Cndi - Nuclear Power Aff Pt 3

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY Solves Emissions - Nuclear power produces less CO? than solar or wind. Johnston, Rob. 1/9/2008. "Ten Myths about Nuclear Power." Spiked Magazine (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php7/site/article/4259/). Anti-nuclear campaigners claim that nuclear power contains 'hidden emissions' of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from uranium mining and reactor construction. But so do wind turbines, built from huge amounts of concrete, steel and plastic. The OECD analysed the total lifetime releases of GHG from energy technologies and concluded that. taking into account mining of building materials, construction and energy production, nuclear is still a 'lower carbon' option than wind, solar or hydroelectric generation. For example, during its whole life cycle, nuclear power releases three to six grams of carbon per kiloWatthour (GC kWhl of electricity produced, compared with three to 10 GC/kWh for wind turbines, 105 GC/kWh for natural gas and 228 GC/kWh for lignite ('dirty 1 coal) (6).

155

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY Nuclear power solves emissions.

Nuclear Energy Institute. 2/16/2005. "New Nuclear Power Plants Are Vital to Effective National Energy Policy. NEI Tells Congress" (http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newplantsvital/) "If the United States is to have an effective national energy policy, it must chart a path for a diverse energy mix that includes a strong role for nuclear energy," said John Kane, the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior vice president of governmental affairs, in testimony before the panel. "We simply cannot meet the twin challenges of increased electricity production and fewer emissions without the reliable, affordable electricity that new nuclear plants will provide. "America will need 50 percent more electricity by 2025 to fuel an ever-expanding economy while at the same time meeting even more stringent environmental goals," Kane said. "Nuclear energy provides 70 percent of the emission-free electricity in the U.S. and is the only readily expandable source of clean energy."

156

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY Nuclear is becoming widely recognized as a safe, effective way to deal with the current fuel dilemma. The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons By Gilbert J. Brown, a professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell, is a member of the CASEnergy Coalition. | August 2, 2007 There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Finally, nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe, economical source of energy. And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change, environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. Unlike the '90s when energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life, energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States. A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington, coming in behind only Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy. As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more and more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again. A survey conducted by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition last year found that the more people learn about nuclear, the more supportive they are of it. After a quick lesson about energy issues and nuclear's capabilities. 73 percent of respondents said that they felt favorably or somewhat favorably about the use of nuclear. Similarly, Bisconti Research found that 86 percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important part of meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent agree that utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the next decade. Even some policy makers who have been lukewarm to nuclear seem to be coming around to its merits. People like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barack Obama are beginning to understand that nuclear energy needs to be part of the energy mix if we are going to meet our future energy demands safely and cleanly. The Light water reactors are much more effective and are very established in providing nuclear energy.

157

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY Nuclear energy significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions, solving warming. W. J. Nuttall, Judge Institute of Management and Cambridge University Engineering Department, 2005, "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power" Essential for an appreciation of the economics of nuclear power vis-a-vis its competitors, is an appreciation of the relevance of internalized and externalized costs. Under pressure of impending market liberalization and privatization, nuclear utilities were forced in the 1980s and 1990s to internalize the costs of plant decommissioning and radioactive waste management. Renewable electricity generation sources score well in this regard as there are no significant waste generated, and end of life decommissioning is relatively straightforward. Importantly, however, at present all fossil-fuelled electricity generation fails to internalize the substantial environmentaly costs of their gaseous wastes. Prominent among such wastes is the carbon dioxide arising from hydrocarbon fuel combustion. This harmful 'greenhouse gas' is predicted to be the cause of widespread future harm to global climate. Only the nuclear and renewables industries can claim to have their decommissioning and waste costs properly internalized. They are both low CO2 electricity sources. In considering such internalization of costs, stakeholders argue as to whether or not the funds set aside for nuclear plant decommissioning and waste stream management will indeed be sufficient, but it would certainly seem that the nuclear industry has finally made an attempt to cover for such eventualities.

158

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY Nuclear power plants do not produce any emissions, and it can also help to solve the transportation problem. December 3, 2007 Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy by Jack Spencer and Nick Loris MYTH: Nuclear power makes global warming worse. FACT: Nuclear power plants produce almost no atmospheric emissions. Given that nuclear fission docs not produce atmospheric emissions, NukeFree's carbon dioxide (COi) witch-hunt focuses on other, emissions-producing activities surrounding nuclear power, such as uranium mining and plant construction. Finding fault with nuclear energy on the basis of these indirect emissions simply holds no merit. Whether the activists like it or not, the world runs on fossil fuel. Until the nation changes its energy profile—which can be done with nuclear energy—almost any activity, even building windmills, will result in CO?, emissions. The United States has not built a new commercial nuclear reactor in over 30 years, but the 104 plants operating today prevented the release of 681.9 million metric tons of CO? in 2005, which is comparable to taking 96 percent of cars off the roads. [2] If CO? is the problem, emissions-free nuclear power must be part of the solution. What makes nuclear energy so exciting from an environmental standpoint is not the pollution that it has prevented in the past, but the potential for enormous savings in the future. Ground transportation is a favorite target of the environmental community, and the members of this community are correct insofar as America's transportation choices are a primary source of the nation's dependence on and demand for fossil fuels. Plug-in electric hybrid cars, which require significant development to achieve subsidy-free market viability, are looked upon as a potential solution to the problem. Yet if the electricity comes from a fossil-fuel power plant, the pollution is simply transferred from a mobile energy source to a fixed one, while the problem is solved if the electricity comes from an emissions-free nuclear plant.

159

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES PROLIFERATION Terrorists will obtain nuclear bombs from other methods, just because the reactors are not built does not mean that it will prevent nuclear terrorist attacks. By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK Apr 21,2008 Issue Interviewing Patrick Moore, one of the cofounders of Greenpeace Don't you worry about proliferation? You do not need a nuclear reactor to make a nuclear weapon. With centrifuge technology, it is far easier, quicker and cheaper to make a nuclear weapon by enriching uranium directly. No nuclear reactor was involved in making the Hiroshima bomb. You'll never change the fact that there arc evil people in the world. The most deaths in combat in the last 20 years have not been caused by nuclear weapons or car bombs or rifles or land mines or any of the usual suspects, but the machete. And yet the machete is the most important tool for farmers in the developing world. Hundreds of millions of people use it to clear their land, to cut their firewood and harvest their crops. Banning the machete is not an option.

160

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES PROLIFERATION Pursuing nuclear energy in the US will not cause proliferation of nuclear weapons. Ian H. Hutchinson, Head of the Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering at MIT, 10-31-06

Proliferation. Perhaps the most influential factor in public opinion. Presidential candidates' number one foreign policy challenge. Once-through fuel cycle policy (Carter) was motivated by belief (unfulfilled) that other countries would follow suit. One, perhaps more promising, proposal to discourage proliferation: Major nuclear nations lease fuel "free" for power production in other nations. Guaranteed by international agency/treaties. On condition that materials remain under international control. It is crystal clear that the US forgoing nuclear power generation will not promote the cause of nonproliferation. It is probably the opposite. Fusion is not free of proliferation risks, because its neutrons could be used to breed weapons material. However, at least fusion does not depend on production of fissionable materials, so it definitely has some major advantages.

161

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES PROLIFERATION DUPIC solves for proliferation. Jang Jin PARK, Myung Seung YANG, Ki Kwang BAB, Hang Bok CHOI, Ho Dong KIM, Jong Ho KIM, Hyun Soo PARK, "This work has been carried out under the Nuclear Research and Development Program of Korea Ministry of Science and Technology." Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, "TECHNOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUPIC CONCEPT FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN THE ROK" https://eed.llnl.gov/ncm/sessionl/.I angJin_Park.pdf One of the important DUPIC features is its excellent proliferation resistance, since no fissile material is separated in the DUPIC fueI fabrication process. Moreover, DUPIC fuel is refabricated directly from high 1\ radioactiveJ 5 WR spent fuel, and therefore access to the sensitive material is extremely difficult. However, nuclear materials safeguards remain as an essential element of the DUPIC development, in particular, nuclear materials accountability and containment and surveillance. The heavy shielding enclosure required for the DUPIC fuel processes naturally complies with such protective containment and facilitates the material accountability at key measurement points. A nuclear material accounting system for DUPIC safeguards such as DSNCfDUPIC Safeguards Neutron Counter) and ICSdntelligent Containment and Surveillance) is being developed in cooperation with the USA. DSNC is a well-type neutron coincidence counter and can measure the amount of curium in the fuel. Pu and U contents are inferred from the amount of curium. The proportionality between the coincidence neutron counter rate, burn-up and curium-244 content has been verified experimentally. It has been proved that DSNC is a reliable technology for use in DUPIC process safeguards. In structuring a safeguards svstcin Jor a DU_P1C facility, it is important to continuously monitor the flow of fuel materials in the hot cells. In order to provide an unattended, continuous, integrated surveillance system, a study on the effectiveness of a time-synchronized radiation and image monitoring system in the DUPIC process has been performed. In the system development, particular effort is directed at digital analysis of events by incorporating a neural network mechanism to selectively draw a conclusion on only significant events throughout the monitoring period. Demonstration of the system was done in 1998 by integrating the video and NDA radiation sensors in a common time dimension through image processing and designing a computer interface for the neutron counting sensor.

162

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES PROLIFERATION DUPIC solves proliferation. The Toronto Star (Newspaper), February 12, 2007, Lexis-Nexis "The Candu edge; Canada's heavy-water reactors can run on spent fuel from most light-water reactors, eliminating 2 headaches: skyrocketing uranium prices and waste disposal concerns" He's quick to point out that the DUPIC process is also "proliferation resistant." meaning there is no chemical separation of the spent uranium's more dangerous components, primarily plutonium, which could be used by extremists or rogue nations to produce nuclear weapons. Only mechanical processing is required to change the shape of the spent fuel rods into shorter Candu rods.

163

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES PROLIFERATION Solves prolif, fuel. Hore-Lacy, Ian. 2006. Environmental scientist, manager of the Uranium Information Centre, Melbourne, and Head of Communications for the World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century." Since 1987 the USA and countries of the former USSR have signed a series of disarmament treaties to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the signatory countries by approximately 80%. The weapons contain a great deal of uranium enriched to over 90% U-235 (i.e. about 25 times the proportion in most reactor fuel). Some weapons have plutonium-239, which can be used in diluted form either conventional or fast breeder reactors. The surplus of weapons-grade highl \ en ri died uranium (HEU) has led to an agreement between the USA and Russia for the HEU from Russian warheads and military stockpiles to be diluted for delivery to the USA and then used in civil nuclear reactors. Under the "megatons to megawatts" deal signed in 1994, the US government is purchasing 500 tonnes of weapons-grade HEU over 20 years from Russia for dilution and sale to electric utilities, for USS 12 b i l l i o n . This acquisition reached its halfway point in 2005 with the claim that this eliminated 10.000 n u c l e a r warheads. Weapons-grade HEU is enriched to over 90% U-235 while light water civilian reactor fuel is u s u a l l y enriched to about 3% to 4%. To be used in most commercial nuclear reactors, military 11EU must therefore be diluted about 25:1 by blending with depleted uranium (mostly U-238). natural u r a n i u m (0.7% U -235), or partially enriched uranium. The contracted HEU is being blended down to 4.4% U -235 in Russia, using 1.5% U -235(enriched tails). The 500 tonnes of weapons HEU is resulting in just over 15.000 tonnes of low-enriched (4.4%) uranium over the 20 years. This is equivalent to about 153.000 tonnes of natural uranium, more than twice annual world demand. The purchase and blending down is being done progressively. Since 2000 the dilution of 30 tonnes per year of military HEU is displacing about 10.600 tonnes of uranium oxide mine production per year, representing about 13% of the world's reactor requirements. In addition, the US Government has declared 174 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (of various enrichments) to be surplus from its m i I itary stockpiles, and this is being blended down to about 4300 tonnes of reactor fuel. In the short term most of the military uranium is likely to be blended down to 20% U-235, then stored. In this form it is not useable for weapons. Disarmament will also give rise to some 150-200 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium. In 2000 the USA and Russia agreed t o dispose of 34 tonnes each by 2014. While it was initially proposed to immobilize some f the US portion, the general idea is now to fabricate it with uranium oxide as a MOX fuel for burning in existing reactors. A plant is under construction in South Carolina for this fuel fabrication, and meanwhile some trial MOX assemblies (made in France from US military plutonium) are being trialled in a US reactor. However, Europe has a well-developed MOX capacity and Japan is developing its use. This suggests that weapons-grade plutonium could be disposed of relatively quickly. Input plutonium would need to be about half reactor-grade and half weapons-grade, but using such MOX as 30% of the fuel in one third of the world's reactor capacity would remove about 15 tonnes of warhead plutonium per year. This would amount to burning 3000 warheads per year to produce 110 billion kWh of electricity. Over 35 reactors in Europe are licensed to use mixed oxide fuel, and 20 French reactors are using it or licensed to use it as 30% of their fuel. New reactors may be able to run with full MOX cores. Russia intends to use all of its plutonium as a fuel, burning it in both late-model conventional reactors and particularly in fast neutron reactors. If all the plutonium were used in fast neutron reactors in conjunction with the depleted uranium from enrichment plant stockpiles, there would be enough to run the world's commercial nuclear electricity programines for several decades without any further uranium mining. In Russia a thorium-uranium fuel is being developed which is intended to use weapons-grade plutonium in conventional reactors. Most of this book is concerned with uranium as a fuel for nuclear reactors. However, in future, thorium is also likely to be utilized as a fuel for particular_reactO£S_. The thorium fuel cycle has some attractive features, and is described further in section 4.7.

164

Nuclear Energy Affirmative Existing neutron efficiency reactor dcsigns. such as the Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactor, are capable of operating on a thorium fuel cyclc^oncc they are started using a fissile material such as U-235 or Pu-239. Then the thorium (Th-233) captures a neutron in the reactor to become fissile uranium (U-233), which continues the reaction. However, there are some practical problems with using thorium this way. Thorium is about three times as abundant in the Earth's crust as uranium. Australia and India have considerable amounts of thorium, and India is developing its whole nuclear energy programme to make use of it.

165

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES PROLIFERATION When nuclear power plants arc built nuclear proliferation will not occur because US is already disassembling nuke weapons and just because that the two are connected doesn't mean that they will cause each other. December 3, 2007 Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy by Jack Spencer and Nick Loris MYTH: Nuclear power results in nuclear weapons proliferation. FACT: This claim is irrelevant inside the United States. Furthermore, manufacturing a nuclear weapon is wholly different from using nuclear power to produce electricity. This myth relies on creating an i l l u s i o n of cause and effect. This is why so much antinuclear propaganda focuses on trying to equate nuclear weapons with civilian nuclear power. Once such a spurious relationship is established, anti-nuclear activists can mix and match causes and effects without regard for the facts. Furthermore, this "argument" is clearly irrelevant inside the United States. As a matter of policy, the United States already has too many nuclear weapons and is disassembling them at a historic pace, so arguing that expanding commercial nuclear activity in the United States would someho\\ lead to weapons proliferation is disingenuous. The same would hold true for any other state with nuclear weapons. As for states without nuclear weapons, the problem is more complex than simply arguing that access to peaceful nuclear power \ \ i l l lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium or plutonium. and producing either material requires a sophisticated infrastructure. While most countries could certainly develop the capabilities needed to produce these materials, the vast majority clearly have no intention of doing so. For start-up nuclear powers, the preferred method of acquiring weapons-grade material domestically is to enrich uranium, not to separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Uranium enrichment is completely separate from nuclear power production. Furthermore, nothing stops countries from developing a nuclear weapons capability, as demonstrated by North Korea and Iran. If proliferation is the concern, then proper oversight is the answer, not stifling a distantly related industry.

166

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES ENERGY Nuclear power needs to be re\ ilali/.ed in order to prevent our energy sources from being depleted. Greener energy Thursday. April 3. 2008 Former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Currently, nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of our nation's energy without carbon emissions. But because we have not built a power plant since 1986 and because our electricity demands continue to rise exponentially, that percentage will dwindle down to 15 percent by 2030 and eventually to zero as the last American plants are decommissioned. This will result in growing reliance on imported fuels and carbon-based power. In fact, a failure to invest in the creation of new nuclear plants not only impacts the state of our environment, but it also affects the state of our economy. As the price of oil exceeds $100 a barrel and our economy hints at a recession, the American public is understandably growing more concerned about our energy policies.

168

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES ENERGY Nuclear power is the only energy source that can successfully replace current fossil fuels. By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK Apr 21,2008 Issue Interviewing Patrick Moore, one of the cofounders of Greenpeace Why do you favor nuclear energy over other non-carbon-based sources of energy? Other than hydroelectric energy which I also strongly support—nuclear is the only technology besides fossil fuels available as a large-scale continuous power source, and I mean one you can rely on to be running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Wind and solar energy are intermittent and thus unreliable. How can you run hospitals and factories and schools and even a house on an electricity supply that disappears for three or four days at a time? Wind can play a minor role in reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use, because you can turn the fossil fuels off when the wind is blowing. And solar is completely ridiculous. The cost is so high- California's $3.2 billion in solar subsidies is all just going into Silicon Valley companies and consultants. It's ridiculous.

169

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY- SOLVES ENERGY Nuclear energy has the potential to fulfill coming energy requirements. Marvin Baker Schaffer, Rand Corporation, 07

Increasing world prosperity continues to demand greater global energy consumption. Global energy consumption rose more than 2.5 percent annually from 2001 to 2005 and the trend is continuing. This has inevitably intensified the debate about nuclear power. Concerns about nuclear power are well known. They include waste disposal, safety, susceptibility to terrorist acts and proliferation of radioactive materials that can be used for weapons, all of which remain unresolved in the public perception. New nuclear technology has potential to redress these difficulties. Moreover, expanded use of nuclear power could alleviate the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and provide near independence from foreign sources of energy, both decided pluses. Nuclear power is in fact the only alternative that can satisfy global energy requirements in the foreseeable future in an environmentally acceptable manner. Nuclear reactors exist in several distinct configurations each of which has strengths and weaknesses. The principal types of nuclear reactors arc therefore described herein and analyzed for their potential to address the important public concerns.

170

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - SOLVES ENERGY Nuclear energy will provide energy independence from foreign countries. Marvin Baker Schaffer, Adjunct staff at the Rand Corporation, 2007 Increasing world prosperity continues to demand greater global energy consumption. Global energy consumption rose more than 2.5 percent annually from 2001 to 2005 and the trend is continuing. This has inevitably intensified the debate about nuclear power. Concerns about nuclear power arc well known. They include waste disposal, safety, susceptibility to terrorist acts and proliferation of radioactive materials that can be used for weapons, all of which remain unresolved in the public perception. New nuclear technology has potential to redress these difficulties. Moreover, expanded use of nuclear power could alleviate the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and provide near independence from foreign sources of energy, both decided pluses. Nuclear power is in fact the only alternative that can satisfy global energy requirements in the foreseeable future in an environmentally acceptable manner. Nuclear reactors exist in several distinct configurations each of which has strengths and weaknesses. The principal types of nuclear reactors are therefore described herein and analyzed for their potential to address the important public concerns.

171

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY- SOLVES ENERGY Solves energy - Nuclear electricity is competitive with electricity produced by coal, nuclear energy is safe and reliable, and

Nuclear Energy Institute. 9/20/2004. ''Independent Economic Study Confirms Future Competitiveness of New Nuclear Power Plants" (http://www. nei.org/newsandevents/econmicstudy/). The U.S. Department of Energy today released an economic study which concludes that new nuclear power plants can be highly competitive with baseload, large-scale gas-fired and coal-fired electricity generation once the first few new nuclear plants have been built. The independent study was produced by the University of Chicago, under the auspices of Argonne National Laboratory. The following is a statement from Marvin Fertel, chief nuclear officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. 'This independent study ratifies the emerging consensus that new nuclear power plants are competitive with other baseload sources of electricity once first-of-a-kind engineering costs are absorbed, construction experience gained, and other near-term financing issues resolved. "Notably, the study concludes that even the first of the next series of new nuclear plants can approach competitiveness if limited federal financial policies are put in place that afford new nuclear plants the same type of government incentives available to other sources of electricity generation. "Nuclear energy supplies one in ever}' five U.S. homes and businesses with safe, clean. reliable electricity, and can play an even larger role in the future. As the study notes, 'A successful transition from oil-based to hydrogen-based transportation could, in the long run, increase the demand for nuclear energy as a nonpolluting way to produce hydrogen."''

172

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY- SOLVES ENERGY Nuclear power solves energy.

Nuclear Energy Institute. 2/16/2005. "New Nuclear Power Plants Are Vital to Effective National Energy Policy, NEI Tells Congress" (http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/nevvplantsvital/) "If the United States is to have an effective national energy policy, it must chart a path for a diverse energy mix that includes a strong role for nuclear energy," said John Kane, the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior vice president of governmental affairs, in testimony before the panel. "We simply cannot meet the twin challenges of increased electricity production and fewer emissions without the reliable, affordable electricity that new nuclear plants will provide. "America will need 50 percent more electricity by 2025 to fuel an ever-expanding economy while at the same time meeting even more stringent environmental goals," Kane said. "Nuclear energy provides 70 percent of the emission-free electricity in the U.S. and is the only readily expandable source of clean energy."

173

at $82.900 — which is some $8,000 higher than all other engineering discipJines except petroleum engineering. These high wages, in addition to a burgeoning demand for nuclear engineers, has translated into an increasing number of students seeking degrees in the Field, according to the Hncrgy Department.

Nuclear power provides the most cost effective source of energy available. By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWFJ-K Apr 21.2008 Issue Interviewing Patrick Moore, one of the colbunders of Greenpeace A number of analyses say that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies, there's no real market for it. That's simply not true. Where the massive government subsidies are is in wind and solar. I know that France, which produces 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear, does not have high energy costs. Sweden, which produces 50 percent of its energy with nuclear and 50 percent with hydro, has very reasonable energy costs. I know that the cost of production of electricity among the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's not including the capital costs, but the cost of production of electricity from nuclear is very low, and competitive with dirty coal. Gas costs three times as much as nuclear, at least. Wind costs five times as much, and solar costs 10 times as much.

175

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - COST EFFECTIVE Federal financing can lower nuclear energy to the point where it can compete with coal. George S. Tolley and Donald W. Jones, 10-15-07 Without federal financial policies, the first new nuclear plants coming on line will have a levclized cost of electricity (LCOE) that ranges from $47 to $71 per megawatt-hour (MWh), compared to $33 to S41 for coal-fired plants and $35 to $45 for gas-fired plants Once engineering costs are paid and the first few plants have been built, the 4thor Sthnew nuclear plants could have costs as low as $33 per MWh Federal financial policies combining a 20% investment tax credit and an $18 per MWhproduction tax credit for 8 years could lower first-plant nuclear costs to S25 to $45 MWh

176

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - COST EFFECTIVE The DUPIC system is cost effective because not as much fuel is needed to power the CANDU reactors.

The Toronto Star (Newspaper), February 12, 2007, Lexis-Nexis "The Candu edge; Canada's heavy-water reactors can run on spent fuel from most light-water reactors, eliminating 2 headaches: skyrocketing uranium prices and waste disposal concerns" Mechanical reprocessing, while it has some safety and transportation issues, could be cheaper than conventional chemical reprocessing. "Because this is so much simpler, you have to expect the economics are going to be so much better," says Torgerson. pointing out that the South Koreans studied the economics of the DUPIC fuel cycle in the 1990s and found it could compete against other fuel options. "This is one of the characteristics we're certainly pushing." For countries such as China, which alreadj have Candu reactors in their fleet, it's an approach that could prove attractive. AECL estimates that waste fuel from three light-water reactors would be enough to fuel one Candu. Daune Bratt, a political science instructor and expert on Canadian nuclear policy at Calgary's Mount Royal College, says he can envision two revenue streams going to Candu operators that choose to embrace the DUPIC process. One stream would be the revenue that comes in through the generation and sale of electricity: the other would come from a tipping fee thai operators of light-water reactors would pay to unload their spent fuel. "These (Candu) operators wouldn't be buying the spent fuel, they'd be paid to use the spent fuel for environmental reasons," says Bratt. "H'vou can minimi/.e the waste, vou briim tremendous value."

177

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - COST EFFECTIVE Long-term use of nuclear reactors holds cost effective benefits. W. J. Nuttall, Judge Institute of Management and Cambridge University Engineering Department, 2005, "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power" The current emphasis of the English and Welsh electricity Markey on flexibility and short-termism seems therefore to come with a risk to the national interest. If a nuclear power plant is constructed it can reasonably be expected to operate trouble free and relatively inexpensively for 40 years or more. Long periods of profitable trouble free operations in fact allow full life-cycle assessments of the economics of nuclear power to be attractive in principle. Unfortunately, however, these timescales of nuclear power are poorly matched to the timescales of the human experience. The current time horizons of the investment community are particularly poorly matched to the time scales needed to bring new nuclear power plants on steam.

178

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - COST EFFECTIVE Nuclear energy is very price-effective. December 3, 2007 Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy by Jack Spencer and Nick Loris MYTH: Nuclear energy is not economically viable. FACT: Nuclear energy already provides about 20 percent of America's electricity. Investors are not averse to nuclear power. Utility companies with nuclear experience have sought to purchase existing plants, are upgrading their existing power plants, and are extending their operating licenses so that they can produce more energy for a longer time. Indeed, nuclear energy is so economically viable that it provides about 20 percent of America's electricity despite the incredibly high regulatory burden. However, investors are averse to the regulatory risk associated with building new plants. The regulatory burden is extreme and potentially unpredictable. In the past, opponents of nuclear power have successfully used the regulations to raise construction costs by Filing legal challenges, not based on any underlying safety issue, but simply because they oppose nuclear power.

179

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - RADIATION GOOD Nuclear energy does not result in illnesses; in fact, radiation is beneficial, Donald W. Miller, Medical Doctor, http://www.donaldmiller.com/Afraid of Radiation.pdf. ''Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses Are Good For You", 2004

People who live in Ramsar, Iran, a resort on the Caspian Sea, arc exposed to natural background radiation of 79.000 mrem per year. 5,266 times more than what the EPA's 15-mrem/year radiation safety standard allows. The local river and its streams have a high concentration of radium, which is 15 times more radioactive than plutonium. Its 2,000 residents do not have an increased incidence of cancer, as the linear hypothesis would predict, and their life span is no different than that of other Iranians. Fortunately, for that resort, EPA regulations don't apply there, or to people in Guarapari, Brazil, who get 17.500 mrem of radiation per year with no ill effect. One place with high background radiation where HPA regulations do apply is a park in Santa Fc. Fountainhead Rock Place. It has radioactive rock ol'volcanic origin that emits 760 mrem of gamma radiation. 1-! times the amount allowed by the EPA. Regulators, however, have chosen to make an exception here and have not closed the park oll'lo the public.

A process known as radiation hormesis mediates the beneficial effect that radiation has on health. Investigators have found that small doses of radiation have a stimulating and protective effect on cellular function. It stimulates immune system defenses, prevents oxidativc DNA damage, and suppresses cancer. Epidemiological studies that document the beneficial effects of radiation include one done on atom bomb survivors. Despite what you might expect, atom bomb survivors in Nagasaki who received 1.000 to 19.000 mrem of radiation have a lower incidence of cancer, especially with regard to leukemia and colon cancer, than the non-irradiated control population. And it is turning out that Japan's atom bomb survivors are living longer. They have a death rate after the age of 55 that is lower than matched Japanese people not exposed to radiation. (Don't expect to hear this on the evening news.)

180

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - RADIATION Nuclear radiation does not effect humans. Scott W. Heaberlin, 2004, Nuclear Engineer, ''A case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity" Beyond the variation in national averages there are some locations with strong terrestrial sources or very high radon concentrations. There are places in India with natural doses of 1500 mrem per year. In Brazil, Iran, and Sudan local factors produce natural doses of up to 3800 mrem per year In a few isolated places in Europe, radon pockets have given annual doses of 5000 mrem per year. In studying the populations in these areas, it is hard to find any clear radiation linked health effects at low doses. The General Accounting Office (June 2000) report on radiation standardsS referring to studies on the variation in natural background radiation and the attempt to link this to increase human health risk put it this way: "...we examined 82 studies, which generally found l i t t l e or no evidence of elevated cancer risk from high natural background radiation levels. A large number of studies reported a lack of evidence of cancer risks; some others reported evidence of slightly elevated risk, and some reported evidence of slightly reduced risks. Overall, the studies results arc inconclusive, but they suggest that at exposure levels of a few hundred millerem a year and below, the cancer risks from radiation may either be very small nonexistent." Other studies have looked at workers within the nuclear weapons productions complexes and alternately found no linkage or a strong linkage depending on the study^ Some examined this data and came to the conclusion that some "extra" radiation is actually good for you, citing data that indicates that those with somewhat elevated radiation doses were healthier and lived longer than those with average or lower radiation doses. Even at higher than long-term, low-level doses there is some mystery in how humans respond to radiation. Animal studies indicate that radiation can damage reproductive cells that result in genetic effects in the offspring of the exposed animal. 1 lowever. exhaustive studies of the atom bomb survivors show no genetic effects at all, none. So what are you going to do? Lab tests and first principles physics tell you harm is being done, but, when you look in the real world, the effects arc sufficiently small that they are hard to find. In 1994, the United Nations Scientific Committee on ihc Effects of Atomic Radiation summed up the scientific dilemma this way: "...there are theoretical reason based so [c ly__o n_the_n at tire of DNA and damage and repair to expect that cancer can occur at the lowers! doses without a threshold in the response, although this effect would perhaps not be statistically demonstrableJl Which translated from the careful words to plain speak is. "well, any level of harm is harm, but it is unlikely that you will even see it at the low dose levels." The current treatment of low-level radiation effects is called the "'linear no-threshold" model. What this comes down to is that we can't sec clear effects below 10 to 50 rem (10,000 to 50,000 mrem), but it still bothers us. So we draw a line from the last clear impact we can see downward to lower doses making the assumption that even that tiniest dose does something bad. This means that in estimating the impact of some radiation release, we would treat 1 mrem given to 100,000 people the same as 100 rem given to a single person. Those opposed to this view say this is silly because with 100,000 people, you have 100,000 repair mechanisms working to fix the minor harm. The proponents say that might be, but since we can't see the actual effects, the linear model assures us that we are bounded because it can't be any worse. Recently there has been quite an outcry against the linear no-threshold model attaching both its scientific bases and the very large negative impacts on medical and nuclear fuel cycle operations with its extreme and unwarranted conservatism. I am not a doctor or a nuclear health physicist, so I can't really offer an opinion on a scientific basis. However, logically it would seem that there is a level at which we can repair ourselves. The fact that globally there is a wide variation in natural radiation without clear health impacts seems to support that. It would appear that we are straining at gnats when we should be a lot more worried about other things.

181

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - RADIATION Nuclear energy does not result in illnesses; in fact, radiation is beneficial. Donald W. Miller, Medical Doctor, http://www.donaldmiller.com/Afraid of_Radiation.pdf, "Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses Are Good For You", 2004

People who live in Ramsar, Iran, a resort on the Caspian Sea. arc exposed to natural background radiation of 79.000 mrem per year. 5,266 times more than what the EPA's 15-mrem/year radiation sai'etv standard allows. The local river and its streams have a high concentration of radium, which is 1 5 times more radioactive than plutonium. Its 2.000 residents do not have an increased incidence of cancer, as the linear hypothesis would predict, and their life span is no different than that of other Iranians. Fortunately, for that resort, EPA regulations don't apply there, or to people in Guarapari. Brazil, who get 17,500 mrem of radiation per year with no ill effect. One place with high background radiation where \i\\-\ regulations do apply is a park in Santa Fc. Fountainhcad Rock Place. It has radioactive rock of volcanic origin that emits 760 mrem of gamma radiation- I I limes the amount allowed by the EPA. Regulators, however, have chosen to make an exception here and have not closed the park oil to the p u b l i c .

A process known as radiation hormesis mediates the beneficial effect that radiation has on health. Investigators have found that small doses of radiation have a stimulating and protective effect on cellular function. It stimulates immune system defenses, prevents oxidativc DNA damage, and suppresses cancer. Epidemiological studies that document the beneficial effects of radiation include one done on atom bomb survivors. Despite what you might expect, atom bomb survivors in Nagasaki who received 1.000 to 19.000 mrem of radiation have a lower incidence of cancer, especially with regard to leukemia and colon cancer, than the nonirradiated control population. And it is turning out that Japan's atom bomb survivors are living longer. They have a death rate after the age of 55 that is lower than matched Japanese people not exposed to radiation. (Don't expect to hear this on the evening news.)

182

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - RADIATION Radiation causes beneficial medical effects, not death and mutation as thought. Ludwig E. Feinendegen, Medical Doctor, http://bir.birjournals.Org/cgi/content/abstract/78/925/3, "Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis". The British Journal of Radiology, 2005 Abstract. Low doses in the mGy range eausc a dual effect on cellular DNA. One is a relatively low probability of DNA damage per energy deposition event and increases in proportion to the dose. At background exposures this damage to DNA is orders of magnitude lower than that from endogenous sources, such as reactive oxygen species. The other effect at comparable doses is adaptive protection against DNA damage from many, mainly endogenous, sources, depending on cell type, species and metabolism. Adaptive protection causes DNA damage prevention and repair and immune stimulation. It develops with a delay of hours, ma}' last for days to months, decreases steadily at doses above about 100 mGy to 200 mGy and is not observed any more after acute exposures of more than about 500 mGy. Radiation-induced apoptosis and terminal cell differentiation also occur at higher doses and add to protection by reducing genomic instability and the number of mutated cells in tissues. At low doses reduction of damage from endogenous sources by adaptive protection maybe equal to or outweigh radiogenic damage induction. Thus, the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for cancer risk is scientifically unfounded and appears to be invalid in favour of a threshold or hormesis. This is consistent with data both from animal studies and human epidemiological observations on low-dose induced cancer. The LNT hypothesis should be abandoned and be replaced by a hypothesis that is scientifically justified and causes less unreasonable fear and unnecessary expenditure.

183

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - TERRORISM Nuclear power plants are fully protected in the case of an attack. By Jack Spencer, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Washington Times, October 28, 2007 The new No-Nuke crowd then warns of the ripe targets that nuclear plants provide terrorists. Really? Now Jackson Browne is a terrorism expert? But his credibility is, we must say, "Running on Empty." Nuclear plants were among the nation's most protected assets before September 11. 2001. and have had numerous security upgrades since. But none of the world's 443 nuclear power plants have been attacked. Why? Simply put, they're not easv targets. Nuclear plants are built to withstand airplane impacts, are heavily guarded and arc under constant review. If risks are discovered, the answer is to fix the problem, not shut down the industry.

185

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - TERRORISM Nuclear power plant facilities are adequately prepared against terrorist attacks. Mark Thompson, TIME magazine author, 6-12-05 For his part, Diaz insists that the improvements made in the nation's nuclear plants since 9/11 are adequate. They have included adding physical barriers, checking approaching vehicles at greater stand-off distances and improving coordination with local police and military authorities. Says the NRC chief: "Any terrorist who looks at one of these facilities is going to say, 'This is a hardened target, and I'm not going to have any confidence that I am going to be successful [attacking it].'" Plants have also improved training for guards and capped their workweeks at 72 hours to eliminate the not-uncommon tendency of overworked employees to fall asleep on duty. Previously, guards sometimes worked 80 to 90 hours a week. The NRC chief says that when it comes to hiring, plant operators are using "a much finertoothcd comb" than before 9/11 to keep troublemakers out. Potential employees arc screened through numerous databases, checked for, among other things, mental-health problems, criminal records and questionable behavior in previous jobs. The NRC's confidence in its "insider mitigation program" is so high that the DBT specifically rules out the need to defend against an "active violent insider"--a turncoat employee willing to shoot and kill fellow workers. The DBT does consider the possibility of a single, nonviolent insider working with the terrorists. The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in southeastern Pennsylvania is a good place to see some of the enhancements ordered by the NRC after 9/11. The facility is newly ringed with 990 11 -ton concrete blocks and $200-a-foot fencing topped with razor wire. Ten new guard towers— some six stories high—give armed guards broad vistas of possible approaches to the plant. "Since 9/11 we have more security officers here, and we've enhanced their weaponry-" says Jeff Benjamin, a vice president of Exelon Corp., which operates the plant on the bank of the Susquehanna River. "We have a number of sensors, cameras and lighting." he told a visiting TIME correspondent, declining to elaborate for security reasons. The reactor itself is deep inside walls of concrete and steel. Says Benjamin: "All of the design and construction we do to keep bad stuff in is also pretty darn good at keeping bad stuff out."

186

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - TERRORISM Nuclear reactors are well defended, and the risk of a successful terrorist attack is very slim. December 3, 2007 Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy by Jack Spencer and Nick Loris MYTH: Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to a terrorist attack. FACT: Nuclear reactors are designed to withstand the impact of airborne objects like passenger airplanes, and the Nuclear Regulator} Commission has increased security at U.S. nuclear power plants and has instituted other safeguards. A successful terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant could have severe consequences, as would attacks on schools, chemical plants, or ports. However, fear of a terrorist attack is not a sufficient reason to deny society access to any of these critical assets. The United States has 104 commercial nuclear power plants, and there are 446 worldwide. Not one has fallen victim to a successful terrorist attack. Certainly, history should not beget complacency, especially when the stakes are so high. However, the NRC has heightened security and increased safeguards on site to deal with the threat of terrorism. A deliberate or accidental airplane crash into a reactor is often cited as a threat, but nuclear reactors are structurally designed to withstand high-impact airborne threats, such as the impact of a large passenger airplane. Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration has instructed pilots to avoid circling or loitering over nuclear or electrical power plants, warning them that such actions will make them subject to interrogation by law enforcement personnel.[8] The right response to terrorist threats to nuclear plants—like threats to anything else—is not to shut them down, but to secure them, defend them, and prepare to manage the consequences in the unlikely event that an incident occurs. Allowing the fear of terrorism to obstruct the significant economic and societal gains from nuclear power is both irrational and unwise.

187

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - INCENTIVES KEY Nuclear power incentives are key to development. Nuclear Energy Institute. 2/16/2005. "New Nuclear Power Plants Are Vital to Effective National Energy Policy, NEI Tells Congress" (http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/ncwplantsvital/) "If Congress is going to provide an effective energy bill that will help wean us off foreign sources of energy, it must recognize this fact and enc o u ra.^c through various incentives the development of those sources that can best help us reach our goaIs.'' Kane recommended that new energy legislation include provisions to help meet the challenges of adding baseload power plants, new transmission capability and other energy infrastructure. He also called for a variety of investment options and tax incentives to stimulate new baseload power plant construction in the U.S. These include investment tax credits, production lax credits similar to those already in place for wind generation, accelerated plant depreciation and a loan guarantee mechanism. "Throughout our history the U.S. government has. provided support for projects such as the transcontinental railroad and the space program that are deemed important to the national interest. 1 ' Kane said. "These incentives are investments in America's Hi l LI re a n d will only be needed for the First few advanced-design nuclear plants. Once the licensing process for the i n i t i a l plants has been shown to work, capital costs will decline and the private debt and equity markets w i l l finance follow-on plants without federal assistance."

188

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - INCENTIVES KEY Giving nuclear energy corporations incentives, such as subsidies, is key to building nuclear reactors. W. J. Nuttall, Judge Institute of Management and Cambridge University Engineering Department. 2005, "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power" In those countries that have moved towards Markey liberalization it would seem that there can be no going back. The 2003 UK Energy White Paper reports: "Liberalized energy markets arc a cornerstone of our energy policy. Competitive markets incentivize suppliers to achieve reliability. " Before we look at the present and consider the future, it is important to recognize that nuclear power, in every country where it was developed, benefited from huge amounts of public subsidy. These subsidies acted directly for a plant development and in some cases indirectly via defense expenditures for naval propulsion and nuclear weapons. Detractors make a persuasive argument that such defense-sunk costs have given nuclear an unfair advantage over alternative generation technologies. Furthermore it can be argued that this advantage persists to this day. It should be remembered, however, that gas turbine technology underpinning combined cvclc aas turbine and natural gas-fired power stations is also a beneficiary of public subsidies to aeroplane engine manufacture, and hence, these gas turbine innovations also represent a military technology development.

189

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - INCENTIVES KEY Giving nuclear energy corporations incentives, such as subsidies, is the only way to begin the "nuclear renaissance". W. J. Nuttall, Judge Institute of Management and Cambridge University Engineering Department, 2005, "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power" For the most part, nuclear fission is a mature technology. While numerous innovations and improvements would surely lie ahead in the event of a nuclear renaissance, the fundamentals of the fission process, its development and its industrial scale deployment are now well known. This is in contrast to several of the renewable forms of low carbon electricity gcncralion. such as solar photovoltaics and wind turbines. In many repects these technologies arc in an analogous position to nuclear power in the 1960s. In considering a level playing field between technologies in the electricity generation market it would seem onl\ lair that renewables receive substantial public subsidy at this time. Recent policy announcements in the UK and the US are consistent with such thinking.

190

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - INCENTIVES KEY The nuclear energy industry does not provide capital; incentives are needed. W. J. Nuttall, Judge Institute of Management and Cambridge University Engineering Department, 2005. "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power" Nuclear power capital costs fall into two broad categories: the physical plan and the project finance costs. Costs associated with the physical plant include labor, materials and infrastructure, while the project finance costs include the cost of capital (discount rate over project development time), the ability to benefit from economies of scale and learning. The nuclear industry and energy policy makers recognize the difficulties caused to highly capital-intensive technologies by the move to liberalized electricity markets and significant attention has been devoted to better understanding the problem and to reducing capital costs as far as possible. Clearly nuclear power, with its large up-front capital costs, is unattractive when costs of capital (discount rates) are high. Importantly the cost of such capital is completely beyond the control of the nuclear industry. In simple terms it is given by the return that the plant developers would have to pay to match the returns on offer to investors from other parts of the economy. The IEA report notes that doubling the discount rate from 5 to 10% increases the levelized cost of nuclear electricity by an average of 50%. In comparison, the equivalent figures are 28% for coal fired generation and only 12% for combined cycle gas turbine generation.

191

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - INCENTIVES KEY Incentives are needed to start up the nuclear energy industry which would lead to more investors, overall starting up the nuclear renaissance. W. J. Nuttall, Judge Institute of Management and Cambridge University Engineering Department, 2005, "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power" As Malcolm Grimston and Peter Beck point out, issues of economic risks are central to nuclear power plant invcstment decisions. There have been numerous examples of construction cost ovcr-runs and delays. Regulatory risks are significant in nuclear power plant planning and licensing. There are also risks of generic defects in design and of accidents during construction. In a free market these risks would all fall to the investors before a single unit of electricity had been sold. Investors confronting issues of nuclear power would therefore seek to internalize these issues of economic risk via a substantial risk premium. Investors' negative perceptions of the economic risks associated with nuclear power is in addition to am avcrsion to invest that might arise from political attitudes among the community of investors. For instance, early ethical investment funds typically refused to invest in any nuclear power related projects. Recently with the explosion in these forms of investment the ethical fund management community have become more pragmatic and discerning. This has been characterized as being amove from a dark green to a light green perspective on investment decisions. Nevertheless with the growth of such lifestyle investments the future of nuclear power is vulnerable in ways that did not apply in the old days of slate control. Grimston and Beck's argument goes further, in that the economic risks of nuclear power tend to fall to the private investors during the ten years, or more, of power plant construction and licensing. Bv contrast, however, the economic risks associated with Ras-Fired generation tend to relate to the operational phase and the risk of primary fuel price volatility once electricity is being sold. In the case of gas-fired generation these economic risks do not fall on the oriuinal investors in the construction, but rather are passed directly to electricity consumers.

192

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - FEDERAL KEY Federal Government Key Claussen 11/12/2007 (http://wvAv.pewclimate.Org/speeches/l 1.12.07/ec_ans) Claussen is the president of the Pew Center on Climate Change. "REALITY BEFORE THE RENAISSANCE: MAKING NUCI.HAR POWER PART OF THE CLIMATE SOLUTION" Is cap-and-trade the only answer to elimate change? No. Does this mean government should do nothing to help advance cspecially promising technologies? No. The Pew Center is a strong believer in technology-neutral policies like cap-and-trade. However, we also believe the federal government needs to be involved in solving some of the most urgent problems facing key energy a 1 icrnatives (problems like nuclear waste storage). Federal Incentives Key. Wallace 4/26/2005 CQ Congressional Testimony. 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 bv thc Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's Nuclear Energy Task Force in its recent repori. That investment stimulus includes: 1. secured loans and loan guarantees; 2. transferable investment tax credits that can be taken as money is expended during construct i on: 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 (he marketplace - namely, whether the markets they serve are open to competition or are in a regulated rate structure. The next nuclear plants might be b u i l t 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.

193

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - FEDERAL KEY Federal action is key to creating innovation and further improvements to nuclear reactors. W. J. Nuttall, Judge Institute of Management and Cambridge University Engineering Department. 2005, "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power" In comparing the economics of competing generation technologies it is necessary for policy makers to include properly the requirements of national energy policy if the market is to reflect national goals. One important factor that one might expect to be readily accommodated by a liberalized electricity market is the issue of technology development and licensing. Generally private sector experience in technology development and deployment exceeds that of the public sector and it would seem natural that as electricity generation becomes increasingly privatized, links to the contractors involved in the power plant construction business would become easier. ! lowcver, the old paradigm of state control of electricity prices, generation and distribution in vertical 1 y Integra led systems matched naturally to state control of national industrial policy. Nuclear power stations were designed and constructed by national champions who might, in time, be expected to sell or license t h e i r nuclear expertise to emerging markets. While much of the faith in the relationship between nuclear generation and national industrial capacity might now be regarded as a victory for hope over experience, that s t r u c t u r e of state control spanning from power plan construction to electricity sales did lead to reliable, high q u a l i t y electricity supplies with adequate security of supply. In addition, the countries involved in such deselopmcnts have remained global leaders in science and engineering and continue to lead in all measures of technological innovation. The idea of a positive relationship between monopoly and i n n o v a t i o n has been taken up by the Economist magazine as the subject of one of its recent Economics Focus c o l u m n s . Nuclear power may well be a good example of high levels of innovation in nationalized monopoly s t r u c t u r e s with supporting evidence of a decrease in innovation as the industry moved into a more competiii\ e filiation. It is now abundantly clear, however, that the days of innovative monopoly were characteri/ed b\ high electricity prices, which acted to hamper national competitiveness across the entire econoim . The market of electricity generaticn and supply should in principle be able to accommodate easily issues of innovation, licensing, design improvements and new technologies. In fact, for the most part, it seems that the liberalized markets have led to electricity generation technology developments that are less innovative and fast-paced than were seen in the old days of state control. Perhaps we are now are seeing the proper level of such innovation within the industry. Furthermore, it seems likely that across the economy as a whole, innovation will have increased as a result of these changes within the energy sector. It is argued here, however, that aside from the important developments in the area of renewables (where substantial state subsidies are becoming available), the liberalized markets are not yet delivering sufficient research and development to ensure the long-term needs of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding general shortcomings, one can, hoever. observe a recent increase in effort devoted to new reactor designs. This is of vital importance for the possibility of am nuclear renaissance. The Generation IV Internation Forum is particularly important in this regard and t h i s is discussed in detail in chapter 8.

194

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

TO ffOASL f T TT -

AFFfRMATfVE

Nuclear energy is an alternative energy and, thus, is topical. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006 Alternative energy- energy, as solar, wind, or nuclear energy, that can replace or supplement traditional fossil-fuel sources, as coal, oil, and natural gas.

195

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

TOPICALITY - NEGATIVE Since Nuclear power uses up natural resources, namely uranium, it is NOT an alternative energy. Compact OED, 2008 alternative energy•_noun energy fuelled in ways thai do not use up natural resources or harm the environment.

196

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

INHERENCY - NEGATIVE - CURRENT INCENTIVES WORK Loan guarantees and other financial incentives are already in the status quo. Paul L. Joskow, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Research, http://tisiphone.mit.edu/RePEc/mce/\\ paper/2006-019.pdf, "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States: Economic and Regulatory Challenges", December 2006 I think that it is fair to say that prior to the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ("the Act"), investors were not exactly beating down the door of the NRC to file applications of Early Site Permits or COLs. However, the Act provides a number of significant financial incentives t£ the first few plants that enter the COL process, are built 21 and ultimately begin to operate. These incentives, combined with rising fossil fuel costs, rising wholesale market prices, and growing recognition that CCh prices may be imposed at some point within the life of a nc\\ plant that enters construction today, have stimulated much more serious interest among investors in building new nuclear plants. The Act provides for a 1.8 cent/k\Yh investment tax credit for new nuclear capacity during its first 8 years of operation. This subsidy is limited to no more than $125 million per year per 1,000 M\\ (if capacity and no more that 6,000 Mw of new capacity can receive this subsidy, in addition, new nuclear plants are eligible to apply for loan guarantees for up to 80% of a plant's construction cost. These loan guarantees will reduce the cost of debt financing for projects that receive them and allow the financing of the projects to be more highly leveraged. These subsidies reduce the life-cycle costs of a new nuclear plant by on the order of S20/M\vh. assuming that they operate with 85% capacity factors (IEA, p. 376).HI The Act also provides "insurance" against regulatory delays for the first 6,000 Mw of nev-. capacity that applies for a COL. The first two plants are eligible for up to $500 million of payments for the costs of regulatory delay and the next four plants for up to $250 million each. The details of how much in loan guarantees will actually be made available by the federal government (all generating plants that do not produce greenhouse gases are eligible), how investment tax credits will be allocated if more than 6,000 Mw of new capacity enters service during the eligibility window specified in the Act, and how the costs of regulatory delay will be determined are yet to be specified by the federal government.

197

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

ALTERNATE CAUSES Global Economic Instability in Housing Markets New York Times 2008 (April 14 2008, "Housing Woes In I '.S. Spread Around Globe", pg online @ http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb7indcx :0&did=1461417571&SrchMode=T&sid=10&F mt=3&VInst=PROD&VType-POn^RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1214675356&clien tld=1566) The collapse of the housing bubble in the United States is mutating into a global phenomenon, with real estate prices swooning from the Irish countryside and the Spanish coast to Baltic seaports and even parts of northern India.This synchronized global slowdown, which has become increasingl) stark in recent months, is hobbling economic growth worldwide, affecting not just homes hut jobs as well.In Ireland. Spain. Britain and elsewhere, housing markets that soured over the last decade are falling back to earth. Property analysts predict that some countries, like t h i s one, will face an even more wrenching adjustment than that of the United States, inckuiiim the possibility that the downturn could become a wholesale collapse.To some extent, the world's problems are a result of American contagion. As home financing and credit tightens in response to the crisis that began in the subprime mortgage market, analysts worry that other countries could suffer the mortgage defaults and foreclosures '.hat have afflicted California, Florida and other states.Citing the reverberations of the America:' housing bust and credit squeeze, the International Monetary Fund last Wednesday cut it> :i recast for global economic growth this year and warned that the malaise could extend into 200^."The problems in the U.S. are being transmitted to Europe," said Michael Ball, professor of urban and property economics at the University of Reading in Britain, who studies housing prices. "NVlui'.'s happening now is an awful lot more grief than we expected. "For countries like Ireland, wliei prices were even more inflated than in the United States, it has been a painful education, as homcowiu-: learn the American vocabulary of misery."We know we're already in negative equity," said Emma l . i i u i i i e . a 3 1-year-old university administrator. She bought a cozy, one-bedroom apartment in the Dublin suHi bs with her fiance, Paul Colgan. in May 2006, at the peak of the market. They paid $575,000 -- at least S I i.OOO more than it would fetch today. "I sometimes get shivers thinking about it," Ms. Linnane said, "bit I'll let the reality hit me when 1 go to sell it."That reality is spreading. Once-sizzling housing markets in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states are cooling rapidly, as nervous Western Europeans stop buying investment properties in Warsaw, Tallinn, Estonia and other real estate Klondikes.Further east, in India and southern China, prices are no longer surging. With stock markets down sharply after reaching heady levels, people do not have as much cash to buy property. Sales of apartments in Hong Kong, a normally hyperactive market, have slowed recently, with prices for mass-market Hats starting to drop.

198

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - PROLIFERATION Using nuclear energy increases weapon proliferation. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, author tor America magazine, 2008. Vol. 198, Iss. 20, "Five Myths About Nuclear Energy". From Proquest.com Pursuing nuclear power also perpeuialcs the myth that increasing atomic energy, and thus increasing uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing, will increase neither terrorism nor proliferation of nuclear weapons. This myth has been rejected by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. More nuclear plants means more weapons materials, which means more targets, which means a higher risk of terrorism and proliferation. The government admits that Al Qaeda already has targeted U.S. reactors, none of which can withstand attack by a large airplane. Such an attack, warns ihc U.S. National Academy of Sciences, could cause fatalities as far away as 500 miles and destruction 10 times worse than that caused by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in I*-'186. Nuclear energy actually increases s hj risks of weapons proliferation because the same technology used for civilian -iUmiic power can be used for weapons, as the cases of India. Iran. Iraq, North Korea am akistan illustrate. As the Swedish Nobel Prize tary atom and the civilian atom are Siamese twins." winner Hannes Alven put it, "The i Yet if the world stopped building nuclear-power plants, bomb ingredients would be harder to acquire, more conspicuou* and more costly politically, if nations were caught trying to obtain them. Their motive.*, fur seeking nuclear materials would be unmasked as military, not civilian.

f>

f9

199

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - NOT COST EFFECTIVE Nuclear energy is not cost-effective and cannot cheaply generate electricity. Jim Rice, Sojourners Magazine. August 2007. Volume 36, Issue 8, "Is Nuclear Power the Answer?" From Proquest.com COST. In its first four decades, nucle r power cost this country more than $492 billion, by conservative estimate-nearly twice the cost of the Vietnam War and the Apollo moon missions combined-according to a stu d) titled "The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power." Even with those astronomical num government and industry have deliberately underestimated many costs for nuciear power, such as those for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "deco missioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants (which e n be more than $4 billion per reactor), and the consequences of nuclear accidents. :'.! : of which, according to the authors, could well total another $375 billion. (As they y. a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real oney.) In return for this massive investment, \\e ha\ c an CIK : •• • mice iluit contributes abotit 8 to 10 percent of our total energy consumption. According to the same studs , nuclear power ha* rcccr, c-.i ore tlian $97 billion in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, fuel fabrication v. i n il's, and artificial!} lou limits on liability incase of nuclear accidents (thanks to the Price-Anderson Act). No other i n J u s l i . !. .:-. cnjo\cd such privilege.

Peter Grinspoon. director of Green rv. -e's Nuclear Power Campaign at the time of the report, said that "without even cour. t i n '.i liabilities such as accidents and waste, nuclear power has failed on economic grounds. Nuclear power is untenably expensive. ... It simply can't compete."

200

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - RADIATION Nuclear energy will always produce radioactive waste, for which there is no safe storage method or site. Jim Rice, Sojourners Magazine. August 2007, Volume 36, Issue 8. "Is Nuclear Power the Answer?" From Proquest.com The nuclear industry has no answer to the waste problem. Some nuclear backers propose the "reprocessing" of spent fuel to extract plutonium and uranium, which can be used in nuclear weapons or as new fuel for nuclear power plants. The Natural Resources Defense Council warns that such projects threaten to "compromise efforts to keep dangerous nuclear technology out of unsafe hands and substantially increase the flow of nuclear waste for which there is no established means of disposal." Hopes to bury high-level waste in formations of granite or basalt-such as at Yucca Mountain on Shoshone land in Nevada-have foundered for both geologic and political reasons. Simply put, there's no guarantee that the storage site would remain stable, even for the immediate geologic futurc-and the people of Nevada don't want hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive material shipped into their state. The Los Alamos National Lab reported that so much material could leak out of waste containers at Yucca that a "critical mass, inadvertent nuclear chain reaction, and even an atomic explosion" could result, causing "catastrophic" radiation releases into the environment.

201

Nuclear Energy Affirmative

SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - TERRORISM Nuclear reactors are susceptible to terrorist attacks. Jim Rice, Sojourners Magazine, August 2007, Volume 36, Issue 8, "Is Nuclear Power the Answer?" From Proquest.com The vulnerability of nuclear power plants as potential targets of terrorist attack was recognized long before 9/11, and concerns have only heightened since then. After Sept. 11, Dr. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and scientific director for the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute, said that a similar strike on a nuclear plant by a commercial airliner "would in fact have a high likelihood of penetrating a containment building" and that as a result "the possibility of an unmitigated loss of coolant accident and significant release of radiation into the environment is a very real one. In other words, nuclear power plants contain the potential to turn a conventional terrorist attack into, in effect, a massive "dirty bomb," with the resultant spread of radioactive material. A report from the Government Accountability Office criticized efforts by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to implement new security plans, concluding that the "NRC cannot yet provide assurances that its efforts will protect nuclear power plants against terrorist attacks."

202

Nuclear Energy Affirmative Nuclear Energy Negative

SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - PBMR NOT SAFE Nuclear reactors are not safe as they sacrifice safety features for a cheaper price. Paul Gunter, Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at MRS and a report author, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, March 2001, http://vv-vvw.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm, "THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR (PBMR)" NO REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING AND REDUCED SAFETY SYSTEMS CUT PBMR COSTS Unlike light water reactors that use water and steam, the PBMR design would use pressurized helium heated in the reactor core to drive a series of turbine compressors that attach to an electrical generator. The helium is cycled to a recuperator to be cooled down and returned to cool the reactor while the waste heat is discharged to the environment. Designers claim there are no accident scenarios that would result in significant fuel damage and catastrophic release of radioactivity. These industry safety claims rely on the heat resistant quality and integrity of the tennis ball-sized graphite fuel assemblies or "pebbles," 400,000 of which are continuously fed from a fuel silo through the reactor "little by little" to keep the reactor core only marginally critical. Each spherical fuel element has an inner graphite core embedded with thousands of smaller fuel particles of enriched uranium (up to 10 %) encapsulated in multi-layers of non-porous hardened carbon. The slow circulation of fuel through the reactor provides for a small core size that minimizes excess core reactivity and lowers power density, all of which is credited to safety. However, so much credit is given to the integrity and quality control of the coated fuel pebbles to retain the radioactivity that no containment building is planned for the PBMR design. While the elimination of the containment building provides a significant cost savings for the utility—perhaps making the design economically feasible—the trade-off is public health and safety. The protective containment building also is nixed because it would hinder the design's passive cooling feature of the reactor core through natural convection (air cooling). Exelon also proposes a dramatic reduction in additional reactor safety systems and procedures (i.e. no emergency core cooling system and a reduced one-half mile emergency planning zone as compared to a 10-mile emergency planning zone for light water reactors) to provide for further reducing PBMR construction and operation costs. To date, however, Exelon has not submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission descriptions of challenges that could lead to a radiological accident such as a fire that ignites the combustible graphite loaded into the core. Fire and smoke then become the transport vehicle for radioactivity released to the environment from damaged fuel. In addition, the lack of containment would require 100%-perfect quality control in the manufacture of the fuel pellets—an impossible goal. Imperfections in fuel pellet manufacture could lead to higher radiation releases during normal operation than is the case with conventional reactors.

203

Nuclear Energy Affirmative Nuclear Energy Negative

SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - PBMR WASTE PROBLEMS Nuclear waste from PBMR is intrinsically dangerous. Paul Gunter, Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at MRS and a report author. Nuclear Information and Resource Service, March 2001, http:/Avww.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm, "THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR (PBM R)" A single 110-megawatt PBMR will produce 2.5 million irradiated fuel elements during a 40-year operational cycle. Nuclear waste remains dangerous over geological spans of time and a threat to life from radioactive contamination would persist long after a PBMR has closed. The health and environmental uncertainties associated with a historically mismanaged radioactive legacy from continued operation of nuclear technology is yet another reason the public will not accept the PBMR.

204