be literally permanent. A 2005 report by the American Physical Society's public affairs panel concluded that "no foreseeable expansion of nuclear power in the United States" would require the country to drastically revise its plans for nuclear waste disposal. "Even though Yucca Mountain may be delayed considerably, interim storage of spent fuel in dry casks, either at current reactor sites, or at a few regional facilities, or at a single national facility, is safe and affordable for a period of at least 50 years."22 But would it not be better, given the risk of terrorist attacks on temporary storage ponds, to agree on some one central site that can be very highly secured?

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

64

YUCCA APPROVED NOW
Yucca will be approved now for waste management WSJ, 8 (Siobhan Hughes, “U.S. News: Yucca Move is Part of Nuclear Agenda”, June 4, Pg. A2, Proquest)/AK WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Energy Department on Tuesday applied for a license for the first national repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, as the Bush administration uses its last months in office to encourage the expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. The application, filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, marks a milestone in the government's efforts to find a permanent storage site for nuclear waste. The Energy Department is responsible by law for establishing a repository, but its scientists have worked for more than 20 years on the application. "We are confident that the NRC's rigorous review process will validate the Yucca Mountain repository and will provide for the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a way that protects human health and our environment," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at a news conference. Nuclear waste is currently stored at 121 locations in 39 states across the country. The waste is supposed to go to Yucca Mountain, but can't because the site hasn't been licensed by the NRC. Tuesday, the NRC said it expects to decide within 90 days whether to put the application on its docket.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

65

YUCCA MOUNTAIN IS KEY INCENTIVE FOR NUCLEAR POWER
Licensing Yucca Mountain is a vital first mover incentive for nuclear power Moniz, 06 - professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Ernest, Transcript of an AEI Conferency, 10/6, http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1394/transcript.asp) //DH Secondly, licenseability of Yucca Mountain is very much up in the air. I like to emphasize that the consensus in the scientific community remains that geological isolation is a safe and effective way of addressing long-term spent fuel or high-level waste isolation, however, it is also important to remember that that statement does not translate to any individual site. Any individual site has to go through the appropriate characterization and measurements, et cetera, et cetera. And that is what the NRC will determine. Suffice it to say for the moment that there are real issues about Yucca Mountain satisfying the key criteria for long-term isolation. I am not saying it is not a good enough … it certainly is not an ideal site. Third, the failure of the government to begin to accept spent fuel has enormous implications for this first-mover initiative, getting nuclear plants out there. I say “first-mover initiative” because, given those time scales we discussed earlier, it is clear if you want to make this terawatt or the 300 megawatts in the United States by mid-century we do not have time to screw around. I mean, we have to start now and that is why the first-mover initiative is so critical, to be followed, presumably, by a carbon dioxide emission pricing, which I agree with Judi, would be ultimately the policy that should be the way of - well, laying the market aside, what is the best way to address the carbon? And then some of you may have seen the federal court just awarded, for example, $143 million to the Yankee plants for the failure to move spent fuel. Development of interim storage is a key incentive for nuclear growth Moniz 6 - CO-DIRECTOR, LABORATORY FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (ERNEST, HEARING OF THE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR ENERGY OVERSIGHT, September 13, L/n rday In conclusion, interim storage is, in my view, a key enabler for robust nuclear energy growth scenario. The government is likely to continue, at least for some time, with the responsibility for long- term spent fuel management. As I said, designing such a complex system is inherently difficult, and, frankly, impossible to put on a clear schedule, yet it must be interfaced with the discipline of the private sector who operate power plants. Long-term consolidated interim storage at one or more federal sites serves to facilitate decoupling of those private and governmental activities and provides critical flexibility to respond to new developments. It also preserves options, including the possibility that advanced fuel cycles, including reprocessing, may be competitive in the very long term -- frankly, I would say four to five decades down the road.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

66

YUCCA MOUNTAIN GOOD – AT: PROLIF
No proliferation risk from geologic repositories Lester, 6 – Richard, professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center of MIT (Richard K., “New Nukes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2006, Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 39, Proquest)/AK Another argument for GNEP, and for reprocessing more generally, is that it will eliminate the risk that the plutonium could eventually be recovered from a repository containing unreprocessed spent fuel and then used for weapons. (The French have recently cited this "plutonium mine" scenario as one of their primary motivations for continuing to reprocess.) The technical feasibility of plutonium recovery will indeed increase with time as the fission product radiation barrier decays away. On the other hand, the deeper and more remote the repository, the less plausible such a scenario. In any case, it is difficult to assess the significance of avoiding this risk. The value of eliminating one particular technical means for malevolent behavior that might or might not occur centuries or millennia from now is a question perhaps better addressed by philosophers than by engineers or economists.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

67

YUCCA MOUNTAIN GOOD – AT: RADIATION LEAKAGE
Peak radiation exposure will be tiny – equivalent to a round-trip flight from New York to L.A. Sproat 7 EDWARD, DIRECTOR OF THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, HEARING OF THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT; October 31st L/n MR. SPROAT: That's a good question, Senator. I just want to make clear, in terms of the NRC regulations that govern the licensing and the design requirements for Yucca Mountain, those regulations have been in place for almost a decade. There are literally hundreds of pages of those regulations. And our license application needs to address all of those. One very small piece is the last piece that says, what is the long-term radioactive release exposure rates that are potentially to emanate from Yucca Mountain out to 1 million years? That's the one last piece of literally hundreds of pages of regulation that isn't done yet. For us, in preparing our license application, we need to do the calculations to determine how the repository will actually work. And we are doing that. As a matter of fact, we published our preliminary results in our supplemental environmental impact statement that we released three weeks ago. And it shows that the peak dose from Yucca Mountain, projected peak dose, will be, in about 200,000 years from now, maybe less than 5 millirams which is the combined exposure of a roundtrip air trip between New York and Los Angeles. Yucca mountain is the best place for nuclear waste- major scientific study NEI 7 (Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, February 07, no day found, “Government Must Meet Used Fuel Responsibility Including Completion of Yucca Mountain Facility” http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/policybriefs/govtmustmeetusedfuelresponsibility/) Yucca Mountain Is Fundamental Part of Advanced Fuel Cycles Reassessment of the nation’s used fuel management policies, together with the expansion of nuclear power, has spurred new interest in recycling used nuclear fuel. The industry fully supports the development of advanced nuclear fuel cycles, including advanced reprocessing technology, and considers a successful repository program an essential step toward achieving these goals. Even advanced fuel cycles will produce radioactive byproducts that will require disposal in a repository. The development of advanced nuclear fuel cycles should not delay progress on the Yucca Mountain repository. Advanced fuel cycles will require significant investment. To make that investment with confidence, the federal government must progress further toward managing the byproducts of today’s fuel cycle. In reality, DOE will modify the repository many times to accommodate future developments over the 50- to 300-year period that it is expected to be open. DOE has said the license application will include methods for disposing of waste from advanced recycling technology in the repository. But the disposal of today’s byproducts must not be put on hold while we develop new technologies. Completion of the Yucca Mountain project therefore should remain a national priority. Sound Science Supports Yucca Mountain Repository Yucca Mountain has the best attributes for a repository, according to exhaustive scientific study of the site. Its selection followed preliminary screening of nine sites in six states. This screening was only the beginning of more than 20 years and $9.5 billion in scientific and engineering analyses. This unprecedented effort involved 2,500 of the nation’s top scientists and the construction of the world’s largest underground laboratory consisting of 7 miles of tunnels and hundreds of deep boreholes. Over the past two decades, scientists have studied all aspects of the geological, hydrological and geochemical environment, along with a detailed evaluation of how conditions might evolve over thousands of years at Yucca Mountain. Top scientists from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency analyzed DOE’s conclusions and issued a report in 2001 that confirmed DOE’s work. In 2002, DOE rec-ommended the Yucca Mountain site to the president and Congress.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

68

AT: TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS
Transportation of nuclear waste has been going on for forty years – covert guarded shipments are actually safer from terrorism than known, stationary locations Sproat 7 EDWARD, DIRECTOR OF THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT,
HEARING OF THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT; October 31st L/n

Third issue I heard was -- that I heard talked about was transportation. I think most people aren't aware that since 1964 there have been over 2,800 truck shipments and over 500 rail shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel in this country safely and without an accident. And also, the National Academy of Sciences last year issued a report that determined that the transportation of spent nuclear fuel can be done safely by rail and by truck with no fundamental technical barriers. Last issue that we heard about this morning was terrorism and the opportunities for terrorism that transportation provides. All I would say is, if you are concerned about terrorism, what makes an easier target: 121 sites where the sites is stationary and everybody knows where it is, or waste that is moving with an armed guard, and the only people who know where it is are the people who are guarding it. So I would -- I would ask that question in response to the question of concern of terrorism. Transportation of nuclear waste is incredibly good – 40 years of success proves Sproat 7 EDWARD, DIRECTOR OF THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, HEARING OF THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT; October 31st L/n MR. SPROAT: Well, the -- I would say, first of all, in terms of the regulations governing the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste (are ?) shared by both the Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Energy has responsibility for complying with their regulations. Number one. Number two, this is not something new. This has been going on for over 40 years already, with a very, very high safety record. And I cited in my oral testimony the number of shipments that have already taken place. And I think the reason most people don't know it's happening is because it's been a tremendous safety record.
I would say that in terms of the security requirements associated with shipping high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel, while there are a number of classified issues around that, what I can tell you is all those shipments are tracked by GPS tracking, have armed guards with the

shipments, and the casks are designed for extremely severe accidents to prevent release of radioactivity. Transportation of nuclear waste is far more dangerous than stationary storage Cook 7 KEN, PRESIDENT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, HEARING OF THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT, October 31st, L/n, rday And the second point is, what's safer? I've not been to Iraq, Senator Boxer. I know you have, and I presume you have too, Senator Carper. Are you safer in the green zone, which must be carefully guarded, or are you safer on the road to the Baghdad airport? Are you really much safer traveling and moving, or are you safer in one fortified position? I'm not a military expert, but if you ask me, having both the stationary positions that are dangerous for decades and moving waste along the roads that will be dangerous for decades expands the risk; it doesn't reduce it. No risk of transportation accidents from spent fuel Reyes 6 - Luis, Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Introduction (9-14-06, Congressional testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/luisreyestestimony91406extended //VR) Transportation The NRC believes that the current, well-established transportation regulatory system is protective of public health and safety. Spent nuclear fuel has been safely transported in the United States for more than 30 years. There has never been an accident involving the transportation of spent fuel resulting in a radiological release or death or injury from radiation. The National Academy of Sciences recently completed a three-year study that concluded that the radiological risks of spent fuel transportation are low and well understood and that the existing regulations are adequate to ensure safety.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

69

AT: TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS
Transportation is safe- empirical NEI 7 (11-07-07, Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, “Experience, Testing Confirm Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel Is Safe, Reliable”, http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Experience_Testing_Confirm_Transportation_of_Used_Fuel_Is_Safe_Reliable_1107.pdf) The nuclear energy industry has completed more than 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel over the past 40 years with no injuries, fatalities or environmental damage as a result of the radioactive nature of the cargo, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shippers transport used nuclear fuel as a solid, ceramic material that is unable to leak or explode. Constructed of many layers of steel and lead, containers used to carry the fuel are extremely robust. The NRC requires thorough tests and analyses prior to certifying used fuel containers. Facilities such as Sandia National Laboratories have tested containers under extreme circumstances to ensure they would protect the public in the unlikely event of an accident during transport. Tests have proven that containers can withstand highspeed crashes, extremely hot and long-lasting fires, and submersion in water. Continuing to Move Fuel Safely The nuclear energy industry has completed more than 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel with no injuries, fatalities or environmental damage resulting from the radioactivity of the cargo, according to figures compiled by the NRC and its predecessor organization. Given this experience over 40 years, the industry has demonstrated that it can safely transport used nuclear fuel. Used nuclear fuel is a solid, ceramic material. There is no liquid that can drain out of the shipping container. Used nuclear fuel cannot explode. The containers that transport the used nuclear fuel are extremely robust. These are massive, vault-like containers that use multiple layers of steel, lead and other materials to confine radiation from the used fuel. These specially designed containers weigh between 25 and 40 tons for truck transport and between 75 and 125 tons for rail shipments, including the weight of the used fuel. Typically, for every ton of used fuel, there are about 4 tons of protective shielding. Transportation accidents won’t happen- container design NEI 7 (11-07-07, Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy industry’s policy organization, “Experience, Testing Confirm Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel Is Safe, Reliable”, http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Experience_Testing_Confirm_Transportation_of_Used_Fuel_Is_Safe_Reliable_1107.pdf) In the United States, shippers occasionally transport radioactive materials via barge, using the same rugged transportation containers used for rail or truck shipments. Internationally, transporting used fuel on specially designed ships is routine. Scientists and engineers know that accidents can happen, so they designed the containers to be the safest on the road, on the rails and on the water, and to protect the public against even the most unlikely accidents. The containers can withstand high-speed crashes, long-lasting fires and submersion in water, all without breaking open.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

70

PLAN LEADS TO DRY CASK STORAGE
Dry cask storage is the most likely policy for waste storage Coplan, 6 - Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //DH As of 2003, there were 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in the United States. 43 The majority of this fuel is stored in spent fuel pools at existing operating or decommissioned nuclear power plants. 44 The spent fuel pools hold the spent fuel rods under water. 45 The water both carries off the continuing decay heat and shields workers and the surrounding environment from escaping radiation. 46 The spent fuel pools were originally designed to hold spent nuclear fuel only until it cooled sufficiently to transport to a permanent disposal site or reprocessing facility. 47 As no permanent disposal site has opened and no commercial reprocessing industry was ever developed, the spent fuel pools have ended up storing on-site most of the spent fuel generated during the entire history of nuclear power generation. 48 In order to make room for the extra fuel rods, nuclear power plants have packed the spent fuel rods closer together than the original design contemplated, increasing the risk of a fuel-heat induced fire should the spent fuel pools lose their cooling water. 49 [*236] As the spent fuel pools become full at the higher density configuration, power plant owners have begun to move the older (and cooler) spent fuel rods out of the spent fuel pool and into "dry cask" storage. 50 These dry cask storage containers consist of concrete and steel cylinders, which are vented to allow continued air-cooling of the decay heat still produced by radioactive isotopes. 51 Currently, about 6,200 metric tons of spent fuel is stored in these dry casks, mostly located at the sites that generated them. 52 The proportion of spent fuel stored in dry casks is likely to increase, as spent fuel pools are filled to capacity and new spent fuel is generated at the rate of 2,000 metric tons per year in this country. 53 These dry cask storage units are only required to have a design life of twenty years. 54 Dry cask storage represents a sort of limbo for spent nuclear fuel. Unless the United States develops and opens a long term repository with sufficient capacity to accept the volume of waste generated, or develops commercial fuel reprocessing capacity, the spent fuel pools and dry cask storage facilities are likely to be the ultimate disposal sites for nuclear power generation wastes in this country. 55 As discussed below, neither of these alternative disposal systems is likely to be developed adequately, so dry cask storage at the generation sites is the most likely outcome. The generation sites are located throughout the United States, and many are located in coastal and in metropolitan areas.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

71

DRY CASK STORAGE SOLVES
Dry cask storage solves spent fuel Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff 4. Dry Cask Storage Is a Safe Way to Store Spent Fuel In the United States, one of the most common arguments against nuclear power relates to the current proposal to bury spent fuel from power plants in a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 225 In my opinion, resolution of this debate is really unnecessary for the construction of new nuclear power plants because recent studies have shown that dry cask storage is a safe and secure method of handling spent fuel for the next century. 226 Dry casks are designed to cool the spent fuel to prevent temperature elevation from radioactive decay and to shield the [*43] cask's surroundings from radiation without the use of water or mechanical systems. Heat is released by conduction through the solid walls of the cask (typically made of concrete, lead, steel, polyethylene, and boron-impregnated metals or resins) and by natural convection or thermal radiation. The cask walls also shield the surroundings from radiation. 227 Spent fuel is usually kept in pools for five years before storage in dry casks in order to reduce decay heat and inventories of radionuclides. 228 As the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy recently explained, dry cask storage "is a proven, safe, inexpensive wastesequestering technology that would be good for 100 years or more, providing an interim, back-up solution against the possibility that Yucca Mountain is further delayed or derailed - or cannot be adequately expanded before a further geologic repository can be ready." 229 At present, most spent fuel is initially stored in water-filled pools on each nuclear power plant site. 230 After five years, the fuel has cooled enough to be transferred to dry casks for storage, and many plants have built such casks onsite. 231 The National Research Council has pointed out that the temporary storage of spent fuel in a retrievable form, such as dry cask storage, might provide opportunities for re-use of the material if new ways of using it were developed in the future. 232 In any event, the current availability of dry cask storage means that the problem of spent fuel no longer appears to be an insurmountable barrier to building new nuclear plants. Dry cask storage is safe Reyes 6 - Luis, Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Introduction (9-14-06, Congressional testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/luisreyestestimony91406extended //VR) Interim Storage Spent fuel storage and transportation are and can be accomplished both safely and securely, consistent with the current regulatory framework, regardless of the number of sites and their locations. The NRC has stated in its Waste Confidence Decision that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impact in its spent fuel storage pool or at either on-site or off-site interim storage facilities for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operational life of the reactor. In general, the commission concluded that, if stored properly, spent fuel presents a low risk to the public during normal operation or under potential credible accident conditions and can be stored safely in either wet or dry storage systems without significant environmental impact for at least 100 years. It is important to note that the threat of sabotage has always been a factor in the design and licensing of spent fuel storage facilities. Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NRC issued orders to licensees to implement additional security measures, and undertook a comprehensive reassessment of the security of commercial nuclear facilities including those for spent fuel storage. Since 9/11, the NRC has issued orders to licensees to implement additional security measures. Dry spent fuel storage casks are robust structures, which are highly resistant to significant damage, and we are confident that storage of spent fuel in dry casks remains a safe and secure spent fuel management strategy. Spent fuel pools are strong structures constructed of very thick steel-reinforced concrete walls with stainless steel liners located inside protected areas. The NRC’s domestic safeguards program is focused on physically protecting and controlling spent nuclear fuel against sabotage, theft and diversion.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

72

DRY CASK STORAGE SOLVES
Storing spent fuel decreases the risk of prolif Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK It is not easy by any of these routes to get plutonium from a once-through cycle in which spent nuclear fuel is stored and eventually emplaced in a geologic repository. A typical spent fuel assembly is a large object weighing approximately half a ton and containing a low concentration (around 1 percent) of plutonium, diluted by uranium and mixed with fission products, some of which generate a lethal field of gamma rays (higher-energy versions of X-rays). Because of this radiation field, extracting plutonium from spent fuel is a difficult undertaking, requiring remotely controlled operations behind meterthick walls. Dry cask storage is safer than GNEP Lester, 6 – Richard, professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center of MIT (Richard K., “New Nukes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2006, Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 39, Proquest)/AK Safety. The safety and environmental performance of dry-cask technology for spent fuel storage has been demonstrated at more than 30 U.S. nuclear power plant sites, where casks of various designs have been in use for up to 20 years. A centralized spent-fuel storage facility, although larger in scale, would be essentially identical in concept. In contrast, the complex fuel cycle envisaged by GNEP will require the development of a host of new technologies and facilities. A major engineering and regulatory effort will be needed to assess the safety and environmental performance of an integrated GNEP fuel cycle system. It is possible that safety risks from such a system could be reduced to the level of those of a dry-cask storage facility, although this seems unlikely if only because there would be so many more GNEP facilities and sites. Also, the historical safety record of reprocessing plants around the world has not been good. Once again, the advantage lies with the dry-cask storage option. Even if storing the used waste is bad, it is comparatively the safest alternative and doesn’t risk nuclear terrorism Lyman and Hippel, 8 - *Edwin is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program and **Frank is a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (“Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, Arms Control Today, Apr 2008, Vol. 38, Iss. 3; pg. 6, Proquest)/AK Hopefully, Congress has learned as a result of its temporary enthusiasm and then disillusionment with GNEP that there are much worse alternatives to interim storage of spent fuel at U.S. nuclear power plants. Reprocessing, whether PUREX, UREX+, or pyroprocessing, would cost many times more and would convert one relatively simple and stable waste form into a variety of waste streams that must be managed, including contaminated equipment and materials from the reprocessing plant itself when it is decommissioned. It also creates a vast stockpile of separated plutonium that would make it possible for countries to deploy weapons quickly and massively in a time shorter than required to mobilize domestic and international opposition. These plutonium stockpiles could also become targets of theft for would-be nuclear terrorists. In comparison, dry-cask storage of spent fuel, which is being used at U.S. nuclear power plants to handle the overflow from spent fuel storage pools that have reached capacity, is benign. Ninety-five percent of all U.S. spent fuel is at nuclear power plants that will operate for decades longer. At such sites, the added risk from the spent fuel is small in comparison to that from the fuel in the reactor cores and the spent fuel pools. If cooling water is lost to a reactor core, it will begin releasing vaporized fission products within minutes. If cooling water is lost from a spent fuel pond, recently discharged fuel would heat up to ignition temperature with hours. In contrast, the heat from several-year-old spent fuel in dry casks is carried away passively by the convection of the surrounding air. Also, because each dry cask contains only a small fraction of the radioactive material contained in a reactor core or spent fuel pool, even a successful terrorist attack on a dry cask would have a relatively limited impact.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

73

DRY CASK SOLVENCY---NUCLEAR INDUSTRY COMPETITIVENESS
Centralized storage is vital to jumpstarting the nuclear industry – it is more cost-effective than GNEP Lester, 6 – Richard, professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center of MIT (Richard K., “New Nukes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2006, Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 39, Proquest)/AK In sum, on every important count, centralized dry-cask storage will serve the Bush administration's own objectives for nuclear power as well as or better than the GNEP fuel cycle scheme for at least the next few decades. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has its priorities backward. It has put the GNEP initiative front and center but is taking no action on centralized spent fuel storage. Yet it is the latter that can help pave the way for a new round of nuclear power plant construction, and it is the latter that will more nearly achieve the goal of a safe, economically competitive, and proliferation-resistant fuel cycle for the next several decades. Eventually the fuel-conserving and repository space-conserving attributes of the GNEP fuel cycle might deliver real value. Or they might not. At this stage, the government should be supporting a systematic, rigorous R&D effort, but not a major program of reactor and fuel cycle demonstration projects, and certainly not a complete reorientation of the back end of the fuel cycle. The goals articulated by President Bush in introducing the GNEP initiative deserve strong support, but the most important priorities for achieving them are:

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

74

BOREHOLE DRILLING SOLVES WASTE DISPOSAL
Borehole drilling is efficient and solves waste disposal Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 66-67) Alternative disposal technologies: The deep borehole approach An alternative to building geologic repositories a few hundred meters below the earth’s surface is to place waste canisters in boreholes drilled into stable crystalline rock several kilometers deep. Canisters containing spent fuel or high-level waste would be lowered into the bottom section of the borehole, and the upper section – several hundred meters or more in height – would be filled with sealant materials such as clay, asphalt, or concrete. At depths of several kilometers, vast areas of crystalline basement rock are known to be extremely stable, having experienced no tectonic, volcanic or seismic activity for billions of years. The main advantages of the deep borehole concept relative to mined geologic repositories include: (a) a much longer migration pathway from the waste location to the biosphere; (b) the low water content, low porosity and low permeability of crystalline rock at multi-kilometer depths; (c) the typically very high salinity of any water that is present (because of its higher density, the saline water could not rise convectively into an overlying layer of fresh water even if heated); and (d) the ubiquity of potentially suitable sites. An initial screening suggests that most of the countries that are likely to employ nuclear power in our global growth scenario may have geology appropriate for deep waste boreholes. Co-location of boreholes with reactor sites is a possibility. Suitable host rock also occurs beneath the sea floor. For this reason the concept may be particularly interesting for densely populated countries like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Since most of the power reactors in these countries (and indeed in most countries) are located on or close to the coast, the possibility arises of constructing artificial offshore islands which would be ideal sites from which to drill beneath the seabed and which could also serve as temporary storage venues for the spent fuel, obviating the need for on-land waste transportation and storage. The overall system cost of deep borehole disposal using conventional drilling technology is uncertain, but according to one estimate would be comparable to that of mined geologic disposal. 7 Advances in technology could reduce the cost of drilling significantly. But since drilling alone accounts for only a relatively small fraction of the overall costs, the opportunities for savings are limited. A more important economic advantage may derive from the modularity of the deep borehole concept and the more flexible siting strategy that it allows. 8 Deep borehole research solves radiation problems Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 97) Among alternatives to mined repositories, the deep borehole disposal approach has the potential to reduce significantly the already low risk of long-term radiation exposure and merits a significant research and development program, with the goal of determining operational, safety, and regulatory viability within a decade. This program should investigate methods for detailed site characterization at depth, mechanisms for possible radionuclide transport to the surface, alternative approaches to monitoring and retrieval of emplaced material, plugging and sealing techniques, site suitability criteria, and overall system optimization. Parallel investigations by regulatory and standard-setting bodies should also be undertaken.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

75

U.S. ACCEPTING WASTE IMPORTS NOW
The U.S. is about to import nuclear waste from the rest of the world Clayton, 08 (Mark, Christian Science Monitor, “Will U.S. become world's nuclear-waste dump?,” 2/28, lexis)//DH The federal government is weighing a Utah company's request to import large amounts of low-level radioactive waste from Italy - a step critics say could lead the United States to become a nuclear garbage dump for the world. If approved, the company would ship up to 20,000 tons of metal piping, sludge, wood, contaminated clothing, and other mildly radioactive material from Italian nuclear-power plants to Tennessee, process most of it, then dispose of the remainder in Utah. It would be by far America's largest import of nuclear waste. The proposal, which entered a 30-day public-comment period on Feb. 11, is gathering opposition from environmentalists, regulators, and congressmen. It would not only pave the way for more such imports, critics say, but also give nations less incentive to take care of their own nuclear waste. "If this massive quantity from Italy is accepted, it just blows the doors wide open for nuclear waste to come in from all over the world," says Tom Clements, Southeast nuclear campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth, an environmental group in Washington. "The NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has an obligation to deal with the waste generated in this country first and not accept foreign waste that fills up existing sites." Critics misrepresent how much material would be ultimately disposed of in Utah, counter officials of EnergySolutions, the Salt Lake City company proposing to import the Italian waste. Most material would be recycled or incinerated in Tennessee. Just 8 percent of the original volume would travel to Utah, the company wrote in a letter to the NRC. "EnergySolutions does not believe the United States should be responsible for the world's nuclear waste," company spokesman Mark Walker writes in response to e-mailed questions from a reporter. But as reliance on nuclear power grows worldwide, "the US is in a leadership role to provide technical solutions." Whether such imports will become a regular practice remains a question. The company "has no plans" to open its Utah disposal site "to wholesale disposal for the world's nuclear waste," Mr. Walker writes. But in a recent prospectus, the company envisions "specialized decommissioning and disposal services" for Europe and the United Kingdom. Only 10 of 18 nations surveyed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year have disposal options for lowlevel nuclear waste and none has options for all classes of such waste. Critics say import regulations are weak because Congress never foresaw that the US would import large volumes of radioactive waste. "There is no indication in [legislative action or NRC regulatory action] that there was any intention that the United States would ever become a welcome repository of foreign-generated radioactive waste," Rep. Bart Gordon (D) of Tennessee, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology wrote earlier this month in a letter to Dale Klein, NRC chairman.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

76

CONSOLIDATION OF THE INDUSTRY GOOD
Consolidation of nuclear industry is empirically key to its success Numark and Terry, 03 – Neil and Michael, *President @ Numark Associtates and **member @ Sustainable Energy Institute + Senior Associate @ Numark Associates (“New Nuclear Construction: Still On Hold”, December 2003, http://www.pur.com/pubs/4310.cfm)/AK The biggest surprise to date regarding nuclear power in a deregulating environment is simply how well nuclear plants have survived. As deregulation began in the 1990s, nuclear was considered a dying industry. The market value of plants had plummeted, and some owners were anxious to get rid of them. But in the last 10 years, operators have managed to greatly improve reactor performance industry-wide. Moreover, with the industry's restructuring under deregulation, large power companies like Exelon, Entergy, Dominion, and Constellation have purchased these plants from regional utilities. These consolidators and other operators have improved operations and turned nuclear plants into sound, highly competitive investments. Utilities are consolidating to finance nuclear power Krause, 08 (Reinhardt, “New Nuclear Plants Are On Their Way, With Federal Help”, Investor’s Business Daily, 6/23, lexis)//DH Because of the hefty investments needed to build nuclear plants, the industry may see big changes, says Glenn George, vice president at NERA economic consulting. "There may be consolidation at the company level, more consortia or pooling among developers, or market entry by some of Europe's bigger utilities or by well-capitalized players that haven't been in the generation business -- the oil majors or somebody else," he said. Utilities Unite Many utilities are indeed joining forces to line up financing. UniStar Nuclear Energy is a joint venture between Constellation Energy and EDF, a French energy giant that operates more than 50 nuclear reactors. A handful of U.S. utilities have joined UniStar, which plans to use nuclear technology from France-based Areva.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

77

AT: FRAMEWORK
Our advocacy of the plan is vital to galvanizing public support to act on climate change Bennett et al, 7 – Vice President for Public Affairs; (Matt Bennett, Rob Keast, senior policy advisor, and John Dyson, Third Way Trustee, “Another Inconvenient Truth: Solving Global Warming and Energy Security Requires Nuclear Power,” 4/23/07 http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/84/Third_Way_Nuclear_Memo.pdf) //DT most have actively opposed—the one climate change solution that can make a substantial difference in the near term: nuclear power. This raises a serious problem—there does not seem to be a realistic path to resolving climate change that does not significantly expand nuclear energy, but most of those at the frontlines of fighting climate change have not yet embraced it. We must resolve this contradiction if we are to confront global warming effectively. In this paper, we argue that nuclear energy in America is one important key to solving the global warming crisis—not just in terms of reducing dangerous emissions, but in breaking the logjam in the public domain over climate change.
However, few in the environmental community or their allies in policymaking have championed—indeed, Of course we are aware that there are outstanding issues or questions regarding nuclear energy, particularly with regard to waste storage and plant safety. But the flipside of that equation is that some of the other technologies and ideas being offered as solutions to climate change are too small, costly or far off. We cannot allow any large-scale potential fixes to be taken off the table. If, indeed, the existence of the earth as we know it hangs in the balance, we are confident that nuclear safety and waste issues can be resolved to most people’s satisfaction. This memo makes the case for why progressive policymakers and activists should support nuclear power expansion in the United States. We offer three reasons: 1. Expanding nuclear power will make a difference in addressing the problem of global warming.

2. Embracing nuclear power by progressive leaders would have a galvanizing impact on the public, demonstrating the severity of the climate change problem and the need for everyone to make hard choices. 3. Moving forward efficiently on nuclear power could help provide momentum to take additional steps to curb carbon emissions.
1. Expanding Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming

nuclear power is the only mature, major source of electric power in the United States that is essentially carbon-free.† In 2005, nuclear power made up 19 percent of our energy mix and prevented 3.32 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 1.05 million tons of nitrogen oxide and
The facts are quite simple, and they speak for themselves: 681.9 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States alone.1 But that is today. US electricity demand is predicted to rise by 45% by 2030. That means 350,000 megawatts of new generation capacity must be built to meet that demand.

Unless this country changes course, coal will constitute a larger share of new power generation

than it would otherwise.2
One reason is that growth of domestic nuclear power production had, until very recently, totally stalled. There are currently 103 licensed reactors‡ in the US, at 65 plant sites in 31 states. Most have gotten or will get 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). But no new nuclear power plants have been brought online since 1996, and since 1973, every new plant order—totaling more than 100—has been cancelled. Moreover, industry consolidation has meant that fewer firms are operating nuclear plants.3 There is some good news of late—the 2005 Energy Policy Act provides various incentives which support currently operating plants and encourages future construction. Since the 2005 law was passed, 13 companies have filed licenses with the NRC to build as many as 31 new reactors.4 But the growth in nuclear production is not without controversy—serious debates relating to nuclear waste and plant safety continue. Still, we think the risks are worth taking. America has grappled with a nuclear waste dilemma for decades—it is a serious and currently unsolved problem, but we believe it can be managed safely in the short term and handled effectively in the long term. As for plant safety, there is simply no such thing as completely risk-free power, and nuclear is no exception. That being said, our nuclear sites are some of the most fortified, well-protected industrial spaces in the nation. The industry’s security is regulated and closely watched by on-site federal inspectors and overseers, and the FBI has categorized nuclear plants as “difficult targets.” Furthermore, a new generation of plant design and technologies has made nuclear facilities more efficient, safe and less costly than in the past.5 Yet despite good safety records and a recent resurgence in interest in new reactors, on its current trajectory, total nuclear generation is projected to grow from 780 billion kilowatt-hours in 2005 to only 896 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030 (that is, if the new reactors cited above come on-line). Even with this projected increase, the nuclear share of total electricity generation is expected to fall from 19 percent in 2005 to 15 percent in 2030. We would need another four plants (for a total of 35 new plants) simply to maintain nuclear power’s current piece of the US energy pie.6 So from a global warming perspective, the American energy production outlook is not great now, and, without substantial change, it is projected to get much worse, as this chart demonstrates: Electricity Generation by Fuel, 1980–2030 (billion kilowatt-hours) Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

We must face the reality that a growing population and evolving technology will place everincreasing demands on our energy production. We believe that policymakers and advocates should set as a general goal that we expand non- or low-carbon sources, such as nuclear, wind, solar, and “clean coal,” to meet much of the new demand for power that our expanding nation and modern life require. As a specific and measurable target, we should aim to advance nuclear energy to a point where it provides for 25 percent of America’s energy. This is an ambitious but achievable goal; unless we get
That, in our view, is an unacceptable outcome. closer to it, meeting increased energy needs while dealing with the reality of climate change is probably a pipe-dream. 2. Embracing Nuclear Power Can Help Rally the Public on Climate Change Recent public opinion polling reveals a seeming paradox: Americans believe that global warming is real, but they don’t feel any urgency about dealing with it. A Pew poll in January found that 77% of Americans believe there is solid evidence of global warming, and the same number believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious problem.7 But another Pew poll of global attitudes found that only 19% of Americans who had heard of global warming expressed a great deal of personal concern over the issue, the smallest percentage of any country in a survey of 15 nations. And climate change ranks 20th out of 23 in Pew’s annual list of policy priorities (only 38% rank it as a top priority).8 Another January poll found that less than half of respondents said global warming worries them “a great

awareness of climate change is high, but urgency—and demand for government action—is low. this is because the solutions that many offer seem incommensurate to the scope of the problem. For example, almost no one disagrees that we should use more solar power, but solar makes up 1/30th of 1 percent of current US power usage. It is a very important but very small part of a near- or even mid-term solution. We simply must have more mature, low-carbon power generation methods if we are to address this issue aggressively over the next several decades.
deal” or “a good amount.”9 In short, In part, One glaring problem is the failure on the part of leading climate change advocates—from most environmental groups to leading Members of Congress—to support the only existing, mature energy source that can almost immediately help save our planet from catastrophic climate change. Consider what the three largest US environmental groups are still saying about nuclear power: [I]t is completely unacceptable that the U.S. government is pushing for more nukes when most of the rest of the world is saying "so long."10 – Greenpeace Unfortunately, the nuclear power industry in its present state suffers from toomany security, safety, and environmental exposure problems and excessivecosts to qualify as a leading means to combat global warming pollution.11 – Natural Resources Defense Council The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process …12 – Sierra Club Clearly, the mainstays of the movement still have not even lost their hostility to nuclear power, much less acknowledged the role that nuclear power can play a major part of the solution to global warming.

Continued…

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff Continued…

78

AT: FRAMEWORK
And despite what some are calling a “nuclear renaissance” that is pegged to the climate issue and rising power needs, anti-nuclear forces have worked hard to muddy the waters. For example, the following polling question was asked on a survey by the Civil Society Institute: Experts have proposed a range of long-term and short-term solutions to the energy crisis and the threat posed by global warming. Some solutions— including solar energy and wind power—are already in place and would be expanded in the near-term. Others—such as increased conservation—could start immediately. Still others—including nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cells—would take a decade to put in place, or longer. What is your view of the best way for America to proceed? Would you say... the energy and global warming problem is happening now. We need most of the emphasis placed on immediate and near-term solutions that will deliver fast results or we need most of the emphasis placed on solutions that will deliver results a decade from now or later? Not surprisingly, 62% of respondents to this sharply slanted and misleading question said we need to take action now. Never mind that solar and wind are not mature power generation techniques and simply cannot provide “near term solutions” to our CO2 problems. Many advocates have taken this approach, attempting to keep the debate fixed solely on conservation and renewable sources. And no one denies that both are crucial to addressing the problem of global warming—a solution is impossible without real shifts in public behavior and a huge increase in our investment in renewable energy. But we believe that by talking only about conservation and renewable

The American public may not know much about base-load capacity, but they understand that we are not going to get out of our CO2 problem by relying solely on wind farms or geothermal power at this point in time. And they may be reluctant to make hard changes in their own lives—or demand policy fixes to climate change—until environmentalists start making some tough choices too. Indeed, if advocates were to embrace nuclear power, which many have spent their careers fighting, it would help prove to the public that a dramatic shift in our thinking as a nation is required when our way of life or very existence may be at risk.
energy, advocates have undercut the seriousness of their own argument on climate change. Some individuals in the movement have begun doing precisely that. The most prominent is Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore, who told Congress: If nothing is done to revitalize the American nuclear industry, the industry’s contribution to meeting US energy demands could drop from 20 percent to 9 percent. What sources of energy would make up the shortfall? Very likely, the US would turn to an even greater reliance on fossil fuels.13 And in an editorial last year, Dr. Moore put the fundamental point quite plainly: “Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days, it can do so safely.”14 Patrick Moore is not alone—a few other movement leaders, and some environmental advocates in Congress—have begun to come to this conclusion. They include Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, and Hugh Montefiore, former Chairman of Friends of the Earth. Senator Barbara Boxer, one of the staunchest environmentalists in Congress and Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, recently noted the trend toward nuclear on her committee and has signaled a possible shift in her own thinking about nuclear power as it relates to climate change.15 Some of the groups are starting to come around as well. Environmental Defense calls nuclear power one of many “wedges” to be used in attacking global warming, and they note that if “the unresolved concerns can be answered satisfactorily, however, nuclear power may one day have the potential to be a factor in slowing the emissions that contribute to global warming. For that reason, it is worth pursuing continued research.”16

The public appears ready for this change. A January 2007 poll by UPI of nearly 7,000 Americans found that 62 percent agree that new nuclear plants should be built.17 This is
precisely the same percentage of Americans that an LA Times survey last summer found would support “the increased use of nuclear power as a source of energy in order to prevent global warming.”18 The data are clear: Americans understand that climate change is real, and they are ready to embrace nuclear power as one piece of the long-term solution.

But the public will need to hear

from environmental advocates to seal the deal.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

79

AT: COAL DISAD
Coal Power is dead – Greenhouse Gas regulations and cheap natural gas imports Spiegel et al. 8 (Eric Spiegel is a senior vice president, James C. Hendrickson a vice president and Andre Begosso a principal with Booz Allen Hamilton in McLean, Va., and Troy, Mich, “Coal's Black Future;Turbulent politics and market trends cloud prospects for coal-fired power,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, March, L/n, rday) For a century, coal-fired power plants have generated most of the United States' base-load electricity. At times along the way, alternatives emerged and flourished briefly--first oil-fired generation, then nuclear, and most recently natural gas. But these waves ended badly, often bringing financial ruin to the companies that had championed them too enthusiastically. Meanwhile, the more-cautious companies that kept on building coal-fired plants have survived and prospered. Now, coal faces more uncertainty than any other base-load generating source. Two new factors, hitherto irrelevant to the U.S. industry, will shape future generation investment--imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and greenhouse-gas (GHG) restrictions. Taken together, they point to a bleak future for coal unless its technology advances dramatically ... or a political consensus fails to emerge. Green House Gas regulation is inevitable – it will destroy the coal industry Spiegel et al. 8 (Eric Spiegel is a senior vice president, James C. Hendrickson a vice president and Andre Begosso a principal with Booz Allen Hamilton in McLean, Va., and Troy, Mich, “Coal's Black Future;Turbulent politics and market trends cloud prospects for coal-fired power,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, March, L/n, rday) A decade ago, global warming was fodder for stand-up comics on late-night television. This year, both of the front runners in the Democratic campaign for president have endorsed draconian long-term restrictions on GHG emissions (reductions of 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050). And the presumed Republican nominee, John McCain, has endorsed restrictions nearly as severe. Significant legislation seems more likely than not in the 2009 to 2010 time period, even if its exact shape is now unclear. If GHG emissions are restricted, the burden of adjustment likely will fall on the nation's fleet of coal-fired power plants. Other sectors of the economy would continue expanding their emissions as they grow, albeit at a slower rate due to CAFE limits, etc., while the coal-fired fleet brings down its emissions far enough and fast enough to offset capacity expansion and still meet economy-wide reduction targets. The reason is economic. In most sectors, reducing the emissions from a stationary source requires separating out and sequestering the greenhouse gases from its flue-gas stream. The cost of doing that with today's technology generally exceeds $ 90 to $ 100 per ton sequestered. (Note: All dollar quantities are expressed in 2007 dollars and all greenhouse gas quantities are expressed in tons of CO[2] equivalent.) However, the power-generation sector has another alternative available--replacing existing coal-fired plants with new-built plants using an alternative generation technology with much lower GHG emissions, such as natural-gas combined cycle. At current prices, the all-in cost of doing so amounts to only $ 30 to $ 40 per ton of GHG emissions avoided. So regulators have strong incentives to meet their emissions targets by squeezing coal-fired plants nearly to extinction before significantly restricting other stationary sources. That could happen fairly rapidly. If U.S. emissions merely are capped at 2006 levels with no actual reductions, then expansion elsewhere in the economy would cause about half of today's coal-fired production to be replaced over the next 20 years (see Fig. 1). And more aggressive targets would lead to correspondingly faster replacement. Coal prices will continue to increase – lower supplies and tighter regulation Public Utilities Fortnightly 8 “Coal: Inconvenient Truths; The current coal bust might lead to a future boom.” February, L/n, rday Deeper and thinner seams, growing underground mine-safety costs, diminishing opportunities to consolidate reserves, falling productivity, and rising mining input costs (e.g., labor, fuel, explosives, etc.) will cause production to decrease and increase mining costs in Central Appalachia. Trends in Central Appalachian coal production over the last 10 years are towards surface mining and away from underground mining in order to contend with cost issues associated with underground mining. With mountaintop mining under attack in the courts from environmentalists, there is an added degree of uncertainty about the future of some operations. Opportunities for companies to capitalize on potential synergies and the pressure from low prices and rising costs--with some producers particularly exposed--provide room for ongoing consolidation of operations, especially in Central Appalachia.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

80

AT: FEDERALISM
No link, federal government has always been in charge of nuclear power Durbin, 6 - J.D., Emory University School of Law (Angela J, “STRIKING A DELICATE BALANCE: DEVELOPING A NEW RATIONALE FOR PREEMPTION WHILE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN SITING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS,” 56 Emory L.J. 507, 2006)//markoff <Although insufficient regulation by states and conflicting regulation by states are the most common reasons for congressional intervention in areas [*528] traditionally reserved to the states, 149 there are several other reasons, some of which are particularly significant to this Comment's analysis. Specifically, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 150 which gave the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 151 the exclusive authority to regulate the nuclear power industry, including the ability to site nuclear power plants. 152 The development of nuclear power had ramifications for national security and for private energy consumption. 153 As a private energy source, nuclear energy was in its infant stages; Allen R. Ferguson, Jr. has noted that Congress's desire to "foster the development of a nonexistent industry" gave Congress the incentive to regulate in this area, 154 athough there were concerns about traditional areas of state authority, such as public health and safety. 155 Furthermore, Congress had an interest in "encouraging development of a variety of energy sources ... to promote the general welfare and common defense of the nation," beyond Congress's desire to encourage nuclear energy. 156> All nuclear regulation is federal jurisdiction Jose & Garza, 7 – Managing partner of Jose & Associates and J.D. @ Georgetown (Donald E and Michael A, “The Complete Federal Preemption of Nuclear Safety Should Prevent Scientifically Irrational Jury Verdicts in Radiation Litigation,” 26 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 1, Spring 2007) Congress first initiated its regulation of nuclear technology through the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. n83 The Act was designed to
transform "atomic power into a source of energy." n84 Although nuclear technology was originally a government [*14] monopoly, within ten years of passing the Atomic Energy Act, Congress concluded "that the national interest would be best served if the Government encouraged the private sector to become involved in the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes under a program of federal regulation and licensing." n85 Thus, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 n86 ended the federal monopoly and permitted private sector involvement under a comprehensive system of federal licensing requirements and regulation. n87

The federal government "erected a complex scheme to promote the civilian development of nuclear energy, while seeking to safeguard the public and the environment from the unpredictable risks of a new technology." n88 The Atomic Energy Commission (the predecessor of the NRC) "was given exclusive jurisdiction to license the transfer, delivery, receipt, acquisition, possession and use of nuclear materials." n89 "Upon these subjects, no role was left for the states." n90 Federal government controls the nuclear industry Jose & Garza, 7 – Managing partner of Jose & Associates and J.D. @ Georgetown (Donald E and Michael A, “The Complete Federal Preemption of Nuclear Safety Should Prevent Scientifically Irrational Jury Verdicts in Radiation Litigation,” 26 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 1, Spring 2007) <In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, n94 the United States Supreme Court recognized the preemptive effect of forty years of congressional legislation and regulation of nuclear energy, and held that under the comprehensive federal framework, "the safety of nuclear technology [is] the exclusive business of the federal government," and that states are precluded from regulating the safety aspects of nuclear energy. n95 The Court reasoned: the federal government maintains complete control of the safety and "nuclear" aspects of energy generation ... . State safety regulation is not preempted only when it conflicts with [*15] federal law. Rather, the federal government has occupied the entire field of nuclear safety concerns, except the limited powers expressly ceded to the states ... . [A] state judgment that nuclear power is not safe enough to be further developed would conflict directly with the countervailing judgment of the NRC... A state prohibition on nuclear construction for safety reasons would also be in the teeth of the Atomic Energy Act's objective to insure that nuclear technology be safe enough for widespread development and use - and would be preempted for that reason. n96>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

81

AT: FEDERALISM
Federal regulations allow state autonomy Durbin, 6 - J.D., Emory University School of Law (Angela J, “STRIKING A DELICATE BALANCE: DEVELOPING A NEW RATIONALE FOR PREEMPTION WHILE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN SITING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS,” 56 Emory L.J. 507, 2006)//markoff <Even when Congress has justified regulating in the realm of states' police powers, it usually has preserved the right of states to regulate more stringently [*529] than the federal standard. 158 For example, even though Congress granted the AEA exclusive authority over nuclear energy facilities, 159 Congress included a provision in the 1977 CAA amendments authorizing states to promulgate higher standards for radioactive emissions from nuclear plants than had been set by the federal government. 160> Links to the squo, massive federal preemption coming now over natural gas Durbin, 6 - J.D., Emory University School of Law (Angela J, “STRIKING A DELICATE BALANCE: DEVELOPING A NEW RATIONALE FOR PREEMPTION WHILE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN SITING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS,” 56 Emory L.J. 507, 2006)//markoff <With the passage of sections 311 and 313, which completely preempt state and local regulatory involvement in the decision to site LNG terminals, Congress went beyond the preemptive nature of any statute it had previously passed, and it did so without sufficient traditional justifications. However, Congress's goal in passing these provisions was to alleviate the functional ban caused by the splintered regulatory framework previously applicable to these facilities. Congress's decision to preempt state and local law was therefore justified as a method of defragmenting the regulatory process. However, Congress also created a risk that the voice of the public would be silenced in the siting process. To protect the public interest, FERC, as the newly minted agency with exclusive authority in this area, must encourage public [*543] involvement and incorporate the public's comments into any siting decision. Without this incorporation, FERC runs the risk of prematurely permitting facilities that would not, when all factors are considered, be in the nation's best interest.> Federalism is non-unique, Congress routinely intervenes into state regulations Durbin, 6 - J.D., Emory University School of Law (Angela J, “STRIKING A DELICATE BALANCE: DEVELOPING A NEW RATIONALE FOR PREEMPTION WHILE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN SITING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS,” 56 Emory L.J. 507, 2006)//markoff <Congress has regulated in areas traditionally reserved for the states when state regulation would hinder a commercial market. 142 When Congress passed the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA), it included a preemption provision that prohibited states from regulating medical devices. 143 Justice Stevens noted in his Medtronic opinion that Congress had passed the MDA due to "concerns that competing state requirements may unduly interfere with the market for medical devices." 144 The Court reasoned that medical device manufacturers should be protected from divergent state requirements, thereby promoting interstate commerce. 145 Similar concerns are applicable in the context of the regulation of the automotive industry. Independent state regulation would require automotive companies to produce fifty different types of each vehicle model rather than a single model that could be sold nationally, resulting in an undue burden on the industry.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

82

AT: SPENDING
Loan Guarantees Don’t Cost the government money Bennett et al, 7 – Vice President for Public Affairs; (Matt Bennett, Rob Keast, senior policy advisor, and John Dyson, Third Way Trustee, “Another Inconvenient Truth: Solving Global Warming and Energy Security Requires Nuclear Power,” 4/23/07 http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/84/Third_Way_Nuclear_Memo.pdf) //DT Loan guarantees are important in nuclear power, because the cost of building a nuclear plant can cost as high as $2–$6 billion,20 an astronomical sum for many of the companies that will make initial investments. Moreover, these loan guarantees are self-financing, meaning that the private sector underwrites what it costs the federal government to provide the credit of the loan guarantee.21 This office was finally appropriated money as part of the 2007 Continuing Resolution that was passed in February of this year. We encourage the Department of Energy to set this office up without delay, and we urge policymakers to continue to provide the necessary funds to run the office in the years to come. Loan guarantees don’t link to spending- increase based on investor confidence NEI 8 (Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry, 02-04-08, “Energy Department's FY09 Budget Request Reflects Need for New Nuclear Power Plants”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/doefy09budgetrequest/ //VR) The loan guarantees are not an actual appropriation and, therefore, do not represent an outlay of taxpayer dollars when the clean-energy projects are successfully completed. They are designed to boost investor confidence and allow worthy projects to move ahead with debt financing on more reasonable terms that ultimately will lower the overall cost of electricity generated by those projects. Loan guarantees will be paid by the nuclear industry Bowman, 06 – President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, Cq Congressional Testimony, 9/13, lexis) //DH It is important to note that the loan guarantee program is not a subsidy. Under the terms of the statute, the project developer would pay the credit subsidy cost of the loan guarantee, pursuant to Federal Credit Reform Act protocols. Given a rational approach to implementation, in which projects are selected based on a high likelihood of commercial success with the loan guarantees, there will be trivial risk to the taxpayer and minimal risk of default. The loan guarantee program is a financing tool, modeled on the successful financing techniques already employed by the federal government (through such agencies as the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp.). It is designed to stimulate investment in high-capital-cost projects that are in the national interest, and to correct the market imperfections described above that would otherwise preclude those investments. Properly managed and implemented, this program represents a source of revenue to the federal government in the years ahead, in the form of investment banking fees.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

83

AT: ALTERNATE INCENTIVES COUNTERPLANS
Loan guarantees are more important than the production tax credit or risk insurance Voinovich, 08 – US Senator (George, Nuclear News, “Making the nuclear renaissance a reality”, March, lexis) //DH The nuclear industry's major financing challenge is the cost of new baseload nuclear power plants relative to the size of the companies that must make those investments. Unregulated generating companies and regulated integrated utilities represent different business models, and those differences influence how these companies approach nuclear plant financing. Regulated companies expect to finance nuclear plants in the same way they finance all major capital projects, with state regulatory approval and reasonable assurance of investment recovery through approved rate charges. These companies must know--before construction begins--that their investment in a new nuclear plant is judged prudent and can be recovered. Unregulated companies rely on debt financing with a highly leveraged capital structure. Since the estimated cost of a new nuclear plant ($5 billion to $6 billion) is a significant fraction of the company's assets, it is in effect a bet-the-company decision. To help overcome these obstacles, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides key incentives for investments in new nuclear plants: a production tax credit of $18 per megawatt-hour for the first 6000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity; regulatory risk insurance against delays in commercial operation caused by licensing or litigation for up to $500 million for the first two plants and $250 million for the next four; and loan guarantees up to 80 percent of the cost of projects, such as nuclear plants, that reduce emissions. While the production tax credit certainly improves the financial attractiveness of a project during its commercial operation, and regulatory risk insurance provides a safety net in case of regulatory delays, it is the loan guarantee provision that makes the difference for unregulated companies in deciding whether or not to build. Properly implemented, this loan guarantee program allows unregulated companies building nuclear plants to employ a more leveraged capital structure at reduced financing costs, which then benefits consumers through lower rates for the price of electricity.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

84

AT: IAEA COUNTERPLAN
International regulations fail to stop prolif Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 75) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has responsibility for verifying NPT compliance with respect to fuel cycle facilities through its negotiated safeguards agreements with NPT signatories. The IAEA’s safeguard efforts, however, are seriously constrained by the scope of their authorities (as evidenced in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea during the last decade), by their allocation of resources, and by the growing divergence between responsibilities and funding. The United Nations Security Council has not yet established a procedure or shown a willingness to impose sanctions when IAEA safeguards agreements are violated. A variety of multilateral agreements, such as the Nuclear Supplier Group guidelines for export control, aim to restrict the spread of proliferation- enabling nuclear and dual-use technology. European centrifuge enrichment technology, however, is known to have contributed to weapons development elsewhere, and the US and Russia have a continuing dispute over transfer of Russian fuel cycle technologies to Iran (a NPT signatory). This is not to say that the safeguards regime has failed to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons; it almost certainly has. Nevertheless, its shortcomings raise significant questions about the wisdom of a global growth scenario that envisions a major increase in the scale and geographical distribution of nuclear power.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

85

AT: U.S. GOVERNMENT NUCLEAR POWER COUNTERPLAN
Commercial nuclear power development is vital to U.S. influence – U.S. government nuclear power programs aren’t enough BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)//DH The world has evolved significantly with respect to commercial nuclear power. The U.S. role in these markets has been strongly influenced by a combination of events which have led to the fact that there has not been an order to build a new commercial nuclear power plant in the U.S. in more than 30 years. This has led to a decline in the infrastructure that would be required to build new nuclear power plants or the facilities envisioned under GNEP. Much of what little U.S. nuclear manufacturing infrastructure does still exist is presently devoted to serving the needs of the U.S. Government, including various nonproliferation initiatives and the naval nuclear propulsion program. Large parts of this infrastructure would require modification to enter into the commercial nuclear power market.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

86

AT: SUNSETS CP
Sunsetting the plan kills investment Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc (Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf) //markoff <The development of a new advanced nuclear reactor project involves several billion dollars and a preparation and licensing process of at least 4-5 years followed by a 3-5 year construction period. The timelines for these projects are market-driven, either by obligations to meet demand growth (for regulated utilities) or to supply the requirements of load serving entities (for merchant generators). A major multi-year project of this nature is simply not amenable to undefined solicitation cycles that are at the discretion of DOE, or that are bared upon volume caps or other requirements set annually, and that bear no relation to the planning needs of a large project. Rather, such projects require an "open" application process, where Project Sponsors are able to make inquires and initiate either an optional Pre-Application, or an Application at the appropriate time selected by the Project Sponsors and their advisors. For some, this may need to occur very early in the development process in order to facilitate the ability of a Project Sponsor to place orders and make commitments for long lead time equipment and pre-construction activities. Thus, the Proposed Rule should permit applications to be made once the NRC has docketed an Application for COL, i.e., any time after the NRC has concluded that the Application for the COL is administratively complete. At this point in time, the details of the project are sufficiently complete to support the NRC licensing process, and the Project Sponsors will be making decisions as to whether or not to undertake preconstruction activities that may require financings, or at least require funding that cannot be approved by the Project Sponsors themselves without detailed insight into the prospects for future financing activities. For others, the Project Sponsors may find it more desirable to defer the time and expense of the loan guarantee application process to later in the project time line. This should also be acceptable to DOE, because such Applications should involve projects that are further along in the planning and implementation processes. >

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

87

AT: DELAY COUNTERPLAN
Delay means projects will be canceled von Namen, 08 - Senior Vice President, Uranium Enrichment USEC Inc. (Robert, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/23, lexis) //DH Those are some of the positives, but the need for government action remains. Despite legislation passed by Congress to encourage the expansion of nuclear power, the implementation of legislative directives at the agency level has often been out of step with real-world timeframes. The delay in implementing the Loan Guarantee program, for instance, may prevent new nuclear facilities from coming online as soon as possible because companies may have to delay or cancel their projects. The NRC also faces a funding shortfall from its budget request that may force it to defer or delay the review of applications for new projects.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

88

AT: LOPEZ COUNTERPLAN – LNG DISAD
FERC jurisdiction is key to federal regulation of LNG terminals Durbin, 6 - J.D., Emory University School of Law (Angela J, “STRIKING A DELICATE BALANCE: DEVELOPING A NEW RATIONALE FOR PREEMPTION WHILE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN SITING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS,” 56 Emory L.J. 507, 2006)//DH Congress's grant of exclusive jurisdiction to FERC preempts the authority of state agencies - principally public utility commissions, which previously were viewed as the primary authorities responsible for siting LNG terminals. 15 Congress's regulation in this area impinges on states' traditional authority under the police power to regulate in areas of public health, safety and welfare, land use planning, and utility planning. 16 Although Congress has the right to regulate in these areas, courts have developed a presumption against [*509] Congress's preemption of state or local law in areas of traditional state concern. 17 Furthermore, when Congress regulates in an area of traditional state concern, it most often does so because states have not regulated sufficiently or there is a need for uniform regulation. 18 These rationales only partially support Congress's preemption of states' authority to site LNG terminals. Therefore, this Comment argues that the grant of exclusive jurisdiction over the siting of LNG terminals to FERC represents a departure from the traditional rationales that support the reallocation of power to the state governments and away from the federal government in areas of traditional state concern. However, this Comment suggests that an alternate rationale exists for the passage of section 311: the effective ban on siting LNG terminals that has developed through regulatory fragmentation and state and local opposition to these projects. Although Congress's grant of exclusive jurisdiction to FERC was justified by this functional ban, this Comment notes that the transfer of power that Congress has effected has the potential to decrease the effectiveness of public participation in the LNG terminal siting process. LNG siting preemption is the most stringent form of preemptive action Congress can take Durbin, 6 - J.D., Emory University School of Law (Angela J, “STRIKING A DELICATE BALANCE: DEVELOPING A NEW RATIONALE FOR PREEMPTION WHILE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN SITING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS,” 56 Emory L.J. 507, 2006)//DH However, when Congress has regulated in areas traditionally left to the states, Congress has, more often than not, allowed states to regulate more stringently than the national standards set in the federal statute. 139 In unusual cases, however, due to the purposes of the relevant statute, Congress has forbidden states from regulating more stringently, even in areas of traditional state concern. 140 Congress has done this with the passage of section 311 of the Act by transferring sole authority to FERC to regulate the siting of LNG terminals and away from states and localities, representing the most preemptive action Congress can take. A review of several statutes representative of Congress's past preemptive actions, especially during the last thirty years, provides a window into the traditional rationales that have supported congressional preemption in areas normally governed by the states' police power.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

89

AT: LOPEZ COUNTERPLAN – LNG DISAD
Local opposition to LNG terminals will create catastrophic gas shortages Durbin, 6 - J.D., Emory University School of Law (Angela J, “STRIKING A DELICATE BALANCE: DEVELOPING A NEW RATIONALE FOR PREEMPTION WHILE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN SITING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS,” 56 Emory L.J. 507, 2006)//DH Richard Pierce, without explicitly doing so, has relied on the anticommons theory in a critique of the regulatory framework that applied to LNG terminals prior to the passage of the Act. 253 Pierce expressed concern that "local opposition to LNG terminals is so powerful that the [United States] will be unable to construct enough terminals to avoid a catastrophic gas shortage" due to the splintered regulatory process for siting the facilities. 254 Coincident with Heller's proposal to locate exclusive property rights in one individual as a means of solving the "anticommons" problem, 255 Pierce advocated for "enactment of a statute that gives federal agencies or federal courts authority to override the decisions of state or local agencies when those decisions interfere with the nation's ability to obtain enough natural gas to meet our needs." 256 Congress, with the passage of sections 311 and 313, seems to have responded directly to Pierce's call to action. 257 Congress's decision to preempt state and local involvement in siting LNG terminals is therefore justified - under a newly minted rationale - as a means of preventing the nation from being subject to "a catastrophic gas shortage." 258 However, as
Buzbee implied, centralization of siting authority in a single federal agency has repercussions for the ability of the public to become [*542] meaningfully involved in siting LNG terminals. 259 Furthermore, final review by a single federal agency, namely FERC, rather than a multi-layered, multi-tiered review by several state and federal agencies, has the potential to create a situation in which negative aspects of the project "might ... be overlooked." 260 As discussed in Part II, there are grave security and safety risks inherent in the presence of an LNG terminal off the coast of a community; 261 these risks should be examined in detail prior to a siting decision. FERC must be careful to maintain an attitude that welcomes the involvement of states and localities, and thereby the public, in the siting process. FERC must encourage state and local input about regional safety and security hazards, 262 as well as support public comment. 263 Otherwise, although the

number of LNG terminals will increase at a faster rate due to centralized regulation, 264 the siting of those terminals may be insufficiently analysed, causing the public to be subject to unwarranted safety and security risks. 265 Domestic natural gas supply is falling – only LNG imports can fill in Bosselman, 7 - Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Fred, “THE NEW POWER GENERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ELECTRICITY INNOVATION: COLLOQUIUM ARTICLE: THE ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER,” 15 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 2007)//markoff Until recently, the United States obtained most of its natural gas from within the lower forty-eight states. 55 Gradually, supplies have been supplemented by imports from Canada, which now make up a significant part of the United States' supply. 56 In addition, we have begun to import relatively small amounts of natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG), brought in by special tankers from countries such as Algeria and Trinidad to five LNG terminals located in various parts of the United States. 57 Supplies of gas from domestic well fields have been [*14] declining. 58 Production of gas from coal beds ("coalbed methane" or CBM) has helped, but the rapidly growing demand for natural gas has convinced the industry that our future supplies require new sources. 59 One potential source is the natural gas now being stored in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope for lack of a pipeline. 60 In 2004, "Congress approved the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, which included an $ 18 billion loan guaranty, streamlined permitting, provisions for environmental review, ... expedited court review" and other incentives. 61 In addition, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 provided seven-year tax depreciation for the pipeline and confirmed that an enhanced oil recovery credit applied to the gas processing facilities that will be associated with the pipeline. 62 This huge and expensive project is at least ten years from completion, if it will even be built. 63 Therefore, substantially increased imports of LNG are projected for the foreseeable future. 64 Congress has streamlined the process of approval of new LNG terminals, and many such terminals are working their way through the process, 65 but these [*15] terminals will need to rely on the ability to import natural gas from a wide range of countries at prices compatible with the market for domestic gas. 66

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

90

AT: LOPEZ COUNTERPLAN – LNG DISAD
State regulations of LNG terminals crush the industry Durbin, 6 - J.D., Emory University School of Law (Angela J, “STRIKING A DELICATE BALANCE: DEVELOPING A NEW RATIONALE FOR PREEMPTION WHILE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN SITING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS,” 56 Emory L.J. 507, 2006)//DH However, the industry has argued before Congress that the delays caused by state and local opposition have effected a functional ban on the siting and construction of LNG terminals. 218 Based on this argument, creation of a uniform, federal standard overriding state regulation may seem reasonable, as exhibited by the TSCA. 219 Under the TSCA, Congress permitted states to regulate more stringently than the federal standards. 220 However, North Carolina's ban on disposal of hazardous substances within Warren County led a court to conclude that bans were not similarly exempted from preemption under the TSCA due to the purposes of the statute. 221 Applying the same reasoning to LNG terminals, a partial congressional transfer of authority away [*537] from states may have been justified by the need for a uniform standard to protect against statewide bans on building new LNG sites. Other potentially relevant rationales are Congress's interests in encouraging the development of an infant industry 222 and a variety of energy sources, 223 which provided the justifications for Congress to transfer siting authority of nuclear power plants to AEC. There are only four LNG terminals presently operational in the United States. 224 With so few terminals, it is arguable that the industry remains in its "infant stages" and therefore needs to be protected and regulated by the federal government. Furthermore, in light of steadily rising energy prices, 225 it is likely that Congress has a considerable interest in diversifying the nation's energy supply. However, as Allen Ferguson noted, the energy-price rationale was especially applicable to nuclear energy because of the special relationship between the federal government and nuclear energy, and may not be relevant to other areas of the law, even other types of energy. 226 Because many states have functionally banned LNG terminals, Congress may have been warranted in taking some authority away from states in this realm of the law. Furthermore, Congress's desire to encourage a diversification of energy sources and its desire to protect the LNG industry may also justify some preemptive action. However, no congressional statute passed prior to the Act has been as broadly preemptive as sections 311 and 313. Therefore, although traditional rationales would have supported limited federal preemption, no rationale supports the extent to which Congress stripped state and local governments of the power to site LNG terminals. A comparison to another broadly preemptive statute, the HMTA, highlights the inability for traditional rationales to support the broadly preemptive nature of sections 311 and 313.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

91

AT: LOPEZ COUNTERPLAN – LIABILITY DISAD
Federal preemption in nuclear power is key to preventing state jury verdicts against the nuclear power industry that will destroy it Jose & Garza, 7 – Managing partner of Jose & Associates and J.D. @ Georgetown (Donald E and Michael A, “The Complete Federal Preemption of Nuclear Safety Should Prevent Scientifically Irrational Jury Verdicts in Radiation Litigation,” 26 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 1, Spring 2007) <Federal law preempts radiation safety. n53 Unfortunately, the Cook judge and jury disregarded federal regulations of radiation safety. There are
currently 104 NRC licensed operating nuclear reactors in the United States. n54 They provide 20% of the [*10] nation's electricity. n55 In addition, there are 18 nuclear facilities associated with nuclear weapons production, one of which was Rocky Flats. n56 Finally, there are many nuclear fuel cycle sites where some work is done with radioactive material. n57 At some point each of these sites will be decommissioned, as Rocky Flats was, and

the land transferred to other uses. The NRC allows the land upon which a nuclear power plant once stood to be decommissioned and transferred to private ownership for unrestricted uses as long as the residual radioactivity on the land (i.e. the
"contamination" remaining after clean-up) would not cause a dose to a resident of the land exceeding 25 millirem per year. n58 The EPA agrees with the 25 millirem standard. n59 Yet, the Cook jury assessed half a billion dollars damages for a dose 10 times less. Obviously, a severe conflict exists between the federal regulation of nuclear safety and the Cook jury verdict. Either the federal agency with

expertise backed by complete federal preemption controls the extent of decontamination required, or a lay jury can assert control through the damages they assess. Both the judgment of the federal agency and the judgment of the jury cannot be right and they cannot co-exist. One must be subjugated to the other. Either the federal agency with expertise in nuclear safety regulates clean-up to acceptable levels or the latest lay jury award effectively regulates through monetary damages, and perhaps destroys n60 the nuclear industry.> State jurisdiction kills nuclear power and ends civilization Jose & Garza, 7 – Managing partner of Jose & Associates and J.D. @ Georgetown (Donald E and Michael A, “The Complete Federal Preemption of Nuclear Safety Should Prevent Scientifically Irrational Jury Verdicts in Radiation Litigation,” 26 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 1, Spring 2007)//markoff <The Cook decision, if affirmed on appeal, has implications far beyond negating the complete federal preemption of nuclear safety. If a nuclear utility cannot rely upon the federal safety standards as a defense against suits for trivial doses, they may well revert to the position they took prior to the passage of the Price-Anderson Act: no nuclear power plants. n126 They may elect to shut down the 104 nuclear power plants producing 20% of this nation's electricity and thereby plague the country with blackouts: "Spokesmen for the private sector informed Congress that they would be forced to withdraw from the field if their liability were not limited by appropriate legislation." n127 If the Cook rationale were to be adopted in cases of allegedly "contaminated" water or air, compliance with the federal safety standards would not provide any protection for a municipal water district. n128 They could be subject to millions of dollars in damages, as assessed by a lay jury, even though the contaminants in question constituted less than 1/100th of the amounts the EPA deems to be adequately safe. Likewise, municipalities could be liable for failure to reduce man-made air contaminants to zero. Allowing juries to award damages for any levels of contamination above zero would essentially destroy our civilization since no municipality could accept the potential liability attendant in providing a public water supply or in allowing internal combustion engines or furnaces within the municipal limits. Americans would have to revert to a horse and buggy rural lifestyle that existed two hundred and fifty years ago. Allowing lay juries to regulate potentially harmful substances and adopt a contamination standard of zero opens Pandora's Box.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

92

AT: LOPEZ COUNTERPLAN – LIABILITY DISAD
Federal jurisdiction is vital to shielding the industry from state juries Jose & Garza, 7 – Managing partner of Jose & Associates and J.D. @ Georgetown (Donald E and Michael A, “The Complete Federal Preemption of Nuclear Safety Should Prevent Scientifically Irrational Jury Verdicts in Radiation Litigation,” 26 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 1, Spring 2007) <Similarly, federal regulations do not require radiological purity for nuclear power plants. An operating nuclear power plant may allow minor radiation doses to members of the public living nearby, as long as those doses do not exceed 100 millirem per year. n69
Persons who work in a nuclear facility ("nuclear workers") may receive radiation exposure each and every year of employment so long as the dose does not exceed 5,000 millirem in any one year. n70 A former nuclear power plant can be transformed into an industrial site, a housing development or a shopping mall, so long as the dose to persons using those facilities would not exceed 25 millirem per year. n71 While vast sums of money could be spent to remediate a former reactor site to the level of 2 millirem per year or lower, such action is not necessary.

By comparing actual radiation doses, one can easily see that the Cook jury imposed an improper standard and assessed exorbitant damages. Their actions illustrate one of the reasons for federal preemption: the issue is too complex to place in the hands of a lay jury applying state law concepts and state law causes of action. n72 Sadly, taxpayers will pay for these damages since the federal government indemnifies contractors. n73 No good social policy reason is served by allowing a huge windfall to these private landowners at the expense of the taxpayers. The Atomic Energy and Price-Anderson Acts <At the very dawn of the nuclear age, Congress established a federal monopoly [*13] over nuclear power. n74 While that monopoly remains to this day for nuclear weapons, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 relaxed it so public utilities could build and operate nuclear power plants to generate electricity. Still, utilities would not accept the attendant risk unless adequate insurance was available. n75 To address that concern, Congress provided for a system of financial responsibility in the Price-Anderson Act of 1957. n76 That system combined private insurance up to a certain level and then federal responsibility for any amounts over that level. n77 With the 1988 Amendments Act, Congress established a sole and exclusive federal cause of action, the Public Liability Action ("PLA"), for any property damage or personal injury from radiation exposure due to "source, special nuclear or byproduct material" (essentially the source of the fuel, the fuel itself or any byproducts produced
by burning that fuel in a nuclear reactor). n78 The DOE production of nuclear weapons is covered by Price-Anderson since plutonium, the radioactive substance potentially contaminating the Cook plaintiffs' lands, is a byproduct material. n79 According to Price-Anderson, any plutonium contamination on plaintiff's lands would entitle them to one cause of action - the PLA.

For fifty years, the federal government has regulated nuclear power extensively. n80 Indeed, the federal regulation of nuclear power is one of the most comprehensive frameworks of federal regulation ever established. n81 This federal framework precludes states from regulating the safety aspects of nuclear energy. n82>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

93

AT: BAN SUBSIDIES CP / FREE MARKET
Incentives are vital to creating new reactor designs Lewis, 6 - University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law, J.D. candidate, former Navy engineer specializing in pure water chemistry on naval nuclear reactors (Neal H, “INTERPRETING THE ORACLE: LICENSING MODIFICATIONS, ECONOMICS, SAFETY, POLITICS, AND THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE UNITED STATES,” 16 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 27, 2006)//markoff This level of activity in the design certification process indicates that the reactor design industry does not believe that nuclear power is dead. When companies are willing to invest a significant amount of time and resources into the approval of reactor designs there must be a profit incentive. Companies like Westinghouse and General Electric are large companies spread out across the entire spectrum of the electric power industry - conventional coal, oil, and gas turbine. For these large companies, early reactor plant design certification creates a diversified portfolio of energy products. It makes sense that larger companies would be willing to face the risk associated with new nuclear power plant development, but when lesser known companies are pursuing designs, [*35] companies like Framatome Advanced Nuclear Power and Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., there must be an incentive - money. Government incentives are key to jumpstarting the nuclear industry Tomain, 5 - Dean Emeritus and the Wilbert & Helen Ziegler Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati (Joseph P, “NUCLEAR FUTURES,” 15 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 221, Spring 2005)//markoff <The future of nuclear power will depend on two inter-related decisions - one private and one public. At some point, private utility investors must decide whether or not to commit financial resources to nuclear power. Public policymakers, similarly, must decide whether to commit public resources to nuclear power. Recall that nuclear power [*233] does not operate in a workably competitive market. Instead, the industry has always relied on government support. Without government, there would be no commercial nuclear power industry. Although these investment decisions are not identical, 69 both rely on rough calculations, and for illustrative purposes, I will set out the calculations in three equations.> Government subsidies are key to nuclear industry profitability Columbia Daily Tribune, 8 (“OPINION: CWIP, etc: Enabling nuclear power”, Henry J. Waters III, Tribune Business News, Jun 11, 2008, Proquest)/AK In France, where nuclear plants provide some 80 percent of the nation's load, the government builds and owns the plants. A good case can be made for the efficiency of the French system. Because it was done by the central government, capital costs were spread nationwide and did not hamper development of the world's most comprehensive nuclear power system. One also can understand why no such approach grew up in America. We have more abundant supplies of oil and coal, and most of our large power plants are privately owned. Our national tradition favors private rather than public ownership. There is nothing wrong with our past, but in our future we need to develop new ways of funding power production expansion. For capacity and environmental reasons, nuclear power holds the most promise. By some means, the high cost of financing construction must be recoverable. No private lender will carry the burden over a 10-year construction phase. Either state law will allow recovery from existing customers through CWIP rate increases or the government will have to help with financing costs. The state could allow the issuance of state-backed bonds to be repaid after the plant begins to generate revenue. This would require a rate increase for customers just as CWIP would. The ultimate cost would be higher for customers to cover larger interest expense, but rate increases would be postponed. Reasonably enough, Ameren planners say they must be able to rely on some method of financing a new plant before they can make final plans to start construction. Can you think of any plan other than CWIP or government-backed bonding repaid by customers? Perhaps government subsidies are the answer. Are new nuclear plants such large contributors to our energy supply that their construction justifies such help? Subsidies would have no inherent implication for higher company profits, which only would be allowed based on actual company expenses.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

94

AT BAN SUBSIDIES / FREE MARKET CP
Nuclear power isn’t economically viable without loan guarantees – studies confirm Inside Energy with Federal Lands 6-9 (Limits on loan guarantee program seen blunting its impact on nuclear revival, 2008, L/n, rday) Analysts said financing is a hurdle because a nuclear project is initially capital-intensive and is also subject to some volatility because of potential political or regulatory changes over the course of the five- to 10-year project. Also last week, two industry experts, Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh, released a paper, "The Nuclear Illusion," in which they say a nuclear renaissance will not happen because of the high capital costs and the unwillingness of Wall Street to invest. The report said there were 439 nuclear plants operating as of the end of 2007. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 31 units were under construction in 13 countries. All but five of those projects were in Asia or Eastern Europe. Yet, the Asian Development Bank has never financed one, nor has the World Bank, for the most part, the report said; it invested in one in 1959. Economic evidence confirms, the report said, that "new nuclear plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market because of their excessive costs and financial risks and the high uncertainty of both." "Turning ambitions into actual investments, firm orders, and operating plants faces fundamental obstacles that are now first and foremost economic," the report said. Government involvement creates partnerships that lead to a nuclear renaissance Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc (Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf) //markoff <There is a long history in the United States of partnerships between public power entities and private industry that have facilitated the construction of new nuclear power plants. In addition, participation by public power entities may enhance local stakeholder support and can help mitigate some project risks. Moreover, the potential for public power entities joining new plant development efforts should be viewed positively by the government as consistent with the spirit of public-private partnership and risk-sharing that underscores much of the effort to jump-start a nuclear renaissance through development of a new generation of advanced nuclear technology.>

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

95

AT: BAN SUBSIDIES / FREE MARKET COUNTERPLAN
Market forces will destroy nuclear power Flavin, 6 –Christopher, President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK The industry likes to blame environmentalists for its moribund state. But market forces have done far more to damage nuclear power than anti-nuclear activists ever did. The dramatic collapse of the nuclear industry in the early 1980s described by Forbes magazine as the most expensive debacle since the Vietnam War-was caused in large measure by massive cost overruns driven by expensive safety upgrades after the Three Mile Island accident revealed shortcomings in nuclear plant design. These made nuclear power plants far more expensive than they were supposed to be. Some U.S. power companies were driven into bankruptcy and others spent years restoring their balance sheets. Nuclear executives argue that they have learned much since the industry meltdown of the 1980s and that improved technologies will allow them to lower costs. That may be true, though it remains to be proven. Data from the few nuclear power plants completed in the last few years suggest that they produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of new coal and gas plants, both of which have seen steady cost reductions. And the new reactor designs being proposed by some companies are more likely to raise than lower costs in the short run, since the first prototypes are likely to have problems that need to be worked out. Regulatory uncertainty and depreciation of the industry prevent new investment without an external stimulus Fertel, 4 – Marvin S., Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer @ the Nuclear Energy Institute (Congressional testimony FDCH, march 4, “Nuclear Power Generation”, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)/AK Given these facts, we strongly encourage the passage of energy policy legislation to provide broad-based stimulus for investment in new energy infrastructure, including new nuclear plant construction, deployment of clean coal technologies, new electricity transmission and other energy sources. Passage of legislation that provides such investment stimulus is essential if we hope to preserve the diversity of fuels and technologies that represent the core strength of our energy supply and delivery system. That stimulus can come through shorter depreciation periods, investment tax credits and production tax credits, loans or loan guarantees, or research and development support, depending on the conditions and requirements of each energy source. In addition, renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, which provides insurance for the public in the case of a nuclear reactor incident, is a necessary step in paving the way toward new nuclear power plants. NEI believes that more appropriate tax treatment of energy investment must be a central feature of energy policy legislation. As a general rule, the electric industry suffers from depreciation treatment that may have been appropriate for another era, when regulated companies with stable long-term cash flows had a reasonable assurance of investment recovery through rates. But 15- to 20-year depreciation periods for investments in generation and transmission assets are unacceptable for an industry operating in a competitive commodity market, where cash flows are highly volatile and there is no guarantee of investment recovery. Current depreciation treatment acts like a brake on new capital investment. Energy policy legislation should also address another significant factor that could inhibit capital investment: Regulatory uncertainty. This uncertainty has a chilling effect on capital formation and capital investment. Regulatory uncertainty and perceived risks over the licensing process for new nuclear power plants could inhibit capital investment in new nuclear facilities. In the coal industry, uncertainty over environmental requirements, including possible future limitations on criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide, has slowed capital investment in new coal-fired generating capacity or in upgrading existing capacity. Public policy must recognize the impact of these uncertainties and develop mechanisms to address them. NEI believes that policymakers must recognize the risks and uncertainties in our economic and regulatory systems and also recognize that policymakers have a responsibility to establish mechanisms to contain those uncertainties.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

96

AT: STATE PRODUCTION TAX COUNTERPLAN FOR NUCLEAR POWER
Nuclear power has a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kWh produced Hassert and Metcalf, 08 - *senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at AEI AND ** professor of economics at Tufts University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (Kevin and Gilbert, “The Whys and Hows of Energy Taxes,” Issues in Science and Technology, January 1, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28136,filter.all/pub_detail.asp, //DH) Other production tax credits in the tax code include a production tax credit for electricity produced at nuclear power plants (section 45J). Qualifying plants are eligible for a 1.8cent-per-kWh production tax credit, up to an annual limit of $125 million per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity for eight years. This limit will be binding for a nuclear power plant with a capacity factor of 80% or higher, thereby converting this into a lump-sum subsidy for new nuclear power plant construction.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

97

AT: PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT COUNTERPLAN
Production tax credits do nothing to cover construction costs – loan guarantees are the vital mechanism Bowman 6- President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute (Frank, 9-3-06, Speech to House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended //VR)

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognized this financing challenge to a limited extent, and provided some investment stimulus for construction of new baseload power plants, including new nuclear plants. The Energy Policy Act also provided an
innovative form of federal insurance (called Standby Support) to protect project developers against delays in commercial operation of a new nuclear plant due to factors beyond the project developer’s control—including regulatory delays and litigation. The investment stimulus includes loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of total project cost, and a production tax credit of $18 per megawatt-hour for 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity. The standby support insurance will cover debt service for the first six nuclear plants if commercial operation is delayed. This coverage is capped at $500 million for the first two reactors, and $250 million for the next four reactors. It is important, however, to maintain a financially realistic perspective on these incentives: Two of these three provisions do not address the

challenges associated with construction financing.
The standby support insurance covers only debt service. It would not compensate a company for other delay costs incurred while a completed plant sits idle, awaiting the completion of licensing proceedings or litigation. These delay costs, which include staffing costs, fuel costs and lost earnings, could easily reach hundreds of millions of dollars. And although the standby support insurance covers the first six reactors, the first two $500 million insurance contracts have the most value, because they cover 100 percent of debt service with no delay period. The four $250 million insurance contracts cover only 50 percent of debt service and a company must endure six months of delay before it can file a claim even for that. Although widely advertised as risk insurance for project developers designed to protect them against licensing or litigation delays over which they have no control, the standby support insurance leaves the project sponsor with substantial risk. The standby support insurance provides limited investment protection; it does not provide investment stimulus.

The production tax credit enhances the financial attractiveness of a project after it is built and in commercial operation, but the production tax credit does not address the financing challenges before and during construction. It does not assure access to
capital on acceptable terms. It does not provide companies the ability to use the most efficient capital structure. And it does not address the issue of earnings-per-share (EPS) dilution during construction. A $3 billion to $4 billion nuclear project financed with a 50/50 debt/equity capital structure would require $1.5 billion to $2 billion in new equity. That translates to 5 percent to 7 percent EPS dilution for a $30 billion company, or 10 percent to 13 percent EPS dilution for a $15 billion company. Equity investors have a predictable response when companies dilute their earnings per share: They sell their shares, which drives down the stock price. In terms of facilitating construction financing and access to capital, the most valuable form of investment stimulus in the Energy Policy Act is the authority to provide loan guarantees conferred on the secretary of energy by Title XVII. The secretary is authorized to guarantee up to 80 percent of project cost. This permits a more highly leveraged capital structure—e.g., 80 percent debt/20 percent equity rather than the 50 percent debt/50 percent equity typical of regulated electric utility financing.

Loan guarantees allow companies to employ project financing on a non-recourse basis. They allow a more efficient, leveraged capital structure. They reduce project cost by reducing the weighted average cost of capital, and thus provide a substantial consumer
benefit in the form of lower electricity prices. They reduce the equity requirement and earnings per share dilution. And they mitigate the impact on the balance sheet and challenge to credit quality and bond ratings. The ability to use project finance (non-recourse, higher leverage) offsets the most significant financing challenge facing new nuclear plant construction: The cost of nuclear projects relative to the size, market value and financing capability of companies that will build them. NEI believes loan guarantees are critically important to new nuclear plant financing. Unregulated companies will be hard-

pressed to build nuclear projects except on a project finance basis with the debt financing secured by the federal government. Regulated companies may be limited in their ability to build multiple nuclear projects without project finance capability because of
significant earnings-per-share dilution, and substantial pressure on credit quality and debt ratings due to the additional debt on their balance sheets. It is important to note that the loan guarantee program is not a subsidy. Under the terms of the statute, the project developer would pay the credit subsidy cost of the loan guarantee, pursuant to Federal Credit Reform Act protocols. Given a rational approach to implementation, in which projects are selected based on a high likelihood of commercial success with the loan guarantees, there will be trivial risk to the taxpayer and minimal risk of default. The loan guarantee program is a financing tool, modeled on the successful financing techniques already employed by the federal government (through such agencies as the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp.). It is designed to stimulate investment in high-capital-cost projects that are in the national interest, and to correct the market imperfections described above that would otherwise preclude those investments. Properly managed and implemented, this program represents a source of revenue to the federal government in the years ahead, in the form of investment banking fees. The Department of Energy recently published initial guidelines, developed jointly with the Office of Management and Budget, under which it will implement the loan guarantee program, with an initial solicitation for projects, subject to a $2 billion cap on the initial round of loan guarantees. Nuclear projects were not included in the initial solicitation; large coal-fired projects, using advanced technologies like integrated gasification combined cycle, are also effectively excluded by the $2 billion cap. The department has indicated that nuclear projects will be covered by formal regulations to be developed over the next year. The nuclear industry believes that the initial loan guarantee guidelines produced by DOE and OMB compromise the legislative

intent of Title XVII and significantly erode the value of the loan guarantees. The procedures outlined in the guidelines are so restrictive and so conditional that they would not support financing of a nuclear power plant.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

98

AT: PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT COUNTERPLAN
Production tax credits don’t cover construction costs – which are the critical obstacle to expanding nuclear power Crane 7 –Senior Vice President Exelon Corp. President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear (Christopher, 04-24-07, speech to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/cranetestimony042407extended/ //VR)
The Critical Importance of Loan Guarantees in Supporting the Financing of New Nuclear Generating Capacity It will be a formidable challenge to finance the advanced electric generating technologies needed to (1) meet growing U.S. demand for baseload electricity over the next 15 to 20 years, (2) increase energy independence and (3) meet more stringent environmental standards.

The new nuclear plants now in the early stages of development are capital-intensive projects and will require a level of capital investment that will strain the financing capability of the U.S. electric sector, particularly since that investment in new
generating capacity coincides with a period of heavy capital investment by the electric sector in transmission, distribution and environmental control technologies. Consensus estimates suggest that the industry, over the next 15 years, must invest between $750 billion and $1

trillion in new generating capacity, new transmission and distribution infrastructure, and environmental controls. This new capital spending represents a major challenge to the electric power industry.
All of these investments are necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of the United States’ electricity system. Addressing this challenge successfully will require innovative approaches to financing, combining all the financing capabilities and tools available to the private sector, the federal government and state governments.

The loan guarantee program authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is one of those tools and is essential to support the financing of new nuclear plants. The loan guarantee program will allow companies to employ project financing on a non-recourse basis. The ability to use non-recourse project finance structures offsets the most significant financing challenge facing new baseload power plant construction—the cost of baseload projects relative to the size, market value and financing capability of companies that will build them. New nuclear projects are $4 billion to $5 billion undertakings, at least. Although $4 billion to $5 billion projects are not unique in the energy business, such projects are typically built by much larger
companies with market values 10 to 15 times higher than the largest electric companies. All the companies that have announced plans for new nuclear power plants have a combined market value only slightly more than half the market value of ExxonMobil. Even Exelon, my company, with a

market value of approximately $40 billion, is not large enough to finance a single nuclear plant without the federal loan guarantees.
Project financing, supported by loan guarantees, also allows a more efficient, leveraged capital structure to reduce project cost by lowering the weighted average cost of capital, and thus provides a substantial consumer benefit in the form of lower electricity prices. Loan guarantees also mitigate the impact on the balance sheet of these large capital projects, which would otherwise place stress on credit quality and bond ratings. Loan guarantees are equally important to unregulated companies, operating in states that have restructured their electric power industries, and to regulated companies subject to cost-of-service regulation. Unregulated companies will be hard-pressed to build nuclear power plants and other large capitalintensive baseload projects except on a project finance basis with the debt financing secured by the federal government. Unregulated companies do not have the capacity to finance these projects on balance sheet without access to project finance structures. Some regulated companies, especially those pursuing multiple generating and transmission projects at the same time, may also be limited in their ability to finance projects without project finance capability because of substantial pressure on credit quality and debt ratings.

In addition, the capital markets that will provide the debt financing for new nuclear projects regard loan guarantees as essential to protect investors against potential licensing, regulatory and political risks associated with new nuclear plant construction.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act included several incentives designed to stimulate investment in new nuclear power plants. These incentives were provided as a package to address different risks associated with new nuclear power plants. Our analysis of new nuclear plant financing, and our discussions with the banking community since the passage of the 2005 energy legislation, suggests that the loan guarantee program is clearly the most important

of all the incentives in the Energy Policy Act. The act provided a production tax credit for nuclear plants that file applications for COLs before the end of 2008 and start construction by
the beginning of 2014. These credits will improve the financial attractiveness of a nuclear project when it is in commercial operation and help offset the economic risk associated with the first projects. Our major challenge is construction financing, however, and the construction period

is when a new nuclear project most needs investment support. The production tax credit does not help address the construction risks and financing challenge during construction.
The Energy Policy Act also provides a form of insurance—called standby support—to protect project developers against delays by licensing or litigation over which they have no control. But this insurance protection is severely limited. The insurance covers debt service up to certain limits for a limited period of time but would not cover other substantial costs borne by a nuclear plant subject to a delay in commercial operation. Although standby support addresses a limited portion of the risk associated with potential delays experienced by the first six plants, I do not believe the standby support will be a critical factor in any board of directors’ decision to authorize construction of a nuclear power plant.

The loan guarantee program is, therefore, the single most important instrument provided by the Energy Policy Act to support financing of new nuclear generating capacity. Yet we are almost two years past passage of the Energy Policy Act, and we still do not have final regulations to implement the loan guarantee program. The Department of Energy does not have staff to evaluate projects; neither the Congress nor the White House have provided sufficient loan authorization to support even one new nuclear plant; and we have no idea what a loan guarantee will cost.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

99

AT: PRIVATE SECTOR LOAN GUARANTEE COUNTERPLAN
Only guaranteed loans from the government will satisfy investors Winn, 07 - executive vice president of Strategy, Environmental and Nuclear Development for NRG Energy, Inc. (Steve, “DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER HOLDS A MEETING TO PROPOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY TITLE XVII OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005”. (19 June 2007). Political Transcript Wire. ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry database.) The U.S. financial markets are highly efficient at matching the right capital to the right risk profile. Safe investments, such as U.S. government obligations, go to those who apply a premium to that safety. Risky investments go to those willing to accept risk in exchange for an appropriate reward. Any program that attempts to tie risky, nonguaranteed loans to safe, government-backed loans fail to recognize the market's preference for self-selection. Such a program has the curse of making every investor unhappy. The risk-averse investor is forced to take risk. And those with an appetite for more risk are forced to buy guaranteed paper.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

100

STATES – 2AC – FEDERAL SIGNAL KEY TO INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
Only Federal Government loans guarantee investor confidence Clayton, 07 - Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor (Mark “Nuclear power surge coming.” 2007, September 28. The Christian Science Monitor,p. ProQuest) Wall Street is also skeptical. In a July letter to the Department of Energy, six investment banks, including Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, made it clear that federal guarantees were required. "We believe many new nuclear construction projects will have difficulty accessing the capital markets during construction and initial operation without the support of a federal government loan guarantee," they wrote.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

101

STATES 2AC – FEDERAL SIGNAL KEY TO INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
A federal commitment to expanding loan guarantees is the vital internal link to providing investor confidence in nuclear power Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc
(Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf)//markoff

Following the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, numerous companies announced plans to develop applications to be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain licenses for the development of new nuclear power generation facilities. NRC has developed a new "one step" licensing process for nuclear projects, where applicants would receive a combined construction and operating license or "COL," and it is hoped that this will provide a transparent and predictable licensing process which will be demonstrated with the first "wave" of COL applications. These projects involve new nuclear plants using advanced technologies of five advanced reactor designs that promise to be even safer and more reliable than the existing "fleet" of nuclear reactors. In this first stage of development, the companies at the leading edge of development are committing many tens of millions of dollars to the NRC licensing process for COL applications that will be submitted later this year and in 2008. NRC's review process is then expected to take 2-4 years, which would lead to full scale construction activities commencing in the 2009-2012 time-frame for the first units of each new technology type. Given the nature of the multi-year licensing and construction schedule, as well as the world-wide competition for resources required to build these nuclear plants, companies planning to build the first plants are already beginning the process of committing to these projects what will likely be the first several hundred million dollars for each multi-billion dollar project, and in some cases, companies with their project partners have already spent such amounts. This means that in the near-term, these companies will need to either secure financing or commit equity in order to maintain schedules to prepare for plant construction. Significantly, however, newly all of these efforts are premised upon the assumption that the promise of Title XVII of EPAct 2005 will be realized for the first wave of new nuclear plants. These companies strongly believe that loan guarantees are necessary to access the credit markets. In addition, for new nuclear facilities that will be subject to cost-of-service regulation, companies will need to demonstrate to state public service commissions that the financing costs for these facilities were prudently incurred. Simply put, further commitment of capital requires that companies secure confidence that DOE will develop and implement a workable loan guarantee program to provide the badly needed access to large amounts of capital necessary to finance the development of the first 3-5 plants of each of the new reactor designs. For some companies, this may require securing loan guarantee commitments as soon as 2008, shortly after NRC has accepted a COL application as "administratively complete" and "docketed" the application. At a minimum, however, this requires the clear and unambiguous availability of loan guarantees in the 2009-2012 timeframe for a significant number of capital intensive central power generation facilities (new nuclear and clean coal plants). A workable loan guarantee program necessary to support new nuclear power development in the U.S. must have the following three elements: The guarantee itself must be a commercially viable financing instrument, in line with other Federal loan guarantee instruments; There should be a transparent methodology for calculating the subsidy cost to be paid by sponsors, and such costs should be reasonable and commercially viable; and There should be certainty as to the future availability of guarantees, and this self-pay program should be insulated from the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process. The size and scale of nuclear projects, and the multi-year commitments that need to be made by private industry, make it imperative that DOE create certainty in the near-term around the future availability of the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program for nuclear power projects. As part of the publicprivate partnership that has been essential to "jump-starting" the development of new, base-load nuclear generation, the multi-year commitment being made by private parties needs to be matched with a multi-year commitment from the federal government. The federal government cannot expect private parties to make hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments premised upon the expectation of they will obtain loan guarantees in 20092012 without reasonable progress being made by the federal government toward establishing a program that can be expected to be available to facilitate the financing of the fitst wave of new nuclear plants throughout the next five years. >

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

102

STATES – 1AR – FEDERAL SIGNAL KEY TO INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
Credibility is key—only the USFG can guarantee unconditioned loans—Wall streets trust Sullivan and Walsh 08-- *25 years of experience as an energy lawyer**Chief Executive Officer of Iron Ore group* (Mary Anne Sullivan and Sam Walsh. “Federal Loan Guarantees. Electric Light and Power,” March 2008. ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry database.) In their rulemaking comments, Wall Street firms emphasized that a loan guarantee must represent the unconditional commitment of the full faith and credit of the United States if the program is to succeed in attracting affordable private investment to innovative technologies. The final rule seems to have calmed concerns that the guarantees might be conditioned in a way that would preclude the "AAA" rating for the federally guaranteed debt that the program was designed to assure. The guarantees will be absolute, absent fraud or material misrepresentation by the holder of a guaranteed obligation. Access to federal loan guarantees is the vital internal link to investor confidence Gawlicki, 08 - Fortnightly contributor who has been writing about the power industry for nearly 20 years
(Scott, Public Utilities Fornightly 08 : Financing New Nukes; Federal loan guarantees raise hopes for new reactors planned by affiliates of Constellation and NRG., February, L/n, rday) But make no mistake;

with Wall Street still squeamish about the nuclear power option, financial structures for new nuclear projects remain very much in flux. Qualifying for the Department of Energy (DOE)-administered federal loan guarantee program likely will be the key to determining whether these multi-billion dollar projects actually make it to the finish line
(see Sidebar, "Subsidy Rate: The Final Linchpin").

"Without the loan guarantees, there is no nuclear," says George Vanderheyden, CEO of UniStar Nuclear Energy, a joint venture between
Constellation Energy Group and the EDF Group (EDF) that hopes to build at least four new reactors over the next decade--including a third reactor at Constellation's Calvert Cliffs plant on the Chesapeake Bay.

"The loan guarantee program creates an incentive for development by lowering the funding cost and increasing the profitability of these early units," adds Steve Winn, an executive vice president with NRG, which is looking to add two units to its South Texas Project (STP) in Bay City, Texas. "Without support from the government, lenders will have a difficult time getting comfortable with nuclear." High level federal support is vital to nuclear industry expansion Kammen, 03 - professor of nuclear engineering at Berkeley (Daniel, Federal News Service, Prepared Testimony before the House Committee on Science, 6/12, lexis) //DH Figure 1 also illustrates the dramatic importance of policy direction and leadership to the nuclear industry. The statement by President Clinton in his 1993 State of the Union Address that nuclear energy will be largely removed from U.S. energy policy, coupled with the lack of any clear prospects for new nuclear reactors, led to a dramatic decline in enrollment in nuclear science and engineering departmems. By the same token, the new emphasis that nuclear power is receiving under the current Bush administration has contributed to a resurgence in the industry. In both these negative and positive phases high-level policy leadership is clearly a vital factor in the direction and vitality of the industry and the academic departments.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

103

STATES – 2AC – LICENSING TURN
Can’t solve – uncertainty over federal licensing will block new investment Nuclear Policy Outlook 8 (Semi-monthly newsletter analyzing policy matters that affect the nuclear industry, January/February 08, “Building Confidence in Licensing New U.S. Nuclear Plants" http://nei.org/resourcesandstats/publicationsandmedia/newslettersandreports/nuclearpolicyoutlook/) Addressing Investors’ Concerns Maintaining investor confidence in a new-plant project that will span many years is another concern. Companies have responded to this by
allocating funds and other resources to projects on a step-by-step basis. Duke Energy, for example, has filed applications in North Carolina and South Carolina for approval to incur project costs through 2009. Still, constraints on supply have prompted some companies to order major components now regardless of their future decisions. One of the difficulties that companies face in financing major nuclear plant projects is this: The cost of the projects is large relative to the market capitalization of the companies planning to build them. The financial community understands that challenge and is supportive of the way companies are structuring their investment. “Companies have made prudent decisions about how to stage their investments in ways that are appropriate to the risk they are assuming,” said Jeffrey Holzschuh, vice chairman at Morgan Stanley.

The federal loan guarantee program, which provides government backing for the financing of clean-energy projects, including new nuclear, is critical for new projects. The loan guarantee program was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation also included a form of
insurance that will compensate companies if projects are delayed by the licensing process or litigation. In reality, the number of years before an investment in a new nuclear facility will show returns is one of the major concerns for investors. Holzschuh said. The industry is working to reduce the length of time between the decision to pursue licensing a new plant and when operations begin from 10 years to seven years, according to NEI’s Heymer. Finding efficiencies and addressing shortcomings in the licensing process is one way to shrink the time required. Aggressive project management—pre-ordering components, increasing staff and detailed planning— is another way. But the key, say some industry executives, is that the earlier you begin work on a project, the sooner you see results. “Given the time required to build a new plant and complete it by 2014, we were prompt in beginning to address these challenges in 2004,” said Marilyn Kray, president of NuStart Energy Development, which, in partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority, submitted a license application in October for a new reactor at TVA’s Bellefonte site in Alabama. “Now we have to address work force issues to ensure we have the trained staff to build and operate the new plants,” Kray said. “We also need to ensure that we will have the components and commodities necessary to build new reactors.”

“The biggest risk in licensing is time,”

More than any other factor, say industry leaders, it is important that companies cooperate to increase stakeholders’ confidence in the new-plant licensing process. The NRC also must look for ways to streamline the licensing process without reducing its effectiveness. Companies need to
share their experience with others that are using the same reactor design. Cooperation also is necessary in financing new plants. Ultimately, this cooperation will minimize the challenges that individual projects encounter as they become part of the expansion of the U.S. nuclear power sector.

A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves uncertainty over the licensing process DOE, 05 (Department of Energy,“MOVING FORWARD WITH NUCLEAR POWER: ISSUES AND KEY FACTORS ,” Final Report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Nuclear Energy Task Force, 1/10, http://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/NETF_Final_Draft_0105.pdf)//DH
It is highly unlikely that there will be new nuclear plants constructed in the United States unless there is effective leadership in dealing with our national energy needs over the next few years. Although

although a streamlined regulatory and legal framework for such construction is largely in place, nothing constructive will happen without strong leadership in a number of areas.
there is strong justification for moving forward with nuclear power, and The information provided to the NETF has confirmed that there is an interest in the private sector in new plant construction, although some additional government actions must take place before the first plants will be constructed. In this connection, the electricity industry must clarify its needs and prioritize its requests. In particular, the nuclear industry must also convey information to Federal policy makers in clear, sharply defined terms with specific recommendations for dealing with both the problems and the opportunities presented. The industry must recognize that the Federal government should not and cannot eliminate all the risks and vagaries of the energy markets for them. The utilities must develop a reasonable consensus position and present those needs clearly to the Administration and

the most critical needs include some assistance to offset the higher capital costs associated with the first few nuclear plants, and establishment of regulatory and economic conditions that will make the first few projects viable and attractive to potential investors in both the equity and the debt markets, along with conditions that allow participants in those markets to finance the
Congress for action. In this connection, we believe plants. These issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and Appendix A. The providers of electrical energy to the nation’s homes and industry (i.e., the generating companies) are providing some of the critical initiative for moving forward. But their vision and commitment must be conveyed beyond corporate boardroom and trade association meetings and must also impact the public arena. The nuclear industry must undertake a vigorous and continuing communications program to make the case to the American public that nuclear power is a safe, reliable, and cost-effective part of our energy network and must continue to be a significant part of the growth of our energy supply. Of course, any such program must be based on a continued commitment to safe, reliable, and secure operations. The principal contribution that government can make to the process is to provide, maintain, and support a regulatory and legal environment that eliminates needless uncertainty and delay from initiation of construction through plant startup. Much has already been accomplished in this direction over recent years, but it is becoming apparent that some additional action is required.

Leadership from

the Administration and Congress is necessary to encourage investment in new construction.
Although there is bipartisan support for nuclear power within the membership of both the House and Senate, there is some conflict within the leadership ranks. Consideration of energy supply issues should serve as a stimulus to resolve these differences. In this time of concern about energy security, it is imperative that the President, the key members of the Administration, and Congressional leaders, come together to create an effective national program and a plan for its legislative implementation. We urge that the President identify this as a critical priority for the nation and that the Congress take the necessary steps to meet this priority.

The following key areas must be addressed by the policy leaders. • A clear commitment to a national energy policy that includes recognition that nuclear power provides a reliable, stable contribution to energy availability and energy security without adverse environmental consequences.
• Resolution of current issues associated with the disposition of spent fuel.

• A reasonable level of Federal involvement to enable private-sector engagement in new construction. As discussed above, this would involve Federal policies to reduce fears that there might be devastating delays imposed by the legal process in the completion or startup of new plants, to address the higher costs of first units that are constructed, and to level the playing field for
nuclear power with respect to other non-carbon-dioxide-emitting sources.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

104

STATES 1AR – LICENSING TURN
A firm commitment to federal loan guarantees overcomes the percieved lack of federal support in all other aspects of nuclear regulation Turnage et al, 7 – Senior Vice President, Constellation Energy Group Inc
(Joe C, and Theodore Bunting, Jr, Senior Vice President of Finance, Entergy Corp, and John F Young, Executive Vice President and CFO, Exelon Corp, and Steve Winn, Executive Vice President, NRG Energy, Inc, “Join Comments of Constellation Group, Inc, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and NRG Energy, Inc. regarding Proposed Rule, Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies,” addressed to Mr. Howard G Bordstrom, July 2, 2007, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment41.pdf) //markoff

For new nuclear power plant development in the United States, Federal loan guarantees are an indispensable instrument to address a market financing gap that results from the combination of several factors including, (i) the prior nuclear plant construction cycle that was burdened by regulatory uncertainty and resulting delays and cost overruns; (ii) perceived uncertainty of an untested (though certainly improved) licensing system; (iii) perceived technology risk, and (iv) an institutional loss of understanding regarding the reality of nuclear financial risk in some elements of the financial community. Credible federal loan guarantees are vital to giving the industry confidence in the licensing process Wallace, 05 - President , Constellation Generation Group (Mike, CQ Congressional Testimony, “NUCLEAR POWER 2010 INITIATIVE,” 4/26, lexis)//DH The Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 program is a necessary, but not sufficient, step toward new nuclear plant construction. We must address other challenges as well. Our industry is not yet at the point where we can announce specific decisions to build. We are not yet at the point where we can take a $1.5 billion to $2 billion investment decision to our boards of directors. We do yet not have fully certified designs that are competitive, for
example. We do not know the licensing process will work as intended: That is why we are working systematically through the ESP and COL processes. We must identify and contain the risks to make sure that nothing untoward occurs after we start building. We cannot make a $1.5 $2 billion investment decision and end up spending twice that because the licensing process failed us.

The industry believes federal investment is necessary and appropriate to offset some of the risks I've mentioned. We recommend that the federal government's investment include the incentives identified by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's Nuclear Energy Task Force in its recent report. That investment stimulus includes: 1. secured loans and loan guarantees; 2. transferable investment tax credits that can be taken as money is expended during construction; 3. transferable production tax credits; 4. accelerated depreciation.
This portfolio of incentives is necessary because it's clear that no single financial incentive is appropriate for all companies, because of differences in company-specific business attributes or differences in the marketplace - namely, whether the markets they serve are open to competition or are in a regulated rate structure. The next nuclear plants might be built as unregulated merchant plants, or as regulated rate-base projects. The next nuclear plants could be built by single entities, or by consortia of companies. Business environment and project structure have a major impact on which financial incentives work best. Some companies prefer tax-related incentives. Others expect that construction loans or loan guarantees will enable them to finance the next nuclear plants. It is important to preserve both approaches. We must maintain as much flexibility as possible. It's important to understand why federal investment stimulus and investment protection is necessary and appropriate.

Federal investment stimulus is necessary to offset the higher first-time costs associated with the first few nuclear plants built.
Federal investment protection is necessary to manage and contain the one type of risk that we cannot manage, and that's the risk of some kind of regulatory failure (including court challenges) that delays construction or commercial operation. The new licensing process codified in the 1992 Energy Policy Act is conceptually sound. It allows for public participation in the process at the time when that participation is most effective - before designs and sites are approved and construction begins. The new process is designed to remove the uncertainties inherent in the Part 50 process that was used to license the nuclear plants operating today. In principle, the new licensing process is intended to reduce the risk of delay in construction and commercial operation and thus the risk of unanticipated cost increases. The goal is to provide certainty before companies begin construction and place significant investment at risk.

In practice, until the process is demonstrated, the industry and the financial community cannot be assured that licensing will proceed in a disciplined manner, without unfounded intervention and delay. Only the successful licensing and commissioning of several new nuclear plants (such as proposed by the NuStart and Dominion-led consortia) can demonstrate that the licensing issues discussed above have been adequately resolved. Industry and investor concern over these potential regulatory impediments may require techniques like the standby default coverage and standby interest coverage contained in S. 887, introduced by Senators Hagel, Craig and others.
Let me also be clear on two other important issues: 1. The industry is not seeking a totally risk-free business environment. It is seeking government assistance in containing those risks that are beyond the private sector's control. The goal is to ensure that the level of risk associated with the next nuclear plants built in the U.S. generally approaches what the electric industry would consider normal commercial risks. The industry is fully prepared to accept construction management risks and operational risks that are properly within the private sector's control. 2. The industry's financing challenges apply largely to the first few plants in any series of new nuclear

as investors gain confidence that the licensing process operates as intended and does not represent a source of unpredictable risk, follow-on plants can be financed more conventionally, without the support necessary for the first few projects. What is needed limited federal investment in a limited number of new plants for a limited period of time to overcome the financial and economic hurdles facing the first few plants built. In summary, we believe the industry and the federal government should work together to finance the first-of-a-kind design and engineering work and to develop an integrated package of financial incentives to stimulate construction of new nuclear power plants. Any such package must address a number of factors, including the licensing/regulatory risks; the investment risks; and the other business issues that make it difficult for companies to
reactors. As capital costs decline to the "nth-of-a-kind" range, undertake capital-intensive projects. Such a cooperative industry/government financing program is a necessary and appropriate investment in U.S. energy security.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

105

STATES – 2AC – SKILLED WORKERS TURN
Federal funds drive private sector investment and recruiting skilled workers for construction Kammen, 03 - professor of nuclear engineering at Berkeley (Daniel, Federal News Service, Prepared Testimony before the House Committee on Science, 6/12, lexis) //DH The federal government plays the pivotal role in the encouragement of innovation in the energy sector. Not only are federal funds critical, but as my work and that of others has demonstrated6, private funds generally follow areas of public sector support. One particularly useful metric although certainly not the only measure --. of the relationship between funding and innovation is based on patents. Total public sector funding and the
number of patents - across all disciplines in the United States have both increased steadily over at least the past three decades (Figure 5). The situation depicted here, with steadily increasing trends for funding and results (measured imperfectly, but consistently, by patents) is not as rosy when energy R&D alone is considered. In that case the same close correlation exists, but the funding pattern has been one of decreasing resources (Figure 6A). Figure 6A shows energy funding levels (symbol: o) and patents held by the national laboratories (symbol: ). The situation need not be as bleak as it seems. During the 1980s a number of changes in U.S. patent law permitted the national laboratories to engage in patent partnerships with the private sector. This increased both the interest in developing patents, and increased the interest by the private sector in pursuing patents on energy technologies. The squares (l) in figure 6 show that overall patents in the energy sector derived. Figure 6B reveals that patent levels in the nuclear field have declined, but not only that, publicprivate partnerships have taken placed (shaded bars), but have not increased as dramatically as in energy field overall (Figure 6A). There are a number of issues here, so a simple comparison of nuclear R&D to that on for example, fuel cells, is not appropriate. But it is a valid to explore ways to increase both the diversity of the R&D. This is a particularly important message for federal policy. Novel approaches are needed to encourage new and innovative modes of research, teaching, and industrial innovation in the nuclear energy field. To spur innovation in nuclear science a concerted effort would be needed to increase the types and levels of cooperation by universities and industries in areas that depart significantly from the current 'Generation III+' and equally, away from the 'Generation IV' designs. Similar conclusions were reached by M. Granger Morgan, head of the Engineering and Public Policy Program at Carnegie Mellon University, in his evaluation of the need for innovative in the organization and sociology of the U. S. nuclear power industrys. A second important issue that this Committee might consider is the degree of federal support for nuclear fission relative to other nations. Funding levels in the U.S. are significantly lower than in both Japan and France. Far from recommending higher public sector funding, what is arguably a more successful strategy would be to increase the private sector support for nuclear R&D and student training fellowships. Importantly, this is precisely the sort of expanded publicprivate partnership that has been relatively successful in the energy sector generally. It is incorrect, however, to think that this is a process that can be left to the private sector. There are key issues that inhibit private sector innovation. As one example, many nuclear operating companies have large coal assets, and thus are unlikely to push overly hard, in areas that threaten another core business. This emphasis on industry resources used to support and expanded nuclear program - under careful public sector management - has been echoed by a variety of nuclear engineering faculty members: I believe that if you. were to survey nuclear engineering department heads, most would select a national policy to support new nuclear construction, over a policy to increase direct financial support to nuclear

A firm commitment by the federal government, to create incentives sufficient to ensure the construction of a modest number of new nuclear plants, with the incentives reduced for subsequent plants, would be the best thing that could possibly be done for nuclear engineering education and revitalization of the national workforce for nuclear science and technology. - Professor Per Peterson, Chair, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
engineering departments.

Skilled worker shortage will wreck solvency BENGELSDORF, 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)//DH Thus the challenge the U.S. nuclear industry faces today is whether the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will be strong enough to support a hoped for nuclear revival in this country, which could entail the construction and commissioning of up to eight nuclear power units during the 2010 to 2017 period. Several studies have been devoted to this question, and the answer is by no means certain. The shortage in skilled labor is expected to double in this country by the year 2020 and the workforce will stop growing as the baby boomers start to retire.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

106

STATES – 2AC – LAWSUITS TURN
A federal signal is vital to holding off lawsuits against the industry and signaling support for new reactor designs Zachary, 06 (G. Pascal, San Francisco Chroncile, “The case for nuclear power,” 2/5, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL)//DH So valuable are nuclear plants that none is for sale today. Indeed, scores of nuclear plants, once thought to be candidates for closure, are pursuing and receiving licenses to operate for at least an additional 20 years. So far, the NRC has extended the life of about 30 plants. Because these plants are fully bought and paid for (and even the money required to de-commission them sits safely in bank accounts), utilities are leaning on them, because they only incur operating expenses, guaranteeing that nuclear-generated electricity is by far the cheapest part of their energy mix. So far, electric utilities, while happy to harvest existing plants, are reluctant to build new ones. "I'm the biggest nuke operator in the country, but I have to get the timing exactly right if my company is ever going to build (another) one," says John Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon. Other utilities are also biding their time, waiting until they get a clearer signal that new projects won't be delayed into oblivion by Bleak House-style lawsuits. And even when they resume building nuclear plants, "we will exhaust other opportunities" to generate electricity through wind and solar, Rowe says. Entergy, Exelon and a few other nuclear specialists are pressing the federal government for more guarantees against the many risks faced in building a plant, not the least of which are the inevitable legal challenges. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the chief regulator, has responded by imposing a one-stop approval process, but the process has never been tested in court. Arguably the biggest economic hurdle for nuclear power is short-term: who will bear the risk of being the first mover? To get past the economic penalties for being first, a consortium of utilities including Exelon and Entergy, has formed a clever joint venture. The group, called NuStart Energy Development LLC, is filing a single application for a combined operating and construction license, in effect testing the regulatory and legal environment as a group so that no one utility gets stuck holding the bag if the process goes awry. NuStart has yet to choose a site, though it hopes to do so by September. If all goes to plan, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will approve the plant (using either a Westinghouse or a General Electric reactor) by 2007, allowing for construction and operation by about 2015. Utilities are holding out hope that Uncle Sam will give more help, and Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday provided encouragement. They want more money for development of reactor designs, especially those cooled with gas. Such designs are considered inherently safer than today's light-water reactors and figure to be smaller, too, reducing costs and allowing more flexibility in deployment. What's more, they may be able to produce hydrogen as well as electricity -hydrogen for a new generation of cars powered by fuel cells. A new generation of nuclear reactors -- especially the so-called "pebble bed" technology that promises far smaller, cheaper and safer reactors -- could help ease what will only be growing pressure on energy supplies, and rising costs of electricity. The trouble is, without a major push by the public and the U.S. government, improved reactors won't ever get built. Or by the time they are ready, America will have so gone so heavily into burning coal for electricity that the environmental damage may be irreversible.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

107

STATES – PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT KEY TO INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
Presidential leadership is vital to new energy investments Lugar, 07 – US Senator (Richard, “U.S. Energy Security and the 2008 Presidential Election,” 12/18, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2007/~/media/files/events/2007/1218_lugar/20071218_lugar.pdf) Congress and private enterprise can make evolutionary energy advancements, but revolutionary national progress in the energy field probably is dependent on presidential action. Our energy dependence is perpetuated by a lack of national will and focus. Only the President has the visibility to elevate a cause to national status, and only the President can leverage the buying power, regulatory authority, and legislative leadership of an administration behind solving a problem that is highly conducive to political procrastination and partisanship.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

108

REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY DESTROYS NUCLEAR POWER
Regulatory predictability is critical to investment in nuclear power Howard 07, Angelina, Nuclear Energy Institute PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18, L/n, rday MS. HOWARD: Well, the incentives in the Energy Policy Act --- (laughter) -- well, the incentives in the Energy Policy Act, I think the thinking on that has evolved over -- since 2005, like many other things. And as we -- we saw a significant number of companies make the decisions to go forward with the combined construction and operant rating license after the act was passed and they -- they saw the production tax credits being included and some level of stand-by support, because the real uncertainty for nuclear was not in the technology; it was in the regulatory aspect, and would the new licensing process really work like it was intended to work? And so -- and, you know, there were reflections and memories of (Shoreham ?) and others that took so long or else were -- were never, you know, went into operation. So those were very important at the time, in 2005, as well as the loan guarantee. Regulatory uncertainty will destroy investment in nuclear power Fertel, 4 – Marvin, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at NEI (“Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety”, May 20, //www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/ussenatecmtefertelextended)

More pertinent to the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is the prospect that companies would pursue new nuclear plants would be greatly enhanced by continuity and stability in the regulatory processes and regulatory environment at the NRC. Regulatory uncertainty is the largest perceived risk with new nuclear plant construction, so any reduction in stability of the regulatory process will damage industry and financial community prospects for new nuclear plants. Regulatory stability and continuity also are vital for the continued success of current nuclear plants. As I have previously noted, that fleet continues to operate at high levels of safety and efficiency, and the NRC should regulate the industry commensurate to this excellent record of performance. New regulations on reactor design will destroy nuclear expansion – empirically proven Peterson 8 -Scott, Vice President-Communications of Nuclear Energy Institute (Speech given 41st Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Conference, 4-1508, “Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction in the UnitedStates”,http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/petersonspeech0415/ //VR)

We should expect changes to project schedules, project ownership and project structure as companies get closer to decisions to build new reactors. New combinations of companies may line up behind certain projects. And some companies will decide not to move forward. The companies developing these projects will not move forward unless they are confident that they have the risks identified and removed or mitigated. Many of the nuclear plants commissioned in the 1960s and early 1970s completed construction in 4 to 5
years with construction costs around 500 million dollars. But by the late 1970s and early 1980s, construction of nuclear power plants in the United States averaged 10 to 12 years, and construction costs ranged as high as 5 billion dollars. In retrospect, several factors drove cost and schedule uncertainty of U.S. reactors in the 1970s and 80s. The nuclear plants built after the early 1970s were built under the most unforgiving conditions – caused by four major factors converging at roughly the same time. First, nuclear technology in the United States scaled up quickly – probably more quickly than was prudent. The industry was transformed from the first 200-megawatt-scale plants to 1,000-megawatt-plus plants in just a few years. Second, as reactor technology was evolving, so too were

regulatory requirements. Throughout the 1970s, the nuclear industry and its regulators learned some painful lessons.
Third, the fire at Browns Ferry Unit 1 in 1975 revealed vulnerabilities and led to new fire protection requirements. And fourth, the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in 1979 revealed operational and design-related issues never previously imagined. After the accident, operating plants and those under construction were swamped in new regulatory requirements. Most of the nuclear plants under

construction were overwhelmed by the changing requirements, which forced extensive redesign and rework, stretched out construction schedules and drove up costs. Changing regulatory requirements and licensing difficulties added to the challenge of managing these large construction projects to schedule and budget. But licensing and regulatory requirements were not the only drivers of cost increases and schedule delays.

Michigan 7 weeks Nuclear power aff

109

INVESTOR CONFIDENCE KEY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION
Investor confidence is a prerequisite to new construction Gary, 03- Chief Executive Officer of Entergy's nuclear businesses
(Taylor “An investment in the future”. 2003, July. Nuclear Plant Journal" 21(4), 31,35,45. from ABI/INFORM Global database.

2. How can we gain investor confidence in a national nuclear power plant construction program? An advanced nuclear plant is a large capital investment, really comparable to a new coal-fired plant. To finance it, there must be some
certainty you can sell the power from it. You would want to have some sort of long-term contract with a credit-worthy customer who wants that power, such as a long-term power marketing contract. That would give you an assurance of a cash flow and an idea of what the financial picture will look like over some time. You will need that to convince Wall Street investors to buy your stock or loan you the money through bonds.

It does not have to be over the whole life of the plant, but perhaps at least ten years, so there is initial stability. The financial community requires stability. Especially since they just loaned money and bought stock in a lot of independent power producers who built a lot of natural gas-fired power plants, many of which are shut down or running less than half the time.
No or little revenue is coming in to pay interest or dividends to their investors.

The financial community wants to know that the output of the plant will be sold into the future. They take comfort in feeling that as long as the operator runs the plant well, the new plant is a good investment. If you can operate the plant well, but it is
not running because no one is buying the power, where is the stability? Entergy has bought plants with power purchase agreements to sell the output of the nuclear unit back to the sellers for a number of years as part of the deal, and we have a philosophy of selling that power well into the future. It brings stability to our own employees too.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful