Cndi - Nuke Power Da

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 1 OF 19 Nuke Power DA --- Index

Nuke Power DA --- Index.......................................................................................................................................1 1nc..........................................................................................................................................................................2 1nc..........................................................................................................................................................................3 Yes Nuke Power.....................................................................................................................................................4 Yes Nuke Power.....................................................................................................................................................5 Yes Nuke Power --- AT: Scientific/Environmentalist Opposition..........................................................................6 Yes Nuke Power.....................................................................................................................................................7 Yes Nuke Power.....................................................................................................................................................8 Yes Nuke Power.....................................................................................................................................................9 Yes Nuke Power --- AT: Election.........................................................................................................................10 Yes Nuke Power --- International.........................................................................................................................11 Yes Nuke Power --- International.........................................................................................................................12 Link --- Alt Energy...............................................................................................................................................13 Link --- Alt Energy --- XT: Grid Conflict............................................................................................................14 Link --- Wind Power.............................................................................................................................................15 No Nuke Power....................................................................................................................................................16 No Nuke Power....................................................................................................................................................17 2ac AT Link --- Not Mutually Exclusive..............................................................................................................18 Impact Turn --- Nuclear Power = Unsafe............................................................................................................19 Notes: Use the impacts from the Nuke Power Aff(s)/Neg(s)

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 2 OF 19 1nc

Nuclear power’s becoming more widespread --- nuclear construction slated to begin James Varley, managing editor of Modern Power Systems. “Comment- Going Fission.” Page 11. Modern Power System. April 7, 2008. Lexis Nexis. Accessed: July 1, 2008. Nuclear power is also back on the agenda in no uncertain terms. Of course there are several countries where the notion of constructing new nuclear units has never really gone away, eg Korea, which has been working steadily away on developing its indigenous nuclear capabilities and has just embarked on the building of the first of a new generation of nuclear plant, the APR1400, featuring the largest 60 Hz steam turbines ever built, see pp 17-20). Fairly substantial new plant construction programmes are also in progress in China and India (about six units each), while work is also currently underway on a smattering of twenty or so further units around the world, in countries such as Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Japan, Argentina, Iran, Pakistan, France and Finland. recently some serious plans for substantial acceleration of new nuclear build have been proposed around the world, which is an extraordinary turnaround for an industry that not so long ago seemed to be in a state of terminal decline, with nuclear power apparently a lost cause in many places, notably in parts of western Europe and in the USA. Worries about supply security, fossil fuel prices and carbon dioxide have changed all that. In addition to the 30 or so reactors currently under construction, there are about 35 planned units scheduled to enter operation over the next ten years, but when we look beyond that time horizon the pipeline of planned new nuclear units grows rather impressively, to well over 200 new reactors spread over a very wide range of countries - although it remains to be seen of course how many of these progress to the construction phase. Amazingly, some nuclear construction activity is once again getting underway in the USA, after a very long hiatus, with the Tennessee Valley Authority's decision to complete the Watts Bar 2 PWR. This unit was suspended in 1985 at 80% completion. But work is now being resumed, with Westinghouse (Toshiba) awarded a contract on the nuclear side and Siemens contracted to refurbish and upgrade the turbine island. Watts Bar 2 is projected to enter commercial service in 2012, about 42 years after the initial order was placed - surely a record, even for an industry that historically has been no stranger to drawn out construction schedules. The 2005 Energy Policy Act and other initiatives have successfully incentivised the planning of a number of new nuclear units in the USA - with about 30 now under consideration - although there is still some way to go before any of these get to the point of actually being constructed and some difficult decisions lie ahead, not least on the financing in these hyperinflationary times (with some estimates suggesting overnight costs for nuclear new build are now in the region of $6000/kW and rising).

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 3 OF 19 1nc

Any incentives for nuclear power would undermine nuclear power because the two are mutually exclusive. Vidal – Environment Editor at the Guardian – 2008 John, The Guardian. 29 March 2008. Britain seeks loophole in EU green energy targets. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/29/renewableenergy.climatechange. Industry recognises that nuclear power and renewables in Britain are mutually exclusive because they both need government support as well as the same national grid infrastructure to distribute electricity. Last week Carlo de Riva, chief executive of French state-owned nuclear company EDF, said British backing for renewables, would undermine nuclear power. "If you provide incentives for renewables ... that will displace the incentives built into the carbon market. In effect, carbon gets cheaper. And if carbon gets cheaper, you depress the returns for all the other low-carbon technologies. [like nuclear power]." A strong domestic nuclear industry is necessary to positively influence the advance of nuclear power globally – preventing proliferation Domenici – Republican Senator from New Mexico – Winter 1997 (Pete V., Issues in Science and Technology, “Future Perspectives on Nuclear Issues,” www.issues.org/issues/14.2/domen.htm, Downloaded on 9-23-2004) The effect of the lack of orders for new nuclear plants is that the nuclear energy technology now operating in the United States is over 20 years old. As our nuclear energy industry atrophies and our premier educational programs in nuclear energy wither, we are less and less able to influence the development of global nuclear energy policies. Yet the global development of nuclear energy can fundamentally affect our national security. If other nations develop this energy source without adequate safeguards, proliferation of fissile materials can enable acquisition of nuclear weapons by new nations and by rogue states, with serious consequences for global stability. Furthermore, if other major nations such as China do not use nuclear energy effectively, we may all be affected by environmental degradation resulting from their extensive use of fossil fuels. In fact, China is projected to be the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2015. Proliferation leads to nuclear omnicide George H. Quester and Victor A. Utgoff, “Toward an International Nuclear Security Policy,” Washington Quarterly, Autumn 1994 If Americans ask themselves the elementary question of why they should be opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, an obvious first answer might now be that such a spread of weapons of mass destruction could lead to U.S.

cities being destroyed and/or U.S. military units or other U.S. assets abroad suffering nuclear attacks. Further, Americans also care about nuclear proliferation because foreign cities may get destroyed in future outbreaks of war. Following such proliferation, nuclear attacks on U.S. targets could take place more "rationally" in the wake of normal military and political conflicts. Crises sometimes lead to "a war nobody wanted," or to escalations that neither side can control. The risks that such deterrence failures would involve nuclear use are increased as more countries get nuclear weapons. Such nuclear attacks on U.S. targets could also take place less "rationally" -- if someone like Idi Amin or Mu'ammar Qadhafi were to take charge of a country that possesses nuclear weapons. The kinds of political forces that bombed the World Trade Center in New York, or attacked the entrance to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Virginia, might then use nuclear weappons. Second, nuclear weapons have always been important, not just for the devastation they inflict, but also for the political intimidation imposed by the possibility of nuclear devastation. The spread of nuclear weapons to any sizable number of countries will tend to give each a way of intimidating the rest of the world, and thus of vetoing the outside world's objections to any of its more obnoxious activities: "ethnic cleansing," brutal dictatorships, warlord-caused famines, or conquests of neighboring states not so strongly armed. Americans, and most other people, will want to avoid a situation in which any state can defy the will of the rest of the world, just by being able to threaten the destruction of any of the world's cities. Whatever

hopes are now entertained for a disciplined world order and a reliable system of collective security thus depend on the halting of nuclear proliferation. Finally, the United States will not find it easy to sit on the sidelines in a regional war involving nuclear-armed states. In desperate circumstances such states will try to threaten the interests of bystanders, in order to force an international intervention. And other states within and outside such a region will apply great pressures for U.S. and/or UN involvement.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 4 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power

Nuclear power’s experiencing a third renaissance – it has become integral to America’s energy future Lake – 2006 James A. Lake, Associate Director of the Nuclear Program, the Idaho National Laboratory. 6 July 2006. Nuclear Power Revival Viewed as Inevitable by U.S. Researcher. America. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July/20060706173216SAikceinawz0.2218897.html. Throughout the 1980s, the nuclear electric utilities completed many of the remaining plants, brought them on line, and devoted their attentions to improving cost effectiveness and operations performance, which simultaneously improved safety. By the mid-to-late

1990s, the 103 nuclear power plants in the United States were producing 20 percent of America’s electricity at a cost that made them highly competitive with those fired by coal and other fuels -- less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour. Furthermore, their safety performance has improved by more than a factor of 10, to a point where nuclear power is a leader in industrial safety performance today. By the end of the 1990s, with rising energy prices and major blackouts in California, U.S. business interest in nuclear power turned up. Several large utilities, such as Exelon and Entergy, bought nuclear power assets from smaller, less profitable utilities as the business environment for nuclear power began to improve.

Today, more than half of currently operating U.S. nuclear power plants have sought and received 20-year extensions to their original 40-year licenses. The industry fully expects all U.S. plants to apply for these extensions as their original license periods expire. Such extensions would ensure that these large capital assets continue to produce electricity while Americans continue to enjoy their financial and environmental benefits. Today, 440 nuclear power plants generate 16 percent of the world’s electricity needs. Aggressive new nuclear plant construction programs have begun, particularly in East Asian countries, Russia, and India. The United States itself is on the verge of resuming construction of new nuclear power plants, a process that has been dormant for more than 25 years. This is the beginning of the third era, the renaissance of nuclear energy. We stand at the verge of a renaissance of nuclear energy, founded in the continued safe and economical operation of America’s 103 nuclear power plants, and signaled by the expected near-term announcements of several orders for new nuclear power plants to be constructed and operated in the next 10 years. In the longer term, our national laboratories are working with the nation’s universities, U.S.

industry, and the international community to develop the next generation of advanced nuclear power systems that will be even more economical, safer, and sustainable with a closed fuel cycle that burns up substantially more of the nuclear fuel to extract much more of its energy potential while minimizing the quantities of nuclear waste. Nuclear power has an important place in America’s energy future, safely providing electricity and transportation fuel products that are economical, clean, and sustainable. Companies are moving towards nuclear power as a result of environmental regulations Dorsch – 2006 Kirstin Dorsch, South Florida Business Journal. 6 October 2006. As energy demands rise, so might nuclear power. South Florida Business Journal. http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2006/10/09/story12.html?jst=s_cn_hl. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects electricity demand to increase 50 percent nationwide by 2030. The SSEB expects peak demand in Florida to grow 2.7 percent per year, and that by 2025 the Southeast will account for 30 percent of the total electric demand in the nation. Jupiter-based Florida Power & Light Co. (NYSE: FPL), which operates two of Florida's nuclear power plants, is selecting a site for a new nuclear plant, said spokeswoman Rachel Scott, who added that the plant could be built in any part of FP&L's service area throughout the state.

Coal and natural gas have been the popular energy choices in past years, as natural gas is clean and coal is inexpensive. Yet the volatility of natural gas makes it hard to secure a future of stable prices, whereas the availability of coal, and uranium for nuclear power, helps to stabilize fuel prices. Increasing air quality regulations, due to global warming, have also made nuclear power more attractive, as nuclear plants don't release dangerous emissions under normal operation. The issue with nuclear power production is the used fuel and its storage. "With potential environmental regulations of carbon dioxide, nuclear may become the generation option of choice when you talk two to three decades out," he said. "A lot of utilities feel nuclear is in the future."

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 5 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power

Nuclear Power’s revival is coming about because of increased technology and a new view of the energy source. Economist 07 (The Economist. September 8, 2007. US Edition. Lexis Nexis June 30, 2008.) Now nuclear power has a second chance. Its revival is most visible in America (see pages 81-83), where power companies are preparing to flood the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with applications to build new plants. But the tide seems to be turning in other countries, too. Finland is building a reactor. The British government is preparing the way for new planning regulations. In Australia, which has plenty of uranium but no reactors, the prime minister, John Howard, says nuclear power is "inevitable". Managed properly, a nuclear revival could be a good thing. But the industry and the governments keen to promote it look like repeating some of the mistakes that gave it a bad name in the first place. Geopolitics, technology (see Technology Quarterly), economics and the environment are all changing in nuclear power's favour. Western governments are concerned that most of the world's oil and gas is in the hands of hostile or shaky governments. Much of the nuclear industry's raw material, uranium, by contrast, is conveniently located in friendly places such as Australia and Canada. Simpler designs cut maintenance and repair costs. Shut-downs are now far less frequent, so that a typical station in America is now online 90% of the time, up from less than 50% in the 1970s. New "passive safety" features can shut a reactor down in an emergency without the need for human intervention. Handling waste may get easier. America plans to embrace a new approach in which the most radioactive portion of the waste from conventional nuclear power stations is isolated and burned in "fast" reactors. Technology has thus improved nuclear's economics. So has the squeeze on fossil fuels. Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build but very cheap to run. Gas-fired power stations--the bulk of new build in the 1980s and 1990s--are the reverse. Since gas provides the extra power needed when demand rises, the gas price sets the electricity price. Costly gas has therefore made existing nuclear plants tremendously profitable. The latest boost to nuclear has come from climate change. Nuclear power offers the possibility of large quantities of baseload electricity that is cleaner than coal, more secure than gas and more reliable than wind. And if cars switch from oil to electricity, the demand for power generated from carbon-free sources will increase still further. The industry's image is thus turning from black to green.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 6 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power --- AT: Scientific/Environmentalist Opposition

Growing acceptance of nuclear power Bickers 5/8/08 ( Amy Bickers, Associate Editor to Kiplinger.com. “A New Way to Ride Nuclear’s Revival.” 5/8/08. Kiplinger Washington Editors, inc. Lexis Nexis. June 30, 2008. Nuclear power, long reviled as a dangerous source of energy, is on the verge of a comeback. That's because a growing body of scientists, politicians and environmental activists see atomic energy as part of the solution for global warming and our ever-growing dependence on foreign oil, much of it from nations that, if not downright hostile toward us, certainly don't share our values.Investors who want to ride nuclear's revival without betting on individual stocks have a new option. Invesco PowerShares last month launched an exchange-traded fund called the Global Nuclear Energy Portfolio (symbolPKN). The ETF tracks the performance of the World Nuclear Association (WNA) Energy Index, which contains 64 companies that design, construct and operate nuclear power reactors.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 7 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power

Nuclear power receives more and more funding as time goes on, and it is only a matter of time before the government prioritizes the form the most. Daniel Homer. “House panel revises DOE proposal for nuclear energy budget.” May 31, 2007. Nucleonics Week. Lexis Nexis June 30, 2007. A House Appropriations subcommittee last week significantly rewrote the administration's nuclear energy budget proposal, providing less than one-third of the requested money for one high-profile program and moving another big-ticket program from DOE's nonproliferation budget into the nuclear energy section. In its May 23 markup of the fiscal 2008 funding bill for DOE, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee provided $120 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a long-term DOE program to support nuclear power and develop new kinds of reprocessing plants and fast reactors. DOE requested $405 million for GNEP for FY-08, which begins October 1. The program is receiving $167 million in FY-07. Last year, the House voted to give GNEP $120 million, but the Senate never passed its version of the energy spending bill, and the funding was provided in a so-called continuing resolution. Under such resolutions, executive-branch agencies have more leeway than under conventional appropriations bill to change congressional spending plans. The subcommittee did not release the text of the bill or the accompanying report, but a few details were disclosed during the markup and a press conference afterward by Peter Visclosky, the Indiana Democrat who chairs the panel. Visclosky recounted that he had asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman if the entire $405 million was for research, and that Bodman had said it was. Since $405 million already is "a lot of money," Visclosky said, "I can't wait to see" what the costs of the program will be when it shifts into the post-research phase. Of the $405 million request, $395 million was to come from the budget for the research and development programs managed by the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. The remaining $10 million was to come from DOE's nonproliferation programs. The subcommittee did not disclose funding figures for any of the other nuclear R&D programs: Nuclear Power 2010, the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. But Visclosky hinted that funding for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant at Idaho National Laboratory would increase. He said the subcommittee wanted to encourage DOE to "not study to death" the NGNP concept but instead "proceed to see" if such a "safer and more proliferation-resistant" reactor could be developed.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 8 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power

Moody’s Investors Service predicts nuclear power’s coming Global Power Report. June 5, 2008 (Global Power Report. “Moody’s takes upbeat approach on nuclear to meet baseload needs without emissions.” June 5, 2008. Lexis Nexis June 30, 2008.) Moody's Investors Service has put a more positive spin on nuclear power than in its last "special comment" eight months ago, despite a higher potential assumed cost of about $7,500/kWh, up from a $5,000 to $6,000 in the October 2007 report. "The credit implications associated with pending climate change legislation are beyond the scope of this special comment. Nevertheless, Moody's observes that nuclear power appears to represent the most compelling large-scale baseload and emissions-friendly supply alternative," the rating agency continued, in "New Nuclear Generating Capacity: Potential Credit Implications for US Investor Owned Utilities." "We acknowledge that the illustrative scenarios discussed in this report do not incorporate the potential economics associated with carbon/greenhouse gas emission regulations, a material simplifying assumption but one that could have a significant positive impact on the economic prospects for new nuclear generation. In our opinion, if federal and state governments are serious about reducing carbon emissions, new nuclear power will be part of the solution."

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 9 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power

Nuclear power growth’s occurring due to climate concerns and electricity Inside Energy May 19, 2008. ( Inside Energy with Federal Lands. “DOE touts nuclear energy.” Page 18. Lexis Nexis July 1, 2008. Construction of the 15 nuclear power reactors now proposed in the US would create more than 13,000 new construction jobs and have a trickle-down effect, putting hundreds more to work in nearby communities, a top Energy Department official said last week. But Dennis Spurgeon, DOE's assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said at a nuclear engineering conference in Orlando, Florida, that the growth of nuclear power overseas is outpacing developments in the US. "We have recently seen projections anticipating 55 total countries operating 630 reactors by 2030," said Spurgeon. "Potentially, a total of 86 countries could have nuclear reactors by 2050." Both the growing demand for electricity and concerns about global climate change are triggering renewed interest in nuclear power, Spurgeon said. But two important questions must be answered before there is a true nuclear renaissance, he said. "How will used fuel from nuclear power be best managed?" he asked. "And how will the world community deal with the possibility that the expansion may raise the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation?"

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 10 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power --- AT: Election

Both the new presidential candidates favor nuclear power, so no matter what, the White House will support the enterprises to put nuclear over the hump. Peter King June 29, 2008. ( Peter King. “YOUR MONEY: Eying companies in nuclear power.” Newsday. Lexis Nexis. Accessed: July 1, 2008. With the price of oil persisting near all-time highs, the search for energy sources is an issue in the presidential campaign. While most recent headlines have centered on the candidates' positions on expanding offshore drilling for oil, there's another energy source both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are discussing: nuclear power. Republican McCain is strongly in favor of expanding nuclear power. He said if he is elected, he would build 100 nuclear power plants in the coming decades. Democrat Obama has "issued supportive statements about nuclear power," according to Reuters, but he hasn't set any number of plants to build. This may be a good time for investors to think about adding companies involved in nuclear power to their portfolio. Web site Motley Fool mentions NRG Energy Inc. (NRG), Duke Energy Corp. (DUK), Cameco Corp. (CCJ) and USEC Inc. (USU).

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 11 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power --- International

The international community is already committing to nuclear power by showing great interest and developing their own nuclear power plant programs. Brocki – 2008 Luke Brocki. Stockhouse. 16 June 2008. Worldwide interest in nuclear power continues: McCain attacks Obama’s energy policy, not enough emphasis on nuclear. Stockhouse. http://www.stockhouse.com/Columnists/2008/June/16/Worldwide-interest-in-nuclear-power-continues. Bloomberg reported China, already enthused about nuclear power, plans to add more nuclear capacity by 2020, increase uranium imports and explore for the fuel in Kazakhstan, Niger, and other nations. The Asian tiger is turning to alternative energy sources to wean itself off polluting coal, which generates nearly 80% of its electricity. Nuclear power is still just a drop in the bucket; come 2020, it will account for about 5% of China’s total power output by 2020. In the U.K., nuclear energy provides about 18% of the nation’s power, but most of its existing nuclear and coal capacity is closing in the next 15 years, which could leave an energy gap of up to 52 gigawatts by 2025. The hope is that a new generation of nuclear plants could cut carbon dioxide emissions while replacing the outgoing power. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is putting her weight behind a return to nuclear power for her country. Merkel recently advocated reversing current government policy to phase out nuclear power by 2021. Gas prices in Germany are breaking the bank at $9 a gallon; nuclear power could help Germans reduce their reliance on foreign fossil fuels. With French President Nicolas Sarkozy having already said he wants to work with Germany to produce nuclear energy, analysts are once again building buzz about a “nuclear renaissance”. Switzerland, also on a quest to secure energy supplies, plans to build its first nuclear power station in more than two decades. Atel, a Swiss energy group recently submitted to the government plans for a new nuclear power plant in the north of the country, near one of the country’s five existing nuclear facilities, which currently generate 38% of Swiss electricity. South Africa, crippled by a near collapse of its electricity grid last winter, has just given more power to its nuclear industry in an effort to ensure energy security and infuse its local investors with much-needed confidence. A new nuclear policy just approved by cabinet brings changes to uranium mining and nuclear waste management in hopes the metal will boost local production of electricity, 95% of which is currently generated from coal. The use of nuclear power is being heavily encouraged by the international community. Vaidyanathan – 2007 Lalitha Vaidyanathan. Senior Vice President of Finance & Administration & IT of CCL Operations. 18 September 2007. Nuclear power an inevitable option: Kakodkar. Rediff India Abroad. http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/sep/18ndeal3.htm. Making a strong pitch for international nuclear energy cooperation with India, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar on Tuesday made it clear that nuclear power was an 'inevitable option' and pressed for 're-formation' of global thinking on it. "There is a need for reformation of global thinking that is necessary and consensus on closed fuel cycle has to be reached by those going to participate in the future nuclear renaissance," Kakodkar said. He was speaking at the scientific forum, an integral part of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency being attended by more than 500 participants. "The world has to move forward with nuclear power as an inevitable option based purely on partnership on objective, reliable and predictable basis with holistic mutual understanding and trust as a pre-requisite," he said.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 12 OF 19 Yes Nuke Power --- International

Bloomberg 06 ( Michael Bloomberg. “A new nuclear revival: Uranium prices get hot.” November 7, 2006. Finance p. 21. Lexis Nexis June 30, 2008.) Power producers are paying record prices for uranium to run plants that produce 16 percent of the world's electricity. Russia plans to make nuclear power the source of 25 percent of its needs by 2030, from 16 percent now, creating a state-run company to compete with Areva of Paris. Demand for nuclear energy is bolstered by government efforts under the Kyoto Protocol to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and curb imports of fossil fuels. Australia, home to 40 percent of the world's known uranium deposits, said that it might build a nuclear industry that can compete with oil and coal within 15 years. ''It is a very tight, producer's market,'' said Robert Godsell, chief executive of AngloGold Ashanti in Johannesburg [is], whose gold mines also produce enough uranium to meet the needs of Electricite de France, the world's biggest nuclear-energy provider. ''We're very optimistic about the long-term price of uranium because it's the only alternative to coal and oil-based energy on scale.'' The spot price of uranium has advanced 45 percent on average in each of the past five years, based on data from Ux Consulting, a pricing benchmark in the nuclear industry. That beats the average annual gain of 23 percent for copper and nickel on the London Metal Exchange. Nuclear Power is gaining momentum around the world, not just in the United States. James Varley, managing editor of Modern Power Systems. “Comment- Going Fission.” Page 11. Modern Power System. April 7, 2008. Lexis Nexis. Accessed: July 1, 2008. Meanwhile, the blackout prone South Africans are looking at adding 20 GWe, or even 40 GWe, of new nuclear capacity to their system, Ontario is seeking nuclear plant bids, the Turks are talking about nuclear power again - although their project has been under discussion for two or three decades at least - and there is increasing interest in the Middle East, notably in the UAE, where Areva, Suez and, remarkably, oil giant Total, are partnering to submit a proposal for two 1600 MWe EPRs. And the delays at the Olkiluoto 3 EPR project - in a large part attributable to going to site with too little of the detailed design complete - do not seem to have deterred the Finns, who are looking at the possibility of another new nuclear unit. It has even been suggested (by Anne Lauvergeon of Areva) that the World Bank may be softening its attitude to lending on nuclear projects in developing countries, although there is not much public evidence for this as yet (but it is worth noting that the Bank's recent report "Clean energy and development: towards an investment framework" at least includes the word "fission" and recognises it as one of the available low carbon technologies). The Bank has not lent on a nuclear new build project since 1959 when it provided a loan to Italy for its pioneering Garigliano BWR. Speaking of Italy, Enel also harbours hopes of a nuclear revival. Enel may be the national utility of a country that renounced nuclear power in the wake of Chernobyl (and closed down all its units, meaning that Italy is now the only G8 country with no nuclear power stations in operation). But that has not stopped it cultivating nuclear interests outside Italy in recent years following enactment of a law in 2004 allowing joint ventures. Enel, for example, has a 12.5% share in the Flamanville 3 EPR under construction in France, it owns Slovak VVER pressurised water reactors through its 66% stake in Slovenske Elektrarne and has recently joined the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which aims to promote a proliferation resistant international system for spent fuel reprocessing. But currently in Europe it is the government of the UK that seems to be making the running in its upfront support for a revival of nuclear power. Particularly important here are the efforts being made to streamline and rationalise the permitting and safety licensing process, including much better co-operation with nuclear regulators in other countries and a willingness to take on board their findings rather than an insistence on "reinventing the wheel" at great cost. The delays and excessive expenditures that beset the planning consent process for the UK's last nuclear new build project, Sizewell B, which, among other things, featured 340 days of public hearings of very questionable value, cost about £30 million, and took around six years, must be avoided.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 13 OF 19 Link --- Alt Energy

Nuclear power cannot coexist with any other form of alternative energy. Kidd – Director of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association – 2007 Steve, Nuclear Engineering International. 14 March 2007. COMMENT; NUCLEAR AND RENEWABLES: CAN THEY BE PARTNERS?. LexisNexis. Given that both nuclear and renewables emit zero or very little carbon, they can potentially play important parts in curbing emissions by replacing fossil fuels. There is a popular view that nuclear power and renewable forms of energy, such as wind, solar and tidal, are competing for a place in the energy mix. Advocates of both are fond of issuing 'knocking copy' about the other, stressing the various difficulties and limitations in them playing an enhanced role in the energy future. The recently published book Nuclear or Not? (published by Palgrave Macmillan, see page 36), contains a variety of contributions which touch on the issue of whether nuclear and renewables are naturally competitive, or can coexist as happy bedfellows. The general conclusion of most of the authors is that they cannot and that nuclear should not have a major place in any future generation mix. Alternative energies, such as solar and wind, and nuclear power won’t be able to exist together due to the high competition. Alternate Energy Stocks – 2008 Tom Konrad. Colorado Renewable Energy Society Board Treasurer. Alternate Energy Stocks. 15 June 2008. Are Solar PV and Wind Incompatible with Nuclear and IGCC?. http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2008/06/solar_pv_and_wind_may_be_at_odds_with_nuclear_and_ig cc.html. Paul Denholm, a Senior Analyst at the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), sees an upcoming struggle between renewable sources of electricity such as photovoltaics (PV) and wind with low-carbon baseload alternatives for space on the low carbon grid of the future. These baseload alternatives are nuclear and Internal Gasification Combined Cycle coal plants with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (IGCC w/ CCS, refereed to by advocates as "Clean Coal). Nuclear Power’s production of cheap and easy electricity locks it in a zero-sum game with renewables. Tom Konrad, July 8, 2007 (Ph.D. in Mathematics from Purdue University) http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2007/07/toomanybrownies.html Will We Have Too Much Generation for Renewables? No Room for Renewable Energy?

With all this cheap and easy energy efficiency potential, there should be little need to build new power plants despite increasing population growth. Yet utilities continue to project strong electricity growth so that they can justify large capital outlays on new coal fired and nuclear generation (on which they can earn a nearly guaranteed return on equity, regardless of whether the power is This could potentially be very bad news for renewable energy investors. If electric demand does not grow, new generation will only be needed to replace old plants as they are retired, and planning and construction of a traditional coal or nuclear plant can take the better part of a decade (a sharp contrast to utility scale wind and solar farms, which can be planned and built in 1-2 years.) Plugging in to Renewables If energy efficiency keeps new electricity demand to a minimum, or even reduces it, and our utilities are building new fossil or nuclear generation anyway, it seems like there will be little room for new renewable generation. Nothing will be gained by not pursuing energy efficiency which is almost always much cleaner and greener than even renewable electricity. Yet this seems to leave renewable energy locked into a zero-sum game fighting for limited electrical demand with coal and nuclear, which already have a head start in the permitting process. Unlike renewable generation, which can be built quickly in small increments to match shorter-term, more accurate demand projections, large coal and nuclear plants must be built years ahead of time to meet longer term (and inherently less accurate) demand projections, a fact with the perverse consequence that planning for coal and nuclear often starts sooner, leaving renewable sources of generation squabbling for the crumbs if demand, if any such crumbs are left. needed.)

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 14 OF 19 Link --- Alt Energy --- XT: Grid Conflict

Renewables may not provide the base load of energy needs. Renewables cannot operate with nuclear power. Page – 2008 Lewis Page. Prospect Magazine writer. The Register. 7 January 2008. Academics kick off nuclear power war of words. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/07/greenpeace_thinktank_slams_nuke_plans/. Another of the report's authors, Dave Elliott, professor of Technology Policy at the Open University, says that renewable power sources do not require "base load" backup from fossil or nuclear. It is often argued that baseload capacity is required to deal with power dips suffered by renewables during sunless, windless or slack-tide conditions. We have become used to the idea that we need 'base load' supply ... However, as more and more renewables like wind, wave and tidal come on the grid system ... complimentary plants can be run up and down to compensate for the variable availability of energy from these sources. Elliott goes further, saying that significant amounts of renewables and nuclear cannot coexist on the same power grid, owing to "operational conflicts".

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 15 OF 19 Link --- Wind Power

Despite less funding, nuclear power already provides a more stable source of energy at the times when we need it most. Scott Peterson. Vice President of Nuclear Energy Institute. “Breezing Past Nuclear Power’s Value.” The Washington Post. January 24, 2007. Lexis Nexis June 30, 2008. It was amusing that Michele Boyd, energy program legislative director for Public Citizen [letters, Jan. 18], pointed to federal investment in nuclear energy, rather than Mother Nature, as the reason the United States cannot rely on wind and solar power as round-the-clock sources of electricity. Federal research and development policies aren't the reason that, as the online newsletter Energy Pulse reported, wind power production "at the time of peak demand" during last summer's California heat wave was just 4 percent of that energy source's rated generating capacity. While the windmills were there, the wind wasn't. It was also instructive that Ms. Boyd didn't provide a source for her statistical comparison of federal research and development investment in renewable and nuclear energy technologies. A January 2002 study by the Cato Institute, citing Energy Department figures, noted that from 1982 to 2002 renewable energy technologies received $24.2 billion in federal research and development funds, compared with $20.1 billion for nuclear power. As for Ms. Boyd's claim of a nuclear bounty in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, she ignored the reality that the legislation authorized $600 million more for renewable energy R&D over three years ($2.2 billion vs. $1.6 billion) and included a mandate that the federal government buy at least 7.5 percent of its electricity supplies from renewable sources by 2013. Ms. Boyd can garble the numbers, but she can't change the fact that federal investment in nuclear energy has benefited society by helping to yield 20 percent of America's real -- rather than theoretical -- electricity.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 16 OF 19 No Nuke Power

The Nuclear revival doesn’t have enough financial power to break back into the mainstream economy and will halt. Wald 07 (Matthew L. Wald. New York Times. “Lack of Budget Could Hurt Nuclear Energy Revival.” January 23, 2007. Nexis: July 5, 2008.) The senior member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned on Monday that the failure of Congress to pass a detailed budget for the current fiscal year could damage the nuclear renaissance that the government tried so hard to encourage with the energy bill of 2005. No one has applied for permission to build a power reactor since the 1970s. But with the incentives offered by the federal government in 2005, utilities are considering building about 20 reactors, and several of them are expected to apply for authorization this year. The commission member, Edward McGaffigan Jr., said that if the commission received applications this year, ''we basically are going to have to put them on the shelf, because we're not going to have the folks to work on the applications until well into calendar year 2008.'' Congress passed only 2 of the 11 spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2006, those covering the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department. The rest of the government has been operating under a ''continuing resolution,'' a stopgap measure that finances most agencies at the previous year's levels. Democrats say they plan to extend that resolution through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. According to the nuclear commission, under a continuing resolution its budget would be lower by $95 million, or about 12 percent, compared with the level approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees but never by the full Congress. Most of the commission's budget comes from fees paid by companies licensed to use radioactive material. The agency has been arguing on Capitol Hill that giving it the amount already approved by the Appropriations Committees would require only $13 million of general tax revenues. Mr. McGaffigan said that if the commission could not process applications, some companies wanting to build would decide to wait. But he said that ''some, seeing the instability, may disappear'' and build coal plants instead. The nuclear revival will not continue, there is not enough government funding to support private sector efforts. Trevor Loveday. Utility Week. “Energy Review too weak on nuclear.” July 21, 2006. Nexis July 5, 2008. Despite its signalled support for nuclear power, the government's energy review was this week drawing mounting criticism for not providing adequate incentives for a private sector-financed revival of nuclear power. Leading energy consultant and government adviser Poyry Energy Consulting (formerly Ilex) warned that economic barriers would remain beyond the planning issues the administration pledged to deal with. "Easing the planning process will not in itself bring forward new nuclear capacity," said Poyry managing director David Cox. "The fundamental problems preventing build still are related to economic factors including the future price of electricity and the price of carbon." He went on to warn that private sector investment would only go ahead if the government took "significant steps" to underwrite risk or support the price for nuclear output. "It is likely to be difficult politically for the government to push through such measures," Cox said.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 17 OF 19 No Nuke Power

No large scale nuclear renaissance is underway Sharon Squassoni. Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Risks and Realities: The “New Nuclear Energy Revival.”” May 2007. http:// www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_05/squassoni.asp. Accessed: July 5, 2008. There is little doubt that nuclear energy will remain an important part of the global energy mix, but it is not the panacea that many advocates are selling. To begin with, a nuclear renaissance will take too long to have more than a negligible impact on carbon dioxide emissions that threaten significant climate change in the next decade. Further, the petroleum-dominated transportation sector, which accounts for 25 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions, offers few footholds now for nuclear energy substitution. (By contrast, oil only accounted for 5 percent of the global electricity mix in 2001.) In the distant future, perhaps nuclear energy may help offset transportation emissions through the production of hydrogen.

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 18 OF 19 2ac AT Link --- Not Mutually Exclusive

Nuclear power and renewables aren’t mutually exclusive Malcom Wicks, 9th March 2006 (Labour MP for Croydon North) www.berr.gov.uk/files/file27175.pdf Energy Review Stakeholder Seminar No. 5 Some attendees felt that nuclear energy did have a role to play as part of the UK’s energy mix, others disagreed, while some called for a wider debate on the issue. Nuclear and renewables were not generally seen as being mutually exclusive. The government could do more to provide the public with clear and impartial information on nuclear energy. A number of suggestions were made about how to improve the planning and licensing regimes. Below is a summary of the main points made. “Nuclear energy and renewable energy both have a fundamental part to play in our future energy policy. They should not be at loggerheads.” § It was felt that nuclear energy would not be able to deliver all the UK’s energy requirements. Instead it could form part of a diversified energy mix that might include renewables, carbon capture and storage and fossil fuels, as well as energy efficient measures to reduce demand. “Nuclear energy is not the global choice in terms of new power production.” § It was observed that highly liberalised energy markets did not chose to build nuclear plants. New nuclear build in OECD countries required government support, and only about 1-2% of the world’s new power plants were nuclear. “We definitely need an independent nuclear regulator.”

CNDI 08 2WEEKERS

NUKE POWER DA 19 OF 19 Impact Turn --- Nuclear Power = Unsafe

Nuclear Energy is needed, but the industry is not yet prepared to come back to the mainstream. Sharon Squassoni. Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Risks and Realities: The “New Nuclear Energy Revival.”” May 2007. http:// www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_05/squassoni.asp. Accessed: July 5, 2008. Concern about greenhouse gas emissions and energy security combined with forecasts of strong growth in electricity demand has awakened dormant interest in nuclear energy. Yet, the industry has not yet fully addressed the issues that have kept global nuclear energy capacity roughly the same for the last two decades. Although nuclear safety has improved significantly, nuclear energy’s inherent vulnerabilities regarding waste disposal, economic competitiveness, and proliferation remain. Moreover, nuclear security concerns have increased since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Nuclear energy’s revival depends strongly on public sector support and financial backing. Even if it were true that nuclear energy emits no carbon dioxide, that it is renewable, and that it will provide energy independence—all selling points made by President George W. Bush—the fact would remain that nuclear energy is more expensive than alternative sources of electricity.