Renewables Core Mdi 2008

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 1 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

GONE WITH THE WIND..........................................................................................................................................................................4 Wind DA 1NC Shell:...................................................................................................................................................................................4 Uniqueness: Tax Credits Expire Soon.........................................................................................................................................................6 Internal Link Extension: Wind Turbines Kill Birds ( 1 of 3).......................................................................................................................7 Internal Link Extensions: Wind Turbines Kill Birds (2 of 3)......................................................................................................................8 Internal Link Extension: Wind turbines Kill Birds of Prey (3 of 3)............................................................................................................9 Internal Link Extension: Raptors Are Key to Ecosystems (1 of 2)...........................................................................................................10 Internal Link Extension: Top Level Predators are Key to Ecosystems (2 of 2)........................................................................................11 Impact Extension: Ecosystems Key to Human Survival (1 of 3)..............................................................................................................12 Impact Extension: Ecosystems Key to Human Survival (2 of 3)..............................................................................................................13 Impact Extension: Ecosystems Key to Human Survival (3 of 3)..............................................................................................................14 Military Readiness.....................................................................................................................................................................................15 Radars 1NC Module (1 of 2).....................................................................................................................................................................15 Radars 1NC Module (2 of 2).....................................................................................................................................................................16 Internal Link: Wind Farms Disrupt Military Radars.................................................................................................................................17 Internal Link: Radars Key to Readiness (1 of 2).......................................................................................................................................19 Internal Link: Radars Key to Readiness (2 of 2).......................................................................................................................................20 Military Readiness On Brink.....................................................................................................................................................................21 Impact Extension: Hegemony Key Prevent War.......................................................................................................................................22 Climate Change.........................................................................................................................................................................................23 Climate Change1NC Shell:........................................................................................................................................................................23 Internal Link: Wind Power Climate Change:........................................................................................................................................24 Impact - Climate Change Extinction.....................................................................................................................................................25 Marine Biodiversity ..................................................................................................................................................................................26 Marine Biodiversity 1NC Shell:................................................................................................................................................................26 Internal Link – Wind Power Hurts Marine Ecosystems............................................................................................................................27 Impact Extension: Marine Ecosystems Key to Human Survival...............................................................................................................28 Environment..............................................................................................................................................................................................29 Environment 1NC Shell:............................................................................................................................................................................29 Internal Link: Wind Power Destroys the Environment (1 of 2)................................................................................................................30 Internal Link: Wind Power Destroys the Environment (2 of 2)................................................................................................................31 CO2 Emissions.........................................................................................................................................................................................32 CO2 Emissions Shell:................................................................................................................................................................................32 Internal Link: Poor Efficiency CO2 Increase........................................................................................................................................33 The Rest of the Case Debate......................................................................................................................................................................34 Solvency 1NC Frontline (1 of 2)...............................................................................................................................................................34 Solvency 1NC Frontline (2 of 2)...............................................................................................................................................................35 No Solvency: General................................................................................................................................................................................36

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 2 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

No Solvency: Wind Drops ........................................................................................................................................................................37 No Solvency: Long Distance Intermittency..............................................................................................................................................38 No Solvency: Expensive (Spending Links)...............................................................................................................................................39 No Solvency - Wind Power Wastes Power................................................................................................................................................40 No solvency – Can’t Solve Global Warming.............................................................................................................................................41 No Solvency – Wind Power Relies on Taxpayer’s Welfare.......................................................................................................................42 Miscellaneous- Birds Key to Economy.....................................................................................................................................................43 Aff Answers...............................................................................................................................................................................................44 Aff Ans: Non-Unique................................................................................................................................................................................44 Aff Ans - Wind Power Good (General).....................................................................................................................................................45 Aff: AT: Wind Not Competitive/Expensive...............................................................................................................................................46 Aff: Economy Turn....................................................................................................................................................................................47 Aff: AT: C02 Emissions (1 of 2)................................................................................................................................................................48 Aff: AT: C02 Emissions (2 of 2)................................................................................................................................................................49 Aff: AT: Wind Drops..................................................................................................................................................................................50 Aff: AT: Birds............................................................................................................................................................................................51 Aff Ans: Multipolarity Inevitable..............................................................................................................................................................52 Aff: Case Outweighs: War.........................................................................................................................................................................53 LET THERE BE LIGHT...........................................................................................................................................................................54 Solar DA: 1NC Shell (1 of 4)....................................................................................................................................................................54 Uniqueness Extensions:.............................................................................................................................................................................58 Internal Link Extension: China Pollution..................................................................................................................................................59 China Scenario: Brink................................................................................................................................................................................60 Space Militarization Impact Module (1 of 2)............................................................................................................................................61 Space Militarization Impact Module (2 of 2)............................................................................................................................................62 Internal Link: Solar Power leads to Space Militarization..........................................................................................................................63 The Rest of the Case Debate......................................................................................................................................................................64 Solar 1NC Frontline (1 of 2) .....................................................................................................................................................................64 Solar 1NC Frontline (2 of 2)......................................................................................................................................................................65 SOLAR AFF ANSWERS:.........................................................................................................................................................................66 Solar Aff: Economy Turn:.........................................................................................................................................................................66 Solar Aff: Non Unique (1 of 2)..................................................................................................................................................................67 Solar Aff: Non Unique (2 of 2)..................................................................................................................................................................68 Solar Aff: Solar Cells Super Efficient:......................................................................................................................................................69 Solar Aff: No Internal Link:......................................................................................................................................................................70 GEOTHERMAL........................................................................................................................................................................................71 Geothermal 1NC Shell:..............................................................................................................................................................................71 Uniqueness- No Geothermal Energy Now................................................................................................................................................72

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 3 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link Extension: Earthquakes ......................................................................................................................................................73 Earthquake Impacts (1 of 2)......................................................................................................................................................................75 Earthquake Impacts (2 of 2)......................................................................................................................................................................76 Envrionment..............................................................................................................................................................................................77 Environment 1NC Shell:............................................................................................................................................................................77 Internal Link: Environment.......................................................................................................................................................................78 Mercury .....................................................................................................................................................................................................79 Mercury 1NC Shell:...................................................................................................................................................................................79 Internal Link Extension: Mercury.............................................................................................................................................................80 The Rest of the Case Debate......................................................................................................................................................................81 Geothermal 1NC Frontline .......................................................................................................................................................................81 AT: Earthquakes break down prejudices....................................................................................................................................................83 Aff. Answers..............................................................................................................................................................................................84 Aff: Uniqueness- Geothermal Now...........................................................................................................................................................84 Aff: Impact turn- Earthquakes Good ........................................................................................................................................................85 Aff: Geothermal Energy Key to Affirmative Plan.....................................................................................................................................86

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 4 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

GONE WITH THE WIND

Wind DA 1NC Shell: A.

Uniqueness and Link: Their inherency evidence indicates that there is a need for wind energy now. They solve this by granting incentives for alternative energy, which is our link.

B.

Internal Links:

1. Wind farms may drive golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, and other birds of prey to extinction. Ritter – staff writer – 1/4/2005 (John, “Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm) ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. — The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects. But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than

4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors. After years of study but little progress reducisng bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy. The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles. Scientists don't know whether the kills reduce overall bird populations but worry that turbines, added to other factors, could tip a species into decline. "They didn't realize it at the time, but it was just a really bad place to build a wind farm," says Grainger Hunt, an ecologist with the Peregrine Fund who has studied eagles at Altamont.

2. Birds of prey are a keystone species; their natural regulation is key to prevent environmental collapse. Shigwedha - Windhoek correspondent – 5/10/2007 (Absalom, “Namibia: Birds of Prey Keep Mother Nature Healthy,” BushDrums.com, http://www.bushdrums.com/news/index.php?shownews=956) WHILE birds of prey (raptors) are very useful in keeping the environment healthy, they are facing a very serious risk of poisons used by farmers. Throughout the world, vultures are useful to people for purposes ranging from clairvoyance in Africa and the disposal of human corpses by the Parsees in India, writes Ann Scott in the April newsletter of the Vulture Working Group in Namibia. The group works under the umbrella body Raptors Namibia, funded by the Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF), aimed at protecting birds of prey. Scott said scavenging raptors, including vultures, Tawny Eagles and Bateleur Eagles, clean the carcasses of dead livestock, thus alerting farmers to livestock deaths. "This rapid disposal of carcasses assists in combating the spread of diseases such as anthrax and helps maintain farm hygiene. Because they can find and consume carcasses very quickly, vultures also control blowfly infestations on rotting carcasses," Scott writes. Therefore, the presence of birds of prey indicates that the environment is healthy, with a wide and balanced diversity of animals and plant species, enough ground cover and no poisons, just like

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 5 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

a resident pair of fish eagles demonstrates the health of a river or wetland. Furthermore, Scott continues, large and powerful birds of prey such as eagles control small mammals such as dassies, hares and rodents that compete with livestock for grazing resources. "Verreaux's Eagles feed mainly on dassies and one pair will catch at least one dassie per day, amounting to 350 to 400 per year, which equals grazing for 22 sheep. Martial Eagles feed on Helmeted Guinea fowl, hares and ground squirrels, mongooses and suricates that have occasionally been implicated in the spread of rabies," writes the conservationist. Owls are extremely efficient nocturnal predators with well-adapted eyesight and hearing and mostly hunt rats, mice and insects and control these pests in towns and on farms. One pair of Barn Owls with six chicks is able to catch 30 rodents a night. Liz Komen of the Namibia Animal Rehabilitation, Research and Education Centre (Narrec) says poisons and habitat loss through the felling of trees are the major threats to the survival of birds of prey. Some birds are electrocuted by power lines while others fall victim to wild cats. Raptors are characterised by dramatically curved beaks and claws, powerful wings and superb eyesight - adaptations that contribute to their specialised ecological role as meat eaters at the top of the food pyramid. Because of these attributes, they are also held in awe as one of the most charismatic groups of birds. They are, traditionally, a symbol of strength, courage and freedom and appear on many flags, coats of arms and emblems. WHY CONSERVE RAPTORS? *

They maintain a

healthy environment and their absence could ultimately contribute to serious environmental problems.

* Responsible, sustainable bird-based tourism provides much-needed income to people, especially in rural areas, as well as incentives for the conservation of raptors and the environment as a whole.

3. Loss of biodiversity leads to planetary extinction. Diner, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Amry, Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161

Major David N.

Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems are inherently more stable than less diverse systems. “The more complex an ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress…like a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than simple, unbranched circle of threads – which is cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.” By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa and the dustbowl conditions in the 1930s in the United States are

, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined effects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft’s wings. Humankind may be edging closer to the abyss. relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend conditions. Theoretically

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 6 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Uniqueness: Tax Credits Expire Soon Tax credits for wind power will expire in December. Reuters – 5/19/2008 (“Wind power gains adherents in United States,” International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php?page=2)

But the greatest concern currently for the wind energy industry is that for all the public support, the production tax credit is set to expire in December. U.S. lawmakers and President George W. Bush have repeatedly failed to agree on how to finance an extension. "We continue to push ahead because we believe that renewable energy does make a lot of sense, and even policy makers at some point will have to realize something has to be done with $120 a barrel oil," said Michael Polsky, chief executive of Invenergy, a wind developer based in Chicago.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 7 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link Extension: Wind Turbines Kill Birds ( 1 of 3) Wind farms are killing birds and bats and have harmed habitats. Ritter – staff writer – 1/4/2005 (John, “Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm • Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., asked the Government Accountability Office to study the effects more windmills would have in the Appalachians. Research found that existing turbines killed up to 4,000 bats on Backbone Mountain last year.• In the Flint Hills of Kansas, the Audubon Society worries that windmills could despoil views in one of America's few remaining stands of native tallgrass prairie and harm habitats of migrating prairie birds. • Acting Gov. Richard Codey last month ordered a 15-month wind-power moratorium on the New Jersey shore, where the desire to preserve Atlantic views has collided with plans for offshore turbines near Ocean City and other sites. Altamont Pass bird kills have been known for years, but turbine owners and federal regulators ignored them except to urge more research, says Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity. But a California Energy Commission study in August found bird fatalities much higher than had been thought and laid out steps to limit them.At the same time, 20-year-old county permits were up for renewal, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to crack down. "Twenty years has just been too long to resolve this problem," says Scott Heard, the agency's chief Northern California enforcement agent. Fish and Wildlife can prosecute those responsible for kills under federal laws that protect eagles and migratory birds. The center's lawsuit was withdrawn but filed again in November because the wind companies' bird-protection plan was "not a serious attempt," Miller says. The center is appealing Alameda County's approval of new permits.

Birds and bats are getting killed D’Agnese – staff writer -7/23/2007 (Joseph, “Wind: The Farmer's New Cash Crop,” AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/) While Maple Ridge was still in the planning stages, Moore hired Paul Kerlinger, a migration biologist

who often consults with wind power companies, to document over four years the number of dead birds or bats found beneath the turbines. Kerlinger says the study is not complete. A preliminary report shows that bird deaths have numbered in the hundreds annually -- but that a potentially more worrisome number of bats have been killed. No one knows why. One theory is that bats switch off their sonar while migrating. Maple Ridge is exploring technology that will make the turbines more obvious, or less attractive, to migrating bats.

Wind farms have killed 4,700 birds in California. Taylor - managing editor of Environment & Climate News – 8/1/2006 (James, “California Wind Power Worries Environmentalists,” The Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19724) Under pressure from environmental activist groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Los Angeles Audubon Society, the California Energy Commission on August 10 released bird and bat protection guidelines for local wind power permitting agencies. Although the guidelines are neither mandatory nor enforceable, the move represents growing concern that industrial wind farms are taking an unacceptable toll on bird and bat

populations. The most recent avian mortality studies show between 1,750 and 4,700 birds are killed every year at California's Altamont Pass wind farm alone. Similar mortality numbers are reported at industrial wind farms in Solano County and other parts of the state. The Los Angeles Audubon Society says there is a lack of research into how industrial wind farms, many of which are located in migratory flyways, affect songbird flight patterns. The group is seeking a moratorium on turbine operation for several hours each day during the spring and autumn migration seasons.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 8 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link Extensions: Wind Turbines Kill Birds (2 of 3) Wind farms disrupt migratory bird routes and destroy the wilderness. Taylor - managing editor of Environment & Climate News – 8/1/2006 (James, “California Wind Power Worries Environmentalists,” The Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19724) Full Impact Unknown Defenders of Wildlife contends any new wind farms should be required to comply with a long list of siting considerations in addition to the guidelines designed to prevent them from being built in roadless forest areas or avian flyways. The group says species other than birds and bats, while not directly killed by the giant blades of wind turbines, may be significantly affected by the turbines. The group says studies must be conducted to determine how industrial wind farms change the behavior of small mammals and migratory species, for example. "We are concerned about where wind farms are placed," said Kim Delfino, California program director for Defenders of Wildlife. "There are some areas that are more sensitive than others. There are also

many impacts beyond direct bird and bat deaths, especially along migratory bird routes. Very few studies have been done on potential disruption of [the migration of songbirds." Delfino also noted wind farms often require substantial infrastructure, which destroys still more pristine wilderness.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 9 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link Extension: Wind turbines Kill Birds of Prey (3 of 3) Wind turbines have killed 182 birds, 119 birds are raptors. Energy Center of Wisconsin- 2000 (“Wind Power and the Environment” Energy Center of Wisconsin, www.ecw.org/prod/433-3.pdf) WIND POWER AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Despite these benefits, wind power is not completely benign. In some locations, primarily the Altamont Pass in California, wind turbines have affected bird populations. East of Oakland, California, the windy Altamont Pass is a popular feeding spot for birds of prey, as well as home to 7,000 wind turbines. In 1992, a study of bird mortality at the Altamont Pass found 182 dead birds

over a two-year period, including 119 birds of prey (raptors). About half of the raptor deaths were attributed to collisions with the wind turbines. After extensive studies it was determined that the leading causes of the bird kills were the lattice towers (that look much like the Eiffel Tower), which allowed the birds to perch, and the high rotational speed of the blades. Since the release of these studies the wind turbine industry has largely eliminated the use of lattice towers and significantly reduced the speed of the rotating blades, each of which has significantly reduced avian mortality. In Wisconsin (and the Midwest in general) wind turbines seem to have a smaller effect on bird populations than those in more mountainous regions like the Altamont Pass. The landscape is relatively flat, there no narrow flyways, and birds can maneuver around or over the turbines with relative ease. Indeed, in five years of research, wind turbines in the Midwest have not been found to cause any impact on bird populations. Further, many of the turbines in California were small and had high rotational speeds. The larger turbines being installed in Wisconsin have slower rotational speeds, so birds can more easily avoid the moving blades. Of course, wind turbines are not the only structures that can kill birds. Radio and television broadcast towers, smokestacks from power plants, and power lines have also been found to kill birds, as do highways, buildings and pollution. Further, coal mining also destroys bird habitat. Nonetheless, wind turbines should be carefully sited to avoid excessive harm

to birds, especially birds that are threatened or endangered.

Wind farms kill hundreds of raptors, red-tailed hawks, and golden eagles. Wade- staff writer – 10/14/2005 (Will, “Unexpected Downside of Wind Power,” Wired.com, http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177) Thousands of aging turbines stud the brown rolling hills of the Altamont Pass on I-580 east of San Francisco Bay, a testament to one of the nation's oldest and bestknown experiments in green energy. Next month, hundreds of those blades will spin to a stop, in what appears to be a wind-energy first: Facing legal threats from

environmentalists, the operators of the Altamont wind farm have agreed to shut down half of their windmills for two months starting Nov. 1; in January, they will be restarted and the other half will be shut down for two months. Though the Altamont Pass is known for its strong winds, it also lies on an important bird-migration route, and its grass-covered hills provide food for several types of raptors. "It's the worst possible place to put a wind farm," said Jeff Miller, a wildlife advocate at the nonprofit href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org">Center for Biological Diversity. "It's responsible for an astronomical level of bird kills." The dispute at Altamont Pass marks the highest-profile confrontation yet in an unlikely clash between wind-power proponents and environmental activists opposed to noncritical wind-farm development. A 2004 report by the California Energy Commission found that 880 to 1,300 raptors are killed at Altamont every year, such as red-tailed hawks and the federally protected golden eagle.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 10 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link Extension: Raptors Are Key to Ecosystems (1 of 2) Raptors play key roles in the ecosystems. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, 2000. (“Birds of Prey,” ASPEN, http://www.aspennature.org/locations/hallam-lake/birds-prey) What is a Bird of Prey? “Bird of prey” refers to eagles, hawks, falcons, ospreys and owls; all of which are adapted for a lifestyle of aerial hunting. These birds are also called raptors, from the Latin raptor (a robber) and rapere (to seize) referring to their ability to seize and carry off prey. Raptors share several characteristics including: Powerful talons for gripping and killing prey Sharp, curved beaks for tearing food Keen eyesight to spot prey from great distances Why are Birds of Prey so important? The presence of raptors in the wild serves as a barometer of ecological health. Birds of

prey are predators at the top of the food chain; because pesticides, drought and habitat loss have the most dramatic impact on top predators, we refer to them as indicator species. The raptors also play an important ecological role by controlling populations of rodents and other small mammals.

The extinction of raptors has harmful impacts on the entire ecosystem and human health. The Peregrine Fund- 1/28/2004 (“Asian Vulture Crisis Press Releases,” The Peregrine Fund, http://www.peregrinefund.org/press_full.asp?id=21&category=Asian%20Vulture%20Crisis) “To lose three of the world’s species of raptors would be a tragedy beyond comprehension,” stated Dr. Tom Cade, Founder of The Peregrine Fund. “The speed of the decline is eerily similar to the decline of the Peregrine Falcon in the 1960s,” continued Cade. “We’re in another race against time to save these species,” finished Cade. In the last decade, population losses of more than 95% of three raptor species have been reported in many areas. A decline of this magnitude is without precedence among vertebrate species. The three species are the Oriental White-backed Vulture, Long-billed Vulture, and Slender-billed Vulture in South Asia. “This discovery is significant in that it is the first known case of a pharmaceutical causing major ecological damage over a huge geographic area and threatening three species with extinction,” said Dr. Lindsay Oaks of Washington State University, the lead diagnostic investigator for The Peregrine Fund’s team. “Finding that a drug is responsible for the collapse and threatened extinction of these species is helpful yet alarming,” stated Dr. Rick Watson, International Programs Director for The Peregrine Fund. “Helpful, because now we can do something about it and we may have time to save these species. Alarming, because this may not be the only pharmaceutical impacting wildlife,” concluded Watson. Diclofenac is a non-steroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) that has been in human use for pain and inflammation for decades. The veterinary use of diclofenac on livestock in South Asia has grown in the past decade and is now widespread. Livestock that die shortly after being treated with diclofenac contain sufficient residues to cause kidney failure and death in vultures that consume livestock carcasses. Like Peregrine Falcons and DDT, vultures in this case are the “canary in the coal miner’s cage” warning of a potentially dangerous environmental health hazard. Vultures are sampling the environment and their deaths and population collapse have demonstrated a widespread toxic effect. The results are important to toxicologists, conservationists, and drug manufacturers worldwide. “Vultures have an important ecological role in the Asian environment, where they have been relied upon for millennia to clean up and remove dead livestock and even human corpses. Their loss has important economic, cultural, and human health consequences,” says Dr. Munir Virani, Biologist for The Peregrine Fund. Virani coordinated the massive field investigations across Nepal, India, and Pakistan. “Declines of this magnitude in once very common species have not been seen since the extinction of the Great Auk, or the Passenger Pigeon in the 19th century,” stated Dr. Martin Gilbert, veterinarian for The Peregrine Fund. Gilbert conducted and supervised ecological field studies, and vulture necropsy and tissue collection in Pakistan. To expedite this transfer of knowledge and responsibility to the various countries, The Peregrine Fund and partners have organized an international Summit Meeting on 5 and 6 February 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. The Kathmandu Summit Meeting will include senior government officials from the affected countries and carries the endorsement of the United States Department of State. In a letter to invitees from John Turner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs urged national governments of the region to participate. The summit will include a briefing on the scientific evidence of the role diclofenac has in the catastrophic population collapse of these species, potential solutions to mitigate the effects of diclofenac, and a forum to develop a strategic response to this new environmental threat and to begin the effort to restore these species. The Peregrine Fund was founded in 1970 and works worldwide to conserve wild populations of birds of prey. Conserving raptors provides an umbrella of protection for entire ecosystems and their biodiversity. The organization is non-political, solution-oriented, hands-on, science-based organization. Goals are achieved by restoring and maintaining viable populations of species in jeopardy; studying little-known species; accomplishing research; conserving habitat, educating students, and developing local capacity for science and conservation in developing countries; and providing factual information to the public.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 11 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link Extension: Top Level Predators are Key to Ecosystems (2 of 2) The destruction of top level predators adversely affects the rest of the ecosystem. Lovgren – staff writer – 426/2005 (Stefan, “Without Top Predators, Ecosystems Turn Topsy-Turvy,” National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0426_050426_strangedays2.html) When the construction of a hydroelectric dam on Venezuela's Caroni River was finally completed in 1986, it flooded an area twice the size of Rhode Island, creating one of South America's largest human-made lakes: Lake Guri. As floodwaters turned hilltops into islands, a key group of animals—predators such as jaguars, harpy eagles, and armadillos—disappeared from the islands. Some swam or flew away. Others drowned or starved to death. In the predator's absence, their prey—howler monkeys, iguanas, leaf-cutting ants—began multiplying. Soon these plant-eaters had devoured most of the once pristine forest. It is a classic cautionary tale of the dangers of removing top predators from an ecosystem. "Taking out predators has a cascade of effects on other populations, down to the plant life," said John Terborgh, a professor of environmental science at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. The Lake Guri story is recounted in a National Geographic four-part TV series, Strange Days on Planet Earth, which airs this Wednesday on PBS. Mass Exodus The creation of Lake Guri may have been an ecological disaster. But it offered biologists like Terborgh an unprecedented opportunity to study the effects of removing top predators from an ecosystem. The first phase of the two-part Guri dam project was completed in 1968. It raised the water level over 390 feet (120 meters) above that of the original Caroni River. When the dam's second phase was finished in 1986, the water level rose steadily over a year by another 164 feet (50 meters), and about a thousand hilltops became islands in a human-made lake. Terborgh found that predators such as pumas, jaguars, anacondas, eagles, armadillos, and some weasels were not able to persist on islands smaller than 37 acres (15 hectares). Some of the animals swam or flew from the islands. Others starved to death. Not surprisingly, the mass exodus of predators had a huge impact on their prey. Populations of howler monkeys, iguanas, and leaf-cutting ants exploded. To Terborgh's surprise, the carrying capacity—the upper limit of a sustainable population—of these planteaters turned out to be vastly greater than he had imagined, with populations surging ten to a hundred times higher than the animals' density on the nearby mainland. The booming herbivore populations devoured the islands' vegetation. The loss of top predators could also explain the disappearance of aspens and willows in the oldest national park in the United States: Yellowstone. Scientists determined that aspens stopped regenerating in Yellowstone in the 1930s, around the time that wolves went extinct in the area. Research suggests that the elimination of Yellowstone's wolves allowed one of their prey animals, elk, to browse aspens and willows undisturbed. This led to the disappearance of trees and streamside vegetation—and the loss of beaver habitat. Since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995, aspen and willow have begun growing again, and a few beavers have returned to the park. Algae Invasion

Similar phenomena have been observed in the oceans. Overfishing may have caused the populations of hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic Ocean to drop by as much as 90 percent in some places. "Sharks are top predators … they keep their prey in check. And that, in turn, helps their prey's prey," said Mike Heithaus, a marine biology professor at Florida International University in Miami. "These effects cascade through the whole ecosystem." Overfishing may also at least partly explain why a suffocating layer of algae now blankets the once vibrant Discovery Bay coral reef in Jamaica. Fisheries in the area first decimated top predatory fish, such as sharks, groupers, and jacks. Smaller fish became the next commercial target, including plant-eating species that kept fast-growing algae in check. But the story is more complicated, says Rich Aronson, a senior marine scientist at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama. Sampling the fossil record of the reef, Aronson found that the corals stopped growing in the early 1980s, after a hurricane hit Jamaica and destroyed much of the reef. A few years later a lethal disease swept across the Caribbean Sea, killing the main remaining grazers, sea urchins, and paving the way for the algae to take over. "The combination of killing the corals and the loss of herbivores resulted in this vast goo of seaweed," Aronson said. "It has to be some kind of outside disturbance that kills the coral and provides the entrée for the algae."

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 12 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Impact Extension: Ecosystems Key to Human Survival (1 of 3) Top level predators are key to ecological health, which is key to human survival. Carey – LiveScience staff writer – 7/19/2006 (Bjorn, “Top predators key to ecosystem survival,” MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13939039) Top-level predators strike fear in the hearts of the animals they stalk. But when a deer is being mauled by a wolf, at least it can know that it's giving its life for the greater good. A new study reveals how ecosystems crumble without the presence of top predators be keeping populations of key species

from growing too large. It also provides a cautionary lesson to humans, who often remove top predators from the food chain, setting off an eventual collapse. The study is detailed in the July 20 issue of the journal Nature. The researchers studied eight natural food webs, each with distinct energy channels, or food chains, leading from the bottom of the web to the top. For example, the Cantabrian Sea shelf off the coast of Spain has two distinct energy channels. One starts with the phytoplankton in the water, which are eaten by zooplankton and fish, and so on up to what are called top consumer fish. The second channel starts with detritus that sinks to the sea floor, where it's consumed by crabs and bottom-dwelling fish, which are consumed by higher-up animals until the food energy reaches top-level consumers. The top predators play their role by happily munching away at each channel's top consumers, explained study leader Neil Rooney of the University of Guelph in Canada. "Top predators are kind of like the regulators of the food web—they keep each energy channel in check," Rooney told LiveScience. "The top predator goes back and forth between the channels like a game of Whac-a-Mole," a popular arcade game in which constantly appearing moles are smacked down with a mallet. Constant predation of the top consumers prevents a population from growing larger than the system can support. Boom or bust Removing a top predator can often alter the gentle balance of an entire ecosystem. Here's an example of what can happen: When an area floods permanently and creates a series of islands, not all the islands have enough resources to support top predators. Top consumers are left to gobble up nutrients and experience a reproductive boom. The boom is felt throughout the system, though, as the booming species out-competes others, potentially driving the lesser species to extinction and reducing biodiversity. Rooney refers to this type of ecosystem change as a "boom-and-bust cycle," when one species' population boom ultimately means another will bust. Bigger booms increased chances of a bust. “With each bust, the population gets very close to zero, and its difficult getting back," he said. Human role in 'boom-and-bust' Humans often play a role in initiating boom-and-bust cycles by wiping out the top predator.s For example, after gray wolves were hunted to near extinction in the United States, deer, elk, and other wolf-fearing forest critters had free reign and reproduced willy-nilly, gobbling up the vegetation that other consumers also relied on for food. Or, more recently, researchers found that when fish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean are over fished, jellyfish populations boom. While jellyfish have few predators, removing the fish frees up an abundance of nutrients for the jellyfish to feast on. Ecosystems provide us with the food we eat and help

produce breathable air and clean water. But they're generally fragile and operate best when at a stable equilibrium, scientists say. "These are our life support systems," Rooney said. "We're relying on them. This study points to the importance of top predators and that we need to be careful with how we deal with them."

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 13 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Impact Extension: Ecosystems Key to Human Survival (2 of 3) Ecological services are key to human survival. Mainka, McNeely and Jackson - senior coordinator in the Global Programme Team at IUCN-The World Conservation Union, chief scientist, and deputy director – 4/2008 (Susan A, Jeffrey A, William J., “Depending on Nature: Ecosystem Services for Human Livelihoods,” RedOrbit, http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1290207/depending_on_nature_ecosystem_services_for_human_livelihoods/) A new paradigm is emerging in the world of environmental conservation. Conservationists have traditionally spoken of conserving the building blocks of nature-genes, species, and ecosystems, along with the air, water, and land with which these interact. But this approach has not captured the interest of those who influence the activities that degrade these building blocks. The drivers of degradation-including habitat loss and fragmentation, overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, and climate change- continue their march, and the results have been documented regularly in updates of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and other reports on the status of the environment: continuing loss of biodiversity and accelerating threats to nature. Although the effects of climate change and the emerging challenge of how to address it are now making front-page headlines, the underlying role of biodiversity, both as victim and potential solution, has yet to receive adequate attention. Conservationists have been seeking language that will make the importance of a healthy environment more obvious and relevant to the politicians, economists, business people, and development specialists who make decisions upon which nature's future depends. One such concept is embodied in the idea of ecosystem

services as the benefits that nature provides to people. Ecosystem services incorporate the language of economics and business, through their valuation, and the language of development, through their support for human well-being. Efforts to support the long-term sustainable supply of those services are as important to human well-being and survival as they are for nature itself. Although the building blocks and processes that sustain human life are nearly as old as our planet, regarding them as "ecosystem services" is a more recent concept. With the book Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Stanford University conservation biologist Gretchen Daily and coauthors popularized the concept a decade ago, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, completed in 2005, brought it into the political mainstream.1 The latter adopted a framework that described these services, analyzed the current state of their delivery, and assessed the drivers that affected their delivery. Why Are

Ecosystem Services Important? The benefits of ecosystem services come in many forms, from the tangible provision of the necessities of life-food, water, medicine, and clean air-to aesthetic inspiration for culture and society. These services are the foundation of daily life, and they are available without people necessarily being conscious of the many and complex processes involved in their production and delivery. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework provides a clear understanding of the many ways nature supports human well-being (see Figure 1 on page 45). But these services are highly dependent on functioning ecosystems, including both biotic and abiotic components. Therefore, the quality of biodiversity, air, water, and land forms the bedrock of human welfare.

The ecosystem provides many benefits that are key to human well being. The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological - 5/22/2008 (“Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being,” CBD, http://www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2008/ibd-2008-factsheet-01-en.pdf) BIODIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being Healthy ecosystems

provide services that are the foundation for human well-being including health. Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems: provisioning services (also known as goods) such as food and water; regulating services such as - food, pest, and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual and recreational bene ts; and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. Biodiversity underpins ecosystem functioning. Figure 1 taken from Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 demonstrates the link between ecosystem services and human well-being and drivers of change.1 e di erent levels (genes, species, ecosystems) and aspects of biodiversity directly and indirectly contribute to ecosystem goods and services, which not only deliver the basic materials needed for survival but also underlie other aspects of a good life: health, security, good social relations, and freedom of choice. Humans, through social and economic activities and environmental management, create indirect and direct drivers of change that can a ect, positively and negatively, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. e Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, completed in 2005 by more than 1360 scientists working in 95 countries, examined the state of 24 services. e assessment concluded that 15 of the 24 services are in decline, including the provision of fresh water, marine sheries production, the number and quality of places of spiritual and religious value, the ability of the atmosphere to cleanse itself of pollution, and the capacity of agro-ecosystems to provide pest control

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 14 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Impact Extension: Ecosystems Key to Human Survival (3 of 3) We cannot destroy the ecosystems that provide us with food, clothing, and shelter. Environment News Service- 5/24/2005 (“Humans Undermining the Very Biodiversity Needed for Survival,” Environment News Service, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-24-01.asp) WASHINGTON, DC, May 24, 2005 (ENS) - In the last 50 years, humans have changed the diversity of life on the planet more than at any other time in history. Human activities have lifted many people out of poverty, but at a price - the loss of biodiversity. A new assessment of biodiversity and human well being by top scientists from throughout the world shows that if humanity continues down this road, biological diversity will be depleted with lifethreatening consequences for all, including human beings. "Biodiversity is where the human hunger for resources is taking its heaviest toll, and the inclusion of 15,589 species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is the clearest sign that we need to change the way we produce and consume,” said Jeff McNeely, chief scientist of the IUCN-World Conservation Union and contributor to the report. An endangered Sumatran tiger emerges from the Indonesian forest. (Photo credit unknown) The assessment, launched as part of the celebrations for the International Day for Biological Diversity on May 22, was conducted by a panel of the Millenium Assessment, a partnership involving some 1,360 scientists who are experts in their fields. It is supported by 22 of the world’s scientific bodies, including The Royal Society of the United Kingdom and the Third World Academy of Sciences. The panel defined biodiversity as "the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part." “Loss of biodiversity is a major barrier to achieving development goals, and poses increasing risks for future generations,” said Dr. Walter Reid, director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The second Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report, "Biodiversity and Human Well–being: A Synthesis Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity," finds that although biodiversity is the foundation for human well-being, all of the likely future scenarios in the report lead to a further decline in biodiversity, contrary to the agreed global target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. The diversity of life provides the materials humans need for food,

clothing and shelter, and also bestows security, health and freedom of choice. But, the assessment found, "the current pace and rhythm of human activities are harming ecosystems, consuming biological resources and putting at risk the well-being of future generations." "If the wetlands, forests, rivers and coral reefs were factories and other ecosystems providing these services were art galleries, universities and the like, it would be considered gross vandalism or arson to damage them in the way we do," said UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer. "Our recklessness goes further than this. It is also economic madness," said Toepfer. "The assessment points out that, for example, an intact hectare of mangroves in a country like Thailand is worth more than $1,000. Converted into intensive farming, the value drops to an estimated $200 a hectare."

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 15 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Military Readiness

Radars 1NC Module (1 of 2) 1. Wind farms disrupt military radars. BBC News- 2/5/2008 (“Wind farms disrupt radar images,” BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7227967.stm ) A radar's line-of-sight can be impaired by wind turbines The Ministry of Defence has expressed concerns that some wind farms interfere with military radar, making aircraft flying over the turbines "invisible". But it denies opposing every planning application for new wind farm sites, saying there are many factors involved. Government energy officials say they are working with the MoD to resolve problems over the issue. It follows the government's announcement of plans to increase the number of homes powered by wind farms. Tests in 2004 and 2005 showed that wind turbines create a "hole" in radar coverage. The shadow of the blades is magnified considerably, and the movement of the propellers is visible on radar screens. The Royal Air Force says it has to be able to detect all aircraft flying into areas covered by its radar for safety and security reasons. We are working with the MoD to explore technical and other potential solutions to try and resolve radar issues where these arise BERR spokesman Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has insisted that radar capability must not be impaired. But a spokesman for the MoD denied that every planning application for a new wind farm was opposed - saying that there are many factors that have to be borne in mind when a site is suggested. The MoD also confirmed it is working with wind farm developers to find a "mutually acceptable solution" including providing input on turbine design and materials to reduce the problem in its new T102 radar system. Minimising interference

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) is responsible for energy policy in the UK. It says it recognises that issues concerning military radar can arise in planning applications for wind farms. "We are working with the MoD to explore technical and other potential solutions to try and resolve radar issues where these arise," said a spokesman. The department adds that it is working with the MoD, civil airport operators and National Air Traffic Control "to identify... solutions to mitigate the interference of wind turbines on their radar installations". In December the Business Secretary, John Hutton, announced plans which could lead to every household in Britain being powered by a wind farm. Under the proposals, up to 7,000 turbines could be installed to boost wind produced energy 60-fold by 2020. At present, wind farms only produce enough power for about 375,000 homes.

2. Wind farms disrupt radar that is key to training and military readiness. Rogers- journalist – 9/9/2003 (Keith, “ARBITRATION SOUGHT: Lawsuit filed over wind farm,” Review Journal, http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-09-Sat2003/news/21910142.html) A spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Operations Office in North Las Vegas, declined to comment on the lawsuit Friday. The project to build 545 wind turbines for generating electricity was abruptly canceled in July 2002 after Air Force officials, without explanation,

expressed national security concerns relating to the mission of the National Nuclear Security Administration for Defense Department to train, test and develop tactics in an unfettered environment. A Nellis Air Force Base spokesman at the time explained that turbine blades whirling atop Shoshone Mountain would disrupt radar signals during training exercises. A week later, sources with knowledge of Air Force operations on the outskirts of the test site said the turbines would disrupt sensitive sound-tracking equipment at the government's secrete installation along the dry Groom Lake bed, widely known as Area 51. "MNS spent two years and millions of dollars in performing under the agreements by developing the site only to have the DOE repudiate or breach all of its agreements," according to court papers filed Thursday. The complaint for MNS by Los Angeles attorney George Caplan calls for an order compelling arbitration against the DOE and in a separate claim seeks damages for negligent misrepresentation. The lawsuit cites agreements "that were intended to result in the development of one of the largest wind energy farms in America at the Nevada Test Site." In a telephone interview Friday, Caplan said if the court upholds his request for arbitration then MNS, depending on the arbitrators' decision, stands to receive compensation for the work it accomplished and the value it created. "We're talking in excess of $5 million both in actual out-of-pocket expenses and the investment of an entire team of people who worked on the project for approximately two years," Caplan said. The complaint states that "after signing the agreements, the DOE touted the

proposed NTS project as a model partnership between the private sector and the federal government in the quest to build additional generating facilities at other federal facilities across the nation." The complaint refers to agreements between the parties on Dec. 22, 2000, and Jan. 17, 2001. Tim Carlson, former NTS Development Corp. president, who left the public-private venture two years ago, said Friday, "We negotiated the terms of the agreement with the understanding that if a national security issue arose then the president of the Untied States could stop the project. "We had no knowledge of what the Department of Defense was or was not doing because of the secret nature of their work but gave them opportunities to come to the table," Carlson said.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 16 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Radars 1NC Module (2 of 2) 3. Military readiness is key to hegemony. David and Grodin- authors – 2006(Charles Philippe , David, “Hegemony Or Empire?: The Redefinition of US Power Under George W. Bush,” GoogleBooks, http://books.google.com/books?id=4_J6gQcqXtUC&printsec=frontcover)

4. US leadership is key to preventing nuclear war Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, US Ambassador to the UN and formerly to Afghanistan and Iraq, former Director of the Strategy, Doctrine, and Force Structure at the RAND Corporation, Spring 1995, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.18, No.2, p.84) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding

a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because

global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 17 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Wind Farms Disrupt Military Radars Wind turbines have interefered with radar signals at military sites. Shulte- journalist – 7/30/2006 (Bret, “Ill Winds Blowing,” US News, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HdjWip8RYoJ:www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060730/7wind.htm+Wind+farms+disrupt+radar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us) As the year began, Michael Polsky was poised to plant wind farms in the fields of Wisconsin, Illinois, and South Dakota that would power some 3,000 homes. But in March, the CEO of Invenergy received a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration saying the projects could disrupt the radar signals of nearby military installations. The letter recommended he delay the projects pending results of a Defense Department study. Polsky was stunned, but he's complying. As many as 12 other proposed wind farms received similar warnings. "I can't imagine how turbines located 12 to 40 miles away can interfere with radar," Polsky says. Plenty of other wind-energy producers are baffled, too. With President Bush pushing for alternative energy and with generous tax credits in place, 2006 was supposed to be a banner year for wind power. Instead, experts say, the industry is faltering while it awaits the results of the study mandated in this year's defense authorization bill by Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Wind turbines, which can reach 400 feet high, have cluttered radar signals in the United Kingdom, where wind power is more prevalent. Experts say that while older American systems are susceptible to similar problems, they can be fixed by hardware and software upgrades. Warner says an analysis of the problems is necessary to answer questions about radar interference. But critics decry the study as a political maneuver aimed at derailing one project in particular: Cape Wind, a proposed farm of 130 turbines off the shores of Cape Cod. "What we're seeing here," says Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "is the NIMBY phenomenon playing out against green technology." The result is a Washington maelstrom that has jumbled party alliances and left the future of wind power in limbo.

Wind turbines cause radar returns. Beatson- journalist – 8/7/2007 (Jamie, “Wind farm may disrupt radar at RAF base, warns MoD,” The Scotsman, http://business.scotsman.com/alternativeenergysources/Wind-farm-may-disruptradar.3314007.jp) AIRCRAFT could be put at risk by a proposed new wind farm in the east of Scotland, the Ministry of Defence warned yesterday. The 85-metre turbines, due to be built at Gathercauld, near Ceres in north-east Fife, could cause severe interference to radar signals at RAF Leuchars, it said. The original plans, lodged in 2006, called for 13 wind turbines to be built on the site. A fresh application was submitted in May for a scaled-down wind farm, with five turbines. However, the MoD has lodged an objection with Fife Council, and said that the turbines could cause massive safety problems for civilian and military aircraft in the area. In its objection to the planning application lodged by the German wind-power firm EnergieKontor, the MoD said four of the five planned turbines were "in direct line of sight" of its radar station at Leuchars. John Wilson, of the MoD, said the turbine's

blades could cause "unknown" radar returns, which could not be ignored by air traffic controllers at the Leuchars base as they could be real aircraft. The MoD's objection is one of hundreds received by the local authority from individuals, businesses and other organisations. A local protest group, Protect Rural East Fife, said the planned development might be visible from a wide area of Fife and Dundee, and could harm tourism in the area. Mick McLoughlin, project manager for EnergieKontor, which is planning another wind farm at Auchtermuchty in Fife, said the firm would be proceeding with its planning application and was not unduly concerned about the MoD's objection.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 18 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 19 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Radars Key to Readiness (1 of 2) Wind farms disrupt radars key to Air Force training and readiness. Rogers- staff writer – 2008 (“Air Force concerns thwart Nevada Test Site wind farm,” Las Vegas Views, http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jul-13-Sat-2002/news/19179321.html)

A $130 million Nevada Test Site wind power project was abruptly canceled Friday after Air Force officials said turbine blades whirling atop Shoshone Mountain would disrupt radar signals during training exercises. The decision by the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that operates the test site for the Department of Energy, halted years of work by public- and private-sector leaders during the final stage of the project's approval process. "We had clearly hoped this project could come to fruition," said Kathleen Carlson, the manager of the administration's Nevada Operations Office in North Las Vegas. "However, we must support the mission requirements of the Air Force to train, test and develop tactics in an unfettered environment." Darwin Morgan, a local spokesman for the administration, said the Air Force made its position clear this week. The announcement was another blow to environmentalists and Nevada's congressional delegation, coming three days after the Senate approved the placement of a high-level nuclear waste repository inside the test site at Yucca Mountain. Parties involved with the project, including the consultant for the NTS Development Corp., the public-private venture behind the renewable energy project, said the timing of the termination announcement was coincidental. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who led Tuesday's unsuccessful battle on the Senate floor to stop the Yucca Mountain Project, expressed disappointment the wind farm project was terminated. … Wind-power consultant Tim Carlson, who is not related to Kathleen Carlson, represents the four companies behind the project. He said he was deeply disappointed. Since the project's inception in 2000, more than $4 million in private corporate money had been spent on engineering, planning and collecting wind data. The companies that want to build the wind farm are a Danish firm, NEG Micon; its development company, Global Renewable Energy Partners; Siemens, the fifth-largest company in the world; and BP Capital, headed by Texas oil man Boone Pickens. The companies still intend to begin construction on the Table Mountain Wind Project south of Las Vegas. Tim Carlson said plans called for installing some 300 wind turbines on 264-foot-tall towers on Shoshone Mountain in three phases. The first 55 turbines would have had a capacity to generate 85 megawatts of electricity. After the completion of the second and third phases, the wind farm's capacity would have increased to 375 megawatts, enough to power a city with a population of 375,000. Utility companies in Nevada and California, including Nevada Power Co. and the test site itself, would have been customers. The windpower group still holds a contract with Nevada Power that was approved in May by the Public Utilities Commission. "I think there were some issues that occurred recently in our national security that caused concern," Tim Carlson said, noting "it would have been nice" if the Air Force could have communicated its concerns earlier. "We want to have some time to think about this and determine what we can do to solve the problem and address the Air Force's concerns," he said. Nellis Air Force Base spokesman Mike Estrada said the Shoshone Mountain wind farm "would severely degrade our abilities to train crews and conduct testing and tactics development out there." Nellis Air Force Range flanks the Nevada Test Site on three sides, and the top-secret Groom Lake installation, described by former workers there as an area where U.S. military aircraft are tested against foreign radar systems, sits near the northeast corner of the test site.

"Basically anytime an aircraft has its radar turned on and is pointed anywhere near the direction of the proposed wind farm, it would jam his radar," Estrada said. "If DOE decides to look at other locations, we will assist them in determining if it would have impacts." Estrada said the Air Force conducted studies to determine whether any other material besides metal could be used for the turbine blades, but even fiberglass would have caused problems. Gov. Kenny Guinn released a statement through his press secretary, Greg Bortolin, saying, "For many years in Nevada, we have felt wind energy had high potential. It is unfortunate this happened. Eventually, we will take advantage of the wind and solar potential in this state." NTS Development Corp. intends to use the test site for other private ventures, including one involving Kistler Aerospace Corp. to launch and land reusable space vehicles that put communications satellites into orbit.

Wind turbines may threaten homeland security. Mail Online- British newspaper – 11/2/2007 (“Wind farms under threat because they might interfere with military radar,” The Mail, http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-491258/Windfarms-threat-interfere-military-radar.html) Defence chiefs have thrown the UK's renewable energy industry into massive doubt because they fear wind turbines will seriously affect military radar. Experts say the Ministry of Defence now objects to about 50 per cent of applications to build onshore turbines amid concerns they will threaten national security. A windfarm set to be built at top sports car manufacturer Lotus's test track has been rejected by councillors. They fear it would

cause 'unacceptable' interference to the air defence radar at Trimingham - 32 miles away on the north Norfolk coast - and could result in a 'detrimental effect on national security'. An MoD spokeswoman said yesterday it objected to the scheme because the turbines would have been in direct line of sight of the radar. Chris Tomlinson, of the British Wind Energy Association, said there had been a big increase in the number of MoD objections to wind energy schemes over the last few years. He said: "This is potentially seriously damaging to investor confidence in the UK renewable energy market and throws the future of other wind turbine projects into doubt." Proposals to build three 120m turbines at Lotus's Hethel site were turned down after the MoD objected. In a letter to planners, defence bosses said that where rotating blades were visible to a radar they created radar returns which can appear as a solid moving object, similar to an enemy aircraft. They said: "Radar operators will therefore be unable to distinguish between a genuine radar return from a moving aircraft and the rotating turbine blades. "Trials conducted by the MoD in 2004 and 2005 on the effects of wind turbines on radar systems have identified that even solitary turbines can significantly reduce operational effectiveness when in line of sight. "In this case the predicted interference which the proposed turbines will create has been assessed as likely to have an unacceptable effect on the radar coverage provided by Trimingham and in turn could result in a detrimental effect on national security." The MoD last night refused to confirm if existing operational wind turbines in the region, approved before the MoD's trials, such as those at West Somerton or Swaffham, affected radar. The spokeswoman said: "The operational turbines in the area were approved and constructed prior to the air defence trials of January and August 2005. "However, if we were to assess them today and they were in line of sight, an objection would be raised based on the evidence in the trial reports. "As for the effect of the operational turbines in the surrounding areas on air defence radar, this information is classified and, if released, could breach homeland

security."

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 20 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Radars Key to Readiness (2 of 2) Wind farms have significant impacts on air defense radar systems that are key to readiness. Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering- 2006 (“The Effect of Windmill Farms On Military Readiness,” Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf) Overview There is growing public and private sector interest in generating electrical power using wind energy. According to the Department of Energy, over 60,000 megawatts of wind power capacity is in operation worldwide with over 10,000 megawatts installed in the United States. These systems are largely comprised of installations of up to several hundred wind turbines with rotating blades reaching to heights of up to 500 feet. The numbers, height and rotation of these

wind turbines present technical challenges to the effectiveness of radar systems that must be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure acceptable military readiness is maintained. For many cases, processes are in place to allow responsible federal authorities to complete determination of acceptability of wind turbine impacts on military readiness. However, since wind energy use in the United States is dramatically increasing, research and interagency coordination is warranted to enhance capability for completing timely determinations and developing measures for mitigating readiness impacts. This report focuses on the effects of wind farms on air defense and missile warning radars and the resulting potential impact on military readiness. Its scope is limited to these specific subjects and is based on the current level of understanding regarding interactions between such defense systems and state-of-the-art wind turbines. The report begins with a brief introduction of the key principles of radar systems, describes in what circumstances wind farms might cause problems for the Department and under what circumstances such wind farms would not cause problems. Radar test results from multiple flight trials near wind farms performed by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence are discussed. The results from those flight trials documented that state-of-the-art utility-class wind turbines can have a

significant impact on the operational capabilities of military air defense radar systems. The results demonstrated that the large radar cross section of a wind turbine combined with the Doppler frequency shift produced by its rotating blades can impact the ability of a radar to discriminate the wind turbine from an aircraft. Those tests also demonstrated that the wind farms have the potential to degrade target tracking capabilities as a result of shadowing and clutter effects.

Wind turbines adversely impact military training, testing, and development. Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering- 2006 (“The Effect of Windmill Farms On Military Readiness,” Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf) Although wind turbines located in radar line of sight of air defense radars can adversely impact the ability of those units to detect and track, by primary radar return, any aircraft or other aerial object, the magnitude of the impact will depend upon the number and locations of the wind turbines. Should the impact prove sufficient to degrade the ability of the radar to unambiguously detect and track objects of interest by primary radar alone this will negatively impact the readiness of U.S. forces to perform the air defense mission. • The mitigations that exist at present to completely preclude any adverse impacts on air defense radars are limited to those methods that avoid locating the wind turbines in radar line of sight of such radars. These mitigations may be achieved by distance, terrain masking, or terrain relief and requires case-by-case analysis. • The Department has initiated efforts to develop additional mitigation approaches. These require further development and validation before they can be employed. The analysis that had been performed for the early warning radar at Cape Cod Air Force Station was overly simplified and technically flawed. A more comprehensive analysis followed by development of appropriate offset criteria for fixed-site missile early warning radars should be performed on an expedited basis. • Wind turbines in close proximity to military training, testing, and development sites and ranges can adversely impact the “train and equip” mission of the Department. Existing processes to include engagement with local and regional planning boards and development approval authorities should be employed to mitigate such potential impacts.• Wind

turbines located in close proximity to Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty monitoring sites can adversely impact their ability to perform this mission by increasing ambient seismic noise levels. Appropriate offset distance criteria should be developed to mitigate such potential impacts.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 21 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Military Readiness On Brink Military readiness is low but on brink now – they can’t handle another outbreak. Baldor- staff writer – 2/8/2008 (Lolita, “War Demands Strain US Military Readiness,” The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/war-demands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.html#) WASHINGTON — A classified

Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned. Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report. Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level _ pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it. The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace. On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed that the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter. "The risk has basically stayed consistent, stayed steady," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant." He said the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with longer rest periods at home. "We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said. Other key national

security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, as well as the need to replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than six years of war. On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said. "We've reduced risk there. We've got more stability there as an example." The annual review grades the military's ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy _ which

would include fighting the wars as well as being able to respond to any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China. The latest review by Mullen covers the military's status during 2007, but the readiness level has seesawed during the Iraq war. For example, the risk for 2004 was assessed as significant, but it improved to moderate in 2005 and 2006. Last year, when Pace increased the risk level, a report from Gates accompanying the assessment warned that while the military is working to improve its warfighting capabilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels." Gates is expected to tell Congress that while the primary goal is to continue to increase the size of the military, it is also critical to step up efforts to work with other nations _ as well as other U.S. agencies _ to bolster fragile governments through economic development and other support. And it will reflect his

drumbeat for the use of more "soft power" to defeat terrorism, which includes the greater use of civilians in areas such as political development, communications and training. Pentagon leaders argue that nontraditional conflicts _ such as the insurgents and terrorists facing coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan _ will be the main military battlefields for years to come. And defeating them, they say, will require more than military hardware _ or "hard power."

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 22 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Impact Extension: Hegemony Key Prevent War Decline in military power leads to war. U.S. Congress – 10/1991 (“American Military Power: Future Needs, Future Choices-Background Paper,” Office of Technology Assessment, http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9106/9106.PDF) After deciding the size of U.S. forces, the next most important policy decision to be made concerning them is their state of readiness. According to the Department of Defense definitions, readiness as a military term refers to the fraction of a force that can be committed to a fight without unacceptable delays and acquit itself well. Factors determining readiness include: the quality, training, and reaming levels of military personnel; the condition and maintenance of equipment; the state of collective training of units and crews; the quality of command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) support; the location and mobility of forces; and logistics support.ll When a force is “ready” is, of course, partly a judgment. On the one hand, any force can be thrown into combat without training, but disaster may await them. On the other hand, any force would probably benefit from additional training and attention to weapons. Overall readiness of the total military forces is affected primarily by the ratio of active to reserve forces, but any particular reserve unit can be at varying levels of readiness (where ‘readiness’ is defined by how long it would take to get prepared to fight). Readiness is also affected by the deployment, the training tempo, and the support of active forces, particularly the transport planes and ships required to get them where they are needed. Decisions about maintainingg readiness will include calculations about both the costs of staying ready and the costs of not being ready. The costs of readiness are clear. requires high levels personnel, which in equipment, fuel for people. Maintaining full of spare parts To maintain ready personnel of realistic training for active turn means wear and tear on vehicles, and salaries for the ready equipment means bins and aggressive maintenance schedules, all of which costs money. Estimating

the costs of not being ready is more difficult. The greatest danger would arise if a hostile power could attack so quickly and so severely that the victimized state could not recover to defend itself further. This situation characterizes the vulnerability of many small nations, and that of the United States to intercontinental nuclear weapons. Fortunately, the United States is large, militarily powerful, and separated from potential enemies by great oceans, so that its homeland and military industrial potential could not be overrun in a conventional (i.e., nonnuclear) surprise attack. The United States may pay a price for not being ready, but its survival will not be in jeopardy. Nevertheless, wars and threats can flare up quickly in places where the United States has interests, and sometimes costs can be incurred by delaying a military response. The North Korean attack on the South in 1950 provides an example. Had the United States completely lost its foothold on the peninsula, then the cost—both in materiel and lives-of later having to make a “forcible entry” could have been much higher.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 23 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Climate Change

Climate Change1NC Shell: 1.

Large scale wind power alters global climate; energy flow is altered and disrupted.

Keith, et all. DeCarolis, Dekenberge, Lenschow, Malyshev, Pacala, Rasch – Departments of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and Economics at University of Calgary and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University - 9/14/2004 (David W. Joseph F., David C. , Donald H. , Sergey L., Stephen, and Philip J., “The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate,” PNAS, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/46/16115.pdf)

Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between the climate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels. Global wind-power capacity is growing by 8GW yr1, making wind the fastest growing nonfossil source of primary energy (1). The cost of electricity from wind power is now 40 dollars per MW h1 at the best sites, and costs are declining swiftly (2). Wind power could play a substantial role in global energy supply when CO2 emissions are strongly constrained to limit anthropogenic climatic change. Although the local environmental and aesthetic impacts of wind power have been explored, there has been little assessment of

the climatic impacts of wind turbines. Wind power is a renewable resource, but the rate of its renewal is finite and, in some respects, comparatively small. The yearly average horizontal flux of kinetic energy at the 100-m hub heights of large wind turbines can be1 kW m2. These large power fluxes enable the economic extraction of wind power, but an array of wind turbines cannot extract this power arbitrarily because turbines interfere with their neighbors by slowing local winds. Most of the kinetic energy that drives wind turbines originates with the generation of available potential energy at planetary scales, which fuels winds throughout the atmosphere. Within the atmospheric boundary layer, turbulent mixing transports momentum downward to the surface and converts kinetic energy to heat by means of viscous (frictional) dissipation. The downward flux of kinetic energy averages 1.5 W m2 over the global land surface (3). Ultimately, this small downward flux of kinetic energy limits the power that can be extracted by windturbine arrays (4). Although the generation and dissipation of kinetic energy is a minor ( 0.3%) component of global energy fluxes, the winds mediate much

larger energy fluxes by transporting heat and moisture. Therefore, alteration of kinetic energy fluxes can have much greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by an equal magnitude (3, 5).

2. Climate change leads to extinction. BirdLife International-2004 (“Climate change will soon threaten many more species with extinction,” BirdLife International, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bny5pY5QE8kJ:www.birdlife.org/action/science/sowb/pressure/48.html+climate+changes+lead+to+extinction&hl=en&ct=clnk& cd=9&gl=us )

Climate change will reduce, and force shifts in, the ranges of many species. Many will not be able to move fast enough, or in concert with other species. This will result in extinctions. Whether we lose a few species or huge numbers will depend critically on the degree of warming. We must act now to minimise this. Many species will suffer from range shifts and losses Modelling studies show that the ranges occupied by many species will become unsuitable for them as climate changes. The climate space that is suitable for particular species may shift (in latitude or altitude: see box 1), contract (boxes 2 and 3), or even disappear (box 4). Species whose climate space both contracts and shifts substantially will be of particular concern (box 5). Climate change will result in many extinctions Studies suggest that many species will not be able to keep up with their changing climate space. As species move at different rates, the community structure of ecosystems will also become disrupted. Both local and global extinctions are likely, even of species currently considered safe. One recent global study estimated that 15–37% of species could be committed to extinction by 2050 as a consequence of climate change. The most susceptible species will be those with restricted ranges, bounded distributions (on the edges of continents, mountain-tops or small islands), specialised habitat requirements, poor dispersal abilities or small populations. While bird species differ greatly in dispersal abilities, most are relatively mobile compared to other organisms—which will

be impacted even more severely.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 24 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Wind Power Climate Change: Wind power alters the energy patterns of wind, causing climate changes. Kemm- Ph.D. in nuclear physics and CEO of STRATEK Business Strategy Consultants – 2/22/2008 (Kelvin, “Wind farms more harmful to the environment than power stations,” Engineering News, http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=126614)

Now to wind energy - it is quite surprising to me that nobody seems to have commented on how wind energy can affect the environment. To my mind, large-scale wind energy can do more to alter the climate than any coal-fired power station. The wind farms are becoming quite large now. Some of them are pulling megawatts of electricity out of the air. What this means is that the energy pattern of the wind has been altered. We are not talking of one butterfly here, but rather a major alteration in the wind energy pattern. Think about it - if some wind always blew inland from the sea, usually carrying a significant amount of water vapour, and the wind had a certain energy content then that wind with its water vapour would end up at some place. Now some wind farmers pitch up and erect a wind farm that extracts some megawatts of power out of that wind. The wind is now weaker. It will not end up in the same place as before. Therefore, it could dump its water vapour in the form of rain, in a completely different place than before. If one wants to look for some mechanism to alter climate, then this is it. One does not have to wait a hundred years to see the result. Pulling megawatts of energy out of a particular wind pattern will alter that wind and its consequences immediately. So, if you are looking for some energy extraction method that can result in climate change, then, to my mind, wind farms are far more likely to do so than fossil-fuelled power stations. Give this some thought, folks.

Wind turbines could affect nearby temperatures and weather conditions. Science Daily – 12/20/2007 (“Wind Turbines Produce 'Green' Energy And Airflow Mysteries,” Science Daily, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QLSVKzf9r4IJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071215212425.htm+wind+power+alters+wind+patterns&hl=en&ct=cln k&cd=20&gl=us) But important questions remain: Could large wind farms, whipping up the air with massive whirling blades, alter local weather conditions? Could changing the arrangement of these turbines lead to even more efficient power production? The researchers from Johns Hopkins and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute hope their work will help answer such questions. “With diameters spanning up to 100 meters across, these wind turbines are the largest rotating machines ever built,” said research team leader Charles Meneveau, a turbulence expert in Johns Hopkins’ Whiting School of Engineering. “There’s been a lot of research done on wind turbine blade aerodynamics, but few people have looked at the way these machines interact with the turbulent wind conditions around them. By studying the airflow around small, scale-model windmills in the lab, we can develop computer models that tell us more about what’s happening in the atmosphere at full-size wind farms.” To collect data for such models, Meneveau’s team is conducting experiments in a campus wind tunnel. The tunnel uses a large fan to generate a stream of air moving at about 40 mph. Before it enters the testing area, the air passes through an “active grid,” a curtain of perforated plates that rotate randomly and create turbulence so that air currents in the tunnel more closely resemble real-life wind conditions. The air currents then pass through a series of small model airplane propellers mounted atop posts, mimicking an array of full-size wind turbines. The researchers gather information on the interaction of the air currents and the model turbines by using a high-tech procedure called stereo particle-image-velocimetry. First, they “seed” the air in the tunnel with a form of smoke —tiny particles that move with the prevailing airflow. Above the model turbines, a laser generates two sheet-like pulses of light in quick succession. A camera captures the position of particles at the time of each flash. “When the images are processed, we see that there are two dots for every particle,” said Meneveau, who is the university’s Louis M. Sardella Professor of Mechanical Engineering. “Because we know the time difference between the two laser shots, we can calculate the velocity. So we get an instantaneous snapshot of the velocity vector at each point. Having these vector maps allows us to calculate how much kinetic energy is flowing from one place to another, in much greater detail than what was possible before.” Raul B. Cal, a Johns Hopkins postdoctoral fellow who is working on the project with Meneveau, said this data could lead to a better understanding of real wind farm conditions. “What happens when you put these wind turbines too close together or too far apart? What if you align them staggered or in parallel?” he asked. “All of these are different effects that we want to be able to comprehend and quantify, rather than just go out there and build these massive structures, implementing them and not knowing what’s going to happen.” Meneveau pointed out that dense clusters of wind turbines also could affect nearby temperatures and humidity levels, and cumulatively, perhaps, alter local weather conditions. Highly accurate computer models will be needed to unravel the various effects involved. “Our research will provide the fluid dynamical data necessary to improve the accuracy of such computer models,” Meneveau said. “We’d better know what the effects are in order to implement wind turbine technology in the most sustainable and efficient fashion possible.”

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 25 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Impact - Climate Change  Extinction Climate change will lead to inevitable extinction. National Science Foundation – 9/30/2004 (“Climate change plus human pressure caused large mammal extinctions,” University of California, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ztFqI9t8IEgJ:www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6653+climate+changes+lead+to+extinction&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20& gl=us) A University of California, Berkeley, paleobiologist and his colleagues warn that the future of the Earth's mammals could be as dire as it was

between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, when a combination of climate change and human pressure resulted in the extinction of twothirds of all large mammals on the planet. Paleobiologist Anthony D. Barnosky and his colleagues reached this conclusion after review of studies of the extensive large mammal, or megafauna, extinctions that occurred in the late Pleistocene, when animals such as mammoths and mastodons, the saber-toothed cat, ground sloths and native American horses and camels went extinct. In the forensic quest for who done it, many have pointed fingers squarely at humans. But in a review appearing in the Oct. 1 issue of Science, Barnosky and his colleagues conclude that climate change also played a big role in driving these extinctions. Barnosky's colleagues in the study are Paul Koch, professor of earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz; Scott Wing, a paleobotanist in the Department of Paleobiology at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History; UC Berkeley graduate student Alan Shabel; and recent UC Berkeley Ph.D. Bob Feranec, now a post-doctoral fellow at Stanford University. "There's been a lot of talk about people causing the extinction of the megafauna by killing everything they saw, like a blitzkrieg," said Barnosky, professor of integrative biology and a curator in UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology. "But if you look at all the evidence, it's clear that while humans had a major role in these extinctions, in many cases climate change was a key part of the recipe. "Humans and climate change were the one-two punch that drove extinction between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, and the same thing is happening in a major way today." Because climate change is occurring more rapidly today than even in the late Pleistocene, when the majority of megafauna went extinct, serious consequences for many large animal species that weathered the Pleistocene extinction could be just down the road, Barnosky said. And the impact could be even greater today

because of impoverished large animal populations and surging populations of humans taking over former large-animal habitats. "Human activities today, combined with climate change, probably are going to result in inevitable extinction of many more species and unpredictable ecosystem changes," he said.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 26 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard Marine Biodiversity

Marine Biodiversity 1NC Shell: 1. Wind farms totally alter marine ecosystems. Merk – correspondent for Federal Agency for Nature Conservation – 11/22/2006 (Thomas, “Protection of the Marine Nature and Environment,” SpringerLink, http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3840vh5149210r8/fulltext.pdf)

The following describes the main impacts which the construction and operation of offshore wind energy installations could have on some species and habitats of concern, especially if no measures are taken to prevent or reduce these impacts. Offshore wind energy installations can disturb and displace resting and foraging seabirds, and for sensitive species this may result in permanent loss of habitat. In-flight collisions with installations (of both migrating and local birds) can lead to direct losses of individuals. The benthos in the immediate area of the installation's foundations is, of course, destroyed. The installation's influence on the hydrology and sediment conditions may also alter the benthic communities in the vicinity of the installation. Animal and plant species more rarely occurring in the German Bight, which otherwise is dominated by soft bottom communities, settle on the artificial hard substrate. Negative impacts on marine mammals arise from underwater noise especially due to construction but possibly also due to the operation of the wind farm. It is uncertain whether this possible 22 Thomas Merck deterrent effect would lead to a restricted use of habitat in wind farm areas. Such an effect cannot be ruled out for sensitive fish species as well. On the other hand, positive effects especially for fish and benthic fauna could also be expected, provided that fishery activities (including aquaculture) are effectively excluded in the wind farm area. Artificial magnetic and/or electrical fields occur at cable connections which may interfere with the short- and long-range orientation of fishes and marine mammals. Moreover, the sediments surrounding the cable are heated and this may lead to cold-sensitive or thermophilic benthic species settling there. During construction, sediment plumes caused by cable laying and pile driving could result in local damage to fish roe or to the filtering apparatus of benthic organisms. In clear weather conditions sites closer to the coast will be visible from the land and will thus alter the scenery. Finally, the presence of wind farms does increase the risk of shipping collisions, which under certain circumstances – e.g. through oil or chemical leaks – could threaten very large areas located far from the actual wind farm.

2. Marine ecosystems are key to human survival US EPA – 7/10/2008 (“Marine Ecosystems,” EPA, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iBupBZULowJ:www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/aquatic/marine.html+marine+ecosystems+are+key+to+human+survival&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) Marine ecosystems are very important in to the overall health of both marine and terrestrial environments. According to the World Resources Center, coastal habitats alone account for approximately 1/3 of all marine biological productivity, and estuarine ecosystems (i.e., salt marshes, seagrasses, mangrove forests) are among the most productive regions on the planet. In addition, other marine ecosystems such as coral reefs, provide food and shelter to the

highest levels of marine diversity in the world. The diversity and productivity of marine ecosystems are also important to human survival and well-being. These habitats provide us with a rich source of food and income, and support species that serve as animal feed, fertilizers for crops, additives in foods (i.e., ice-cream) and cosmetics (i.e., creams and lotions). Areas such as mangroves, reefs, and seagrass beds also provide protection to coastlines by reducing wave action, and helping to prevent erosion, while areas such as salt marshes and estuaries have acted as sediment sinks, filtering runoff from the land. Despite the importance of marine ecosystems, increased human activities such as overfishing, coastal development, pollution, and the introduction of exotic species have caused significant damage and pose a serious threat to marine biodiversity. Please visit USEPA's Web site for resources on Marine Ecosystems and Oceans, Coasts and Estuaries. Also, read about EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment Coastal Benthic Community indicator.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 27 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link – Wind Power Hurts Marine Ecosystems Wind turbines adversely affects marine wildlife. U.S. Department of the Interior – 5/2006 (“Technology White Paper on Wind Energy Potential on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf,” OCS Alternative Energy and Alternate Use Programmatic EIS, http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/wind/index.cfm) Environmental Considerations Potential impacts on the environment that may occur during construction, operations, and decommissioning of offshore wind facilities are highlighted below. Marine life. Foundations can act as artificial reefs with a resultant increase in fish populations from the new food supply. These increases in fish population may also have stimulating effects on bird populations in the area, which could cause collisions between birds and towers or rotors. Migrating birds. Besides potential collisions (bird strikes), it is possible

that the birds would need to consume more energy to avoid collisions and maintain their orientation when navigating around the turbines. Tower illumination may also cause navigational disorientation for birds. Interference with navigation for endangered and threatened species. Electromagnetic fields created by the electric cables running from the turbines and underwater noises and vibrations could affect orientation and navigational ability.

Potential alteration of natural environments and diminution of habitats. Underwater support pilings, anchoring devices, scourprotection materials, and electromagnetic fields could cause a decrease in benthic communities, alter natural environments, and possibly affect migration patterns. Emissions. Each unit of electricity generated from the wind that saves a unit generated from fossil fuels, which will help reduce greenhouses gases, pollutants, and waste products that result from fossil fuel use.

Wind turbines impact marine mammals and migratory birds. Merk – correspondent for Federal Agency for Nature Conservation – 11/22/2006 (Thomas, “Protection of the Marine Nature and Environment,” SpringerLink, http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3840vh5149210r8/fulltext.pdf) Some results regarding the ecological impacts of wind turbines are now available from studies accompanying construction and operation, in particular from Denmark and Sweden. These provide initial findings and indications especially regarding the impacts on marine mammals, and resting and migratory birds (Zucco and Merck 2004). In addition to this publication a research project of the German government aimed at evaluating mainly international reports and studies, will produce an English summary report (Zucco et al. 2006). Deterrent effects related to the construction of the wind farm were recorded in the case of harbour porpoises. After operation commenced, harbour porpoises were again sighted within the wind farm, albeit in smaller numbers.

Among seabirds, reactions to offshore wind farms vary widely from species to species. (e.g. long-tailed ducks, various larid species) remained within the wind farm area, although sometimes in reduced numbers. It was furthermore observed that a large number of migratory birds avoided the wind farms and consequently, at least in good visibility, did not risk collision.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 28 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Impact Extension: Marine Ecosystems Key to Human Survival Marine ecosystems provide key life services. COMPASS - Communication Partnership For Science And the Sea – No Date Given (“Marine Ecosystem Services,” COMPASS, http://www.compassonline.org/marinescience/ecosystem.asp)

From fresh drinking water to lumber and seafood, humans derive benefits (or ecosystem services) from ecological systems. These services are produced by plants, animals, microbes and people interacting with one another and the physical environment. Scientists recognize four categories of ecosystem services: provisioning services such as food, fuelwood, fiber, and water; regulating services such as the regulation of climate, floods, coastal erosion, drought and disease; cultural services including recreational, spiritual, religious and other nonmaterial benefits; and supporting services such as nutrient cycling and photosynthesis. Some key benefits provided by the ecosystem services of functioning marine systems include healthy seafood, clean beaches, stable fisheries, abundant wildlife, and vibrant coastal communities.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 29 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard Environment

Environment 1NC Shell: 1. Wind farms disrupts the behavioral patterns of wildlife, damaging the environment Mihell – staff writer – 6/28/2008 (Conor, “Despite their benefits, wind farms aren't without environmental baggage,” Industrial Wind Action Group, http://www.windaction.org/news/16568)

Building roads, erecting towers and installing transformer stations and transmission lines destroys forest habitat, and the noise and turbulence and vibrations of spinning turbines may alter the behavioural patterns of wildlife, said Mark Nash, the president of the Canadian Peregrine Foundation, a nongovernmental raptor protection group based in Toronto. ...Nash is particularly concerned about the impacts of developing large wind farms in ecologically sensitive bird migration, staging and nesting areas, like much of Lake Superior's north shore. ..."The jury's still out on the environmental effects of these things," said Nash. "Yet there's a rush for development in some of the most critical raptor habitat in Ontario.

Everyone's been sold on this technology and nobody cares about a bunch of birds." Despite their benefits, wind farms aren't without environmental baggage, say some experts, who fret that amid the rush to develop this means of harvesting power, no one's stopping to breathe and assess the damage. Studies are being done to monitor the impacts of wind turbines on landscape ecology and wildlife, such as birds and bats.

2. Loss of biodiversity leads to planetary extinction. Diner, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Amry, Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161

Major David N.

Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems are inherently more stable than less diverse systems. “The more complex an ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress…like a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than simple, unbranched circle of threads – which is cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.” By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa and the dustbowl conditions in the 1930s in the United States are

, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined effects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft’s wings. Humankind may be edging closer to the abyss. relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend conditions. Theoretically

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 30 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Wind Power Destroys the Environment (1 of 2) Wind power destroys the environment. Harding - Guardian's Moscow correspondent – 2/26/2005 (Luke, “Report doubts future of wind power,” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy )

Critics of wind energy in Germany said it would be cheaper and more environmentally efficient to insulate old houses or to renew existing power stations. "The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don't need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else," Klaus Lippold, a Christian Democrat opposition MP, said. "There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape."

Wind turbines will destroy the environment. The Engineer Online – 2/9/2008 (“A bad case of too much wind,” The Engineer Online, http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/266062/A+bad+case+of+too+much+wind.htm ) Too much wind in public places can be a bad thing. So when the Friends of the Forest saw that their legally elected representatives on the County Council were giving the thumbs up to the development of large Wind Farms across the county, they decided to take the matter into their own hands. They felt, you see, that all

of these new fangled turbines would not only destroy the look and feel of their green and pleasant neck of the woods, but make life miserable for the wildlife population into the bargain. And, seemingly oblivious to the importance of global warming, they weren't about to just sit around and let these enormous erections happen in their back yard without putting up a fight.

Wind farms alter the environment around it and affects the ecosystems. Carrel – Scotland correspondent – 4/21/2008 (Severin, “Scottish government rejects plans for Lewis wind farm,” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/21/windpower.renewableenergy) The Scottish energy minister, Jim Mather, said this morning that the 18 1-turbine project, which would have dominated the moors of northern Lewis, would have had "significant adverse impacts" on rare and endangered birds living on the peatlands – a breach of European habitats legislation. The decision to turn down the proposals from Amec and British Energy was greeted with delight by local opponents and environment groups, and dismay by the developers. Nearly 11,000 islanders had objected to the scheme, which had been supported by the Western Isles council and the island's main community trust. Dina Murray, a crofter who farms part of the moor affected, said: "I'm absolutely delighted, and I'm delighted for the people of Lewis who fought long and hard against this, on the same grounds as the wind farm has been rejected. The environment, the landscape and the peatlands are worth far more than any wind farm." Mather said the decision did not mean his Scottish National party administration in Edinburgh was opposed to wind farms in the Western Isles or in general. Ministers were pushing ahead with plans for a new sustainable "green" energy programme for the islands, which experts believe has amongst the greatest renewable energy potential of any part of the UK. "Nor does today's decision alter in any way this government's unwavering commitment to harness Scotland's vast array of potentially cheap, renewable energy sources," he added. The SNP had agreed to 13 new schemes since last May, and was processing applications for a further 35 wind and hydropower schemes. Along with existing schemes, this would generate enough to supply all Scotland's homes. Yet the conflict over the Lewis proposal, which would have generated 650MW of electricity - roughly 10% of Scotland's electricity needs - has exposed some of the most significant tensions and challenges facing onshore wind farms. Lewis Wind Power, the joint venture company set up by Amec and British Energy, said it was "bitterly disappointed" by the decision. The farm would have brought 400 jobs to Lewis, injected £6m a year in rental payments and other benefits to the island, and meant a crucial "interconnector" to take electricity to the mainland would have been built. "Sadly all of this has been lost because of the government decision which, we believe, represents a huge missed opportunity," the firm said. Wind power opponents are now focusing on the frequent use of peatlands, particularly in Scotland, for major new schemes. They argue that "industrialisation" of peat moors risks destroying these habitats and will release the carbon stored in the peat through erosion and drainage. The Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson urged European commission officials last week to develop a more coherent strategy for locating wind farms on land, claiming that Scotland's 1.9m hectares of peat and bog were part of the planet's "airconditioning system". Murray said many crofters fully supported his criticisms. "You can't replace peat with

concrete, and ever hope to get away with it. There are thousands and thousands of years of vegetation growing and rotting, year after year after year. That's how it was intended to be. But I would fully support going offshore as long as it doesn't have any marine conservation consequences."

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 31 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Wind Power Destroys the Environment (2 of 2) Wind farms kill forests and birds. Mihell – staff writer – 6/28/2008 (Conor, “Despite their benefits, wind farms aren't without environmental baggage,” Industrial Wind Action Group, http://www.windaction.org/news/16568)

Building roads, erecting towers and installing transformer stations and transmission lines destroys forest habitat, and the noise and turbulence and vibrations of spinning turbines may alter the behavioural patterns of wildlife, said Mark Nash, the president of the Canadian Peregrine Foundation, a nongovernmental raptor protection group based in Toronto. Nash admits that preliminary research in Ontario has shown "no evidence that (wind turbines) are having an impact on bird mortality." But a survey of a 120-turbine development in New York in 2006 estimated that each turbine killed 23 birds and 59 bats per year. "Thirty years of wind farming in Europe have shown that turbines kill birds," said Nash. "I

predict that as we get more and more of these big projects we're going to see the same high level of mortality that's been documented in Europe." Nash is particularly concerned about the impacts of developing large wind farms in ecologically sensitive bird migration, staging and nesting areas, like much of Lake Superior's north shore. Prince Township, for instance, is a part of an important corridor for thousands of migrating birds that cross Lake Superior at the narrows between Michigan's Whitefish Point and Ontario's Gros Cap peninsula every spring and fall.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 32 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions Shell: 1. Wind Generators don’t work without wind; as a result, inefficient, CO2 producing backup generators are used. DeCarolis and Keith – Ph.D. correspondent for the Atmospheric Protection Branch of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development and thesis adviser – 7/31/2004 (Joseph and David, “The economics of large-scale wind power in a carbon constrained world,” Elsevier, http://pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=251 )

What if the use of wind does increase rapidly enough to provide one third or more of electricity? How much will this cost, and what problems need to be solved? Several problems. Utility operators need to use a minute-to-minute method to balance electricity made with electricity taken from the grid. Backup capacity must exist to deal with days forecast for slow wind, and there must be some backup capacity capable of dealing with hourly changes in plans. Inefficient fossil fuel plants, and hydroelectric, are the most common backup, as it doesn’t make sense to use costly efficient natural gas plants. The costs of dealing with intermittency aren’t well known when wind is a major contributor; the Danish and German models don’t apply because those wind plants are part of the European grid. The existence of several types of wind subsidies and other reasons makes wind costs difficult to calculate, but hour-to-hour and minute-to-minute variations add up to 0.3 ¢/kWh to the cost of wind power. Wind blows a lot of some days, not so much on most days, and many days hardly at all. Intermittency affects cost today because it cuts into reserve power. Handling intermittency is a central issue of ramping wind supply up to high levels.

2.

Cross apply their global warming impact evidence.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 33 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Poor Efficiency CO2 Increase Weak gas turbines will force operators to buy cheaper, higher carbon emission plants. Page – staff writer - 2008 (Lewis, “Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought,” The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/wind_power_needs_dirty_pricey_gas_backup_report/page3.html )

In his view, all this means that - certainly in a 2020 timeframe - the only feasible backup for the planned 25-gig wind base will be good old gas turbines. These would have to be built even if pumped storage existed, to deal with long-duration calms; and the expense of a triplefold wind, gas and pumped storage solution would be ridiculous. At present, gas turbine installations provide much of the grid's ability to deal with demand changes through the day. The trouble is, according to Oswald, that human demand variance is predictable and smooth compared to wind output variance. Coping

with the sudden ups and downs of wind is going to mean a lot more gas turbines - ones which will be thrashed especially hard as wind output surges up and down, and which will be fired up for less of the time. Oswald is an expert on gas turbines, having worked for many years at Rolls Royce*. He says that most people, in allowing for gas backup to wind farms, assume that the current situation of gas-turbine usage applies. Not so, he says. Gas turbines used to compensate for wind will need to be cheap (as they won't be on and earning money as often as today's) and resilient (to cope with being throttled up and down so much). Even though the hardware will be cheap and tough, it will break often under such treatment; meaning increased

maintenance costs and a need for even more backup plants to cover busted backup plants. Thus, the scheme overall will be more expensive than the current gas sector. And since people won't want to thrash expensive, efficient combined-cycle kit like this, less fuel-efficient gear will be used - emitting more carbon than people now assume. High-efficiency base load plant is not designed or developed for load cycling ... Load cycling CCGT plant will induce thermal stress cracking in hot components ... The other impact on the individual plant is a reduction in the plant’s utilisation. This has an economic consequence, which will encourage operators of generation plants to buy cheaper, lower-efficiency and therefore higher carbon emission plants ... Reduced reliability will require more thermal plant to be installed ... And it gets worse. All this will

hammer the gas grid's pipeline networks and storage hardware too, costing the end consumer even more money - again, something that isn't currently accounted for in wind power schemes.

Fossil fuel plants are used as backup to wind power failures. Dobson and Gray – staff writers – 6/29/2008 (Roger and Richard, “Report blows hole in wind power plan,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml ) "Simultaneously, the wind output in neighbouring countries can also be very low, and this suggests that intercontinental transmission grids will be hard to justify." The authors used data on wind speeds and electricity demand from the past six years to work out what impact 25 Gigawatts - about 16 per cent of Britain's needs would have had on the national grid if it had been supplied by wind farms. The results show wind is highly volatile. In January 2005, for example, wind speeds varied so much that demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56GW. In that month, a 1,000MW fossil fuel plant would have had to come on and offline a total of 23 times to make up the shortfall. At 6pm on February 2 2006 - the point of peak electricity demand for the whole year - wind farms would have been unable to provide any power at all, researchers found.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 34 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard The Rest of the Case Debate

Solvency 1NC Frontline (1 of 2) 1. Wind power is inefficient, promotes fossil fuels plants, and hurts wildlife. Dobson and Gray – staff writers – 6/29/2008 (Roger and Richard, “Report blows hole in wind power plan,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml )

James Oswald, an engineering consultant and former head of research and development at Rolls-Royce Turbines, who led the study, said: "Wind power does not obviate the need for fossil fuel plants, which will continue to be indispensable. "The problem is that wind power volatility requires fossil fuel plants to be

switched on and off, which damages them and means that even more plants will have to be built. Carbon savings will be less than expected, because cheaper, less efficient plant will be used to support these wind power fluctuations. "Neither these extra costs nor the increased carbon production are being taken into account in government figures for wind power." Critics say the Government should use other forms of renewable energy, such as tidal power, to meet targets. Wildlife groups also oppose wind turbines because they are built in isolated locations and may kill birds of prey.

2. Wind power absolutely fails, multiple reasons. Edwards – journalst – 4/18/2004 (Rob, “Think tank dismisses wind farms as ‘expensive, unreliable polluters’”, Sunday Herald, http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=30892&keybold=energy%20policy )

Nothing could be more guaranteed to reawaken old hostilities. Forget wind power, the government is to be told, go for nuclear power instead. When

an influential Scottish think tank unveils its proposals this week to replace the renewable turning of turbines with the radioactive decay of chain reactions, it will reopen a bitter argument that many thought was resolved. For the David Hume Institute, an Edinburgh-based fan of the free market, there is no real choice. Wind farms are expensive, unreliable and will wreck the countryside, it says, and nuclear reactors are a better way of reducing the pollution causing climate change. Plans for any new nuclear power stations in Britain were shelved by the government in a white paper on energy policy more than a year ago. Instead, Scottish and English ministers have enthusiastically backed a major expansion in the number of wind turbines, both on land and at sea. But on Thursday the David Hume Institute is due to publish a 70-page report that will challenge the government to think again. A copy of the report, commissioned from the Scottish economist Professor David Simpson, has been leaked to the Sunday Herald. Simpson was the founding director of the Fraser of Allander Institute in 1975 and professor of economics at the University of Strathclyde until 1988. From 1989 to 2001, he was an economic adviser to pension company Standard Life, and is now a trustee of the David Hume Institute, which is “primarily concerned with market approaches to public policy”. He is due to give a talk about his report – Tilting At Windmills: The Economics Of Wind Power – at the Royal Society of Edinburgh on Thursday evening. One person he thanks for helping him is the engineer Robin Jeffrey, who helped build the Torness nuclear station in East Lothian, and who for a decade led the troubled nuclear company, British Energy. Simpson contends that the cost of generating electricity from wind power is twice as high as from nuclear power and gas. The extra costs of renewable energy are currently adding about 2% to domestic electricity bills, he says, and this is going to grow. He claims that if the

government achieves its target of generating 20% of electricity from wind power by 2020 it will cost consumers between £1.2 billion and £2bn extra each year. Between £2.5bn and £4bn will also have to be invested to upgrade the electricity transmission and distribution networks. Because turbines only turn when the wind blows, the amount of power they provide inevitably fluctuates. Simpson says they will never produce more than 20% of Britain’s electricity and “can make no substantial contribution to a reduction in carbon emissions”. He suggests the erection of large numbers of tall turbines would also damage beautiful scenery, kill birds and interfere with military radar, and that this is why proposed wind farms have provoked “passionate hostility” in many parts of the country.

3. Turn: Wind drops cause massive blackouts – Texas proves. O’Grady – Staff writer – 2/27/2008 (Eileen, “Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true ) HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday. Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a

decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state. The grid operator went directly to the second stage of an emergency plan at 6:41 PM CST (0041 GMT), ERCOT said in a statement. System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave 1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers are generally large industrial customers who are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur. No other customers lost power during the emergency, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers were restored in about 90 minutes and the emergency was over in three hours. ERCOT said the grid's frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared. In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the west from North Texas. ERCOT declares a stage 1 emergency when power reserves fall below 2,300 MW. A stage 2 emergency is called when reserves fall below 1,750 MW. At the time of the emergency, ERCOT demand increased from 31,200 MW to a peak of 35,612 MW, about half the total generating capacity in the region, according to the agency's Web site. Texas produces the most wind power of any state and the number of wind farms is expected to increase dramatically as new transmission lines are built to transfer power from the western half of the state to more populated areas in the north. Earlier on Tuesday, grid problems led to a blackout in Florida that cut power to about

1 million electric customers across that state for as much as four hours.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 35 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Solvency 1NC Frontline (2 of 2) 4. Turn: Investors A. Investors will be reluctant to invest in billion dollar wind projects. D’Agnese – staff writer -7/23/2007 (Joseph, “Wind: The Farmer's New Cash Crop,” AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/) Historically, investors have been reluctant to go anywhere near wind because it turns the traditional economics of the energy business on its head. Constructing a coal- or oil-fired power plant, for example, consumes 20 percent of an energy producer's lifetime budget; buying fuel and operating the plant gobbles up the remaining 80 percent. Wind and solar power are governed by an opposing rule of thumb: 80 percent goes to costly, up-front

infrastructure and 20 percent to upkeep. So yes, the wind is free, but catching it will cost you dearly: A three-blade, industrial-size turbine now costs about $1 million. At that price, we are no longer talking about wind power as a personal statement by off-the-grid homesteaders. (Residential wind power systems are still quite expensive for the average homeowner: about $40,000 for a 10-kilowatt system.) Instead we're talking about multinational corporations sinking hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars into wind on the safe bet that fossil fuels will someday run out. They're betting too that the world's governments -- not just the folks in Washington, D.C. -- will eventually cough up richer handouts that will make Big Wind an attractive proposition. Subsidies are a fine tool to stimulate a nascent technology, but the trouble with the boom/bust model is that some players may be tempted to make a short-term investment, then cut bait. Since its inception, Maple Ridge has been passed like a baton to increasingly large conglomerates. First, it was developed in part by Houston-based Zilkha Renewable Energy, which was purchased in spring 2005 by Goldman, Sachs, the investment banking giant.

B. Investors are key to renewable energy projects. Tang - CEO of Oxbridge Capital – 1/14/2008 (Kenny, “Insuring and Financing Your Renewable Energy Project - Use of Weather Hedges & Derivatives,” MasterClass, www.adfiap.org/docs/invtRE_Broc.pdf) Renewable energy projects are, by their nature, highly capital intensive and the desire for non-course project loans means that institutional investors are key. As such, project developers are encouraged to incorporate the use of weather hedges and derivatives into their preproject planning and projection to enable them to attract more attractive financing. Developers and operators of renewable energy projects are encouraged to factor in weather risk in their financial planning and risk management strategy.

5.

Global warming outweighs – wind power doesn’t make an impact

The Engineer Online – 2/9/2008 (“A bad case of too much wind,” The Engineer Online, http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/266062/A+bad+case+of+too+much+wind.htm ) A reader replies While there is no doubt that more "renewable" energy sources are no bad thing, wind power is a financial

scam with no benefit to the environment. As engineers we all ought to be able to do the simple math that will show that 10,000 wind turbines in the UK will not have any measurable effect on global warming. Currently 1,125 turbines generate 0.45% of our electricity in the UK.(Source BWEA Website). Assuming the UK achieved it's target of 10% of electricity from renewable sources i.e. wind (say using about 10,000 turbines) Power stations emit 30% of the UK's total CO2 emission, so reduction of the UK total CO2 emission would be 3% (nearly 25% of that generation is CO2 free nuclear and would not be displaced by wind). So 2% of the UK's CO2 would be displaced at best.The UK is responsible for about 2.6% of world CO2 emission (UK CO2 emission from UK Energy in Brief (DTI 2003) ratioed against world CO2 emission from Encyclopaedia Britannica). So the reduction of global CO2 emissions by UK wind power would beconsiderably less than 0.1% (1/1000) (currently global CO2 savings from wind power are about 1/10,000 or 0.01%). There is no possibility that the saving of CO2 emission by UK wind power could measurably alter WORLD atmospheric CO2 concentration, let alone reduce it by 33% or more, which the climate modellers SAY we need to do, to make a difference.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 36 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

No Solvency: General Wind doesn’t always blow and it’s hard to situate wind farms. DeCarolis and Keith – Ph.D. correspondent for the Atmospheric Protection Branch of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development and thesis adviser – 7/31/2004 (Joseph and David, “The economics of large-scale wind power in a carbon constrained world,” Elsevier, http://pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=251 ) Demand Response Technology reduces demand at peak use hours. It can also reduce demand on low-wind days. In 2002, there was over 32 GW wind capacity worldwide, at an average cost from 4 - 6 ¢/kWh at good sites. Within two decades, this price may drop to 2 ¢/kWh. Within a few decades,

wind might supply 10 - 20% of electricity regionally or worldwide. Wind resources, however, are mismatched temporarily (wind doesn’t always blow, especially when most needed) and spatially (very windy sites are either popular for recreation or far from transmission lines). National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that in the next 50 years, [US?] wind power could reach several hundred GW (1,600 GW wind is needed to supply today’s electricity).

Expensive wind power may come out producing no electricity at all. Hill - Chief Executive of the World Innovation Foundation Charity – 7/1/2008 (David, “Wind power plan could be expensive mistake,” Evening Courier, http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/mailbag/Wind-power-plan-could-be.4238276.jp )

THE decision to spend over £100 billion of taxpayers' money on wind farms shows how the Government and its advisers are totally lacking in knowledge about renewable energy. This decision, fuelled by the self-interest of lobbyists on behalf of the major wind turbine corporations, is one that Britain will greatly regret in the years ahead. In 2003 wind turbines produced electricity only 24.1 per cent of the year. Turbin only reach maximum efficiency when the wind speed is between 10mph and 20mph and below 8mph they do not produce any electricity at all. Above 20mph efficiencies go down and at over 56mph they stop producing electricity completely due to cut out and risk of damage. So wind turbines have a very narrow band to work within and produce electricity for less than 25 per cent of the time. Replacement time is also short, between nine and 12 years. Therefore £100 billion spent today will have to be spent again in less than two decades' time. Maintenance costs are also at high as sudden wind gusts – a constant problem – wear out components quickly. The Government's decision is good for the installers but certainly very bad for the British taxpayers, who get an abysmally raw deal out of this uniformed decision. It will be seen over time as a very expensive white elephant. If

the Government's advisers had done their homework correctly they would have seen that a more sustainable energy solution was out there. The Western Water Highway project for a new waterway between Carlisle and Newcastle has now been around for 10 years. As a hydro project it would use the power of the seas and the moon's pull on those seas, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. It would provide limitless free energy for it would create a difference in coastal depths of up to 18 metres, providing a vast energy resource that would drive hydro-turbines forever. A series of hydro-dams along the Western Water Highway would produce Britain's full electricity needs and would probably last at least 150 years. The cost is estimated at £60 billion. The wind turbine expenditure announced by the Government will create a maximum of 15 per cent of Britain's electricity needs at a cost in excess of £100 billion; the Western Water Highway scheme would create 100 per cent of our electricity needs at a cost of £60 billion, some £40 billion less and lasting over 10 times longer. This badly

thought through decision proves that this Government does not know what it is doing. Unfortunately the real losers here will be the people and, of course, future generations to come.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 37 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

No Solvency: Wind Drops Wind power fails due to wind drops. Page – staff writer - 2008 (Lewis, “Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought,” The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/wind_power_needs_dirty_pricey_gas_backup_report/page3.html )

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind. Oswald's analysis says this isn't true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events. Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences ... any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur ... These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative ... If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald's Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely. The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK's grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a "Supergrid" with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one. Ill winds blow nobody any good. Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these

surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn't blowing across most of the UK, it isn't blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

Wind power can’t meet the energy peaks when there is no wind. Dixon - Nuclear Engineer for the US DOE-Oakland Operations – 9/8/2006 (David, “Wind Generation's Performance during the July 2006 California Heat Storm,” EnergyPulse, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1332 )

While wind generation has the benefits outlined above and is enjoying wide success, there has been a remaining controversy about its availability 24/7. It is virtually a cliché that the wind is fickle; it blows in different directions and different strengths seemingly at random. As such there has been some concern about how often will the wind blow and produce electricity, and when electricity is needed will the wind be there? Everyone has experienced a really

hot day when the air is absolutely still, or a really cold, still night. This concern with the 24/7 availability of wind generation translates to questions about backup capacity to satisfy peak demand, i.e. the first energy policy imperative - Assurance of Supply. This question may be academic most of the year when there is adequate back up capacity and even if the wind is still for a while other electric plants will pick up the slack. But during periods of peak demand, typically in mid-summer or mid-winter the question is very important. That was certainly the case this July during the record heat waves in California, then the East Coast and finally the Southern States. Each region in turn experienced record demand and issued pleas for conservation; commentators expressed concern about blackouts. Under these conditions, the 24/7 availability of wind generation is not an academic question.

Sudden wind drops will cause major blackouts – California proves Dixon - Nuclear Engineer for the US DOE-Oakland Operations – 9/8/2006 (David, “Wind Generation's Performance during the July 2006 California Heat Storm,” EnergyPulse, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1332 ) So what happened in California during the mid-July heat storm when that electric grid was put to the test, and California avoided rolling blackouts amid a Level 1 Emergency in which Californian’s were asked to raise their thermostats to 77 and many manufactures and business voluntarily shutdown? By most people’s analysis, wind’s performance was disappointing. Specifically during this period of peak demand, statewide wind often operated at only 5% of capacity, or less. The specific data is plotted in the attached graph. The upper line shows the peak daily electric demand as recorded by the California Independent System Operator, CASIO, during the heat storm. Daily peak power usage increased fairly steadily in mid July, reaching its peak on July 24 at 50,270 MW. Wind’s availability during this same period is presented in the lower line. Specifically this is the percent of the CASIO available wind capacity, 2,500MW, which was actually putting electricity into the CASIO grid at the time of peak demand on each day plotted. By most measures these numbers are disappointing. On the day of peak demand, August 24, 2006, wind power produced at 254.6 MW at the time of peak demand. 254.6 MW represents only 10.2% of wind’s rated capacity of 2,500MW. Another perspective on the data, over the preceding seven days, August 17 to 23, wind

produced at 89.4 to 113.0 MW, averaging only 99.1 MW at the time of peak demand or just 4% of rated capacity. This data presents wind’s performance during roughly two week’s of only one heat storm, California’s July ’06 storm. This author recommends caution in reaching larger conclusions about its significance. However as a minimum the data suggests that analysis of wind’s performance during periods of peak demand in other grid systems with different wind sited facilities would be useful. And until other such data is available, this experience implies caution in assuming a

significant fraction of wind capacity will be available for periods of peak demand such as California’s July level 1 emergency.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 38 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

No Solvency: Long Distance Intermittency Wind intermittency is reduced over long distances – key problem for the US. DeCarolis and Keith – Ph.D. correspondent for the Atmospheric Protection Branch of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development and thesis adviser – 7/31/2004 (Joseph and David, “The economics of large-scale wind power in a carbon constrained world,” Elsevier, http://pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=251 ) A second challenge is that the wind either doesn’t blow close to the grid or blows in areas where public opposition is likely.

Wind power will have to be schlepped long distances from high quality wind sites. In the US, this means most wind power would be delivered from the Great Plains to the coasts. Wind intermittency is reduced when windmills are extended over several hundred miles. In addition to tangling out regulatory issues, there would be a cost for all those high voltage lines.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 39 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

No Solvency: Expensive (Spending Links) Wind power is extremely inefficient and expensive. Harding - Guardian's Moscow correspondent – 2/26/2005 (Luke, “Report doubts future of wind power,” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy ) Wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy, according to a study from Germany, the world's leading producer of wind energy. The report, which may have ramifications for the UK's rapidly growing wind farm industry, concludes that instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient. Drawn up by the German government's energy agency, it says that wind farms prove a costly form of reducing greenhouse gases. It costs €41-€77 (£28-£53) to avoid emitting a tonne of carbon dioxide by using wind energy, the report says. The study is likely to feed the bitter debate on whether Britain should continue to emulate Germany and dramatically expand its wind farm programme. Germany has the largest number of wind farms in the world, producing more wind energy than Denmark, Spain and the US put together. The UK's wind power movement is the fastest growing in the world, with up to £10bn expected to be invested in the next five years, attracting government subsidies of roughly £1bn. But more than 100 national and local groups, led by some of Britain's most prominent environmentalists, including David Bellamy, Sir Crispin Tickell, and James Lovelock, have argued that wind power is inefficient, destroys the countryside and makes little difference to Britain's soaring carbon emissions. "At last. This report confirms what we have been saying," said Angela Kelly, director of Country Guardian, an umbrella group for the anti-wind-power lobby. "Wind power is three times more expensive than conventional electricity. It is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money." The report comes when the British government is promoting wind power as a means of getting 10% of energy need from renewables by 2010.

Electricity from wind power costs $71 per hour. Bader - director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation – 6/19/2008(Maureen, “Wind power an expensive proposition,” Red Deer Advocate, http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/opinion/Wind_power_an_expensive_proposition.html )

The cost of electricity from wind power is about $71 per megawatt hour. That compares with about $48 for natural gas and $25 for electricity produced from B.C.’s heritage hydro assets. B.C. Hydro is expected to purchase high-cost electricity from wind plants. Denmark’s electricity utilities were also forced to buy high-cost power giving Denmark one of the highest household electricity costs Europe, at almost 30 cents per kilowatt hour in 2005. B.C. residents now pay about 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour now. Families could be looking at hefty increases to subsidize these feel-good projects. Some very big companies back wind power, so why should B.C. taxpayers be on the hook to subsidize them?

Wind power is very expensive. Harding - Guardian's Moscow correspondent – 2/26/2005 (Luke, “Report doubts future of wind power,” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy ) The German report estimates that it will cost €1.1bn to link Germany's existing wind farms to the national grid if it is to meet its target of producing 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015. About 800 miles of cables will have to be laid or upgraded, and power plants will have to be

replaced or adapted to cope with the large fluctuations in wind-derived energy. This programme will cost each German household €16 a year, it says. "Wind energy is expensive. That's true. You can't dispute it," Stephan Kohler, the head of Germany's energy agency told the Guardian. "Conventional methods are cheaper. But you have to do both."

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 40 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

No Solvency - Wind Power Wastes Power Wind power is underutilized. Mihell – staff writer – 6/28/2008 (Conor, “Despite their benefits, wind farms aren't without environmental baggage,” Industrial Wind Action Group, http://www.windaction.org/news/16568) Still, wind power is underutilized. Currently, only 500 megawatts of Ontario's 31,000 megawatts of annual power-producing capacity is generated by the wind. (One megawatt of consistent energy production will meet the annual energy needs of about 220 households.) The lion's share of the 8,000 megawatts of renewable energy feeding Ontario's 29,000-kilometrelong grid is produced by hydroelectric developments.

Wind power only produces 4% of it’s maximum capacity – Britain proves Dobson and Gray – staff writers – 6/29/2008 (Roger and Richard, “Report blows hole in wind power plan,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml ) Wind power would be too unreliable to meet Britain's electricity needs, according to a new report. It says wind patterns around the country mean turbines will fail to produce enough power at times of high demand. Written by an independent consultancy and funded by the Renewable Energy Foundation, the report says backup electricity plants will be needed to meet demand during calm conditions. It comes after the Government last week unveiled a £100million plan to build at least 4,000 wind turbines, with a further 3,000 offshore. The programme is expected to drive household bills up by £260 a year. Published online in the journal Energy Policy, the study confirms concerns among critics that wind around Britain is too volatile to provide reliable energy. Using wind data from the Met Office, researchers found that in January, when energy demand is highest, wind farms often fail to produce enough electricity, dropping on occasion to 4 per cent of their maximum output. Backup fossil fuel plants would need to be switched on and off to make up the shortfall in supplies - a highly inefficient process that would reduce any carbon savings from wind farms. The report says: "Wind output in Britain can be very low at the moment of maximum annual UK demand. These are times of cold weather and little

wind.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 41 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

No solvency – Can’t Solve Global Warming Financial and greenhouse gas costs keeps wind power from solving climate change. DeCarolis and Keith – Ph.D. correspondent for the Atmospheric Protection Branch of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development and thesis adviser – 7/31/2004 (Joseph and David, “The economics of large-scale wind power in a carbon constrained world,” Elsevier, http://pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=251 )

Wind power is a complicated electricity source to evaluate for cost and GHG emissions. Most current estimates ignore the financial and GHG costs of intermittency. If serious efforts are made to slow climate change, then the US electric sector will likely need to cut CO2 emissions in half within the next quarter century. Despite assertions to the contrary (NREL, 2002; UCS, 2003), wind is unlikely to become a competitive means to achieve reductions in air pollution or to enhance energy security. If air pollution reduction is the goal, then deep reductions in air pollutants can be achieved by retrofits to existing coal facilities at costs of order 1 ¢/kWh (Rubin et al., 1997). If energy security is the driving concern, then for many nations, coal provides sufficient security. The reserve/production ratio for coal is about 200 years globally, and 250 years in the US (BP, 2003).

Wind power has negligible impacts in comparison with other climate forcings. Keith, DeCarolis, Dekenberge, Lenschow, Malyshev, Pacala, Rasch – Departments of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and Economics at University of Calgary and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University - 9/14/2004 (David W. Joseph F., David C. , Donald H. , Sergey L., Stephen, and Philip J., “The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate,” PNAS, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/46/16115.pdf) Implications The climatic impact of wind power

is currently negligible in comparison with other anthropogenic climate forcings. Suppose that use of wind power were to grow 100-fold to 2 TW, which is somewhat beyond the largest quantity envisaged for the next half century by recent studies (20, 21) but only 110th of the global electricity demand in 2100 under fossil-intensive emissions scenarios (22). At an atmospheric efficiency of 50%, 2 TWof wind power corresponds to a P of 4 TW, which is similar to the smallest P used here. Our results suggest that the resulting peak changes in seasonal mean temperature might be 0.5 K, with RMS changes approximately one order of magnitude smaller and near-zero change in global mean temperature (using the method shown in Fig. 3A with winter means produces maximum values of 0.1 K TW1, see also the CD 0.0006 points of Fig. 4 D and E). These climatic changes are detectable above background climatic variability in model runs of a few decades in duration, but they might remain too small to detect in the presence of other anthropogenic change and natural climate variability. A single wind turbine has an infinitesimal direct effect on global climate, but it also makes an infinitesimal indirect contribution to reducing climate change by slowing the growth of atmospheric CO2. The ratio of direct to indirect effects is relevant to decisions about implementing wind power at any scale if the objective is to mitigate climate change. The direct impact of wind power is immediate, whereas the indirect climatic benefit grows from zero with time as electricity from wind reduces CO2 emissions and slows the growth of concentrations. A comparison of the effects depends, among other factors, on (i) how impacts at different times and locations are aggregated, (ii) the effectiveness of electricity from wind in reducing CO2 emissions, and (iii) the baseline CO2 emission profile. As an illustrative example, we compare the time-averaged direct and indirect effects of generating 0.1 TWof wind power computed over 1 century with no discounting.** At an atmospheric efficiency of 50%, the peak magnitude of the direct temperature change will be 6 mK (Fig. 3A). Assuming that wind power displaces CO2 emissions at the global electric-sector carbon emissions intensity, 0.1 TW of wind power will reduce annual emissions by 0.15 GtC (gigatons of carbon), which will reduce century-average CO2 concentrations by 1.6 ppm. Assuming that climate sensitivity to small perturbations in CO2 concentration is linear with a slope given by a linear extrapolation of the 550-ppm

equilibrium response, wind power would reduce the response by 0.6%, reducing peak temperature changes by 30 mK. Under these assumptions, the peak direct effect is approximately one-fifth of the peak indirect effect. However, these assumptions were chosen for ease of exposition and each can be readily challenged.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 42 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

No Solvency – Wind Power Relies on Taxpayer’s Welfare Subsidies to wind power will create a welfare dependent industry. Bader - director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation – 6/19/2008 (Maureen, “Wind power an expensive proposition,” Red Deer Advocate, http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/opinion/Wind_power_an_expensive_proposition.html ) Subsidies to wind power projects in B.C. is a wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy and will create a welfare-dependent industry in the province, just as they did in Denmark. Taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing industry, no matter how momentarily worthy the

cause seems to be.

Taxpayer’s development is key to wind power success. Bader - director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation – 6/19/2008 (Maureen, “Wind power an expensive proposition,” Red Deer Advocate, http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/opinion/Wind_power_an_expensive_proposition.html )

Creating electricity from wind that just happens to be blowing might seem like a cheap source of power, but it’s not. As we’ve already seen in Denmark, its high cost requires taxpayer handouts to develop and survive. Subsidies in Denmark created a lot of wind power, but when the flow from the taxpayer subsidy tap ebbed, so did the industry. In British Columbia, wind power will also be subsidized. Creating a welfare-dependent industry may benefit the backers of these projects, but the potential cost to taxpayers is huge and the outlook for an unsubsidized industry is grim. The Danish government decided to become a leader in wind power production and manufacturing after the first oil crisis in 1973.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 43 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Miscellaneous- Birds Key to Economy Ecosystem services provided by birds are key to the economy. Environment News Service- 11/16/2006 (“Climate Change Pushing Bird Species to Oblivion,” Environment News Service, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-14-01.asp)

"The ecosystem services provided by birds support much of the rural sector’s economy. Obvious sectors like eco-tourism, conservation and sporting estates will be hardest hit by species decline and extinction," Johnston said. "Recent UK research suggests that up to 40,000 jobs are directly dependent on shooting and game sport activities," he said. "Loss of upland and lowland species will devastate fragile estates that may also play a considerable environmental conservation role in addition to sustaining otherwise marginal communities." The climate change risks of marginal communities and developing countries are at the core of the climate talks in Nairobi that began November 6 and continue through Friday. The two week conference is the 12th Conference of the 189 Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, and the second meeting of the 166 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 44 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff Answers

Aff Ans: Non-Unique Wind farms are being relocated and radar systems are being fixed now. RenewableEnergyWorld.com – 9/26/2006 (“AWEA Addresses DOD's Study on Wind and Radar,” RenewableEnergyWorld.com, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46093)

Some wind turbines can affect radar systems, but thousands of wind turbines generating electricity nationwide demonstrate that impacts can be, and have been, mitigated through measures such as relocating turbines or upgrading radar systems. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) advocates exploring additional technical options that can either be used today or developed in the future to address this issue. "The wind power industry continues to support efforts to address issues of concern such as radar interactions with military and civilian radar and land-use policies. We are strongly encouraged by the FAA's actions to address these concerns and move forward with approvals of these important projects." -Randall Swisher, AWEA executive director

Wind farms and radars have coexisted for decades. RenewableEnergyWorld.com – 9/26/2006 (“AWEA Addresses DOD's Study on Wind and Radar,” RenewableEnergyWorld.com, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46093) "Decades of experience tell us that wind and radar can coexist," said Swisher. "The American wind energy industry will continue to work collaboratively with government and others on efforts to constructively address challenges and refine solutions. We need to further develop clean, renewable energy sources like wind to reduce dependence on imports and increase our energy security." In the meantime, some projects recently held up by radar concerns are moving ahead. AWEA welcomes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approvals for a number of projects in the Midwest. The FAA recently approved 614 applications for individual wind turbines that total more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind power across Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

States are benefiting from doing wind power now, both economically and environmentally. Environment News Service – 8/24/2001 (“Wind Power Cheaper Than Coal,” Environment News Service, http://www.wind-power.net/cheaperthancoal.htm)

WIND POWER HELP COULD SOLVE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS "If you want to solve this country's energy problem, the U.S. needs to consider some type of large scale program," said Jacobson. "The federal government could either go into the energy business for itself, or it could foster wind energy through tax incentives that would catalyze private sector investment." Lessons learned at a Green Mountain Energy pilot project in Vermont are expected to encourage utilities in cold, wet climates to embrace wind energy State governments also should take the initiative, write Jacobson and Masters. They point out that energy strapped California could obtain 10 percent more electricity from wind

by spending less than 10 percent of its state budget for one year on the construction of 5,000 new turbines, then selling the electricity over 20 years to recover all costs. Some states are already taking taking steps to harness the inexpensive power of the wind. On Thursday, a more than 100 foot long wind power blade arrived by truck in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to mark the near completion of Mill Run, the largest wind farm in the East, which will help power Philadelphia area homes and businesses by this fall. "Today, Philadelphia can see its future - and it is green," said John Hanger, spokesperson for the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. "Blades just like these will be soon be turning with the wind, making clean and affordable energy for Philly customers. The Mill Run wind farm is the largest yet in the East, and is helping make Pennsylvania the wind power capital of the East." The wind farm, composed of ten 1.5 megawatt turbines atop 210 foot high towers, will take advantage of high winds at the top of Laurel Mountain. Lease revenues from this wind farm in western Texas are used to finance public education Turbines are most efficient in fast winds, note Jacobson and Masters, and could provide needed revenue to farmers and ranchers in areas where mean annual wind speeds are highest -including the Dakotas, Texas, coastal regions and large portions of the West and Northeast. The authors note that, last year, Germany produced nearly three times more wind generated electricity than the U.S., and Denmark a country roughly half the size of Maine - produced almost as much turbine power as the entire United States. Denmark and Sweden also have developed wind parks offshore, where winds are faster than over land. "Clearly, the U.S. has not maximized its wind potential," conclude Jacobson and Masters. "Doing so

would address health, environmental and energy problems."

US has already set up 25,000 wind turbines. Reuters – 5/19/2008 (“Wind power gains adherents in United States,” International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php?page=2) "These are pretty heady times," said Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, which held an investment conference in April in Iowa that drew more than 600 attendees. "People are finally starting to see the data about what is happening to the world's climate, and that is really having an impact," Swisher said. Last year, a record 3,100 turbines were installed across 34 U.S. states, and another 2,000 turbines are now under construction from California to Massachusetts. In all, there are more than 25,000 U.S. turbines in operation, an

investment of $15 billion.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 45 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff Ans - Wind Power Good (General) Wind power can provide benefits like climate stabilization, jobs, and water savings. US DOE – 1/31/2008 (Stacia, “Surge in Installed Wind Power Capacity Benefiting Rural America,” US DOE, http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=1825)

According to a recent announcement from the American Wind Energy Association, installed wind power capacity in the U.S. increased by 45-percent during 2007. That marked the third consecutive year of record-setting growth. Allen Rider, a volunteer leader of the 25x'25 Steering Committee, says that's good news for Americans. He notes wind energy comes with big benefits like climate stabilization, natural gas savings, jobs, water savings and more. The benefit that's most important? Rider says it really depends on what part of the country you're in. For instance — the water savings is particularly important to some — and is a growing concern for others. "Water is a valuable commodity. Potable water will become a national challenge for this country in the not too distant future in my opinion. In the West it's a very critical thing right now. But we're seeing it becoming more and more important as we get to the East. For example, the drought in the Southeast, which is affecting those in Georgia and Florida. And so, if we can generate energy without

needing to use the water, it's certainly very beneficial and it's positive for everyone involved because you can use those waters for either human consumption or growing food." Wind power conserves those precious resources because wind farms don't require water for steam or cooling. What's more, the American Wind Energy Association notes wind power generating capacity boosts the economy. In fact, they say it's injected an investment of over nine-billion dollars into the economy. Rider says that's a plus for everyone. For one thing — he says building and establishing a wind farm requires a workforce — as does ongoing management, maintenance and service.

Win power holds major benefits like improving energy security and creating jobs. Union of Concerned Scientists- 4/13/2007 (“Clean Energy,” Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/WPNE-Pollution.html)

Reducing Pollution From the Electricity Sector Wind power is an affordable option for producing some of the electricity New England needs without creating air or water pollution. Generating electricity from wind has many other benefits, including: conserving natural resources for future generations;

reducing dependence on imported fuels; improving energy security and reliability; stabilizing and reducing energy prices; and creating new local jobs and income.

The economic and environmental benefits of wind power are attracting more growth. Reuters – 5/19/2008 (“Wind power gains adherents in United States,” International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php?page=2) As Eric Chamberlain, who manages the wind farm for Wind Capital Group, eats lunch in a local restaurant, local people greet him with a "Hey Windy!" and many say they are happy to be using clean electricity. "It doesn't pollute the environment, it provides tax revenue, creates jobs. I don't see a downside," said Chamberlain, who is something of a celebrity in this town of 1,400 people. While growth in ethanol use as an alternative fuel has had a big impact on rural America, wind power has also been growing steadily for the past three years, with wind farms like this one springing up all over the windy expanse of the Great Plains and beyond. While only 1 percent of U.S. electricity comes from wind, it is attracting so much support these

days that many in the industry believe it is poised for growth.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 46 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: AT: Wind Not Competitive/Expensive Wind power can produce much cheaper electricity. Union of Concerned Scientists - 9/19/2005 (“Farming the Wind: Wind Power and Agriculture,” Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/farming-the-wind-wind-power-and-agriculture.html)

In theory, the

wind could produce five times more electricity than the United States currently uses. Some of the best wind resources in the country are on farmland, especially in the plains states. However, the wind resource varies greatly from one location to another. Many states have developed wind resource maps and have been measuring the wind and collecting data that farmers could find useful for determining the wind potential on their land. The market potential for wind also depends on the cost. The cost of producing wind power has fallen by as much as 90 percent since 1980. By 2010, electricity from new wind power projects will be cheaper than electricity from new conventional power plants, according to the DOE.

Wind power is the most competitive in the market against fossil fuels. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association – 2001 (“Wind Power,” Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, http://www.nesea.org/energy/info/wind.html)

Economics and Future Prospects Of all the renewable energy technologies, wind power is currently the most cost competitive when compared to traditional, fossil-fuel-based energy production technologies. In fact, wind power is the fastest growing energy source around the world. The United

States now has a total of 2,600 megawatts of installed wind capacity. This is equivalent to about three or four large coal-fired power plants. Utility-scale wind farms produce electricity at about 4.5 ¢/kWh which makes wind power competitive with fossil-fuelgenerated electricity. It should be noted that these economics are made possible by a federal production tax credit of 1 ¢/kWh.

Wind power pays for it’s own production in a matter of months. EarthFacts.Net – 2/19/2008 (“Wind Power Energy Over Fossil Fuels,” EarthFacts.Net, http://earthfacts.net/2008/02/19/wind-power-vs-fossil-fuels)

With the constantly rising prices of oil one major point of discussion related is the economics associated with wind power. The cost to produce a single turbine is rather expensive which draws criticism especially when considering that turbines are typically placed in groups in order to produce a significant amount of energy. Supporters of wind power counter that argument by pointing out turbines pay for their own production costs in a matter of months. Also “Improved turbine designs and plant utilization have contributed to a decline in large-scale wind energy generation costs from 35

cents per kWh in 1980 to less than 5 cents per kWh in 1997 in favorable locations At this price, wind energy has become one of the least-cost power sources” (wind energy). Another issue with the costs of wind energy is that the locations in which turbines are most effective aren’t the same locations as where the energy is demanded. Consequently that requires the production of new substations and transmission lines again costing substantially more money. On the other side, wind power consumers have the ability to create long term contracts to prevent potential future rises in pricing. Consistent pricing is often associated with wind power, which is one of its advantages over fossil fuels. Most of the costs related to wind power are relatively fixed while the ongoing costs of fossil fuels can be volatile.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 47 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: Economy Turn 1.

US wind power is key to economy; it creates thousands of new jobs.

US DOE – 1/31/2008 (Stacia, “Surge in Installed Wind Power Capacity Benefiting Rural America,” US DOE, http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=1825)

"This is one of the few times that I've seen the opportunity for more jobs, good paying jobs, in rural America. We had a study done by the University of Tennessee for an economical analysis, and they're talking about in the neighborhood of five-million jobs associated with the development and the production of renewable energy. Typically we've been talking about bigger farms, less people, less job opportunity. So as a consequence, this is a big deal in rural America." In fact, from the rural development standpoint, Rider says this is one of the most exciting things he's seen for the agriculture industry in his entire lifetime. "For many years, one of the biggest problems in the agricultural and forestry industry is rural development, where people can have jobs and work in rural communities. Renewable energy generation, whether it be wind or one of the other types, does employ people and it provides an opportunity to have a strong, robust economic environment in a rural community, which in the past has not been there. So it can be a real boost for a rural economy, particularly in small farmer communities where there have not been opportunities for people to get jobs and stay in the area." Of the new power-producing capacity added in the U.S. in 2007, new wind projects account for about 30-percent and will power the equivalent of 1.5-million American households annually. This year, it's anticipated America's wind farms will generate 48-billion kilowatt-hours of wind energy — powering the equivalent of over 4.5-million homes. The growth seen in 2007 is expected to continue — as the American Wind Energy Association estimates new wind capacity installed in 2008 could equal that installed this past year.

2. Economic Collapse leads to global nuclear war. Mead ’92 (Walter Russell, Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations, New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, p. 30) The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression- will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-

billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy.

They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates,

or

even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 48 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: AT: C02 Emissions (1 of 2) Wind Energy Solves Global Warming Environment News Service – 8/24/2001 (“Wind Power Cheaper Than Coal,” Environment News Service, http://www.wind-power.net/cheaperthancoal.htm)

STANFORD, California, August 24, 2001 (ENS) - The

U.S. should make a large investment in wind farming to help meet the nation's electricity needs and address global warming, two energy experts from Stanford's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering have concluded. Writing in today's issue of the journal "Science," associate professor Mark Jacobson and teaching professor Gilbert Masters conclude that wind power is an abundant, clean and affordable alternative to coal and other fossil fuels. Last year, wind driven turbines produced less than 0.1 percent of America's electricity supply -compared to 52 percent generated from coal, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. One reason that wind energy has lagged so far behind is the perception is that wind farms are more expensive to build and operate than coal fired power plants - a notion that Jacobson and Masters dispute. "Much of the recent U.S. energy debate has focused on increasing coal use," they note. "Since the 1980s, though, the direct cost of energy from large wind turbines has dropped to three to four cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with that from new pulverized coal power plants. Given that health and environmental costs of coal are another two to 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour, wind energy is unequivocally less expensive than is coal energy." ENVIRONMENTAL PROS AND CONS A downside

of wind turbines is that they have been linked to the accidental deaths of migratory birds that get caught inside fast moving propeller blades. Selecting sites out of migration paths can help solve this problem, observe Jacobson and Masters. They also point out that the loss of birds from new wind farms would be small compared to the current loss of forests, birds, fish and other wildlife from acid discharge caused by coal combustion. Concerns over the potential environmental costs of wind energy are far outweighed by the benefits of reducing coal consumption, the authors said. They point out the indirect costs of coal generated power plants, including the production of smog that causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses; carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming; and acid rain that destroys lakes and forests.

Wind power is pollution free. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association – 2001 (“Wind Power,” Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, http://www.nesea.org/energy/info/wind.html)

Environmental Issues Wind-generated electricity provides a pollution-free source of electricity. None of the harmful emissions associated with fossil fuels occur when the wind is utilized to produce electricity. Increased use of wind power in the Northeast would be a valuable step toward improving the health of the regional environment.

Wind power reduces pollution from fossil fuels. Union of Concerned Scientists- 4/13/2007 (“Clean Energy,” Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/WPNE-Pollution.html)

The Costs of CoalToday, more than 60 percent of New England’s electricity is made using fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas (see chart below). These fossil-fueled power plants emit many pollutants, including sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain; nitrogen oxides (NOX), which contribute to smog and acid rain; fine particles of soot, which damage lungs; carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary contributor to global warming; and mercury, which can contaminate waterways, make fish unsafe to eat, and cause birth defects. Because wind energy generation does not produce any of these emissions, it can reduce the pollution caused by electricity generation overall.

Wind turbines displace oil fired plant – stopping pollution. Union of Concerned Scientists- 4/13/2007 (“Clean Energy,” Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/WPNE-Pollution.html)

For the most part, electricity flows freely around the regional grid, so regardless of a wind project’s location, pollution will be reduced somewhere in the region. In a few areas where transmission capability is limited—such as southwestern Connecticut, eastern Massachusetts, and Maine—the pollution reduction tends to be more localized. For example, in southeastern Massachusetts, about 36 percent of the power generating capacity is oil-fired,[2] and at times it is difficult to transmit power out of the region. As a result, wind turbines built in that area are more likely to displace local oil-fired power

plants, directly improving local air quality.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 49 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: AT: C02 Emissions (2 of 2) Wind power is becoming a popular substitute to fossil fuels. EarthFacts.Net – 2/19/2008 (“Wind Power Energy Over Fossil Fuels,” EarthFacts.Net, http://earthfacts.net/2008/02/19/wind-power-vs-fossil-fuels)

Article Overview: It’s a heated debate between fossil fuels and renewable energies. Fossils fuels, while becoming slightly pricier, are pollutants unlike renewable energy sources. But, fossil fuels are the “standard” in today’s society and are readily available. Wind power is a type of renewable energy that can be implemented in many parts of the world to provide electricity. When will the world finally become independent from fossil fuels? The debate between fossil fuels and its alternatives has developed into one of the more discussed topics across the globe. In today’s world much stress is being put on creating alternate types of energy from that of fossil fuels. This idea gains more strength each year as fossil fuels are a limited, non

renewable resource which are beginning to dwindle. One potential alternative, at least for electricity, is wind power which is a renewable resource. There are several types of renewable energy on the rise today. Along with wind power there is also solar power, hydro power, geothermal, biomass and biofuels. These renewable resources combine for only a small percentage of the total power consumed and wind power specifically accounts for approximately only one percent of energy used world wide. However, wind power has incredible theoretical potential. The potential energy in our atmosphere is greater than the total global energy consumption (wwea).For many, wind isn’t a well known source of harness able energy. Even though its first human uses date back to the first century (a.d.) it is just recently that many countries have begun to fully understand and use wind as a significant type of energy. Wind power is the conversion of energy produced by the wind into a consumable form, such as electricity. It is collected by windmills and, more frequently, wind turbines. Each year the use of wind power across the globe increases dramatically as it has more than quadrupled since the year 2000.

Wind energy reduces CO2 emissions. EarthFacts.Net – 2/19/2008 (“Wind Power Energy Over Fossil Fuels,” EarthFacts.Net, http://earthfacts.net/2008/02/19/wind-power-vs-fossil-fuels)

The environmental effects of wind power are another highly controversial topic for both supporters of wind power and its critics. Proponents

note that wind energy reduces pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. Since wind power doesn’t consume any fuel it in turn doesn’t produce any type of air pollutant; where as the negative environmental effects (the pollution) caused by consuming fossil fuels are well known. Adversaries will argue while that may be the case the materials used in building a wind turbine will have to be transported and the transportation used will more than likely run on fossil fuels. Further more wind turbines require large amounts of land space and are considered by some to be rather unsightly.

Wind power negates the need for fossil fuels. EarthFacts.Net – 2/19/2008 (“Wind Power Energy Over Fossil Fuels,” EarthFacts.Net, http://earthfacts.net/2008/02/19/wind-power-vs-fossil-fuels)

There are many other advantages associated with wind power to offset the negatives. One of which is conserving our limited resources. Today fossil fuels are used for heat, electricity and in fuelling automobiles. Using wind power negates the need for fossil fuels at least for electricity saving this resource for other uses. Also wind energy saves thousands of dollars in electricity bills. Individuals or corporations who construct wind turbines can actually generate income. An example is and individual in Michigan who plans on constructing four wind turbines on his property expects to earn any where from eighteen to thirty thousand dollars a year.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 50 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: AT: Wind Drops Varying wind speeds doesn’t affect energy produced, only adds to existing supply. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association – 2001 (“Wind Power,” Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, http://www.nesea.org/energy/info/wind.html)

Even though wind is an intermittent resource, meaning wind speeds vary from day to day and month to month, wind power can be easily integrated into the existing supply mix, making a significant contribution to our nationÕs energy supply. Most analysts agree that technological improvements and economies of scale in wind turbine production will contribute to even further cost reductions in the price of wind-generated electricity.

Wind power still functions during both high and low energy demands. Union of Concerned Scientists- 4/13/2007 (“Clean Energy,” Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/WPNE-Pollution.html)

Most of the time in New England, natural gas power plants are the ones turned up or down to match rising and falling energy demand. During times of peak energy use, however, especially in the winter, wind energy can displace more polluting oil-fired power plants. At periods of low electricity use, wind occasionally displaces coal power generation.

Non-unique: Wind farms are producing loads of electricity now. Reuters – 5/19/2008 (“Wind power gains adherents in United States,” International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php?page=2) Last week, the U.S. Energy Department said wind power could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030, or 304 gigawatts, up from the current 16.8 gigawatts. Achieving that will require that wind turbine installations rise to almost 7,000 a year by 2017, the department said. The industry appears ready to comply. In March, GE Energy announced it had secured a $1 billion deal to supply 750 megawatts of wind turbines - enough to power

about 200,000 households. In April, Nebraska officials broke ground on a wind farm that would be the largest in that state, providing power for an estimated 25,000 homes.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 51 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: AT: Birds We’ve already solved the bird problem. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association – 2001 (“Wind Power,” Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, http://www.nesea.org/energy/info/wind.html)

In the past, some

people raised serious concerns about the swishing noise made by wind turbines and their impacts on migratory bird species. These concerns have largely been dealt with through technological improvements and proper siting.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 52 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff Ans: Multipolarity Inevitable Nothing can expand US hegemony now – the world is becoming multipolar. Haass - Vice President, Director of Foreign Policy Studies – 10/1999 (Richard, “What to Do With American Primacy,” Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19990901faessay1005/richard-n-haass/what-to-do-with-americanprimacy.html) It must be said at the outset that America's economic and military advantages, while great, are neither unqualified nor permanent. The country's strength is limited by the amount of resources (money, time, political capital) it can spend, which in turn reflects a lack of domestic support for some kind of American global empire. De Tocqueville's observation that democracy is ill suited for conducting foreign policy is even more true in a world without a mortal enemy like the Soviet Union against which to rally the public. Moreover, U.S. superiority will not last. As power diffuses around the world, America's

position relative to others will inevitably erode. It may not seem this way at a moment when the American economy is in full bloom and many countries around the world are sclerotic, but the long-term trend is unmistakable. Other nations are rising, and nonstate actors -ranging from Usama bin Ladin to Amnesty International to the International Criminal Court to George Soros -- are increasing in number and acquiring power. For all these reasons, an effort to assert or expand U.S. hegemony will fail. Such an action would lack domestic support and stimulate international resistance, which in turn would make the costs of hegemony all the greater and its benefits all the smaller. Meanwhile, the world is becoming more multipolar. American foreign policy should not resist such multipolarity (which would be futile) but define it. Like unipolarity, multipolarity is simply a description. It tells us about the distribution of power in the world, not about the character or quality of international relations. A multipolar world could be one in which several hostile but roughly equal states confront one another, or one in which a number of states, each possessing significant power, work together in common. The U.S. objective should be to persuade other centers of political, economic, and military power -- including but not limited to nation-states -- to believe it is in their self-interest to support constructive notions of how international society should be organized and should operate.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 53 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: Case Outweighs: War Case outweighs - Wind power solves the risk of war. EarthFacts.Net – 2/19/2008 (“Wind Power Energy Over Fossil Fuels,” EarthFacts.Net, http://earthfacts.net/2008/02/19/wind-power-vs-fossil-fuels)

Overall I believe that the positives associated with wind power and its use as a replacement or alternative to fossil fuels far outweigh the negative consequences. While many view a vast field stocked with wind turbines as unsightly I take the opposite approach and see it as beautiful. To me the turbines represent progress in an effort towards finding an alternate source of power, one that doesn’t pollute and is virtually unlimited unlike fossil fuels which are limited in supply and cause great conflict sometimes even leading to war. Once wind turbines are in place they are relatively cheap to maintain and produce cheaper electric and in not using fossil fuels we can reduce or even eliminate our dependency on foreign oil.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 54 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard LET THERE BE LIGHT

Solar DA: 1NC Shell (1 of 4) A. Uniqueness: Solar Energy is low now; lack of funding and R&D kills market success. International Herald Tribune, “Lack of financing casts shadow on solar power” By Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. WaldMonday, July 16, 2007 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/solar.php

NEW YORK: The trade association for the U.S. nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they thought would be used most for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27 percent of those polled. Solar power, which has captured the public imagination strongly in Europe, is making big inroads in the United States. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world - from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers' fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming. But for all the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors in solar technologies

say that moving this energy source from niche to mainstream - last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the U.S. electricity supply - is unlikely without significant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is not expected to happen anytime soon. Indeed, even a quarter century from now, said the U.S. Energy Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 percent or 3 percent of the energy supply in the United States. In the meantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the world at the rate of more than one a week. Propelled

by government incentives in Germany and Japan, as well as a growing number of American states, sales of photovoltaic silicon panels have soared, helping steadily drop manufacturing costs and leading to widespread product refinements. But Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur focused on energy, said the market-driven improvements were not happening fast enough to put solar technology beyond much more than a boutique investment. "Most of the environmental stuff out there now is toys compared to the scale we need to really solve the planet's problems," Khosla said. Scientists long ago calculated that an hour's worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in a year, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago. Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy flows has long received less spending, in the United States and other industrialized countries, than energy options with more political support. For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received dominant shares of government energy-research money. These days, a growing amount of government money in the United States is headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research ways to burn coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping smokestack gas. In this fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development. For the moment, the biggest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not the national government. But there, too, the focus remains on spurring markets, not laboratory research. The U.S. government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large sustained energy quest, many experts say. "This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough," said Nathan Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

B. Links: 1. Incentives boost solar development; incentive expiration will crush R&D. Solar Energies Industry Association, “Senate Fillibuster Once Again Prevents Vote on Solar Tax Credits”, 6-17-2008. http://seia.org/solarnews.php?id=189

Senate's failure to end the filibuster of H.R. 6049, the Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act, which would extend the solar investment tax credit (ITC) for 8 years. The motion failed 52 - 44 (on a cloture motion requiring support of 60 Senators). "I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has once again failed to reach a bipartisan consensus that would allow this important legislation to move forward. Not extending the solar tax credits is an enormous tax increase that will cost America tens of thousands of jobs. If the Senate is unable to act - and the solar tax credits are allowed to expire - it will result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar. "Time is running out. I strongly urge the Senate to reach a bipartisan SEIA STATEMENT ON H.R. 6049, THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND AND TAX RELIEF ACT Statement by SEIA president Rhone Resch following the

consensus and pass this legislation, now."

2. Cross-apply the affirmative’s solvency evidence; they provide __________ to incentivize

solar power.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 55 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Solar DA: 1NC Shell (2 of 4) C. Internal Link: Chinese silicon factories are dependent upon U.S. investment; these factories spew toxic gas and slime, devastating the environment. Washington Post Sunday, March 9, 2008; A01. “Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China” Ariana Eunjung Cha. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595_pf.html GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy

company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards."The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.The situation in Li's village points to the environmental trade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels.Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropower dams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water.Likewise in

China, the push to get into the solar energy market is having unexpected consequences.With the prices of oil and coal soaring, policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years, however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving up prices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption. With the price of polysilicon soaring from $20 per kilogram to $300 per kilogram in the past five years, Chinese companies are eager to fill the gap.In China, polysilicon plants are the new dot-coms. Flush with venture capital and with generous grants and low-interest loans from a central government touting its efforts to seek clean energy alternatives, more than 20 Chinese companies are starting polysilicon manufacturing plants. The combined capacity of these new factories is estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 tons -- more than double the 40,000 tons produced in the entire world today.But Chinese companies' methods for dealing with waste haven't been perfected.Because of the environmental hazard, polysilicon companies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process. But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. Like Luoyang Zhonggui, other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment or have not brought those systems fully online, industry sources say."The recycling technology is of course being thought about, but currently it's still not mature," said Shi Jun, a former photovoltaic technology researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.Shi, chief executive of ProEnerTech, a start-up polysilicon research firm in Shanghai, said that there's

such a severe shortage of polysilicon that the government is willing to overlook this issue for now."If this happened in the United States, you'd probably be arrested," he said.An independent, nationally accredited laboratory analyzed a sample of dirt from the dump site near the Luoyang Zhonggui plant at the request of The Washington Post. The tests show high concentrations of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, which can result from the breakdown of silicon tetrachloride and do not exist naturally in soil. "Crops cannot grow on this, and it is not suitable for people to live nearby," said Li Xiaoping, deputy director of the Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences.Wang Hailong, secretary of the board of directors for Luoyang Zhonggui, said it is "impossible" to think that the company would dump large amounts of waste into a residential area. "Some of the villagers did not tell the truth," he said.However, Wang said the company does release a "minimal amount of waste" in compliance with all environmental regulations. "We release it in a certain place in a certain way. Before it is released, it has gone through strict treatment procedures."Yi Xusheng, the head of monitoring for the Henan Province Environmental Protection Agency, said the factory had passed a review before it opened, but that "it's possible that there are some pollutants in the production process" that inspectors were not aware of. Yi said the agency would investigate.In 2005, when residents of Li's village, Shiniu, heard that a new solar energy company would be building a factory nearby, they celebrated.The impoverished farming community of roughly 2,300, near the eastern end of the Silk Road, had been left behind during China's recent boom. In a country where the average wage in some areas has climbed to $200 a month, many of the village's residents make just $200 a year. They had high hopes their new neighbor would jump-start the local economy and help transform the area into an industrial hub.The Luoyang Zhonggui factory grew out of an effort by a national research institute to improve on a 50-year-old polysilicon refining technology pioneered by Germany's Siemens. Concerned about intellectual property issues, Siemens has held off on selling its technology to the Chinese. So the Chinese have tried to create their own.Last year, the Luoyang Zhonggui factory was estimated to have produced less than 300 tons of polysilicon, but it aims to increase that tenfold this year -- making it China's largest operating plant. It is a key supplier to Suntech Power Holdings, a solar panel company whose founder Shi Zhengrong recently topped the list of the richest people in China.Made from the Earth's most abundant substance -- sand -- polysilicon is tricky to manufacture. It requires huge amounts of energy, and even a small misstep in the production can introduce impurities and ruin an entire batch. The other main challenge is dealing with the waste. For

each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste. When exposed to humid air, silicon tetrachloride transforms into acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas, which can make people who breathe the air dizzy and can make their chests contract.While it typically takes companies two years to get a polysilicon factory up and running properly, many Chinese companies are trying to do it in half that time or less, said Richard Winegarner, president of Sage Concepts, a California-based consulting firm.As a result, Ren of Hebei Industrial University said, some Chinese plants are stockpiling the hazardous substances in the hopes that they can figure out a way to dispose of it later: "I know these factories began to store silicon tetrachloride in drums two years ago."Pro-EnerTech's Shi says other companies -- including Luoyang Zhonggui -- are just dumping wherever

Now they are just releasing it directly into the air," said Shi, who recently visited the factory.Shi estimates that Chinese companies are saving millions of dollars by not installing pollution recovery. He said that if environmental protection technology is used, the cost to produce one ton is approximately $84,500. But Chinese they can."Theoretically, companies should collect it all, process it to get rid of the poisonous stuff, then release it or recycle. Zhonggui currently doesn't have the technology.

companies are making it at $21,000 to $56,000a ton.In sharp contrast to the gleaming white buildings in Zhonggui's new gated complex in Gaolong, the situation in the villages surrounding it is bleak.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 56 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Solar DA: 1NC Shell (3 of 4) D. Impacts: 1. Further environmental damage sparks massive Chinese uprisings against the CCP, destabilizing the country and causing violent internal conflict. By Nathan Nankivell, Senior Researcher, Office of the Special Advisor at Joint Task Force Pacific Headquarters, Canada, 10/25/2005. “China’s Pollution and its Threat to Domestic and Regional Stability”. http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=146. There is little disagreement that China’s

environment is a mounting problem for Beijing

. The country produces as many sulphur emissions as Tokyo and Los Angeles combined but with only a fraction of the vehicles; China is home to 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities; water pollution affects as much as 70 percent of the country; air pollution is blamed for the premature death of some 400,000 Chinese annually; crop returns are steadily decreasing in quantity and quality because of polluted land and water; and solid waste production is expected to more than double over the next decade, pushing China far ahead of the U.S. as the largest producer (The Economist, August 19, 2004). While the general accessibility of this information is creating greater awareness, trends indicate that pollution and environmental degradation will worsen.

Despite pledges to put the environment first, national planners still aim to double per capita GDP by 2010 (China Daily, October 20, 2005). Urban populations are expected to continue expanding, leading to the creation of slums and stressing urban sanitation and delivery systems. Steadily richer Chinese will be able to purchase more goods and consume more resources. The nation lacks a powerful national body able to coordinate, monitor, and enforce environmental legislation: the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is under-staffed, has few resources, and must compete with other bureaucracies for attention. The devolution of decision-making to local levels has placed environmental stewardship in the hands of officials who are more concerned with economic growth than the environment. Finally, the Chinese consumers are expected to purchase hundreds of millions of automobiles, adding to air pollution problems.

deficiency of capital and the lack of will to promote massive spending on environmental repair necessary to reverse more than two decades of destruction are perhaps most indicative of the fact that environmental restoration will not occur: estimates on the final cost of environmental repair range into the tens of billions of dollars (Canadian Security Intelligence Services Division; The Economist, October 20, 2005). From the examples above, it is clear that China’s environmental crisis will only worsen before it gets better. SEPA’s impotence, Beijing’s contradictory policy statements, expanding consumption, and a lack of funds to reverse already serious problems all

As the impact of pollution on human health becomes more obvious and widespread, it is leading to greater political mobilization and social unrest from those citizens who suffer the most. The latest statement suggest that pollution and degradation will most likely worsen in the decades to come. Pollution, Unrest, and Social Mobilization.

from the October 2005 Central Committee meeting in Shanghai illustrates Beijing’s increasing concern regarding the correlation between unrest and pollution issues. There were more than 74,000 incidents of protest and unrest recorded in China in 2004,

While there are no clear statistics linking this number of protests, riots, and unrest specifically to pollution issues, the fact that pollution was one of four social problems linked to disharmony by the Central Committee implies that there is at least the perception of a strong correlation. For the CCP and neighboring states, social unrest must be viewed as a primary security concern for three reasons: it is creating greater political mobilization, it threatens to forge linkages with democracy movements, and demonstrations are proving more difficult to contain. These three factors have the potential to challenge the CCP’s total political control, thus potentially destabilizing a state with a huge military arsenal and a history of violent, internal conflict that cannot be downplayed or ignored. Protests are uniting a variety of actors throughout local communities. Pollution issues are indiscriminate. The effects, though not equally felt by each person within a community, impact rich and poor, farmers and businessmen, families and individuals alike. As local communities respond to pollution issues through united opposition, it is leaving Beijing with no easy target upon which to blame unrest, and no simple option for how to quell whole communities with a common grievance. Moreover, protests serve as up from 58,000 the year before (Asia Times, November 16, 2004).

a venue for the politically disaffected who are unhappy with the current state of governance, and may be open to considering alternative forms of political rule. Environmental experts like Elizabeth Economy note that

protests afford an opportunity for the environmental movement to forge linkages with democracy advocates. She notes in her book, The River Runs Black, that several environmentalists argue that change is only possible through greater democratization and notes that the environmental and democracy movements united in Eastern Europe prior to the end of the Cold War.

environmentally-motivated protests might help to spread democracy and undermine CCP rule. A further key challenge is the ability to send and receive information ensures that domestic and international observers will be made aware of unrest, making it far more difficult for local authorities to employ state-sanctioned force. The security ramifications of greater social unrest cannot be overlooked. Linkages between environmental and democracy advocates potentially challenge the Party’s monolithic control of power. In the past, similar challenges by Falun Gong and the Tiananmen protestors have been met by force and detainment. In an extreme situation, such as national water shortages, social unrest could generate widespread, coordinated action and political mobilization that would serve as a midwife to anti-CCP political challenges, create divisions within the Party over how to deal with the environment, or lead to a massive show of force. Any of these outcomes would mark an erosion or alteration to the CCP’s current power dynamic. And while many would treat political change in China, especially the implosion of the Party, as a welcome development, it must be noted that any slippage of the Party’s dominance would most likely be accompanied by a period of transitional violence. Though most violence would be directed toward dissident Chinese, a ripple effect would be felt in neighboring states through immigration, impediments to trade, and an increased military presence along the Chinese border. All of these situations would alter security assumptions in the region. Other Security Concerns While unrest presents the most obvious example of a security threat related to pollution, several other key concerns are worth noting. The cost of environmental destruction could, for example, begin to reverse the blistering rate of economic growth in China that is the It is conceivable that in this way,

trying to contain protests once they begin. The steady introduction of new media like cell phones, email, and text messaging are preventing China’s authorities from silencing and hiding unrest. Moreover,

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 57 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

foundation of CCP legitimacy. Estimates maintain that 7 percent annual growth is required to preserve social stability. Yet the costs of pollution are already taxing the economy between 8 and 12 percent of GDP per year [1]. As environmental problems mount, this percentage will increase, in turn reducing annual growth. As a result, the CCP could be seriously challenged to legitimize its continued control if economic growth stagnates. Nationalists in surrounding states could use pollution as a rallying point to muster support for anti-Chinese causes. For example, attacks on China’s environmental management for its impact on surrounding states like

Solar DA: 1NC Shell (4 of 4) Japan, could be used to argue against further investment in the country or be highlighted during territorial disputes in the East China Sea to agitate anti-Chinese sentiment. While nationalism does not imply conflict, it could reduce patterns of cooperation in the region and hopes for balanced and effective multilateral institutions and dialogues. Finally, China’s seemingly insatiable appetite for timber and other resources, such as fish, are fuelling illegal exports from nations like Myanmar and Indonesia. As these states continue to deplete key resources, they too will face problems in the years to come and hence the impact on third nations must be conside

2. CCP Collapse Causes Global Nuclear War. San Renxing,. The Epoch Times “The CCP’s Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths proposed”, Aug. 5, 2005. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html As The Epoch Times’ Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party spreads ever wider in China, it is awakening Chinese people to the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and inspiring them to cancel their Party memberships. With the number of people quitting the Party growing rapidly by the day, the Communist Party sees that the end is near. In a show of strength to save itself from demise, the CCP has brought out a sinister plan that it has been preparing for years, a last-ditch gamble to extend its life. This plan is laid out in two speeches written by Chi Haotian, Minster of Defense and vice-chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, and posted on the Internet. The background surrounding the speeches is still shrouded in mystery. The titles of the two speeches are “War Is Approaching Us” [1] and “War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century.” The two, judging from their similar contexts and consistent theme, are indeed sister articles. These speeches describe in a comprehensive, systematic, and detailed way the CCP’s nearly 20 years of fear and helplessness over its doomed fate, and its desperate fight to extend its life. In particular, the speeches lay uncharacteristically bare what is really on the CCP’s mind and hide nothing from the public—a rare confession from the CCP that can help people understand its evil nature. If one truly understands what is said in this confession, one will immediately catch on to the CCP’s thinking. In short, the speeches are worth reading, and I would like to comment on them. 1. A Gangster Gambles with the World as His Stake, and the Lives of People in this Global Village Become Worthless What, then, is the gist of this wild, last-ditch gamble? To put it in a few words:

A

cornered beast is fighting desperately to survive in a battle with humanity. If you don’t believe me, read some passages directly from the speeches. 1) “We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the US], the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the U.S. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the U.S., China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-

Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!” 2) “In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! sized cities.

We’d rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isn’t there a ‘nuclear bondage’ theory? It means that since the nuclear weapons have bound

If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished.” 3) “It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world.

deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our

Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Party’s life has always been above all else!”

speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 58 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Uniqueness Extensions: Congress has Slashed Solar Funding Projects in the Status Quo. Tawanda W. Johnson Press Secretary, American Physical Society. January 21, 2008 “FY ’08 Budget Harms U.S. Plan to Solve Energy Crisis: Nearly 700 New Energy Research Proposals Fall Victim on Chopping Block” The American Physical Society is the world's leading professional body of physicists, representing over 46,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US and internationally. It has offices in College Park, MD, Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC. http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/012108-energy-cuts.cfm

WASHINGTON, D.C.—At a time when crude oil is trading at about $100 per barrel and motorists are grappling with sticker-shock at the gas pump, Congress

and the White House turned their backs on the ideas of enthusiastic researchers who wanted to improve the nation’s energy security. Last month, acquiescing to President Bush’s demand that domestic spending be constrained, legislators hurriedly approved a $555 billion fiscal year 2008 omnibus budget before the Christmas holiday that slashed science funding, effectively killing nearly 700 proposals slated to help solve our long-term energy problem, according to a recently released impact statement by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. To break the addiction to foreign oil, the Energy Department encouraged the scientists to submit proposals focused on solar, hydrogen and nuclear research. However, the omnibus spending bill failed to provide the Energy Department’s science budget with even enough money to keep up with inflation. As a result, at a time when motorists are digging deeper into their pockets to pay for gasoline to drive to work and the grocery store, scientists were told, thank you for your wonderful ideas, but we have no money!"I was very excited about doing something to contribute to research that had the possibility of helping with the energy problem, and now I won’t work on that problem," said Jim Freericks, a physics professor at Georgetown University, who submitted a proposal to research converting solar energy into electricity using thermoelectric materials. Michael Lubell, APS director of public affairs, noted that this is the not the first time

the federal government has put energy research on hold. "But," he said, “this time the climate clock is ticking, and we cannot afford to sit back and wait."

Bush has Slashed Alternative Energy Projects, including Major Solar Cuts. Center for American Progress, “Bush’s Energy Budget: Proposals Not Consistent with Claims” February 8, 2008. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/energy_budget.html President Bush has repeatedly said in recent months that he would lead the United States in taking steps to reduce oil consumption, combat global warming and expand the production of renewable fuels. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act in December, and in his State of the Union address just last week, he said that we must continue to invest in renewable fuels and that the United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. Yet a

quick look at the president's FY 2009 budget proposals for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency programs show cuts in critical areas, including climate protection, tribal energy, and solar energy, while funding for fossil and nuclear energy was increased. And some programs, such as Weatherization Assistance Grants, and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, were zeroed out entirely. The Basics$1.26 billion: Total fiscal year 2009 budget request for Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. 27 percent: Decrease in funding from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level. $385.5 million: Increase in nuclear energy funding, which amounts to 37 percent increase from FY 08 appropriations.$222.7 million: Increase in fossil energy funding, which amounts to a 25 percent increase over FY 08 appropriations. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program$570 million: Proposed cut to The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which assists low income households in meeting their immediate home energy needs. This is a 22 percent cut from FY 08, even before adjusting for changes in energy prices. The new energy law authorizes $5. 1 billion for this program.More than one million: Number of low-income families and elderly people that would need to be cut from the LIHEAP program to meet the new budget.65 percent: The percentage increase in home energy prices since 2001.0 percent: The percentage increase in this year's LIHEAP budget since 2001. Weatherization Assistance$0: Proposed budget for Weatherization Assistance Grants, which increase the energy efficiency of dwellings occupied by low-income Americans, thus directly reducing their energy costs, electricity use, and global warming emissions. This is a 100 percent cut from the $227 million allocated in fiscal year 2008. Renewable

Energy $0: Proposed budget for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive program, which provides financial incentive payments for electricity produced and sold by new qualifying renewable energy generation facilities. This is a 100 percent cut from the $5.0 million allocated in fiscal year 2008.$6.9 million: Proposed cut to the hydropower program, whose purpose is to develop, conduct, and coordinate research and development with industry and other federal agencies to improve the technical, societal, and environmental benefits of hydropower, which includes wave, tidal, and traditional dam hydropower. This is a 70 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.$12.3 million:

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 59 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Proposed cut to the solar energy program, which works to accelerate the development of solar technologies as energy sources for the nation and the world, as well as educate the public about the value of solar power as an energy choice. This is a 7 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level. $26.8 million: Increase in biomass and biorefinery systems R&D. This is a 13 percent increase from FY08 appropriations and should be commended as an investment in low-carbon alternatives.$10.2 million: Increase in geothermal technology. This is a 51 percent increase from FY08 appropriations and should also be commended as an investment in low-carbon alternatives. Climate$0: Proposed budget for the greenhouse gas reporting registry, an EPA program for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. This is a 100 percent cut from the $3.4 million allocated in fiscal year 2008.$6.9 million: Proposed cut to the EPA Climate Science and Technology Program, which focuses on research and development of energy and sequestration technologies critical to long-term emissions reduction for coal fired power plants and other sources. This is a 38 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.$10.3 million: Proposed cut overall to climate protection programs such as Energy Star, SmartWay Transport, the Methane to Markets Partnership, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership. This is a 9.5 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.$4.0 million: Proposed cut to Energy STAR, a joint program of the EPA and the DOE helping consumers save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices. This is an 8.3 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level. Tribal Energy$4.9 million: Proposed cut to tribal activities such as the Tribal Energy Program, which provides financial and technical assistance to Native American tribes for feasibility studies of renewable energy development on tribal lands, and offers assistance to tribes for the initial steps toward renewable energy and energy efficiency development. This is an 83 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level. Mass Transit$3.2 billion: The amount the administration is proposing to transfer from the Mass Transit Account to the Highway Account. This is going in the wrong direction; funding for mass transit is a more effective way to encourage people to drive less and reduce global warming pollution from cars.The president's budget stands in the way of progress on the urgent task of global warming reduction. It will be up to Congress to see to it that these critical programs are represented in the final budget

Internal Link Extension: China Pollution Chinese silicon factories are absolutely dependent upon new U.S. alternative energy incentives for operation; these plants devastate the local ecology. Alex Pasternack, Beijing, China on 03.11.08. Business & Politics (news). “Pollution Casts Shadow Over Chinese Solar”. Treehugger News. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/solar_pollution_china.php. TreeHugger is the leading media outlet dedicated to driving sustainability mainstream. Partial to a modern aesthetic, we strive to be a one-stop shop for green news, solutions, and product information With exports booming, government support, and persistent interest from venture capitalists, China’s solar companies are like the new dot coms. More than 20 companies in China are setting up polysilicon plants, for a combined capacity estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 tons, more than double the 40,000 tons currently produced in the entire world. What’s driving the demand for China’s photovoltaic solution? Whereas a ton of polysilicon usually goes for about

$84,500, Chinese companies can make it at $21,000 to $56,000 a ton. But like so many industries producing cheap goods for export (and domestic consumption for that matter), it should come as little surprise that this one is also dumping toxic chemicals in its backyard. As the Washington Post reported this week, “the waste generated in the production--silicon tetrachloride -- is toxic,” and the land and water in the vicinity of one big Chinese supplier, Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co. in Henan province, is hurting. The company provides materials to solar superstars Suntech (NYSE: STP), along with a bunch of other Chinese and western companies publicly-listed in the U.S. In what may be the first signs of a fall-out for Chinese-made cheap solar, their stocks have begun to take a tumble. Here's how the Post's Ariana Eunjung Cha describes it: About nine months ago, residents of Li's village, which

begins about 50 yards from the plant, noticed that their crops were wilting under a dusting of white powder. Sometimes, there was a hazy cloud up to three feet high near the dumping site; one person tending crops there fainted, several villagers said. Small rocks began to accumulate in kettles used for boiling faucet water. Each night, villagers said, the factory's chimneys released a loud whoosh of acrid air that stung their eyes and made it hard to breath. "It's poison air. Sometimes it gets so bad you can't sit outside. You have to close all the doors and windows," said Qiao Shi Peng, 28, a truck driver who said he worries about his 1-year-old son's health. The villagers said most obvious evidence of the pollution is the dumping, up to 10 times a day, of the liquid waste into what was formerly a grassy field. Eventually, the whole area turned white, like snow. How this report will impact China’s booming export-geared solar industry remains to be seen. (Domestically, China is pursuing cheaper alternative energy solutions, including solar water heaters, methane capture and wind.) Up to 88 percent of Suntech’s revenues come from sales to Germany and Spain alone (the U.S. makes up seven percent), due largely to the enormous subsidies for solar in Europe. As Bill Bishop at the excellent China blog Billdue reminds us, Chinese polysilicon and photovoltaic panel manufacturers are banking on US subsidies in the next iteration of a US energy bill. Suntech has offices in California and is looking to expand; its panels, 3000 of them, line the roof of the San Francisco International Airport. Like John's recent post on coal usage by Suntech, and yesterday’s New York Times story about biodiesel, this report is at the least a much-needed reality check. It's a reminder that, however healthy it may be for us, our clean energy -- and our dependence on China for cheap manufacturing -- is sickening China.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 60 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

China Scenario: Brink Environmental Damage Has Corroded Any Remaining CCP Credibility; Media dissemination of knowledge puts the CCP on the brink. Yu Jie, Chinese author of “Rejecting Lies” about the CCP. 2006“The environmental Yellow Peril” http://hrichina.org/public/PDFs/CRF.1.2006/CRF-2006-1_Yellow.pdf China’s economic growth has been attained through massive consumption and predatory stripping of energy resources, through irreversible pollution and destruction of the environment, through exploiting the blood and sweat of a hundred million virtual slave laborers and millions of prisoners. In fact, China’s energy consumption per unit of GDP is double that of Japan, and has required the sacrifice of innumerable innocent lives in mining accidents as well. This distorted development of the economy has been essential to the Chinese Communist regime in concealing its crisis of leadership, and has required an increasingly elaborate fabric of deceit to enshroud a chronic disregard for human life. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was interviewed in December by the French newspaper Le Figaro. When asked about the Songhua River incident and the mine accidents, he stated without blushing, “As a government responsible for its people, we always put people’s lives, health and safety first.”1 This is simply a sick joke. Wen Jiabao’s crocodile tears China’s media reported intensively on the Songhua River disaster, partly because officials were unable to block the news, but also because they needed the media to participate in various tasks relating to the aftermath. Media disseminated official warnings to affected residents not to drink the water, and emphasized the government’s concern for the people through stories illustrating “the fish and water relationship” between the army and the people. Nevertheless, some more conscientious media outlets analyzed the underlying reasons for the tragedy

and offered measured criticism of the performance of various levels of government.This reflected a “collective rebound” by the Chinese media, which after more than a year of official suppression seized the opportunity to disclose as much truth as they could. This catastrophic water contamination incident largely obliterated what tattered credibility the Chinese Communist regime had retained. As during the SARS crisis,Wen Jiabao personally went to Harbin to try to calm the populace, displaying the flow of tears that the public has come to expect of him. But while Wen Jiabao’s tears during the SARS crisis won him an image of deep-felt concern for the people, they gained no points for the regime during the Songhua river disaster.The Internet abounded with bitter satires such as, “In the old days, Liu Bei’s tears could win him a third of China’s territory; today, Premier Wen’s tears couldn’t get him a cabbage.”2 While Jiang Zemin was still in power, the Chinese people saw the Central Committee as having “two centers,” one good and one evil, and were willing to credit every evil deed to Jiang Zemin while giving Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao the undeserved benefit of the doubt. Now Jiang has disappeared from the political stage, leaving Hu and Wen with no bogeyman to hide behind. The Chinese people have gradually slipped into an emotional fatigue after too many of Wen’s morose displays and have turned to the cheerier diversions of the Supergirl singing contest. In any case,Wen’s tears are hardly likely to be effective against this kind of chronic systematic ailment.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 61 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Space Militarization Impact Module (1 of 2) 1) Renewed Solar Development Fosters Ambitious New Space Programs. John C. Mankins, was with NASA for 25 years, including 10 years with JPL in Pasadena, and 15 years at NASA Headquarters in Washington “Space-based Solar Power: Inexhaustible Energy From Orbit”, Spring

2008. Ad Astra Magazine. http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf Photographs of the sky over Beijing on a hot summer day—dark with particulates and unburned hydrocarbons dangerous to the young and the llustrate that the air pollution crisis that once plagued Los Angeles is not gone,

Why We Need New Energy Options

elderly—i but has only relocated. Similarly, making the energy to run civilization releases enormous volumes of greenhouse gasses—over two pounds (one kg) of carbon dioxide for each kilowatt hour (kwh) generated by coal. Global average temperatures and ocean surface temperatures are rising, along with

At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in space. More ambitious missions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence of new space industries such as space tourism and manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much as they do on progress in space transportation. New energy options are needed: sustainable energy for society, clean energy for the climate, and affordable and abundant energy for use in space. Space solar power is an option that can meet all of these needs. insurance premiums for coastal areas—when insurance can be found at all.

2) And, This New Development Leads to Space Militarization. The National Space Security Office Space-Based Solar Power Study Group,

Spring,

2008.

“Strategic importance: Solar power from space can help keep the peace on Earth” Ad Astra Magazine. http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf

The 21st century is shaping up to be one of potential environment- and resource-driven conflict, and as the United States’ ultimate guarantor of national security, the Department of Defense (DoD) is keenly aware of this future scenario. History teaches us that the application of sufficient energy and imagination to almost any problem ultimately leads to solutions for a better future.

Ensuring abundant long-term energy security then becomes a fundamental pursuit of all societies. Compared to Earth, the resources of space are infinite. In the Age of Exploration, Europe looked beyond the horizons of her surrounding oceans to solve a growing resource problem for a growing population. A similar time distance problem separates human society today from the space resources needed to prevent its collapse and deliver the resources needed to support its ever-increasing levels of scale and complexity. While space already delivers ubiquitous

The first true resource delivered from space may very well be nearly limitless clean energy. Enter the four-decade-old concept of space solar power (SSP). Originally invented in 1968 by Dr. Peter telecommunication, global positioning, and surveillance commodities, these intangibles are higher-order services and not true life-sustaining resources.

Glaser of Arthur D. Little, and last validated in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC), SSP is a simple concept analogous to the hydroelectric dam as an energy-collection device. The traditional SSP architecture utilizes very large (kilometer-scale) photovoltaic arrays in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) to convert a continuous stream of intense solar radiation into carbon-neutral electrical energy, which is then transmitted 24/7 through night and weather via microwave beams to collection rectennas on Earth’s surface. In honor of its inventor, these space solar power satellites are sometimes fondly called, “Glasers.” Total calculated end-to-end system efficiency for base-load power approaches 10 percent- -remarkably high for any known natural or artificial energy production scheme. Variations on the basic concept include using solar dynamic versus photovoltaic collection systems, optical wavelength versus microwave power transmission, lunar versus orbital basing, and low-Earth orbit versus GEO architectures. Despite their differences, all systems share a common philosophy with the hydroelectric power model: invest in a high-capital infrastructure expense up front to then enable decades of clean, reliable, low-maintenance and low unit-cost energy collection, free from the

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 62 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard So why do we not have SSP satellites in orbit

volatile fuel expenses and vulnerabilities of conventional energy systems. today when the NRC validated the concept as scientifically sound and on a healthy path toward technical feasibility as recently as five years ago? Over the course of 40 years the answer has always centered around “the business case” in the face of less-expensive competing conventional terrestrial

that calculus is about to change. The very real risks of climate change, energy nationalism and scarcity, unconstrained technology explosion, and potential resource conflicts weigh heavily on the futurist minds of the action officers of the Air Force Future Concepts and Transformations Office and National Security Space Office (NSSO) “Dreamworks.” These officers are charged with visualizing the world 25-or-more years from now, and informing and guiding Air Force and space strategy development. For a military that is fundamentally dependent on high-energy capabilities to protect its nation and the international commons for the good of all humanity, not only are the strategic risks associated with energy scarcity that lie ahead great, but so too are the operational and tactical vulnerabilities for the finest war-fighting and peacekeeping machine humans have energy sources. But

ever known. It was from within this Air Force policy incubator and the NSSO that the spark to reexamine SSP as a strategic, operational, and tactical energy solution was struck. Beginning in the 1970s through 2001, the SSP was examined on multiple previous occasions by the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA, but failed to find a champion in large part because SSP fell between organizational gaps (DOE does energy but not space, and

Self-developed, complex modern weapon systems spend two decades in pre-production and another five in operation— a 70-year life cycle that clearly places any new platforms (and our entire war-fighting doctrine) squarely on the backside of peak oil, and permanently in a hangar unless DoD can reinvent itself to remain relevant in an energy scarce world. Therefore, DoD is in a position of greatest need for examining all alternate energy options. On a more tactical level, the very real high cost in dollars and lives lost to deliver large quantities of fuel and energy supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has informed the military that energy logistics is a reality that begs for a paradigm change. NASA does space, not energy). On the other hand, because of its unique mission, DoD is the first government agency that will have to deal with the harsh realities of a coming energy peak.

Space Militarization Impact Module (2 of 2) 3) Space Militarization Makes Nuclear War Inevitable Mitchell 01 (Gordon, Kevin Ayotte, David Helwich, Missile Defense: Trans-Atlantic Diplomacy at a Crossroads, International Security Information Service, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense n6, http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html)

It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman; even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size! In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people. Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 63 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Solar Power leads to Space Militarization Solar Power leads to space militarization; its ‘strategic implications’ can only be recognized with additional support. JOSEPH D. Rouge, SES Acting Director, National Security Space Office, Oct. 10, 2007. “Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security” http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

Preventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands in the 21st century is a high priority for the Department of Defense. All solution options to these challenges should be explored, including opportunities from space. In March 2007, the National Security Space Office’s Advanced Concepts Office presented the idea of space‐based solar power (SBSP) as a potential grand opportunity to address not only energy security, but environmental, economic, intellectual, and space security as well. First proposed in the late 1960’s, the concept was last explored in the NASA’s 1997 “Fresh Look” Study. In the decade since this last study, advances in technology and new challenges to security have warranted a current exploration of the strategic implications of SBSP. For these reasons, my office sponsored a no‐cost Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study of SBSP during the Spring and Summer of 2007. Unlike traditional contracted architecture studies, the attached report was compiled through an innovative and collaborative approach that relied heavily upon voluntary internet discussions by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts around the world. I applaud the high quality of work accomplished by the team leaders and all participants who contributed in the last six months. I encourage them to continue their work in earnest as they move beyond this interim report and seek to answer the question of whether SBSP can be developed and deployed within the first half of this century to provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind. This interim assessment contains significant initial findings and recommendations that should provide pause and consideration for national and international policy makers, business leaders, and citizens alike. It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and the business case for creating SBSP is improving with each passing year.

Still absent, however, is an appropriate catalyst to stimulate the various interested parties toward actually developing a SBSP capability. I encourage all to read this report and consider the opportunities that SBSP presents as part of a national and international debate for action on how best to preserve security for all.

Solar Power Creates a Space Race; Countries fighting against foreign oil dependence will all compete over space development. National Security Space Office, Oct 10,2007. Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security” http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 64 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low‐intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer‐wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental

stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability. NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion). The first major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design was proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative to other lower‐cost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995‐1997 NASA initiated a “Fresh Look” Study to re‐examine the concept relative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technology vectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus areas, but for various reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort. The post‐9/11 situation has changed that calculus considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than a decade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source security is now under threat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition by emerging global economies . Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on foreign oil, often imported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the deployment of clean technologies to enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ignite an era of global growth through free markets and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic impact that can be delivered in a relevant period of time.

The Rest of the Case Debate

Solar 1NC Frontline (1 of 2) 1. Subsidies and Tax Breaks are only a quick fix; only reducing the actual price of production could solve. Dan Denning “Federal Budget Won’t Make Solar Energy Popular” • May 8th, 2007 Dan Denning is the author of 2005's best-selling The Bull Hunter (John Wiley & Sons). A specialist in small-cap stocks. http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/solar-energy/2007/05/08/ On another note, the Federal Budget comes out tonight. Whoopee! What a shame modern democracies celebrate with glee when the government redistributes back the money it's confiscated. The money is methodically doled out to groups whose votes the party in power needs to stay in power. At least the whole fraud has become more transparent in recent years. Voters don't really question whether the government should be spending money or giving rebates for things like solar panels. Instead, they just ask, “What's in it for me?”The key to increased solar adoption is not better government policy. The key is that it has to make economic sense without a subsidy. That means the cost of solar has to come down on a kilowatt per hour basis so it is competitive with

coal-generated electricity. Simply shifting the cost of installing silicon-based solar panels on houses to future taxpayers doesn't change the physics or the efficiency of solar power. Giving people tax-payer money to buy solar systems for their homes is like feeding crème brulée to malnourished children. It's not healthy and it's not effective at solving the problem, even though it might put a smile on the child's face for a little bit. Besides, sugar makes children hyper. But back to solar...It's the private sector, and not the government, that will change the efficiency of solar power (if, in fact, there are real ways to get more energy from the sun than the 8% current solar cells convert into electricity.) From what we've gathered here, it will be done through next- generation, organic photovoltaic solar cells.

2. Solar Power is Useless; it won’t become cost or energy competitive until 2020. O'Rourke, Manager Language Learning Technologies at Trinity College Dublin “EU: Where Sunshine Is Abundant, Solar Power Is Often Too Expensive” March 10, 2004. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1051838.html By Breffni

solar power is not usually used in the main power grids of the Middle East to supply homes and offices with electricity. Despite the strides made in recent is still too expensive for general use, particularly in a region where oil and natural gas are abundant and cheap. As Mohsin says, "Cost-wise, if you want to provide one megawatt of electricity, this one megawatt as generated by solar means will be very, very, very costly, and because our region depends so much on air-conditioning, appliances, big villas and big houses, and things like that, solar However, years, it

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 65 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

will not be an [adequate] solution." That's because consistently generating the large amounts of electricity needed by hundreds or thousands of houses and offices is still beyond the reach of present solar technology -- whether it relies on the photovoltaic cell system or the thermal system of focusing concave mirrors at a particular point. Solar power, therefore, cannot compete on cost grounds with the generation of electricity by conventional methods, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Jan van der Putte is an energy expert with the Greenpeace International environmental organization. "Solar power is not competitive. It is one of the renewable energy sources that is projected to become competitive in

about

10 or 15 years,

depending on the projection. There are some new technologies now entering the market which will be much more cost-effective than the traditional solar power generation. But the systems still need to be produced on a larger scale, and you must have that necessary combination of new technologies and production on an industrial scale. der Putte said.

And that is projected to lead to a competitive price for solar-voltaic electricity production around the year 2020," van

3. Solar power is expensive, reliant on sunlight availability and doesn’t work at night. Kosa- Staff writer – 5/28/2008 (Grazyma, “Solar Power system,” RealEstateProArticles.com, http://www.realestateproarticles.com/Art/923/275/Solar-Power-system.html) Is solar energy right for you? There are advantages to using this as a safe alternative to fossil fuel. Solar energy is free. It can be used in areas where electricity can`t be set up easily. The sun is not a resource that is going to be depleted. Disadvantages are that it doesn't work at night. The cost of creating solar power

stations to store such energy is very expensive. In some area of the world, solar energy just isn't an option because the climate does not receive enough sun light.

Solar 1NC Frontline (2 of 2) 4.

Solar energy is extremely inefficient due to land usage.

Edgar - research associate with the Golden, Colorado-based Independence Institute – 1/1/2003 (Matthew R, “Don’t Get Burned by Solar Power,” Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11311)

Whether the share of energy produced by renewables can be increased depends primarily on the efficiency of the technology. In this case, "efficiency" means how much of the energy source (be it wind or coal or solar) can actually be converted to electricity. For wind power, the theoretical maximum efficiency is 59 percent, but most windmills achieve about 50 percent efficiency with very good land and wind conditions. The efficiency of solar energy--how

much heat can be converted to electricity--is approximately 35 percent. One reason wind and solar energy are so inefficient is because they require vast amounts of land. Wind power requires about 11 square feet of land to generate 4 watts of electricity--the amount needed to turn on a light bulb. To generate that same 4 watts of electricity, a natural gas plant requires 30 to 200 times less space. Solar energy consumes even more land than wind. Solar panels consist of photovoltaic (PV) cells. A single cell is about 10 centimeters in size and generates about 1 watt of power--enough for a pocket calculator, but not for a radio. A module of 40 PV cells can produce enough electricity to power a small light bulb. The modules can be combined into groups of 10 to form solar arrays. Ten to 20 PV arrays can power a single household, but for larger electrical needs, such as industrial factories, hundreds of arrays must be connected to generate enough power.The inefficiency of wind and solar power is a major obstacle to increasing the market share achievable by renewable energies. Moreover, the vast amounts of land required by wind and solar farms represent an obvious environmental drawback ... and a blight on the visual landscape renewable energy advocates claim they want to protect.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 66 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

5. Turn: Solar power has no way to generate electricity at night, leading to fossil fuel use. Grose – Oxford science journalist – 10/25/2008 (Simon, “Simon Grose,” COSMOS, http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/797/false-dawn-solar-power?page=3)

The list goes on. What

is clear is that we need electricity at night. Solar generators cannot provide that while wind farms may run overnight and during the day but cannot be relied upon. And there is no technology in sight that would enable power from these renewable sources to be stored during the day and efficiently transmitted overnight to meet baseload demand. The mundane reality is that the power required to run eastern Australia on a hot night in 2017 will come from fossil-fuelled power stations. That will still be the case even if we spend A$10 billion on renewable generation - or even A$20 billion - over the next decade.And even though we could get some reliable power levels from renewable sources during the day, we will have to build new fossil-fuelled power stations at the same time to keep up with Australia's growing demand for electricity. Those power stations will need to keep their fires burning 24/7 because they cannot be turned on and off quickly. So our fossil-fuel emissions will actually increase, despite the massive investment in renewable energy that the prime minister could initiate in 2007.

SOLAR AFF ANSWERS:

Solar Aff: Economy Turn: Turn: Economy A. Solar is a clutch save for the economy. Sarah Lozanova, MBA in Sustainable Management from the Presidio School of Management in San Francisco, “Solar Energy Creating Economic Boom for Nevada”, July 3rd, creating-economic-boom-for-nevada/

2008.

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/03/solar-energy-

The American Southwest has some of the best solar resources on the globe. Nevada, with abundant land and sunshine is becoming a hot bed for the solar industry. The result is green jobs and billions of investment dollars. Solar Panel Manufacturing The opening of Ausra’s solar thermal power factory earlier this week in Las Vegas is a prime example. could produce enough power for 500,000 homes. This quantity of panels would create an estimated 1,400 solar plant construction jobs. The factory As the largest plant of its kind in the world, it employs 50 factory workers. At full capacity, the plant can generate 700 MW of solar panels, which

will produce giant mirrors and absorber tubes that are used for solar power plants. This technology uses the sun to generate heat and spin turbines, thus creating electricity. The giant mirrors follow the sun and reflect it onto fixed absorber tubes that are mounted above. “Nevada is poised to be a leader in the clean energy revolution,” said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). “This facility will help position our state as the premiere place to invest in these new technologies.

As the factory expands operations and we continue to invest in clean energy, we’ll create thousands of good-paying jobs and keep our

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 67 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

outdoors pristine for future generations.” Solar Power Plants Solar projects totaling more than 10,000 MW have land requests from the Bureau of Land Management in Southern Nevada. If constructed, these solar plants would bring over $40 billion of investment to Nevada. Power plants benefit the economy in the short-term by creating large quantities of construction jobs. In the long-term, they create plant operations jobs, tax revenue, raise property values, and generate income through land leases. A recent example is Acciona’s Nevada Solar One, located in Boulder City, NV. As the third largest solar concentrated plant in the world, its maximum output is 75 MW of electricity. It generates enough power for 15,000 homes annually and had a cost of $260 million. Operating since June, 2007, there are 300 acres of solar fields. The plant will produce peak power, with nearly zero carbon emissions and created approximately 28 operations related jobs.

B. This leads to global nuclear war. Mead ’92 (Walter Russell, Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations, New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, p. 30) The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression- will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-

billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy.

They and their leaders have embraced

if the global economy stagnates, or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What

Solar Aff: Non Unique (1 of 2) Non Unique: Solar is Accepted and Used Now. Or Solar Solves: it is rapidly becoming cost effective. Reuters, june 21, 2007.“Solar power costs dropping, nearing competition”. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2139198820070621 NEW YORK (Reuters) - Solar

energy is fast closing the price gap with conventional U.S. power sources and is likely to drop to near even in cost in many regions in the next few years, industry sources said this week. Price declines for the clean energy have been driven by the ramp up in production of solar cells and panels and advances in technology that have increased the cells' efficiency. Under current laws that expire in 2008, installation of solar power systems are subsidized by a 30 percent investment tax credit that helps narrow the gap between the cost of 20 to 40 cents per kwh and typical U.S. retail electricity costs of about 10.5 cents per kwh. Congress is debating a possible extension and expansion of current solar subsidies as part of a broader energy legislation package. But much of solar's viability hinges on whether the systems can feed power directly into the grid systems used by utilities, Michael Ahern, CEO of solar module manufacturer First Solar Inc., told Reuters Wednesday at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum. Currently, utilities can buy power from low-cost coal-fired plants for around 4 cents per kilowatt, and sell the power to households and business at about 12 cents per kwh, although prices can be much higher during peak usage hours, said Ahearn. However, in a supply-constrained market such as California, Ahearn said, power prices ranged from 12 to 23 cents per kwh, making solar nearly competitive. First Solar hopes to offer retail energy buyers competitive power prices of 8 to 11 cents per kwh as early as 2010, Ahearn said."If we can hit 8 to 10 cents, I think we're going to open some markets," he said. With power prices climbing and the cost of solar power falling, the outlook for solar energy is bright, said Alf Bjorseth, CEO of Swedish company Scatec. In some markets, solar energy is already a cost effective source of power, Bjorseth said, and that trend is set to expand, especially in larger markets. New technologies such as thin film solar

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 68 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

modules and the use of nanotechnology will further boost solar energy affordability, according to company executives at the conference. Tempering that optimism, however, were several challenges to the industry, including a shortage of the silicon that is used to make solar modules, which has hampered industry growth, said Bjorseth. The regulatory environment may also prove to be an obstacle to solar power, according to Ahearn. Investing in new solar installations also remained risky because no clear regulatory framework existed to compare how renewables would fare economically over the long-term against more conventional sources, even with federal subsidies, Ahearn said.

Solar Aff: Non Unique (2 of 2) Non Unique: Germany is Massively Increasing their Solar Panel Usage. Or…. Solar Solves; Even in Adverse Conditions, Solar Energy is Still Cost Effective. Reuters, Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:08AM BSTBy Erik Kirschbaum BONN, Germany. http://www.windworks.org/FeedLaws/Germany/ReutersCloudyGermanyunlikelyhotspotforsolarpower.html (Reuters) - It rains year round in Germany. Clouds cover the skies for about two-thirds of all daylight hours. Yet the country has managed to become the world's leading solar power generator. Even though millions of Germans flee their damp, dark homeland for holidays in the Mediterranean sun, 55 percent of the world's photovoltaic (PV) power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest. So far just 3 percent of Germany's electricity comes from the sun, but the government wants to raise the share of renewables to 27 percent of all energy by 2020 from 13 percent. It is a thriving industry with booming exports that has created tens of thousands of jobs in recent years, posting growth rates that surpassed the optimistic forecasts made by the fathers of a pioneering 2000 renewable energy law. This law, known by the acronym EEG, has helped this cloudy, rainy country on the northern rim of central Europe become a solar giant. "The EEG was the single most important vehicle to boost the solar energy market," Frank Asbeck, chairman of SolarWorld AG, told Reuters. The law, which offers cash incentives to people introducing renewable energy sources, was designed to help fight climate change and reduce dependency on fossil fuels. "There has also been an enormous interest for solar power from the public in general," added Asbeck, who in 1988 started his Bonn-based company making and marketing PV products. Its 1,350 staff have doubled in number in the last two years. "Germans have a fondness for inventing and developing technologies -- especially when it might lead to big export rates. Helping fight climate change is a bonus," said Asbeck, who plans to nearly double the staff again within two years. LEGIONS OF HOMEOWNERS There are now more than 300,000 photovoltaic systems in Germany -- the energy law had planned for 100,000. Spread out across the country, they are owned by legions of homeowners, farmers and small businesses who are capitalizing on the government-backed march into renewable energy. By tapping the daylight for electricity -- which power companies are obliged to buy for 20 years at more than triple market prices -- they are at the vanguard of a grassroots movement in the fight against climate change. "It's grown much faster than anyone thought it would," Juergen Trittin, the former Environment Minister who

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 69 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

masterminded the scheme, told Reuters. He was mocked at the time for his claims it would create jobs and not hurt the economy. There are now 250,000 jobs in Germany in the renewables energy sector. Asbeck expects the number of jobs in solar power alone to double to 90,000 over the next five years and hit 200,000 in 2020. The law has also since served as a model for other countries including Spain, Portugal, Greece, France and Italy. GUARANTEED PAYMENT Germany's photovoltaic systems generate about 3,000 megawatts of power -- 1,000 times more than in 1990. Asbeck said political decisions in the 1990s made it easy and even lucrative for ordinary people to put the systems on their roofs. At the heart of the scheme is a "feed-in tariff" giving anyone who generates power from solar PV, wind or hydro a guaranteed payment from the local power company. The power firms are obliged to buy solar electricity for 49 cents per kilowatt hour -- or nearly four times market rates. This can work out at a better return than putting money in the bank. So despite the cloudy weather, the investment pays for itself within 10 years. There are some critics of the solar power incentives who want the government to phase out the program faster than now planned. The lucrative feed-in-tariffs are, however, guaranteed for 20 years for all existing owners. Gerhard Mueller-Westermeyer, a climate researcher at the German national weather service (DWD), said most of Germany is covered by clouds between five and six eighths of the time and there are only a handful of days each year with no clouds at all. Many German towns have annual sunshine of some 1,500 hours -- about half as much as in Spain. "Obviously, there would be a better return on solar panels set up in sunnier places like Africa," he said. "But the energy would have be transported and that's difficult. So it makes sense to build solar panels where people need them."

Solar Aff: Solar Cells Super Efficient: New Solar Cells are Incredibly Efficient; Nanotechnology Allows us to Collect Energy From the Infrared Spectrum. National Geographic News, January 14, 2005. Stefan Lovgren. “Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html January 14, 2005 Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day. The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology. Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery. The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs. "The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material. "If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's

surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable." Infrared Power Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum. The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion. "Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside." The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared. With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work. Electrical Sweaters The new material could make technology truly wireless. "We have this expectation that we don't have to plug into a phone jack anymore to talk on the phone, but we're resigned to the fact that we have to plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the batteries," Sargent

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 70 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

said. "That's only communications wireless, not power wireless." He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone."A sweater is already absorbing all sorts of light both in the infrared and the visible," said Sargent. "Instead of just turning that into heat, as it currently does, imagine if it were to turn that into electricity." Other possibilities include energy-saving plastic sheeting that could be unfurled onto a rooftop to supply heating needs, or solar cell window coating that could let in enough infrared light to power home appliances. Cost-Effectiveness Ultimately, a large amount of the sun's energy could be harnessed through "solar farms" and used to power all our energy needs, the researchers predict. "This could potentially displace other sources of electrical production that produce greenhouse gases, such as coal," Sargent said. In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today. The biggest hurdle facing solar power is cost-effectiveness. At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power is significantly more expensive than conventional electrical power for residences. Average U.S. residential power prices are less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, according to experts. But that could change with the new material. "Flexible, roller-processed solar cells have the potential to turn the sun's power into a clean, green, convenient source of energy," said John Wolfe, a nanotechnology venture capital investor at Lux Capital in New York City.

Solar Aff: No Internal Link: No Internal Link: Solar Manufacturers are Shifting Away from Silicon; Its too Expensive. Joanna Glasner, editor of Wired Magazine, 11-6-2006. “Solar Powers Up, Sans Silicon”. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/11/72058 In a world where sun-powered garden lights seem like a nifty idea, new technologies touted by solar energy startups sound very far out. Entrepreneurs

promise that soon solar-energized "power plastic" will radically extend the battery life of laptops and cell phones. Ultra-cheap printed solar cells will enable construction of huge power-generating facilities at a fraction of today's costs. And technologies to integrate solar power-generation capability into building materials will herald a new era of energy-efficient construction. Those are ambitious goals for a technology famous for powering pocket calculators, but investors are paying heed. This year, solar startups have snapped up more than $100 million in venture capital to develop printable materials capable of converting sunlight into electrical power. Soaring energy demand, as well as short supplies of polysilicon, a

key ingredient in most solar cells, is fueling interest in alternative materials."These technologies look incredibly more real than they did five years ago," said Dan Kammen, founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley. Kammen predicts solar sources, which today produce less than 1 percent of power consumed nationwide, could eventually meet one-fifth of U.S. energy demand. Printed solar cells, produced with conductive metals and organic polymers in place of silicon, could help. As early as next year, startups plan to begin manufacturing printed solar products for use in power-generating facilities, rooftop installations and portable gadgets. While industry experts don't expect manufacturing on a massive scale to be viable for years, production capability is ramping up quickly. Executives at Nanosolar, based in Palo Alto,

California, plan to finish building a factory next year to churn out thin-film solar cells using copper-based semiconductors instead of silicon."Silicon models are too expensive in the first place," said Martin Roscheisen, Nanosolar's CEO, who expects the company will be able to build a 400-megawatt plant for about $100 million. Providing equivalent capacity using silicon technology, Roscheisen estimated, would cost close to $1 billion. When Nanosolar's products become commercially available, Roscheisen plans to warranty the cells for 25 years -- similar to silicon solar products. Miasolé, in neighboring Santa Clara, California, has developed a competing thin-film photovoltaic cell using a layer of photoactive material containing a compound called CIGS. The company plans to incorporate the technology into building materials and rooftop solar installations. On the shorter end of the power-generation life cycle, Konarka, a startup in Lowell, Massachusetts, has agreements in place with manufacturers to produce a printed "power plastic" to supply solar energy for portable devices."When people think

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 71 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

of solar, they think of rooftop, grid-connected. We're trying to change that mindset," said Daniel Patrick McGahn, Konarka's chief marketing officer. Unlike siliconbased solar cells used on rooftops today, Konarka's specialized plastics typically last years, but not decades. The company is marketing its technology for use in products with similar life spans.

GEOTHERMAL

Geothermal 1NC Shell: A. Uniqueness and Link: Their inherency evidence indicates a lack of geothermal energy usage now. They solve this problem by increasing incentives for geothermal energy, thus the link. B. Internal Link: Geothermal energy extraction causes earthquakes, 93 were reported in one season in France. Bassfeld Technology Transfer, January 16, 2007, “Can GEOHIL geothermal energy extraction methods generate earthquakes?”, http://www.bassfeld.ch/News/files/36665ed9c129840a93c017cfecbac582-8.html. accessed 7/7/08 A third earthquake with a magnitude of 3.2 on the Richter scale was measured in Basel near the Hot-Dry-Rock drill site. On January 6, 2007 the news agency ap/sda had reported a second earthquake in Basel, Switzerland with a magnitude of 3.1 on the Richter scale, whereas the previous earthquake on December 8, 2006 had a magnitude of 3.4.All three earthquakes have been caused by the high pressure water injections necessary to fracture the deep-seated rock in Kleinhuenigen, Basel where the drilling for the "Deep Heat Mining" project from Geopower Basel AG is taking place. The epicenter was near the borehole. The project uses the Hot-Dry-Rock (HDR) geothermal energy extraction method.[continues…]The magnitude of the earthquakes has come as a surprise to the projects investors as well as to the population of Basel. Geopower Basel AG had expected smaller earthquakes, but the population was not aware of these risks. The region of Basel is prone to earthquakes; the last large one was on October 18, 1356 when a few hundred citizens died (mainly from unattended fires following the quake).Why does fracturing rock cause earthquakes? Fracturing (or "fraccing" in industry colloquial terms) involves creating and enlarging small fractures in the rock from about 0.3 millimeter in size to about 1mm in diameter by using high pressure water injection. The fraccing is done at the bottom of the borehole; in the Basel project this is at 5000 meters depth. Although the fractures are relatively small, millions of tons of rock are being moved in the process. This creates stress and can result in the accumulated pressure suddenly being released in the form

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 72 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

of an earthquake. The Soultz-sous-Forêts geothermal drillings in France have also caused a series of 93 earthquakes in the summer of the year 2000 ranging from 1.0 to 2.9 in magnitude on the Richter scale.

C. Impact: Earthquakes lead to civil war and instability Enia (Ph.D. in Politics & International. Relations at the U of Southern California) 2008 (Jason, "Shaking the Foundations of Civil War: Institutions, Earthquakes & the Political Economies of Interaction in Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka and Indonesia", March 26, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p254529_index.html) accessed 7/8/08 In trying to send this signal, governments have an incentive not only to capture institutions but also to deter rebels in their attempts to do so. In the case of postdisaster situations, should the government be able to 1) effectively utilize the state’s economic and political institutions and provide disisaster relief to its citizens and 2) effectively thwart the efforts of rebels to control these same institutions, it sends a positive signal about its relative capabilities and power. If successful at capturing institutions and deterring, and possibly discrediting or reframing the separatist efforts, the government can gain a bargaining advantage. This stronger government position places the separatists in a relatively weaker position. Under these conditions, the separatist groups are more likely to make concessions in an attempt to end their dispute. Hypothesis 1: in a post-disaster context, institutional capture by the existing government will lead to a relative decrease in political violence and a relative cessation of civil war. Rebels, on the other hand, have a similar opportunity in which they can assert their a ability to perform the services of government- that is, deliver aid, provide for the displaced, engage in reconstruction, provide public goods more generally, etc.- within their relevant territories. Their relative ability to capture these political and economic institutions reflects their functional ability to self-govern. If successful, it sends a powerful signal both to the government and to the interested parties in the international community, lending further legitimacy to their separatist claim. This success allows separatist to become emboldened in their search for autonomy, with the likely results being greater conflict following the disaster. Hypothesis 2: In a post-disaster context, institutional capture by rebels will lead to a relative increase in political violence and possibly the onset, renewal, or escalation of civil war.

Uniqueness- No Geothermal Energy Now There is opposition to geothermal energy right now Simmelink et al. (researcher for the School of Ecology and Environment at Dreakin University) 2007 (Erick, " Risk analysis for the development of geothermal energy", November 7-9, http://conferencesengine.brgm.fr/conferenceOtherViews.py?view=standard&confId=8) accessed 7/8/08 It is widely accepted that the geothermal energy is a versatile renewable energy source that is among the cleanest of the commercially viable technologies available today. Towards this direction, there has been a lot of scientific substantiation. Regardless of this positive opinion the development of geothermal exploitation has not followed the pace of the development as most other “alternative” energy sources have had. An important reason is that many geothermal projects face strong opposition from politicians, neighbouring communities or environmental pressure groups. This is the main reason which has led to a global tendency for geothermal companies to develop their own policy and their own social responsibility.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 73 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard Federal funding for geothermal energy has been cut Childs (Leader of the Cleantech Group) 2007 (Dana, More money on the way for geothermal power in the U.S., March 30, http://media.cleantech.com/965/more-money-on-the-way-for-geothermal-po) accessed 7/8/08

The Bush administration has already proposed cutting federal funding of geothermal research in order to save $25 million in the 2008 national budget. Policy makers argue that geothermal energy is a mature technology that doesn’t require additional research. A recent research study at MIT estimated that the U.S. could generate enough geothermal power for 80 million homes by 2050, or as much as 100,000 megawatts of electricity (see MIT report says geothermal power not to be ignored.) But it called for between $300 and $400 million to be invested in geothermal plant efficiency research.While government geothermal funding may not be as forthcoming as it could be, the GEA's Gawell notes there are other sources of money."There's been a real shift. We're starting to see real interest from financial communities like venture capital, GE Capital and others. The interest has really been overwhelming. There are a lot of new projects people are trying to put together."Gawell says he's not daunted. "I try not to listen to Washington. If you look at what people are doing in California, in Oregon, in Hawaii, in Alaska and in Nevada, there are a lot of exciting things going on. Luckily I spend enough time outside of Washington that I stay optimistic." Geothermal power only supplies the U.S. with 2,828 megawatts of electricity, today, accounting for .36 percent of its power. Few geothermal plants have been developed to date because of their relative cost to build and expense to operate.

Internal Link Extension: Earthquakes

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 74 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard Geothermal energy causes earthquakes.

Alternative Energy (Information about alternative energy options, news, and discussion.) 2007 (The disadvantages of geothermal energy”, October 2nd, http://www.yourenergyalternitives.com/2007/10/02/the-disadvantages-of-geothermal-energy/) accessed 7/7/08 The biggest concern for environmentalists is the gases and materials released from deep within the earth’s centre. The gases and minerals released are more often than not hazardous. The biggest concern is for hydrogen sulfide. It is a very corrosive gas and is very difficult to dispose of properly. The minerals which cause concern are: - arsenic, mercury, and ammonia. The danger of earthquakes is also increased when drilling for geothermal energy. The geothermal energy harvesting can cause earthquakes in the region. The statistics clearly say that there is a definite increase in the recurrence of earthquakes in the region of geothermal energy harvesting.

Geothermal energy releases harmful pollutants and causes earthquakes. David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace, geothermal energy experts, 1981. Geothermal Energy Arguments For and Against http://www.trivia-library.com/b/geothermal-energy-arguments-for-and-against.htm The development of geothermal reservoirs is often unfeasible because they are too far from major population centers. Geothermal power plants release many pollutants (from processing mineral-laden steam and water), including the dangerous and malodorous gaseous forms of ammonia, hydrogen sulfate, and methane. They also release almost twice as much heat into the atmosphere as nuclear plants and are quite noisy. They are not at all foolproof; well blowouts have been known to rage out of control for days. The pumping or reinjection of thermal fluids may cause earthquakes. Lastly, geothermal drilling is expensive, costing two to three times as much as oil drilling, and present technology limits bore hole depths to 30,000 ft.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 75 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Earthquake Impacts (1 of 2) Earthquakes lead to civil war and instability Enia (Ph.D. in Politics & International. Relations at the U of Southern California) 2008 (Jason, "Shaking the Foundations of Civil War: Institutions, Earthquakes & the Political Economies of Interaction in Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka and Indonesia", March 26, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p254529_index.html) accessed 7/8/08 In trying to send this signal, governments have an incentive not only to capture institutions but also to deter rebels in their attempts to do so. In the case of postdisaster situations, should the government be able to 1) effectively utilize the state’s economic and political institutions and provide disisaster relief to its citizens and 2) effectively thwart the efforts of rebels to control these same institutions, it sends a positive signal about its relative capabilities and power. If successful at capturing institutions and deterring, and possibly discrediting or reframing the separatist efforts, the government can gain a bargaining advantage. This stronger government position places the separatists in a relatively weaker position. Under these conditions, the separatist groups are more likely to make concessions in an attempt to end their dispute. Hypothesis 1: in a post-disaster context, institutional capture by the existing government will lead to a relative decrease in political violence and a relative cessation of civil war. Rebels, on the other hand, have a similar opportunity in which they can assert their a ability to perform the services of government- that is, deliver aid, provide for the displaced, engage in reconstruction, provide public goods more generally, etc.- within their relevant territories. Their relative ability to capture these political and economic institutions reflects their functional ability to self-govern. If successful, it sends a powerful signal both to the government and to the interested parties in the international community, lending further legitimacy to their separatist claim. This success allows separatist to become emboldened in their search for autonomy, with the likely results being greater conflict following the disaster. Hypothesis 2: In a post-disaster context, institutional capture by rebels will lead to a relative increase in political violence and possibly the onset, renewal, or escalation of civil war.

Earthquakes create conflict and violence from resource scarcity Brancati (Academic Employment. Harvard University, Institute for Quantitative Social Science) 2007 (Dawn, “Political Aftershocks: The Impact of Earthquakes on Intrastate Conflict”, 51-5, http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/715) accessed 7/10/08 Although many scholars, policy makers, and relief organizations suggest that natural disasters bring groups together and dampen conflicts, earthquakes can

actually stimulate intrastate conflict by producing scarcities in basic resources, particularly in developing countries where the competition for scarce resources is most intense. Capitalizing on a natural experiment design, this study examines the impact of earthquakes on intrastate conflict through a statistical analysis of 185 countries over the period from 1975 to 2002. The analysis indicates that earthquakes not only increase the likelihood of conflict, but that their effects are greater for higher magnitude earthquakes striking more densely populated areas of countries with lower gross domestic products as well as preexisting conflicts. These results suggest that disaster recovery efforts must pay greater attention to the conflict-producing potential of earthquakes and undertake certain measures, including strengthening security procedures, to prevent this outcome from occurring. After an earthquake killing 30,000 struck Kashmir in 2005, hopes were high that the disaster would unite people across boundaries and bring an end to conflicts simmering in the region. ‘‘This is a common tragedy,’’ declared Lalit Mansingh, India’s Ambassador to Washington, DC.1 ‘‘It can bring people together’’ and ‘‘help in furthering the peace process.’’2 Policy makers such as Mansingh and many scholars suggest that natural disasters can reduce conflict by uniting people in a common fate and a shared goal of reconstruction. In Kashmir, however, hopes for peace were quickly dashed as talks between India and Pakistan over the disputed land continued to stumble after the quake, while violence in the region was unabated.3 Elsewhere, including Colombia in 1999 and El Salvador in 1986, earthquakes have not only failed to foster peace but have seemed to spur intrastate violence as well. What effect do earthquakes have on conflict, if any, and why? Earthquakes, I argue, promote intrastate conflict by increasing competition among groups for scarce resources (e.g., food, water, housing, medicine, and relief aid). Scarcities, in turn, provoke frustrations, which lead to anger and violence. Their effects are greater in economically developing countries than in developed ones since earthquakes have more severe consequences in the former than in the latter. Earthquakes also have larger effects in countries already experiencing conflict since rebels can capitalize on earthquakes to attract popular support, recruit soldiers, and finance campaigns. Why earthquakes? Earthquakes may provoke conflict more than any other type of natural disaster because they have rapid onsets. In occurring quickly and without warning, earthquakes are more likely to stoke feelings of frustration arising from relative deprivation than disasters with slow onsets, such as droughts. Earthquakes, moreover, unlike some other disasters such as famine, are exogenous to conflict. Conflict, that is, does not affect whether earthquakes occur or the magnitude with which they strike, although conflict may increase the amount of damage that earthquakes inflict. Earthquakes do not occur, furthermore, in regions of the world particularly prone to conflict, as do droughts, which dominate Africa. Additionally, while earthquakes occur primarily along fault lines, earthquakes are not predictable.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 76 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Earthquake Impacts (2 of 2) Competition over resources due to earthquakes causes violence and rebellion because of a multitude of factors Brancati (Academic Employment. Harvard University, Institute for Quantitative Social Science) 2007 (Dawn, “Political Aftershocks: The Impact of Earthquakes on Intrastate Conflict”, 51-5, http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/715) accessed 7/10/08

Competition for scarce resources can also result in violence as desperate groups fight to obtain resources either with other individuals or governments responsible for distributing resources. Conditions that normally induce cooperation, such as long time horizons and repeated play, are not present in cases of severe scarcities since individuals may not survive unless they have certain resources. Resource competition often evolves into violence at the point in which relief aid is distributed to victims who struggle to get provisions. At other times, it occurs as people try to steal resources from others, breaking into stores, gas stations, supply trucks, homes, and so forth, where they encounter resistance from property owners and police forces. Such behavior was widespread in Muzaffarabad following last year’s earthquake in Pakistan, in Armenia after an earthquake killed 25,000 in 1988, and in Colombia after the coffee-zone earthquake of 1999. Frequently, competition for scarce resources also results in violent protests or rebellion against governments, with groups seizing government offices and police stations because they blame states for inadequately providing basic resources to victims. Maintaining the rule of law following an earthquake is challenging because police and military forces needed to enforce order may be preoccupied by relief and recovery efforts.

Earthquake intensify conflict by making it easier to purchase weapons with humanitarian aid Brancati (Academic Employment. Harvard University, Institute for Quantitative Social Science) 2007 (Dawn, “Political Aftershocks: The Impact of Earthquakes on Intrastate Conflict”, 51-5, http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/715) accessed 7/10/08

Additionally, preexisting conflicts may increase scarcities because they drain governments financially and prevent them from undertaking measures to reduce the effects of disasters before they occur (Cohen and Werker 2006). Preexisting conflicts can also make it difficult for governments to deliver aid to conflict zones because they pose significant dangers to relief workers. Earthquakes, meanwhile, can prevent governments from suppressing rebellion because they place enormous demands on police and military soldiers, which are needed in disaster areas to recover bodies, deliver aid, and prevent looting or other forms of violence. Earthquakes, moreover, can also increase the capacity of groups to carry out conflicts. Earthquakes can attract humanitarian aid, which rebel groups may divert to further their causes (Anderson 1999; Lischer 2003). Not only may groups use relief aid in the form of food and medical provisions to sustain troops, but they may also appropriate motor vehicles and telecommunication devices to transport troops and facilitate communication among them and also divert relief funding to purchase weapons or other supplies. Earthquakes can further increase the capacity of groups to conduct conflicts by orphaning children. Orphans are vulnerable to rebel recruitment because they lack families to protect against rebels kidnapping them and may be lured by enticements of food and housing to voluntarily join rebels as well (Singer 2006).

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 77 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard Envrionment

Environment 1NC Shell: 1. Geothermal energy damages biodiversity and depletes vital oxygen supply for plants and animals. Langhorst (Author on behalf of the US Department of Energy) 1980 (G.J., “Preliminary study of the potential environmental concerns associated with surface waters and geothermal development of the valles caldera”, June, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/5275166-3EKLqN/5275166.PDF) accessed 7/7/08. During development of geothermal resources, site alterations and their concomitant effects upon the environment will occur. The amount and ~

extent of these effects will depend on the environmental setting, size of the planned facility, pre-planning of development, construction practices, and site restoration. In this regard the environmental issues of concern are land disturbances, atmospheric emissions, and aquatic emissions. [continues..] Soil erosion will cause an increase in stream siltation and the suspended sediment load. Increases in the suspended sediment load can adversely affect aquatic life by reducing the oxygen supply, reducing light penetration, and affecting water temperatures; sediments may invade sensitive spawning areas of unique and endangered species, such as the Jemez Mountain Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus), found in the Rio Cebolla.' Because of leached

nutrients carried into surface water, algal blooms may also occur, further depleting the dissolved oxygen supply.

2. Loss of biodiversity leads to planetary extinction. Diner, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Amry, Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161

Major David N.

Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems are inherently more stable than less diverse systems. “The more complex an ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress…like a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than simple, unbranched circle of threads – which is cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.” By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa and the dustbowl conditions in the 1930s in the United States are

, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined effects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft’s wings. Humankind may be edging closer to the abyss. relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend conditions. Theoretically

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 78 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link: Environment Geothermal energy harms the environment and animals Taylor (managing editor of Environment & Climate News) 2004 (James M., “Geothermal Power Would Harm California, Claims Lawsuit”, July 1, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15261) accessed 7/7/08 The harnessing of geothermal power, one of the "renewable" resources frequently lauded by activist groups as an alternative to carbon-based fuels, will cause irreparable harm to California's most precious environmental resources, warns a coalition of environmentalist groups in a recently filed federal lawsuit.According to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of East California, two proposed geothermal power plants in northeastern California will introduce "highly toxic acids" into geothermal wells in the state's Medicine Lake Highlands, turning the lands into "an ugly, noisy, stinking industrial wasteland."The Medicine Lake Highlands are the remnant of an ancient volcano approximately 30 miles east of Mount Shasta and 10 miles south of the Lava Beds National Monument.According to the San Francisco Chronicle, construction of the geothermal plants would include erecting 150-foot high drilling rigs, nine-story power plants on 15-acre pads, and seven-story cooling towers capped by steam plumes. Constructing and operating the plants would require crisscrossing the area with roads, high-tension transmission lines, and pipelines.According to the federal suit, operating the geothermal plants will require injecting "highly toxic acids" into virgin geothermal wells to increase geothermal power production. That, the suit asserts, will create groundwater pollution and pose a threat to trout and other wildlife in the regional watershed. The geothermal plants themselves would require excavating 750,000-gallon toxic waste sumps. Moreover, trucks and drilling equipment would break the normal solitude of the region, the environmentalist groups say.

Geothermal energy sites damage the environment and protected species Taylor (managing editor of Environment & Climate News) 2004 (James M., “Geothermal Power Would Harm California, Claims Lawsuit”, July 1, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15261) accessed 7/7/08 "Geothermal sites often are located in protected wilderness areas that environmentalists do not want disturbed," observed Robert Bradley, president of the Houston, Texas-based Institute for Energy Research. "Geothermal is not only a scarce, depleting resource, it has negative environmental consequences despite the absence of combustion."In some applications," explained Bradley, "there can be CO2 emissions, heavy requirements for cooling water--as much as 100,000 gallons per MW per day--hydrogen sulfide emissions, waste disposal issues with dissolved solids, and even toxic waste. Those problems and the location problem have caused some environmental groups to withhold support for geothermal since the late 1980s.""Geothermal power plants tend to emit hydrogen sulfide (H2S)--which is toxic at fairly low levels--and mercury," said Tom Tanton, general manager for renewables and hydropower at the Electric Power Research Institute. "The level of emissions from geothermal are quite varied and depend on both the geothermal resource as the technology used and the geography."

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 79 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard Mercury

Mercury 1NC Shell: 1. Extracting geothermal energy emits mercury; it spreads to the food chain. Langhorst (Author on behalf of the US Department of Energy) 1980 (G.J., “Preliminary study of the potential environmental concerns associated with surface waters and geothermal development of the valles caldera”, June, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/5275166-3EKLqN/5275166.PDF) accessed 7/7/08. Mercury has been reported at varying concentrations from different geothermal fields. Reported concentrations range from 200 to 50 OOO parts per billion. Gaseous mercury can be transformed by rainfall into particulate form through reduction or adhesion on inorganic surfaces, or by combining with organics.' In the particulate form, mercury can then be introduced into the watershed and, subsequently, accumulate in the food chain. ~

2. Mercury is toxic and lethal National Institute of Health, “Mercury Health Hazards”, Feb 8, 2006. http://orf.od.nih.gov/Environmental+Protection/Mercury+Free/MercuryHealthHazards.htm. Accessed 7/10/08 Elemental (metallic) mercury and all of its compounds are toxic, exposure to excessive levels can permanently damage or fatally injure the brain and kidneys. Elemental mercury can also be absorbed through the skin and cause allergic reactions. Ingestion of inorganic mercury compounds can cause severe renal and gastrointestinal damage. Organic compounds of mercury such as methyl mercury are considered the most toxic forms of the element. Exposures to very small amounts of these compounds can result in devastating neurological damage and death. For fetuses, infants and children, the primary health effects of mercury are on neurological development. Even low levels of mercury exposure such as result from mother's consumption methylmercury in dietary sources can adversely affect the brain and nervous system. Impacts on memory, attention, language and other skills have been found in children exposed to moderate levels in the womb.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 80 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Internal Link Extension: Mercury Geothermal energy releases mercury Langhorst (Author on behalf of the US Department of Energy) 1980 (G.J., “Preliminary study of the potential environmental concerns associated with surface waters and geothermal development of the valles caldera”, June, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/5275166-3EKLqN/5275166.PDF) accessed 7/7/08. Atmospheric emissions from geothermal power plants contain several constituents of environmental concern. Of these concerns, hydrogen sulfide is the greatest because of relatively high concentrations in geothermal fluids, obnoxious odor, and toxicity at higher concentrations. Various other constituents, such as sulfur dioxide, boron, mercury, radium, and radon, may also be considered as potential environmental problems. ~

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 81 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard The Rest of the Case Debate

Geothermal 1NC Frontline 1.

Geothermal energy fails, they are exhausted faster than they are reheated.

Katz(adjunct scholar for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy) 2006 (Diane S., “The Trade-Offs of Renewable Energy”, November 15, http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8074) accessed 7/10/08. The inaccessibility of most geothermal sources is considered a major drawback. Only four states currently generate geothermal electricity: California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii. Development of a geothermal system elsewhere would likely require deep drilling at a prohibitive cost. Geothermal power is not environmentally benign. Most geothermal sources are located in remote wilderness areas, and building a geothermal plant requires the construction of roads, the installation of power lines and other industrial infrastructure.

Geothermal power also requires large amounts of water, the uptake of which can impact aquatic ecosystems and wildlife habitat. The release of wastewater from geothermal plants has the potential to contaminate surface water and groundwater. And depending on the amount of water and steam diverted, individual geothermal sites may be exhausted faster than they are naturally reheated.

2. Geothermal energy fails: not many states are capable of providing geothermal energy. Defenders of Wildlife (wildlife biologists, government policy experts, media relations specialists, membership service representatives and lawyers) 2008 (“Geothermal Energy”, http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/policy_and_legislation/energy/renewable_energy/geothermal_energy/index.php Accessed 7/10/08) Potential geothermal energy reserves are considered inexhaustible, given the immense heat below the earth’s surface; however individual geothermal energy sites can be exhausted more rapidly than they are naturally reheated, particularly if the water removed is not re-injected. Furthermore, geological factors limit development options for generating facilities primarily to the west. California, Nevada and Utah have the highest electricity generation potential; other states with high potential are Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. These states could produce up to 20,000 megawatts with enhanced technology.

3. Geothermal energy fails: wells are not sustained. Queensland Government Department of Education, 2000, “Power for a Sustainable Future: Fact Sheet 11” http://www.sustainableenergy.qld.edu.au/fact/factsheet_11.html. accessed 7/11/08 Although geothermal energy doesn’t pollute the air with greenhouse gases, there are other environmental concerns about its use. Scientists are not sure how the longterm use of this resource could affect our underground water supplies. Some geothermal tourist attractions at Rotorua in New Zealand have already suffered a decline in surface activity due to the draw-off of geothermal fluid from the underground reservoir by domestic and commercial users. There are also concerns that: withdrawing large volumes of water from an underground aquifer may cause land subsidence; the high levels of salt, hydrogen sulphide and ammonia that are released may cause problems; continually replacing hot water with cold water may, in the long term, reduce the

usefulness of this source of energy.

4. Geothermal projects fail: too expensive to maintain. Eaton (Explorer correspondent) 2005 (Susan R., “Canada looks to tap aqua power”, Explorer Magazine, December, http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/12dec/geothermal.cfm) sccessed 7/10/08. According to Richardson, the Viking Formation has been penetrated by 189,000 wells to date -- 60,000 of these wells are producing, 100,000 wells are abandoned and 20,000 suspended. Historically, the economics of geothermal energy projects failed due to the high costs associated with drilling and completing wells.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 82 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 83 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

AT: Earthquakes break down prejudices Preexisting conflicts are not minimized after a natural disaster, they make recovery more difficult. Brancati (Academic Employment. Harvard University, Institute for Quantitative Social Science) 2007 (Dawn, “Political Aftershocks: The Impact of Earthquakes on Intrastate Conflict”, 51-5, http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/715) accessed 7/10/08 Many of the cases suggesting that disasters foster cooperation are based on international not intrastate conflict, where one country is affected by a disaster and another offers assistance, so that there is no competition for scarce resources between countries or an opportunity for countries to blame each other for the scarcities. Also, in some cases, there was a move toward cooperation prior to the disaster, as in the case of Greece and Turkey in 1999 (Ker-Lindsy 2000). Furthermore, in postdisaster situations, instead of preexisting tensions seeming unimportant in comparison to existing disasters, often preexisting

tensions taint the recovery process, leading some groups to be or perceive to be disadvantaged in recovery efforts.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 84 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard Aff. Answers

Aff: Uniqueness- Geothermal Now The United States currently has the largest amount of geothermal energy in the world USA Today “Study: Geothermal energy could meet large part of U.S. power need”, January 23, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2007-01-23-geothermal-energy_x.htm. accessed 7/8/08 The United States is the biggest producer of commercial geothermal energy in the world, with most of its plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada. The systems were the third-largest source of renewable energy in the nation in 2003, supplying electricity to some 2.8 million households, according to the Washington-based Geothermal Energy Association.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 85 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: Impact turn- Earthquakes Good Impact turn- earthquakes break down prejudices and unite humanity Brancati (Academic Employment. Harvard University, Institute for Quantitative Social Science) 2007 (Dawn, “Political Aftershocks: The Impact of Earthquakes on Intrastate Conflict”, 51-5, http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/715) accessed 7/10/08 Several such studies argue that natural disasters dampen conflict (Kelman and Koukis 2000; Quarantelli and Dynes 1976; Evin 2004). Using case studies and illustrative examples primarily of international conflict, these works contend that disasters dampen conflict not only by uniting people in a common

fate but also by making previous sources of conflict seem unimportant relative to the disaster and bringing people together to work on a common goal, namely a country’s relief, recovery, and reconstruction. In the words of Ilan Kelman and Theo Koukis (2000), ‘‘the cooperative spirit generated from common efforts to deal with disasters through either perceived necessity or choice from the humanitarian imperative possibly overrides pre-existing prejudices, breaking down barriers which then may never be rebuilt’’ (p. 214). Many relief organizations share this view. According to the Geography Unit of the Peace Corps, natural disasters ‘‘bring people together, reinforce interconnections, and reveal surprising traits of heroism. Working together to respond to a natural disaster can unite us with others in a common bond of humanity.’’6 Many policy makers cleave to this belief as well. After the tsunami struck Asia, the president of Sri Lanka, Chandrika Kumaratunga, broadly proclaimed that the tsunami would create a new dimension in the peace process between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE). According to Kumaratunga, ‘‘[t]he extent of devastation caused by the Tsunami was unprecedented in the history of our country. However as the saying goes ‘every dark cloud has a silver lining.’ . . . in the recent history of 20 years of this country we have never had such a fine, practical and advantageous opportunity for peace.’’7

Earthquakes stop future wars by killing potentially harmful political leaders and destroying weapons. Brancati (Academic Employment. Harvard University, Institute for Quantitative Social Science) 2007 (Dawn, “Political Aftershocks: The Impact of Earthquakes on Intrastate Conflict”, 51-5, http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/715) accessed 7/10/08

Potentially, natural disasters may also reduce conflict by diminishing the capacity of groups to initiate or sustain conflicts, decimating national infrastructures, destroying ammunition and weapon supplies, and reducing the availability of human capital needed to carry out conflicts. Natural disasters can also kill important political leaders without which warring factions may lack the necessary leadership to conduct conflicts. Disasters, however, can reduce the capacity of states to suppress rebellion and concurrently increase the capacity of groups to fight, providing them with new sources of funding and new opportunities to attract support and recruit members, as will be discussed further in the subsequent section.

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 86 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

Aff: Geothermal Energy Key to Affirmative Plan Geothermal energy is key to supplying renewable energy, only the plan accesses this abundant resource Shibaki and Beck (Renewable Energy Policy Project Executive Editor) 2003 (Masashi and Fredric, Geothermal Energy for Electric Power, REPP Issue Brief, December, http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Geothermal_Issue_Brief.pdf) accessed 7/8/08. Current geothermal use is only a fraction of the total potential of geothermal energy. U.S. geothermal resources alone are estimated at 70,000,000 quads21, equivalent to 750,000-years of total primary energy supply (TPES) for the entire nation at current rates of consumption. The geothermal energy potential in the uppermost 6 miles of the Earth’s crust amounts to 50,000 times the energy of all known oil and gas resources in the world.22 Not all of these resources are technologically or economically accessible, but tapping into even a fraction of this potential could provide significant renewable resources for years to come. The Geothermal Energy Association reports the potential for developing an additional 23,000 MW of generating capacity in the United States using conventional geothermal energy technology.23

There are massive benefits to geothermal energy New Scientist and Reuters, January 23, 2007. US urged to boost its geothermal power capacity. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn11010-us-urged-to-boost-its-geothermal-power-capacity.html, accessed 7/8/08 Mining the heat stored in rocks in the Earth's crust could meet a growing portion of US electricity demand and replace ageing nuclear and coal plants with an environmentally friendly alternative, researchers claim.A study from MIT found that the mining of geothermal energy could be done on a far larger scale than now, reducing spiralling oil import bills and strengthening US energy security."This is a big resource that is perhaps undervalued by people who are thinking of options for the country," said Jefferson Tester, an MIT chemical engineer who led the 15-month study released on Monday. "We're running out of time here with our existing fleet of nuclear reactors and all the coal-fired plants that we have that are exceeding emission guidelines." Geothermal power is generated by drilling deep wells into which water is pumped. The heated water then rises back up to power turbines that generate electricity. Geothermal energy is renewable and non-polluting, once the plants are built, and could even consume carbon dioxide. It is already on the rise globally as expensive oil and gas make it increasingly competitive, despite its high set-up costs. The world's top energy consumer, the US, is leading the way, with 61 projects in the works. This would double its geothermal capacity to more than 5000 megawatts, according to the Geothermal Energy Association, a trade group.MIT's study (pdf) is described by it authors as the most far-reaching on the subject in 30 years. It concludes that in 50 years the nation could achieve a capacity of 100,000 megawatts – enough to supply about 25 million homes – at an eventual cost of just $40 million a year. That would represent about 6% of the current US electricity supply. "It wouldn't take a lot of money. It's not like this requires billions of dollars to accomplish," said Tester, who helped develop thermal energy technology in the 1970s.The proposed program would require a combined public and private investment of $800 million to $1 billion

"unlike conventional fossil-fuel power plants that burn coal, natural gas or oil, no fuel would be required. Unlike wind and solar systems, a geothermal plant works night and day, offering a non-interruptible source of electric power". in the first 15 years – about the same amount needed to build one new clean-coal power plant, the study said. The study also notes that,

Geothermal power plants do not disturb the environment; they are more environmentally friendly than oil, coal and nuclear energy Reed and Renner (experts from the geothermal energy section of the DOE) 1995 (Marshall J and Joel L. “Alternative Fuels and the Environment” CRS Press, http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/articles/reed/reed-renner.pdf) accessed 7/8/08 Land use for geothermal wells, pipelines, and power plants is small compared to land use for other extractive energy sources such as oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. Low-temperature geothermal applications are usually no more disturbing of the environment than a normal water well. Geothermal development projects often coexist with agricultural land uses, including crop production or grazing.

Geothermal energy’s declining prices increase its massive potential Union of Concerned Scientists, “How Geothermal Energy Works”, June 19, 2008, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/offmen-howgeothermal-energy-works.html, accessed 7/11/08. Geothermal energy has the potential to play a significant role in moving the United States (and other regions of the world) toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy system. It is one of the few renewable energy technologies that—like fossil fuels—can supply continuous, base load power. The costs for electricity from geothermal facilities are also declining. Some geothermal facilities have realized at least 50 percent reductions in the price of

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

Miami Debate Institute The Energy PIC File Page 87 of 88

Harrigan/Munksgaard

electricity since 1980. New facilities can produce electricity for between 4.5 and 7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, making it competitive with new conventional fossil fuel-fired power plants.i[10] The U.S. Geological Survey

the geothermal resource base in the United States to be between 95,000 and 150,000 MW, of which about 22,000 MW have been identified as suitable for electric power generation.ii[11] Unfortunately, only a fraction of this resource is currently utilized, with an installed capacity of 2,800 MW (worldwide capacity is estimates

approximately 8,000 MW).iii[12] But thanks to declining costs and state and federal support, geothermal development is likely to increase. Over the next decade, new geothermal projects are expected to come online to

even more of the largely untapped geothermal resource could be developed. In addition to electric power generation, which is focused primarily in the western United States, there is a bright future for the direct use of geothermal resources as a heating source for homes and businesses everywhere. increase U.S. capacity to between 8,000 and 15,000 MW. As hot dry rock technologies improve and become competitive,

EARTH! WIND! FIRE! WATER! HEART! I AM….CAPTAIN PLANET!

i ii iii