Wham Nuclear Powr Aff Final

SDI 2008 WHAM!

1 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

1AC Waste Disposal.......................................................................................................................6 ADV U.S. Nuclear power leadership..........................................................................................12 ADV Global Warming.................................................................................................................19 ADV Brownouts/Blackouts.........................................................................................................24 ADV Dependency.........................................................................................................................26 ADV Legal obligation..................................................................................................................28 ADV US-Australian relations.....................................................................................................30 ADV US-Russian Relations.........................................................................................................31 ADV Competitiveness..................................................................................................................33 ADV Coal......................................................................................................................................35 ADV Energy security...................................................................................................................36 ADV Hydrogen.............................................................................................................................37 ADV Kazakhstan.........................................................................................................................38 Inherency......................................................................................................................................40 CA Dry Cask storage is safe........................................................................................................43 CA Companies want to build nuclear power plants.................................................................46 AT CA Public opposes nuclear power........................................................................................47 AT CA Nuclear power is too expensive......................................................................................48 AT CA they say “No uranium will stop a resurgence of nuclear energy”..............................50 AT CA they say “Yucca will run out of room”..........................................................................52 AT T Generic................................................................................................................................53 AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive......................................................................................55 AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive ext. Waste storage key to NP....................................56 AT T they say “Nuclear isn’t an alternative energy”................................................................58 AT T Only renewables are topical..............................................................................................59 AT T substantially........................................................................................................................60 AT DA Generic – nuclear power expanding now......................................................................61 AT DA Generic – Lots of incentives to do nuclear power now................................................66 AT DA Dry Casks.........................................................................................................................67 AT DA Generic – nuclear power is unsafe.................................................................................68 AT DA proliferation.....................................................................................................................71 AT DA Yucca mountain is unsafe...............................................................................................72 AT DA Yucca will contaminate ground water...........................................................................76

SDI 2008 WHAM!

2 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Yucca mountain earthquakes.........................................................................................78 AT DA Yucca Mountain volcanoes.............................................................................................80 AT DA Nuclear plant meltdowns................................................................................................81 AT DA Nuclear waste is dangerous............................................................................................85 AT DA Radiation..........................................................................................................................87 AT DA Reprocessing....................................................................................................................90 AT DA Pebble Bed reactors.........................................................................................................93 AT DA Russian dependency........................................................................................................94 AT DA Economy...........................................................................................................................95 AT DA Price Volitility..................................................................................................................97 AT DA Spending...........................................................................................................................98 AT DA Terrorism..........................................................................................................................99 AT DA Terrorism – dry cask extensions..................................................................................101 AT DA Terrorism – Yucca extensions.......................................................................................102 AT DA Terrorism – Nuclear plants protected extensions.......................................................103 AT DA Terrorism – Oil revenue fuels terrorism extensions...................................................105 AT DA Terrorism – no transportation risk extensions...........................................................106 AT DA Terrorism – terrorists can’t run planes into plants....................................................107 AT DA Natural Gas – you stop it..............................................................................................108 AT DA Uranium prices..............................................................................................................109 AT DA Politics – they say “Nuclear power is unpopular”......................................................110 AT DA Politics – they say “Obama will do the plan (DA turns the case)”............................111 AT CP States...............................................................................................................................112 AT CP Other alternative energies.............................................................................................113 AT CP Biofuels............................................................................................................................114 AT CP Hydroelectric..................................................................................................................115 AT CP Solar ...............................................................................................................................116 AT CP Wind................................................................................................................................119 AT CP Natural Gas....................................................................................................................121 AT CP Tidal power.....................................................................................................................123 AT CP Cap and Trade................................................................................................................124 AT CP Carbon Taxes..................................................................................................................125 AT CP PIC out of Yucca Mountain..........................................................................................126 AT CP International repository................................................................................................130

SDI 2008 WHAM!

3 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Siberian International Repository...............................................................................134 AT CP Reprocessing...................................................................................................................135 AT K Discursive.........................................................................................................................136 AT K Nuclear power is unnatural............................................................................................137 AT K Capitalism.........................................................................................................................138 AT K You hurt the poor.............................................................................................................139 Fear mongering..........................................................................................................................140 Centrifuge technology................................................................................................................144 Uranium suppliers.....................................................................................................................145 SMART Act................................................................................................................................147 GNEP..........................................................................................................................................149 Sub-seabed disposal...................................................................................................................154 Reprocessing...............................................................................................................................155 Space disposal repository..........................................................................................................156 Loan Guarantees........................................................................................................................160 Pebble bed reactors....................................................................................................................161 Integral Fast Reactors...............................................................................................................162 Lieberman-Warner link to nuclear power bad DA’s..............................................................163 SHARED NEGATIVE...............................................................................................................164 Inherency takeouts.....................................................................................................................165 Solvency takeouts.......................................................................................................................166 Solvency takeouts – China and India.......................................................................................168 Solvency takeouts – Yucca.........................................................................................................169 Solvency takeouts – Uranium...................................................................................................170 Solvency takeouts – Fast expansion of nuclear power impossible extensions......................173 AT ADV Brownouts/Blackouts.................................................................................................175 AT ADV Coal..............................................................................................................................176 AT ADV Competitiveness..........................................................................................................177 AT ADV Dependency.................................................................................................................178 AT ADV Global Warming.........................................................................................................179 AT ADV Kazakhstan.................................................................................................................181 AT ADV Proliferation................................................................................................................182 AT ADV Russian Relations.......................................................................................................184 AT ADV Waste storage..............................................................................................................185

SDI 2008 WHAM!

4 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

T – Nuclear power isn’t an alternative energy........................................................................186 T Lack of waste repository doesn’t stop expansion of nuclear power...................................187 Nuclear power is very expensive...............................................................................................188 Breeder Reactors are expensive................................................................................................190 DA Uniqueness generic – Nuclear power decreasing now......................................................191 DA Politics – Uniqueness...........................................................................................................193 DA Politics links – Dry cask storage is popular......................................................................194 DA Politics links – global warming key election issue............................................................195 DA Politics links – Yucca mountain unpopular.......................................................................196 DA Politics links - Waste Storage is unpopular.......................................................................198 DA Politics links – Nuclear power unpopular.........................................................................199 DA Politics links – Nuclear power is popular..........................................................................201 DA Politics links – Nuclear power has a powerful congressional lobby...............................202 DA Politics links – McCain and Bush would be tied to nuclear power.................................203 DA Politics links – Obama opposes nuclear power to get Nevada’s votes............................204 DA Politics links – Reprocessing...............................................................................................205 DA Politics – McCain supports nuclear power.......................................................................206 DA Politics – Obama supports nuclear power........................................................................209 DA Politics – Obama opposes Yucca........................................................................................210 DA Politics – McCain supports Yucca......................................................................................211 DA Politics – Turns the case – global warming.......................................................................212 DA Politics – Turns the case – Bipartisan support is necessary for sustained nuclear power ......................................................................................................................................................213 DA Spending links......................................................................................................................214 DA Terrorism - links..................................................................................................................216 DA Terrorism – Impacts............................................................................................................218 DA Terrorism – source indicts..................................................................................................219 DA Yucca Mountain - Uniqueness............................................................................................220 DA Yucca Mountain – Links.....................................................................................................222 DA Yucca Mountain – Reprocessing links...............................................................................223 DA Yucca Mountain – Internal links........................................................................................224 DA Yucca Mountain Impacts - Volcanoes................................................................................225 DA Yucca Mountain Impacts – Groundwater contamination...............................................226 DA Yucca Mountain Impacts – Transportation......................................................................227

SDI 2008 WHAM!

5 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Reprocessing – proliferation impacts................................................................................228 DA Reprocessing – doesn’t solve the waste problem..............................................................230 DA Reprocessing – costs too much...........................................................................................232 DA Nuclear Waste......................................................................................................................233 DA Meltdowns............................................................................................................................234 DA Natural gas - Links..............................................................................................................236 DA Russian dependency - Links...............................................................................................237 DA Uranium Mining - Impacts.................................................................................................238 CP States.....................................................................................................................................239 CP PIC – Just do dry cask storage...........................................................................................240 CP International repository......................................................................................................241 CP Australian International Repository..................................................................................242 CP Siberian International Repository......................................................................................243 K Free Market Environmentalism...........................................................................................244 K You Jack the Poor..................................................................................................................247 K Native Americans...................................................................................................................248 .....................................................................................................................................................249

SDI 2008 WHAM!

6 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

1AC Waste Disposal Inherency Despite a host of incentives the nuclear industry needs one more – a place for waste disposal. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S., there are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs of natural gas and oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly objects to the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and insurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want? Just one thing: a place to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed, the lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging over the entire enterprise. The projected opening of a federal waste storage repository in Yucca Mountain in Nevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest) has already slipped by two decades, and the cooling pools holding spent fuel at the nation’s nuclear power plants are running out of space. Plan: The United States Federal Government should pursue a dual track approach to nuclear waste storage allowing interim dry cask storage and developing a permanent repository.

Solvency The plan would save the nuclear power industry. Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis, dru The waste storage problem in the United States is manageable. The United States should pursue a dual-track approach: commit to developing a consensus and then opening up a permanent repository and in parallel store as much spent fuel as possible in dry casks that are hardened against attack at existing reactor sites. The combination of interim storage and commitment to a permanent repository would provide the assurances needed by the public and the investment community for continued use of nuclear power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

7 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

New technology makes nuclear power more effective and safer. James M. Taylor 12/1/06 “MIT Scientists Find a Nuclear Fuel Design that Is Safer and More Efficient” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20260&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 A new fuel design created by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) promises to increase nuclear power output by 50 percent at existing plants, MIT announced on September 20. After three years of research and testing of next-generation fuel technology, MIT scientists discovered that forming uranium into the shape of hollow tubes rather" than solid cylinders allows for more efficient energy exchange and safer operations. Currently, uranium is formed into solid, cylinder-shaped pellets of less than an inch in diameter. In a nuclear reactor, fission releases a tremendous amount of energy in the form of heat that turns water into steam. The steam is then captured and funneled to power turbines that generate electricity. Lower Temperatures Possible The MIT scientists discovered that forming uranium into hollow tubes prior to fission allows more efficient energy exchange by allowing water to interact with a greater uranium surface area. The new design also increases safety because it requires an operating temperature of only 700 degrees Celsius, as compared to 1,800 to 2,800 degrees Celsius under the current design. Currently, a single pickup-truck load of uranium fuel is sufficient to run an entire city for a year. Under the new design, the same amount of uranium fuel will power that city for an extra six months. Promising Nuclear Future According to Pavel Hejzlar and Mujid Kazimi, the MIT scientists who made the discovery, the new fuel design should be available commercially within 10 years. The discovery is expected to form an important bridge to new technologies, such as pebble bed reactors, which are roughly 20 years away from commercial use in the United States. "Nuclear power already was one of the most promising energy sources of the future," observed Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director for The Heartland Institute. "This breakthrough adds still more momentum to our most affordable cleanburning fuel source. "Pebble bed reactors are the exciting future of nuclear power," Lehr added, "but increasing energy output by 50 percent in existing reactors certainly bridges nuclear power's present to its future. Nuclear power makes more and more economic and environmental sense with each passing day."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

8 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Advantage 1 Global Warming The only way to reduce greenhouse gases is to use nuclear energy United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM The IPCC panel, which was established by the UN to assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, includes a major expansion of nuclear power as a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the world’s climate. “This is a nobrainer: any realistic plan to reduce carbon emissions in a meaningful way must include a vast expansion of nuclear power. The IPCC is right to include nuclear energy as a necessary part of the climate change solution,” said Domenici, who is the author of “A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy.”

Even when the full fuel cycle is accounted for nuclear power is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- and no sulfur or mercury either. Even when taking into account "full life-cycle emissions" -- including mining of uranium, shipping fuel, constructing plants and managing waste -- nuclear's carbon-dioxide discharges are comparable to the full life-cycle emissions of wind and hydropower and less than solar power. But we have to be realistic about the limits of these alternatives. As it is, the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. generate about a fifth of the nation's energy. Wind accounts for about 1%, and solar even less than that. Any increase in the number of nuclear power plants can help -- even if they won't solve the whole problem. More important from the standpoint of displacing fossil fuel, nuclear can meet power demand 24 hours a day. Solar and wind can't do that. Nuclear is the only current technology that fits the bill.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

9 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Global warming causes disease spread, environmental damage, and escalating regional conflicts Podesta, Stern, and Batten 2007 (John, Todd, and Kit, President, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy, and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Capturing the Energy Opportunity, November 2007, Accessed May 15, 2008, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf)

Climate change presents the United States with multiple foreign policy challenges quite apart from those directly connected to our nation’s deepening dependence on imported oil, which we will detail shortly. These challenges include, for example, increased border stress resulting from the impact of climate change-induced storms and droughts in Mexico and the Caribbean. Or consider the complications posed by ever-scarcer water supplies to political progress in the Middle East. Perhaps the greatest climate change-induced geopolitical challenge in the shortterm, though, will

arise in the developing countries in the earth’s low latitudes. In these countries, even a relatively small climatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, the spread of disease, and natural resource competition. Such conditions fuel political turmoil, drive already weak states toward collapse, and threaten regional stability. According to a recent report by 11 former Army generals and Navy admirals, climate change is a “threat multiplier for instability” in volatile parts of the world.16 Nigeria and East Africa pose particularly acute challenges. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, will confront intense drought, desertification, and sea-level rise in the coming years. Already, approximately 1,350 square miles of Nigerian land turns to desert each year, forcing both farmers and herdsmen to abandon their homes.17 Lagos, the largest Nigerian city, is one of the West African coastal megacities that the IPCC identifies as at risk from sea-level rise by 2015.18 These conditions, coupled with rapid population growth projections, are likely to force significant human migration and contribute to regional political and economic turmoil. The threat of regional turmoil is higher yet in East Africa because of the concentration of weak or failing states, numerous unresolved political conflicts, and the severe effects of climate change. Climate change will likely create large fluctuations in the amount of rainfall in East Africa during the next 30 years—a 5 percent to 20 percent increase in rainfall during the winter months would cause flooding and soil erosion, while a 5 percent to 10 percent decrease in the summer months would cause severe droughts.19 Such volatility will jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of people and the economic capacity of the region: Agriculture constitutes some 40 percent of East Africa’s GDP and employs 80 percent of the population.20 In Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya, water shortages have already led to the desertification of large tracts of farmland and grassland. Fierce competition between farmers and herdsmen over the remaining arable land, combined with simmering ethnic and religious tensions, helped ignite the first genocide of the 21st century.21 This conflict has now spilled into Chad and the Central African Republic. Meanwhile, the entire Horn of Africa remains threatened by a failed Somalia and other weak states. Beyond Africa, the IPCC warns that

“coastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East and Southeast Asia, will be at greatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some mega-deltas, flooding from the rivers.”22 In South Asia, this will generate political tension as displaced people traverse the region’s many contested borders and territories, such as those between Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and China. In Bangladesh, for example, the combination of deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, radical Islamic political groups, and dire environmental insecurity brought on by climate change could prove a volatile mix, one with severe regional and potentially global consequences.23

Independently, warming causes human extinction Henderson 2006 (Bill, Frequent Contributor to online news source CounterCurrents, Counter Currents, August 19, 2006, Accessed May 10, 2008, http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm)

The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer

temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

10 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Advantage Two U.S. Nuclear energy leadership Nuclear Power Requires Global Cooperation To Solve Climate Change, Proliferation, And Economic Objectives Christina Bellantoni, 7-7-08, The Washington Times, GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states; Economy takes focus, lexis, bc "(I) will discuss with Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh how best to take forward this reform agenda, which is something the United Kingdom attaches great importance to." He will iterate that sentiment in a speech on Monday which 10, Downing Street has said will be one of his major speeches of 2008. It will dwell on the need for significant modernization of the international framework of governance in order to make it representative and effective. Climate change is another issue that will be high on his agenda during the visit to India. Appreciating India's advocacy of common but differentiated responsibility, the British prime minister said in the interview that developed countries should take responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to a low-carbon, high-growth model of economic development. "Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Caused by developed countries, the weight of responsibility to solve it lies with us," Mr Brown said. "However," he added, "countries need to act together to have the greatest hope of solving this shared dilemma." In that context, Mr Brown said that nuclear energy is non-polluting and it can make a significant contribution to limiting climate change. He suggested that, under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices, new nuclear power stations would yield economic benefits to India in terms of carbon reduction and security of supply. "The UK and India agree on the potential of civil nuclear energy to be a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of energy, which could make a significant contribution to meeting the global challenge of achieving energy security, sustainable development, economic growth and limiting climate change," he said. The British prime minister reiterated his country's support for the proposed India-USA civil nuclear cooperation agreement. "The UK supports the India-USA civil nuclear cooperation initiative. We believe that the deal can make a significant contribution to energy security, development, economic and environment objectives for India and the international community," he said. Britain has unveiled a new energy policy, the centrepiece of which is a decision to support the building of new nuclear power stations. Mr Brown said the UK and India are actively engaged on non-proliferation and arms control issues, too. "We engage with India on a full range of non-proliferation and arms control issues, both bilaterally and through multilateral forums, including the UN and organizations related to it, such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said. He asserted that "such international engagement is increasingly vital in reducing proliferation risks, including that of terrorists gaining access to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons and their means of delivery". Mr Brown said he is looking forward to building on the very close relationship enjoyed by the UK and India during Monday's summit. His discussions with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will centre on how both countries can work together to meet common challenges for the future at all levels - bilaterally, multilaterally or globally. "At a bilateral level, (I am) keen to strengthen education and trade links between the two countries," Mr Brown said. A senior level delegation of UK business leaders and heads of some of the UK's top universities will accompany him to India. "We hope to conclude a number of agreements at the summit. Another important issue for (me) is that of development.

Proliferation is the greatest threat to humans. Brian Toon 12/11/06 “Regional nuclear war would trigger mass death, devastating climate change” http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/uoca-rnw121106.php The current combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics "forms perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of human society since the dawn of man," said Toon. "The current buildup of nuclear weapons in a growing number of states points to scenarios in the next few decades that are even more extreme than those considered in this analysis."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

11 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Advantage Three Competitiveness Revitalizaing uclear energy is key to sustaining the long term growth of the U.S. economy. Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007. www.oxfordeconomics.com VF With a substantial program of new investment, the US nuclear energy industry could support a large number of new jobs and value added - a peak of up to 400,000 jobs and $30 billion of value added. Without this investment, this opportunity will be lost, and the capacity of the industry could dwindle to zero by the 2050s. The jobs it supports will also gradually disappear. · In this study, we assess the economic benefits of a reinvestment program for the nuclear energy industry. This program would involve two overlapping phases of work: o The investment phase – the construction and manufacture of a new fleet of nuclear reactors and nuclear recycling plants o The operation phase - when the reactors and the recycling plants start generating electricity · The economic benefits of the investment program have three components: o Direct employment and value added – how many people are employed in the construction, manufacturing and operation of the new nuclear energy industry as a result of the reinvestment program, and how much value added to they create? o Indirect employment and value added – how many jobs and how much value added are supported down the supply chain to the nuclear energy industry, in each of the three phases of the project? o Induced employment and value added – how much do the direct and indirect employees of the nuclear energy industry spend in the US economy, and how many jobs and how much value added is supported by that spending? The three kinds of economic benefit (peak effects) in each of the phases are set out in the charts below. Without investment in the nuclear industry, these benefits would be lost. Of course, demand for electricity would be unlikely to change, so generation capacity would have to be created or expanded in other ways, for instance with coal power, and that would imply an associated quantity of direct, indirect and induced jobs and value added, as above. · Crucially, however, a large proportion of the jobs that would be supported by the nuclear investment program are manufacturing jobs in the production of the capital goods necessary to support the nuclear energy industry. These are high-tech, high-value-added jobs that reflect high spending on R&D and fixed investment: jobs that the US economy can ill afford to lose. Alternative ways of meeting US electricity generation needs would be unlikely to create so many high-value-added manufacturing jobs.

Maintaining U.S. economic growth prevents World War Three. Mead, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, ’98 (Walter Russell Mead, The Houston Chronicle, August 30, 1998, p. 1, twm) The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace in 60 years. Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It’s the financial markets, not the terrorist training camps, that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had lost 90 percent of its value. Wages plummeted, thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States- and on world history- wasn’t money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Josef Stalin’s power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. That’s the thing about depressions. They aren’t just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing the Price is Right and start up a new round of Saving Private Ryan.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

12 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV U.S. Nuclear power leadership Having a strong nuclear industry is key to the U.S. ability to decrease proliferation. Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington, D. C. 3/2/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000302ebel.pdf The ability of the United States to influence the control of proliferation of nuclear weapons derives from our ability to influence the policies and practices of other nations as they develop their own nuclear power industry. But our ability to influence depends very much on the state of our own nuclear industry.

Nuclear power expansion is supported by other countries, which undermines U.S. nuclear power leadership. Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf Clearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy. At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist these consumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption. Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear power as a viable option in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-looking plan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Minister of Atomic Energy recently stated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. Does China? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by the year 2020. Does Japan’s, despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plans to add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclear option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our judgment that the market alone won't do it).

Russia and China will take our nuclear energy leadership. James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 Pointing out that nuclear plants produce more than three-quarters of France's power, and that nations such as Russia and China are rapidly expanding their nuclear power supply utilizing the latest technological advances, McCain said nuclear roadblocks in the United States are "a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem." "The potential for growth in the United States is positive," Heymer agreed. "Ten years ago, when natural gas was $1.75, if you had mentioned new nuclear power plants, people would not have taken the idea seriously. Now, with CO2 concerns, environmental concerns, and natural gas prices floating around $7.00, nuclear is a very sensible option. We need to build our base load power generation in a manner that minimizes pollution and CO2 emissions.

Reliance on Nuclear power increases U.S.’s international leadership role. Mark Clayton, February 28, 2008, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor LC http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do "Energy Solutions does not believe the United States should be responsible for the world's nuclear waste," company spokesman Mark Walker writes in response to e-mailed questions from a reporter. But as reliance on nuclear power grows worldwide, "the US is in a leadership role to provide technical solutions."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

13 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Invigorating the nuclear industry is key to our nuclear energy leadership and competitiveness. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in 2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008 Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come. Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental benefits offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but it’s not the whole story. What has been missing from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can accrue if the U.S. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United States greatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the early 1990s. At that time, U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global use of nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy leadership. In the ever-expanding global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be able to compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred supplier position. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual.” The Unites States invented nuclear energy, and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design, manufacturing, service and supply improves, our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear design, manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in: o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories; o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; and o greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns. Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of the growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close attention to the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers and operators, as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will be needed to build, operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

14 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Investors need a clear signal that the federal government will allow nuclear power to flourish. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2007, The Heritage Foundation, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes, nna http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. It can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However, the commercial nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embrace nuclear power fully, despite significant regulatory relief and economic incentives. This reluctance is not due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead, investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both in encouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise. Investors doubt that federal, state, and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in the long term. They have already lost billions of dollars because of bad public policy. The United States once led the world in commercial nuclear technology. Indeed, the world's leading nuclear companies continue to rely on American technologies. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, federal, state, and local governments nearly regulated the U.S. commercial nuclear industry out of existence. U.S. companies responded by reallocating their assets, consolidating or selling their commercial nuclear capabilities to foreign companies in pro-nuclear countries. This paper reviews how overregulation largely destroyed the nuclear industry and why it remains an obstacle to investment in the industry. This dynamic must be understood and mitigated before the true economics of nuclear power can be harnessed for the benefit of the American people.

U.S. Nuclear power growth would result in a stronger Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and safer world William C. Sailor 2001 “How to Think About Proliferation and Nuclear Power” http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/april/ap3.html To date, the commercial nuclear industry has played very little, if any, role as a bridge to national entry into the nuclear arms race, nor are there any known cases in which individuals or sub-national groups have stolen materials from nuclear power facilities for use in weapons. However, this does not mean that there is nothing to worry about. It is important to address the need of developing countries for increased energy supplies. To reduce the reliance of these countries on fossil fuels, it is desirable for the developed world to share nuclear technology with them, under proper safeguards, as stipulated in Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now is the time to cautiously consider the greater use of nuclear energy under the most stringent safeguards standards. Power reactors could be provided (below cost) to recipient nations under a "clean development mechanism" within the UN framework on Climate Change. Other forms of energy production could also be exported under this mechanism, with the choice of technology left to bilateral agreement. However, the recipient would be required to ratify the NPT and accept the most recent IAEA safeguards in order to receive subsidized reactors. A comprehensive set of initial inspections would be required. Fuel cycles which produce weapon-usable material anywhere in process would be disallowed from receiving the financial incentives. If there is to be growth of nuclear power in the US it could also be focused in ways to prevent nuclear proliferation or theft of nuclear materials in other countries. The US should welcome imports of nuclear power components and systems from manufacturers throughout the world, but constrain the imports so that they originate only in countries that will allow comprehensive IAEA inspections. Peaceful cooperation between nations is a potential benefit that has been recognized since the Atoms for Peace era. These experiences and changes should be integrated into a new program, one that is centered on strengthening the NPT and promoting a comprehensive safeguards regime.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

15 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure can have an important bearing in a variety of ways on the ability of the United States to advance its nonproliferation objectives. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org Today due to its political, military and economic position in the world, the United States continues to exercise great weight in nonproliferation matters. However, the ability of the United States to promote its nonproliferation objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries has declined. The fact that no new nuclear power plant orders have been placed in over three decades has led to erosion in the capabilities of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, during the same period, the U.S. share of the global nuclear market has declined significantly, and several other countries have launched their own nuclear power programs and have become major international suppliers in their own right. It is highly significant that all but one of the U.S. nuclear power plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers and manufactures for light water reactors have now been acquired by their non-U.S. based competitors. Thus, while the U.S. remains a participant in the international market for commercial nuclear power, it no longer enjoys a dominant role as it did four decades ago. To the extent that U.S. nuclear plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers and manufacturers are able to reassert themselves on a technical and commercial basis, opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferation can be expected to increase. However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide plants and nuclear fuel technology and services on a competitive commercial basis suggests that the U.S. will have to work especially hard to maintain and, in some cases, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, if it wishes to exercise its influence in international nuclear affairs.

American solvency of the issue of nuclear waste disposal is key to maintaining the international credibility necessary to enacting non-proliferation initiatives. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org Finally, the ability of the United States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital to implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitive nuclear facilities to other countries.

U.S. federal government participation is key for the U.S. Enrichment Company to raise the necessary capital to complete technological project. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org Today the U.S. enrichment company, USEC, has a world market share of less than 30% of the uranium enrichment market. In addition, USEC only supplies about half of total U.S. requirements for enrichment services, the vast majority of which are actually obtained under contract with an arm of the Russian government for down-blended HEU. Furthermore, the U.S. Government's gas diffusion enrichment technology that is currently being used at the Paducah, Kentucky plant by USEC is over 50 years old and uses vast quantities of electricity which puts it at an increasing cost disadvantage. Although USEC plans to replace this aging plant with an advanced U.S. centrifuge enrichment technology during the next several years, the company has recently noted that it will “need some form of investment or other participation by a third party and/or the U.S. Government to raise the capital required in 2008 and beyond to complete the project…” Further, the centrifuge enrichment facility being constructed in New Mexico by LES, Inc. uses Urenco centrifuge technology.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

16 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

U.S. needs to add nuclear power plants to internationally extend its influence and stop proliferation. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org The influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. There is a clear upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world. [Thus], if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of developments underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintain in effective policies to achieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is perceived as a major technological leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market. However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure has begun to weaken the ability of the U.S. to participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes more dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish. It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called consent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. Further, the ability of the U.S. to develop improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistent and vigorous support for nuclear R&D programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support in order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As the U.S. Government expends taxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Generation IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and to U.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and source selection where possible.

The U.S. is no longer dominant in the market for commercial nuclear power. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org Thus, while the U.S. remains a participant in the international market for commercial nuclear power, it no longer enjoys a dominant role as it did four decades ago. To the extent that U.S. NSSS and nuclear fuel designers and manufacturers are able to reassert themselves on a technical and commercial basis, opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferation might be expected to increase. However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide NSSS and nuclear fuel technology and services on a competitive commercial basis suggests that the U.S. will have to work especially hard to maintain and, in some cases, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, if it wishes to exercise its influence in international nuclear affairs.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

17 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Strength of U.S. nuclear infrastructure is key to enhancing non-proliferation agenda. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org However, a policy that significantly strengthens the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will not only help the United States to build new nuclear power plants, but will also enhance its ability to advance its nonproliferation agenda.

The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will be crucial to the success of U.S. efforts to play a significant role as a nuclear supplier and advance its nonproliferation objectives. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org There is a clear and compelling upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world that is independent of U.S. policy and prerogatives. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs.

Preventing the spread of nuclear fuel facilities by establishing fuel leasing and cradle-tograve programs is the most effective way of discouraging the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org In this connection, one the of the most severe challenges facing the nonproliferation regime in the years ahead is to prevent the spread of sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities such as enrichment and reprocessing plants. The goal of establishing fuel leasing or cradle-to-grave programs by the U.S. is an important component of GNEP, and, if achieved, it could prove to be far more effective than other approaches in discouraging the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities. The countries that are likely to have the greatest interest in a cradle-to-grave program will be those with small or modest-size nuclear power programs that would likely face serious technical, economic and political problems in managing their spent fuel or disposing of their nuclear wastes.

U.S. international power and influence over the nuclear power industry is key to nonproliferation. A American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org If the United States hopes to continue to exercise strong and specific influence internationally in nonproliferation matters in the future, it can best achieve this objective by remaining an active player in international nuclear affairs by providing advanced nuclear power systems, uranium enrichment services and nuclear fuel to other countries; and by maintaining its ability to develop and apply advanced nuclear technologies. A revival of nuclear power in the United States with new nuclear power plant orders should greatly help enhance U.S. power and influence in international nuclear affairs, but we must also seek to once again be a major supplier of nuclear power technology and equipment world-wide. Conversely, if the U.S. nuclear power program starts to diminish significantly through the retirement of old nuclear power plants without new replacements, then its voice in civil nuclear matters and nonproliferation will decline internationally, even though the U.S. may remain a superpower on the political level.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

18 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

The impact is nuclear proliferation. Only U.S. collaboration can effectively solve. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org It is easy to exaggerate the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation associated with the use of civil nuclear power programs and peaceful nuclear cooperation. States with civil nuclear power programs could divert nuclear material to nuclear weapons; they could exploit a civil nuclear power program as a cover for acquiring materials, equipment and technology for a nuclear weapons program; they could also try to use peaceful nuclear cooperation as a means of acquiring skills for developing nuclear weapons. There have been instances in which states have misused civil nuclear programs and peaceful nuclear cooperation in these ways. However, these abuses of peaceful nuclear power programs have been few in number, while the vast majority of states have adhered faithfully to their nonproliferation obligations. In addition, it is easy to overstate the role that civil nuclear cooperation can play in advancing nonproliferation goals. U.S. collaboration in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy with other states has been a crucial catalyst for the acceptance of the international safeguards system as well as other aspects of the nonproliferation regime. However, peaceful nuclear cooperation is only one of several tools that the United States and other states have used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the orderly growth of nuclear power and the pursuit of nonproliferation objectives must go hand in hand and can be made mutually reinforcing.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

19 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Global Warming Nuclear Power is THE solution to global warming Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB The argument for nuclear power can be stated pretty simply: We have no choice. If the world intends to address the threat of global warming and still satisfy its growing appetite for electricity, it needs an ambitious expansion of nuclear power. Scientists agree that greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, are building up in the atmosphere and contributing to a gradual increase in global average temperatures. At the same time, making electricity accounts for about a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels to produce power.

Nuclear Energy is the best solution to carbon dioxide emissions Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest) WITH NEWS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GROWING MORE alarming day by day, some are stepping forward to suggest that nuclear energy-a form of energy that Americans had largely rejected by the 1980s-is the best and fastest way to reduce the United State's enormous carbon footprint. The term "nuclear renaissance," promoted by the nuclear-energy industry, is finding its way into news articles featuring interviews with well-known environmentalists like Patrick Moore, co-founder oh Greenpeace, who hold up low-carbon nuclear power as the answer to global warming.

Nuclear energy is the only way to cost effectively decrease CO2. Kemeny, Leslie, 2008. Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy, Canberra Times, July 4, 2008, p.15/A. Lexis V.F Australian industrial leaders and domestic consumers of energy will digest with some apprehension the economic impacts of Professor Ross Garnaut's emission trading scheme. His interim report will be issued today. A green paper should be available from Climate Minister Penny Wong's department a little later. Without nuclear power, Australia stands exposed to hefty economic penalties as energy prices will undoubtedly escalate. Meanwhile, the coercive utopian exponents of renewables and clean coal vigorously advocate their populist causes. These already cost Australians an estimated $8 billion a year. Globally there is a growing consensus among energy experts and climate scientists that the only effective way to combat climate change and to maintain energy security at reasonable cost is through the comprehensive acceptance of nuclear power. Fifty years ago Australia was set to become the first nation south of the equator to embrace civilian nuclear power. Sadly, political vacillation, poor education, radical green activism and the fossil fuel lobby have, so far, successfully conspired to negate such enterprise. Our energy and climate change policy-makers could well learn from Australia's uranium trading partners. While the Canberra summit essentially removed nuclear power from its agenda, the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit 2008 Conference in Sydney provided a central forum for its discussion. Renowned physicist Paul Davies claimed that for too long nuclear power has been "politically incorrect" in Australia but would be the fastest and most effective way of reducing the nation's carbon emission. Former top public servant Peter Shergold said it would be unrealistic for any debate on global warming to neglect the nuclear option. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states that as global emission will be mandated to more than half by 2050, nuclear technology is a global imperative. And, for the risk-conscious Australian psyche it delivers a special message "the safety record of nuclear energy is better than any other major industrial technology in OECD countries".

Nuclear power is the only practical way to solve global warming Steven J. Milloy 4/13/06 “Twenty Years After Chernobyl” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/019,05270.cfm It’s quite ironic that while Greenpeace squawks about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in order to avert the much-dreaded global warming, the group continues spreading fear about greenhouse gas-free nuclear power plants – the only practical alternative to burning fossil fuels for producing electricity.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

20 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear Power Is Best Weapon To Solve Global Warming While Maintaining Economic Development Ben Packham, 9-6-07, Herald Sun, PM feels heat as nuke deal struck, lexis, bc JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday, announcing a joint nuclear energy action plan with the US. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global warming. They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible, saying action on climate change was ''urgently needed''. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed to tackle climate change as a priority. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies, reduce poverty, and improve living standards,'' Mr Howard said. Under the deal, the US will back Australia's membership of a global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. Nuclear and clean coal technology will be shared directly with the US under the pact. US President George Bush said the PM had been an international leader on climate change. ''Now, I know some say, 'Well, since he's against Kyoto he doesn't care about climate change','' Mr Bush said. ''That's urban legend. That is preposterous.'' Backing Mr Howard's nuclear ambitions, Mr Bush said the power source was a vital weapon in the fight against global warming. ''If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us -- if we take the issue seriously, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John does -- then you should be supportive of nuclear power,'' he said. ''After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases.'' Under the nuclear deal, the US agreed to support Australian membership of the Generation IV International Forum -- a global body working on next-generation reactor technology. The fourth-generation reactors are being designed to be safer, cheaper and more efficient. Australia will also join -- as revealed by the Herald Sun in July -- the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a US-backed initiative to expand the use of safe, zero-emission nuclear energy. The deal, the product of months of negotiations, comes amid intensive talks on an APEC-wide agreement. Insiders said delegates were a long way from a consensus, which Mr Howard hopes will be the summit's major outcome. The APEC Business Advisory Council, which comprises as many as three business representatives from each of APEC's 21 economies, will be urging leaders to set a transparent and consistent policy framework to combat global warming as soon as possible. ''What APEC is saying to those leaders is there is a real sense of urgency in the business community for the policy makers to set clear rules,'' said Mark Johnson, chairman of retailer AGL Energy Ltd and head of a business advisory council to APEC leaders. He said business must accelerate innovation, research, development and investment in new technologies. ''For all this to work, clear market-based policies are required for business so business can make judgments about where to invest,'' he said. ''Consumers are going to have to change their behaviour in response to the cost of climate change, and business is going to have to change its behaviour markedly.'' Mr Bush said cutting greenhouse emissions did not require slowing of development. The US had managed to curb its own greenhouse emissions last year while growing its economy, he said. A government-endorsed report earlier this year found Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors up and running by 2050. Mr Howard recently moved to calm concerns about the nuclear industry by guaranteeing local residents a veto on the location of any reactor.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

21 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

With nuclear power we can meet the Kyoto Treaty. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp Had we continued to build nuclear power plants over the past 30 years instead of depending increasingly on fossil plants and fickle renewables, we would most likely be meeting our Kyoto Treaty limits for carbon dioxide emissions.

Nuclear Energy is the best solution to carbon dioxide emissions Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest) WITH NEWS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GROWING MORE alarming day by day, some are stepping forward to suggest that nuclear energy-a form of energy that Americans had largely rejected by the 1980s-is the best and fastest way to reduce the United State's enormous carbon footprint. The term "nuclear renaissance," promoted by the nuclear-energy industry, is finding its way into news articles featuring interviews with well-known environmentalists like Patrick Moore, co-founder oh Greenpeace, who hold up low-carbon nuclear power as the answer to global warming.

Nuclear Power On Brink Of Growth. John Dyson and Matt Bennett, board member of the group Third Way, former chairman of the New York State Power Authority. vice president for public affairs of Third Way, 9-16-07, Boston Globe, Just say `oui' to nuclear power, lexis, bc Whether or not Democrats like it, the nuclear industry, which was once in decline, is on the brink of substantial growth for the first time in 30 years. Demand is one reason - our growing population, combined with the rise in thirsty electric products, will mean an estimated 45 percent increase in demand for power by 2030. That new iPhone, the always-on lights on the television, the computer monitor displaying a screen-saver - all that takes power, and more such products are on the way. And it's not just consumer demand - one IBM data center in Boulder, Colo., accounts for about half of the electricity use in the entire city. We'll need massive new generating capacity to meet that demand. And while we must do better at conservation and invest in renewable energies, nuclear power is the only mature, large scale source of power that is essentially carbon-free.

Nuclear Power Is The Only Viable Alternative Energy—Otherwise Fossil Fuels Will Dominate Power John Dyson and Matt Bennett, board member of the group Third Way, former chairman of the New York State Power Authority. vice president for public affairs of Third Way, 9-16-07, Boston Globe, Just say `oui' to nuclear power, lexis, bc In 2005, nuclear power produced 19 percent of all US electricity; solar made up one-30th of 1 percent. If we don't build substantial new nuclear capacity, the alternative isn't going to be wind farms and solar arrays - it's going to be fossil-fueled, carbon-spewing plants. Those are the truths facing Democrats, however inconvenient. The real question facing our leaders is how to shape the future of nuclear power to make it as sustainable as possible, both environmentally and economically.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

22 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Even when you account for the full fuel cycle nuclear power’s CO2 emissions are substantially lower than fossil fuel. NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, No Date given http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/lifecycleemissionsanalysis/ Nuclear power plants do not emit criteria pollutants or greenhouse gases when they generate electricity. Numerous studies demonstrate that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are comparable to renewable forms of generation, such as wind and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. Although nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases when generating electricity, certain processes used to build and fuel the plants do. This is true for all energy facilities. Nuclear energy life-cycle emissions include emissions associated with construction of the plant, mining and processing the fuel, routine operation of the plant, disposal of used fuel and other waste byproducts, and decommissioning. Nuclear Comparable to Renewables Numerous studies demonstrate that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are comparable to renewable forms of generation, such as wind and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. For example, a University of Wisconsin study (PDF) found that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are 17 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour. Only wind and geothermal sources ranked lower, at 14 and 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour, respectively. In May 2005, British Energy completed a study into the life cycle impacts of generation from its Torness nuclear power station. The assessment covered the entire fuel cycle and included nuclear waste, spent fuel and CO2 , SO2 and NOx emissions. The total emissions of CO2 from electricity generated at Torness power station, calculated on a lifecycle basis, are estimated to be just over 5 g/kWh. This compares to emissions of CO2 from a typical UK coal plant of around 900 g/kWh, based upon the operational stage alone. Typical gas power station CO2 emissions are around 400 g/kWh. Many nuclear critics have claimed that new nuclear plants would need to use lower ore uranium, which requires more energy to extract, and therefore would have higher emissions. In response, British Energy conducted a follow-up study that showed even with a very low uranium ore grade, CO2 emissions would remain very small. If Torness used this ore for all its fuel, its emissions would only rise from 5.05 g/kWh to 6.85 g/kWh. An International Energy Agency (IEA) analysis found that nuclear power’s life-cycle emissions range from 2 to 59 gramequivalents of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Only hydropower’s range ranked lower, at 2 to 48 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear energy’s life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are lower than wind (7 to 124 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents) and solar photovoltaic (13 to 731 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents), according to the agency. The life-cycle emissions from natural gas-fired plants ranged from 389 to 511 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

23 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Global warming leads to extinction. John Roach 7/12/04 “By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species Study Says” for National Geographic News http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could send more than a million of Earth's land-dwelling plants and animals down the road to extinction, according to a recent study. "Climate change now represents at least as great a threat to the number of species surviving on Earth as habitat-destruction and modification," said Chris Thomas, a conservation biologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. Thomas is the lead author of the study published earlier this year in the science journal Nature. His co-authors included 18 scientists from around the world, making this the largest collaboration of its type. Townsend Peterson, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and one of the study's co-authors, said the paper allows scientists for the first time to "get a grip" on the impact of climate change as far as natural systems are concerned. "A lot of us are in this to start to get a handle on what we are talking about," he said. "When we talk about the difference between half a percent and one percent of carbon dioxide emissions what does that mean?" The researchers worked independently in six biodiversity-rich regions around the world, from Australia to South Africa, plugging field data on species distribution and regional climate into computer models that simulated the ways species' ranges are expected to move in response to temperature and climate changes. "We later met and decided to pool results to produce a more globally relevant look at the issue," said Lee Hannah, a climate change biologist with Conservation International's Center for Applied Biodiversity Science in Washington, D.C. Study Results According to the researchers' collective results, the predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction. The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming more than a million species. "These are first-pass estimates, but they put the problem in the right ballpark … I expect more detailed studies to refine these numbers and to add data for additional regions, but not to change the general import of these findings," said Hannah. Writing in an accompanying commentary to the study in Nature, J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica, and Robert Puschendorf, a biologist at the University of Costa Rica, say these estimates "might be optimistic." As global warming interacts with other factors such as habitat-destruction, invasive species, and the build up of carbon dioxide in the landscape, the risk of extinction increases even further, they say. In agreement with the study authors, Pounds and Puschendorf say taking immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to constrain global warming to the minimum predicted levels and thus prevent many of the extinctions from occurring. "The threat to life on Earth is not just a problem for the future. It is part of the here and now," they write. Climate Scenarios The researchers based their study on minimum, mid-range, and maximum future climate scenarios based on information released by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. According to the IPCC, temperatures are expected to rise from somewhere between 1.5 and more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 and more than 2 degrees Celsius) by the year 2050. "Few climate scientists around the world think that 2050 temperatures will fall outside those bounds," said Thomas. "In some respects, we have been conservative because almost all future climate projections expect more warming and hence more extinction between 2050 and 2100." In addition, the researchers accounted for the ability of species to disperse or successfully move to a new area, thus preventing climate change-induced extinction. They used two alternatives: one where species couldn't move at all, the other assuming unlimited abilities for movement. "We are trying to bracket the truth," said Peterson. "If you bracket the truth and look at the two endpoints and they give the same general message, then you can start to believe it." Outside of the small group of researchers working directly on the impacts of climate change to species diversity, "the numbers will come as a huge shock," said Thomas. Extinction Prevention The researchers point out that there is a significant gap between the low and high ends of the species predicted to be on the road to extinction by 2050. Taking action to ensure the climate ends up on the low end of the range is vital to prevent catastrophic extinctions. "We need to start thinking about the fullest of costs involved with our activities, the real costs of what we do in modern society," said Peterson. Thomas said that since there may be a large time lag between the climate changing and the last individual of a doomed species dying off, rapid reductions of greenhouse gas emissions may allow some of these species to hang on. "The only conservation action that really makes sense, at a global scale, is for the international community to minimize warming through reduced emissions and the potential establishment of carbonsequestration programs," he said.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

24 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Brownouts/Blackouts Expanding nuclear power is the way to increase electicity generation and cut co2 emissions. Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, “Nuclear energy now our only option”, p. 17/A. Lexis VF The two cleanest means of generating power are nuclear and solar, but nuclear produces enough. Solar doesn't. The world's first civilian nuclear power reactor came on stream 50 years ago. There are now 440 reactors generating power in 31 countries and producing 15 per cent of the worlds electricity. In France, 80 per cent of electricity is generated in nuclear power stations. In the OECD generally, it is 22 per cent. The International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook for last year observed that the world faced the twin threats of not having adequate and secure supplies of energy together with the environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it. Switkowski expects demand for electricity to more than double by 2050, while at the same time pollution and emission levels must be brought down on today's levels. The solution as he sees it is a fast deployment of 25 nuclear reactors by 2050, so that about one third of electricity generation is nuclear, with greenhouse gas emissions down by 18 per cent. The first of them could be operating by 2016 and certainly by 2020. They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low. Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste, which takes 50 years to decay.

If scheduled plants come on line nuclear power will substantially increase the amount of electricity generation. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. If all the proposed nuclear power plants come online, an additional 38,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020—enough to power 28 million American households.

Increasing nuclear power necessary just to maintain current electricity generation. Steven J. Milloy 5/15/08 “McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech” Originally published in FoxNews.com o.z. http://cei.org/articles/mccain’s-embarrassing-climate-speech McCain lauded wind as a "predictable source of energy." He must have missed this Feb. 27 headline from Reuters: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency." The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes. "Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels," McCain stated. What he’s talking about is not quite clear since our current economy is about 75 percent dependent on fossil fuels and will remain that way for at least the next 25 years, as solar and wind technologies remain only marginal sources of energy. If anything, we are likely to be even more dependent on fossil fuels in the future as nuclear power, which provides about 20 percent of our electricity, shrinks in availability as a supply of energy. Although our energy needs are ever-growing, construction of nuclear power plants is not keeping pace — not one has come online in the last 30 years. Even if a few nuke plants are constructed during the next decades, they will not supply enough power to keep nuclear power at the 20 percent level.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

25 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear plants are essential to stop brownouts and blackouts. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html Why Build More Nuclear Power Plants? Many areas of the United States are already short of electrical generating capacity. Brownouts, situations in which voltage has to be reduced causing lights to dim and motors to run slow, have been necessary in several situations. In other cases, utilities have had to appeal for reduced usage, such as abstaining from use of air conditioners and clothes dryers or asking that nonessential commercial operations be shut down. In December 1989 there were complete blackouts in sections of Florida and in Houston, Texas. The situation is rapidly getting worse as our electricity consumption increases much more rapidly than the generating capacity needed to provide for it. We will soon have no choice but to launch into a large program of new power plant construction.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

26 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Dependency Nuclear Power Will End Our Dependence On Oil From Unstable Regimes Daniel Martin and David Derbyshire, 1-11-08, Daily Mail, Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills, lexis, bc A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be in place within a decade, the Government promised yesterday. MPs were told that the technology was 'tried and tested, safe and secure'. John Hutton said nuclear power would also mean Britain would not have to rely on oil and gas supplies from unstable regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Business Secretary said he had invited energy firms to build new reactors and the first could be in place 'well before' 2020. Critics said the move would see household electricity bills rise by up to £250 a year, partly because of the cost of dealing with waste. They said plants would be built only with taxpayer subsidies. However, EDF, a French nuclear power giant, said yesterday it would submit plans to build four reactors by 2017. Westinghouse, a British nuclear firm, also expressed an interest. Mr Hutton said: 'Giving the go-ahead that nuclear power should play a role in providing the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest. 'Set against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear power stations is compelling. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this important part of our energy policy. 'I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power stations. 'With a third of our generating capacity coming offline within the next 20 years and increasing reliance on imported energy it is clear we need investment in a range of new energy infrastructure.'

Nuclear energy would decrease the dependence on fossil fuels and help rid the environment of harmful emissions. Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007. www.oxfordeconomics.com VF Moreover, maintaining the current generation capacity of the US nuclear energy industry would also imply reducing US reliance on imports of oil to meet its energy needs – future oil imports would fall by up to $41 billion per year (assuming an oil price of $50pb in constant 2005 prices) as a result of the investment program compared to a baseline in which nuclear generation capacity fell to zero. A higher oil price would clearly increase the savings: $75pb would generate savings of $62 billion per year. Finally, nuclear energy produces electricity without the attendant carbon emissions that come from burning fossil fuels. Maintaining the current nuclear generation capacity would mean reducing future US emissions by up to 390 million tonnes of CO2 per year compared to a zero-new-nucleargeneration baseline.

Nuclear power key to ending dependency. Jack Spencer, Research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, December 28, 2007, The Heritage Foundation, Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can't Oui?, nna http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed010108d.cfm But the critical issue is that they have an organization to handle used nuclear fuel that allows their program to advance without being held hostage to the politics of geologic storage. If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

27 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear power solves dependency, it’s best for the environment and will save 100,000 lives per year from air pollution. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html With minor exceptions, these new plants will have to be powered by coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear fuels. There are lots of good reasons for avoiding the use of oil and gas to generate electricity: They are substantially more expensive than coal or nuclear fuels. World supplies are quite limited on a long-term perspective. They are essentially our only option for providing transportation by land, sea, or air. They are vitally needed as feedstock for manufacture of plastics, organic chemicals, and other products essential for our technology. Paying for imported oil is a heavy strain on our national economy, and this problem is rapidly getting worse. Our oil supplies are vulnerable to being cut off for political reasons. Oil prices are susceptible to very large and rapid increases. Oil dependence can lead to war. For the most part, therefore, our new electrical generating capacity must be powered by coal or nuclear fuels, although oil and gas will still be used to some degree. Burning coal, oil, and gas leads to a wide variety of environmental problems. They are major contributors to the greenhouse effect, which threatens to cause highly disruptive climate changes: Agriculture will suffer severe blows like an end to growing soybeans and corn in the South and corn and wheat in the Great Plains. Farmers will also have to deal with increased livestock disease, and heavy damage from insect pests. Forests will undergo stress, as some species of trees will die off and have to be replaced by others. Seacoast areas will be subject to flooding. Waterfowl and various types of aquatic life will be seriously affected by reduction in wetlands areas. Insect plagues, droughts, forest fires, tornadoes, and floods will increase. Burning coal is the major contributor to acid rain which, in some areas, is heavily damaging forests and fish in lakes. This acid rain is straining relations between Canada and the United States, and between several pairs of European nations. But perhaps the most serious environmental problem with burning fossil fuels is air pollution, which is estimated to be killing about 100,000 Americans every year. Attempts to solve this problem are very expensive, and there is little reason to be confident that the limited objectives these attempts target will solve it. Air pollution causes a variety of illnesses, and it has several other unpleasant aspects, such as foul odors and the degrading of all sorts of objects from stone carvings to clothing. Coal burning causes many other environmental problems, such as destruction of land surfaces by strip-mining, acid mine drainage, which pollutes our rivers and streams, land subsidence, which damages and destroys buildings, and waste banks from washing coal, which are ugly and lead to air pollution. Coal mining is a harsh and unpleasant occupation. Miners are frequently killed in accidents, and constant exposure to coal dust causes severe degradation in their health, often leading to premature death from an assortment of lung diseases. Oil has its environmental problems too. It contributes substantially to air pollution and to acid rain. Oil spills in our oceans have fouled beaches and caused severe damage to aquatic life. Oil causes fires, odors, and water pollution. The use of natural gas can lead to fires and explosions and can kill people through asphyxiation. All of the adverse health and environmental effects resulting from burning coal, oil, or natural gas to produce electricity can be avoided by the use of nuclear power.

Nuclear power can reduce dependency. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2007, The Heritage Foundation, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes, nna http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. It can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

28 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Legal obligation Governmental Integrity Depends on the proper means to store the byproducts of the energy they employ William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis More than fifty years of commercial nuclear energy use has left the world with a legacy of tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. If nuclear power production expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal will also significantly increase. Although several countries are exploring various long-term disposal options, no country has begun to store waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories. Industry officials generally believe that further growth of nuclear energy depends on establishing these repositories. Countries that have derived benefits from nuclear-generated electricity have an obligation to future generations to safely and securely dispose of nuclear waste. In the United States, the government is legally bound to remove this waste from reactor sites and store it in permanent repositories. Delays in storing spent nuclear fuel in a permanent repository have already resulted in lawsuits with financial penalties. Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the site slated for a permanent geologic repository, has not received approval to store this waste. Even if the license application is approved within the next few years, the Department of Energy does not anticipate starting to store waste there until 2017, and, more realistically, not before 2020.

DOE’s inability to dispose of spent fuel is detrimental to the U.S. non-proliferation policy. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org During the last several decades, the U.S. has been struggling to implement a national policy for management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, independently of whether it will result in direct disposal of the spent fuel or reprocessing and recycle. In fact, the U.S. Government is presently in protracted litigation with most U.S. utilities for monetary damages associated with DOE's inability to accept their spent fuel and dispose of it as called for in contracts that it has with each of these customers. One adverse implication that this may have on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is that it seriously undermines the ability of the U.S. to offer fuel leasing or cradle-to- grave fuel cycle services to foreign countries. The ability to make such offers could be a valuable tool for discouraging the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies.

The USFG has a legal obligation to open a nuclear waste repository. Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc "It's high time that we accomplish this task," he said. "We've passed laws and resolutions to do it. We've collected over $27 billion ? from electricity consumers to pay for it. And courts have affirmed that we have a legal obligation to do it." Inhofe drafted the bill without input from the nuclear power industry, though several of its sections are in line with industry priorities. Portions of the bill also resemble legislation Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced in 2006 (NF, 9 Oct. '06, 9). The Inhofe bill, for instance, would allow DOE to begin some non-nuclear work at the site in preparation for repository construction before NRC issues a license authorizing DOE to build a disposal facility there.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

29 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Only doing Dry cask storage will cost the government billions of dollars in lawsuits Watkiss ‘8, staff writer, Electric Light and Publishing, May/June 2008 Edition, Lexis. tk Temporary or interim storage in dry casks, pending completion of Yucca Mountain or some other permanent deep geologic storage, remains an economically viable and secure option, but violates the 1982 Act pursuant to which nuclear utilities agreed to pay the federal government a fee of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour and the government agreed to begin taking control of their nuclear wastes for transport to permanent storage beginning in 1998. The government's 20-year-plus breach of this agreement has resulted in 60 lawsuits against the Department of Energy, damage awards of $342 million as of February 2007, and ultimate liability projected at $7 billion if Yucca Mountain opens for business as currently projected in 2017, or $11 billion if that date slips to 2021 as is widely expected. Recently, Congress mandated the DOE to study potential temporary storage for high-level nuclear waste in order to demonstrate that the nation is capable of moving forward "in the near term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy." But the DOE balked, contending that interim storage "is clearly not the solution" and argued that the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act bars the DOE from taking title to spent fuel until after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a license for the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. A self-imposed June 2008 deadline for submitting the application to license Yucca Mountain was recently postponed.

The USFG is in breach of it’s legal obligations. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org The U.S. Government is already in breach of its contract with domestic owners and operators of nuclear power plants to have begun acceptance of their commercial spent nuclear fuel in 1998 in fulfillment of its obligations under the National Waste Policy Act.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

30 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV US-Australian relations Nuclear Power Use Strengthens US-Australian Relations-- solving global poverty, living standards, and economic growth Ben Packham, 9-6-07, Herald Sun, PM feels heat as nuke deal struck, lexis, bc JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday, announcing a joint nuclear energy action plan with the US. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global warming. They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible, saying action on climate change was ''urgently needed''. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed to tackle climate change as a priority. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies, reduce poverty, and improve living standards,'' Mr Howard said. Under the deal, the US will back Australia's membership of a global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. Nuclear and clean coal technology will be shared directly with the US under the pact. US President George Bush said the PM had been an international leader on climate change. ''Now, I know some say, 'Well, since he's against Kyoto he doesn't care about climate change','' Mr Bush said. ''That's urban legend. That is preposterous.''

Australia and the US are currently forming a nuclear energy alliance Barlow, Karen, 2007. Reporter for ABC. ABC, . July 20, 2007. “Govt leak confirm Australia-US nuclear plan.” Lexis VF TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Government is taking steps to move Australia further down the nuclear power track. Australia could soon be working much more closely with the United States in developing an Australian nuclear energy industry. A leaked draft letter from the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Resources Minister to John Howard talks about cooperating with the United States. The letter, seen by AM, appears to be from senior Australian ministers, Alexander Downer and Ian Macfarlane. It proposes that the Prime Minister announce an Australian-American plan on nuclear energy during the APEC leaders summit in September. Karen Barlow reports. KAREN BARLOW: The letter, marked confidential, is unsigned and undated but the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, and the Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, indicate they're seeking action before the end of this month. EXCERPT FROM LETTER: "We are writing to seek your approval for officials to begin discussions on a joint nuclear energy action plan with the United States. The US Department of Energy has suggested Australia and the United States conclude such a plan to provide an overall framework for nuclear energy cooperation." KAREN BARLOW: Ian Macfarlane's office says Australia and the United States have had a nuclear energy cooperation agreement since 1982. The sending of spent nuclear fuel rods to the US earlier this year could be seen as an example of that agreement. But this letter talks of technical and engineering cooperation relevant to the international groupings known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and the Generation IV International Forum. EXCERPT FROM LETTER: "While some areas of the action plan proposal require clarification, we believe there would be an advantage in commencing discussions with US officials. The proposed action plan could help open the way for valuable nuclear energy cooperation with the United States."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

31 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV US-Russian Relations Nuclear energy programs provide a framework for US-Russian cooperation but those frameworks need to be implemented. Daniel Horner, 7-16-07, Nuclear Fuels, Bush-Putin statement pledges increased effort on nuclear issues, lexis, bc The US and Russia this month announced "a new format for enhanced cooperation" on nuclear energy and nonproliferation, pledging to work together to promote the global expansion of nuclear energy, particularly in developing countries, while controlling proliferation. The statement was issued July 3 by US President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, after their July 1-2 meeting in Maine. At a July 3 briefing in Washington, US Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Robert Joseph said a "model" for the initiative is the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which the US and Russia launched a year ago (Nucleonics Week, 27 July '06, 9) and now has more than 50 members. The new initiative, Joseph said, shows how the US and Russia can "work together when our interests intersect." The declaration, he said, "reflects a shared vision of the future in which nuclear power plays a central role." Analysts said the Bush-Putin statement contained little policy language that went beyond previous statements on nuclear energy and nonproliferation. A US official familiar with the issue did not dispute that point and characterized the document as a "broad statement of intent." One section that drew the attention of some analysts speaks of "facilitating and supporting financing to aid construction of nuclear power plants through public and private national and multinational mechanisms, including international financial institutions" and of "providing assistance to states to develop the necessary infrastructure to support nuclear energy, including development of appropriate regulatory frameworks, safety and security programs to assist states in meeting international standards, and training of personnel." The US official described those provisions as "down-the-road stuff" that would not require US government expenditures for at least the next several years. For now, the IAEA's technical cooperation programs are sufficient to provide the needed assistance, he said. The declaration specifically pledges support for expansion of the technical cooperation programs. Bush and Putin also said they want to ensure that the IAEA "has the resources it needs to meet its safeguards responsibilities as nuclear power expands worldwide." In a July 9 interview, Henry Sokolski, the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, said "there is an awful lot of government in this document, and not much of markets." The statement indicates the two presidents would be willing to provide financial support to projects that private industry would not be willing to finance, he said. It seems "weird" to "pay extra for nuclear," Sokolski said. It could make more sense to provide government support for nonnuclear energy options and thus avoid the risks of nuclear proliferation, he said. At the same time, he said, the declaration suggests that Bush and Putin might be willing to interfere with the nuclear fuel market, the one part of the nuclear marketplace that "looks to be commercially viable on its own terms," Sokolski said. One section of the document deals with nuclear fuel assurances, a key part of separate but similar proposals by Bush and Putin to provide enriched uranium as an incentive to countries to refrain from pursuing indigenous enrichment programs. According to the document, US and Russian efforts will include "taking steps to ensure that the commercial nuclear fuel market remains stable and that states are assured of reliable access to nuclear fuel and fuel services for the lifetime of reactors."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

32 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Development of civilian nuclear technology key to us leadership and relations with Russia. William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis Over a half-century ago, at the dawn of the atomic age, President Eisenhower outlined in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, a plain but powerful vision for cooperation among the world’s nuclear powers. In his “Atoms for Peace” address, he described a shared agenda which had essentially three parts: harnessing the power of the atom for peaceful purposes; curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons; and urging responsible leadership from America and Russia in managing our own nuclear arsenals. Eisenhower’s proposals led to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency and later to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but Cold War conflict eroded much of the promise of his ideas. Fifty years later, the world is a much different place, and Russia and the United States have a much different relationship. We have disagreements and mutual grievances, and obvious elements of competition and rivalry in relations between us, but we are no longer enemies. We have had enough of Cold Wars and disastrous arms races, and while we may not have a strategic partnership that produces a neat coincidence of interest on every issue, we certainly can have a partnership on key strategic issues. Never has there been a moment when the kinds of nuclear questions that Eisenhower foresaw have been more important than they are today, and never has there been a moment when America and Russia, still possessing nuclear capabilities and responsibilities that no other nations on earth can match, have had a greater opportunity to demonstrate real leadership. It would be a huge mistake, not only for the two of us but for the sake of global order, to miss that opportunity. That is exactly why President Bush and President Putin, in Kennebunkport last July, placed such emphasis on realizing the full potential of USRussian nuclear cooperation. Their efforts are already creating a significant legacy, and much more is possible in the months and years ahead. President Putin and President Bush have both recognized the importance of rapidly developing civilian nuclear technology, and making its benefits available to the developing world. For the first time in our history, we initialed a civilian nuclear cooperation framework agreement, commonly known as a “123 Agreement” after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, which will help to normalize our commercial nuclear relationship and open up new avenues for collaborative activities on civil nuclear energy, including possibilities for research on advanced reactors and development of innovative recycling and fuel development technologies. If the first pillar in US-Russian nuclear leadership, as Eisenhower foresaw 50 years ago, is the development of civilian nuclear power for the benefit of the entire world, the second indispensable element is ensuring that that happens in a way that does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. For precisely that purpose, President Putin and President Bush have made similar proposals in recent years to provide nuclear fuel services to other nations under strict international supervision.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

33 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Competitiveness Plan increases competitiveness in the economy and is overall more efficient and cheaper. Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Staff Writers, The Heritage Foundation, July 8, 2008, FrontPage Magazine, Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other Nations, nna http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7048A616-ECFB-49E9-86FC-D2EF8F0226D2 A global nuclear renaissance will attract construction jobs as well as high-skill engineering jobs to operate the plants. Thus, two of the greatest benefits of building more nuclear reactors, if done correctly, will be more jobs and cleaner, cheaper energy. Countries that do not choose to produce clean energy in a carbon constrained world will inevitably pay more to produce energy, resulting in higher input costs and higher prices for consumers on the open market. As the economic consequences of higher fossil-fuel costs spread to countries that do not produce nuclear power, many countries will likely increase imports of nuclear electricity from foreign suppliers. While less expensive and more reliable than other non-nuclear, non-emitting sources, this energy will surely cost more to import than it would have had to produce it domestically. In the end, the countries that have barred nuclear power from being produced in their respective countries will ultimately rely on nuclear power, albeit at a more expensive imported price.

As Global Warming Pandemonium Increases, The U.S. Needs To Meet The Growing Demand By Using Alternative Energy. Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Staff Writers, The Heritage Foundation, July 8, 2008, FrontPage Magazine, Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other Nations, nna http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7048A616-ECFB-49E9-86FC-D2EF8F0226D2 With the U.S. entertaining the idea of building new nuclear plants, the country can learn a great deal from other nations further along in the process. Electricity demand is skyrocketing in many parts of the world; purported human-induced climate change has the entire globe in a panic. Nuclear energy has become a focal point for countries trying to meet these needs, and some believe that it can provide an economic boost at the same time. It creates opportunities to electrify portions of the economy that today rely almost entirely on fossil-fuels, like transportation. Other countries seem to understand the potential benefits of nuclear power and have either commenced constructing, or have developed projections for, new nuclear plants. The time has come for the U.S. to stop squabbling, remove regulatory impediments, and allow nuclear energy to continue helping this country to meet its growing energy demands.

Nuclear Power creates clean energy and boosts the economy. Bonyun ’08 (30 Jun, Sean C. Bonyun, HT Media Inc., “Rep. Upton – A Greater Commitment to Nuclear Will Power Millions of Homes, US Economy”, AB, Proquest) "The Cook and Palisades plants are such invaluable members of our community, providing stable electricity and hundreds of high paying jobs, all the while pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into our local economy," said Upton. "LMC is a prime example of the nuclear energy industry partnering with local academic institutions to fill high paying jobs at our local plants," said Upton. "I commend LMC for creating this program which has already generated tremendous interest with 50 students already enrolled for this autumn." Congress authorized the NRC to provide $15 million in grants for support of education in nuclear science, technology and engineering to develop a workforce capable of supporting the design, construction and operation, and regulation of commercial nuclear facilities, and the safe handling of nuclear materials. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, about 35 percent of the nuclear energy workforce will retire within the next five years. Locally, over 600 nuclear job openings are anticipated over the next 5 years. LMC scholarship recipients will receive funds to cover full tuition, fees and textbooks as a full-time student enrolled in the fall, winter, spring and summer sessions. Students chosen for these scholarship awards will be expected to sign a contract to work in the nuclear industry for six months for each year of scholarship funding.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

34 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear energy expansion helps the economy – jobs and exports. Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007. www.oxfordeconomics.com VF · An investment program to maintain the US nuclear energy industry’s current generation capacity into the long term would secure these vital manufacturing jobs, and would position the US economy to regain the lead in nuclear reactor technology globally, and claim the lead in recycling technology, both of which potentially represent major sources of export earnings into the long term.·

Reviving the nuclear industry key to the U.S. economy – it could create a million jobs. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in 2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008 Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come. Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental benefits offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but it’s not the whole story. What has been missing from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can accrue if the U.S. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United States greatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the early 1990s. At that time, U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global use of nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy leadership. In the ever-expanding global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be able to compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred supplier position. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual.” The Unites States invented nuclear energy, and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design, manufacturing, service and supply improves, our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear design, manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in: o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories; o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; and o greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns. Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of the growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close attention to the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers and operators, as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will be needed to build, operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

35 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Coal Coal and global warming outweigh nuclear accidents Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB What's more, you can't look at safety in a vacuum. Consider the hazards of the world's reliance on coal-fired plants: Coal mining world-wide results in several thousand deaths every year, most of them in China, and burning coal is a leading source of mercury in the atmosphere. Furthermore, look at safety more broadly -from an environmental perspective. The death and destruction stemming from global warming far exceed what is likely to happen if there is a nuclear accident. And yet, when we talk about safety, we seem to focus only on the risks of nuclear power. The long-term disposal of nuclear waste is also a problem -- but it's mainly a policy issue, not a technical one.

Coal is more dangerous than nuclear energy - radiation Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP That leaves two naturally occurring fuels that are plentiful enough to sustain us through the long decades we'll need to perfect renewables: coal and uranium. The distant possibility of harm under the highly regulated operation of nuclear power is trivial compared to the documented certainty of harm from coal. Counterintuitively, one aspect of harm from coal (yes, coal) is radiation. Burning coal releases huge quantities of radioactive substances, uranium and thorium, according to the folks at the Oak Ridge Natural Laboratory. People living near coal-fired power plants receive 100 times more radiation than federal regulations would permit from a nuclear plant — along with tons of mercury, particulates, carcinogens, and global-warming gases.

Prefer Nuclear Power over coal—prices prove The Roanoke Times ’08 (6 Jul, AB, “A power shift for energy: Americans are waking up to the fact that clean coal is an oxymoron. It also won't remain 'cheap' for long. The search for alternatives leads to nuclear”, Roanoke Times, Proquest) The dynamics have shifted, making nuclear much more attractive than continued reliance on coal. The cost remains high -- estimated to be between $2 billion and $3 billion for another reactor -- but not that much higher than what Dominion is spending to build a $1.8 billion "clean" coal plant in Wise. Generating electricity with coal is no longer cheap. Equipment to minimize toxic emissions has driven up the cost of new plants and has added to the expense of refitting older ones. And that's just the start. Coal plants are a major contributor to global warming. About a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions are attributed to electric power generation, with fossil-fuel plants contributing the most. Congress plans to require power companies to develop and install expensive carbon sequestration systems and to pay for their emissions. The price will be passed on to consumers already pinched by rapidly escalating electric bills.

Prefer Nuclear Power over coal—environment proves The Roanoke Times ’08 (6 Jul, AB, “A power shift for energy: Americans are waking up to the fact that clean coal is an oxymoron. It also won't remain 'cheap' for long. The search for alternatives leads to nuclear”, Roanoke Times, Proquest) Compared to coal, nuclear power's impact on the environment is minimal. Solar and wind, from an environmental stance, are even more attractive and should be fully developed. But both have limitations -- mainly in the hours of operation and in generating capacity -- that nuclear does not. Dominion expects a third reactor would generate enough electricity to supply 375,000 homes. Today, 104 reactors in the U.S. supply one-fifth the country's electricity.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

36 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Energy security Nuclear energy key to stop nuclear war Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html If one attempts to develop scenarios that might lead to a major nuclear holocaust, fights over energy resources such as Middle East oil must be at or near the top of the list. Anything that can give all of the major nations secure energy sources must therefore be viewed as a major deterrent to nuclear war. Reprocessing of power reactor fuel can provide this energy security, and therefore has an important role in averting a nuclear holocaust. That positive role of reprocessing is, to most observers, more important than any negative role it might play in causing such a war through proliferation of nuclear weapons.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

37 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Hydrogen Nuclear energy could create hydrogen for cars. Physorg.com 9/23/05 “As Gasoline Prices Soar, Alternative Fuel Research Grows in Popularity” Though it might seem futuristic, hydrogen is being touted as the world’s next petroleum – and ASU’s Cody Friesen is helping to turn this theory into reality. Friesen, a new professor in the departments of Chemical & Materials Engineering and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering within the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, has received a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program to fund his research in understanding and developing nanoscale materials for hydrogen storage and fuel cells. “There are three main technological roadblocks that must be overcome for any potential hydrogen economy to come about,” Friesen says. “These are hydrogen production, hydrogen storage and hydrogen use.” Hydrogen for automotive uses can be derived from a number of sources, including coal and nuclear power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

38 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

ADV Kazakhstan Kazakhstan is on pace to become the world’s largest producer in Uranium CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP Interest in the use of nuclear power is on the rise, as the world’s growing demand for cheap, reliable electricity vies with the need to reduce air pollution. Nonproliferation of weapons and the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel dominate the debate on nuclear power, while nuclear fuel supplies have garnered little attention. Russia and Europe, currently shut out of the normal U.S. nuclear fuel market, want to sell directly to U.S. utilities, raising concerns about the U.S. enrichment industry. Meanwhile uranium mining is making a comeback after a two-decade slump, but obstacles such as infrastructure problems, stable access to enrichment services, and environmental concerns continue to dog the industry. Discerning Supply and Demand Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known to be recoverable. Australia leads with more than one million tons (about 24 percent of the world’s known supply), followed by Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each. In a 2006 background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes the overall amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up to about 20 percent of the country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent. Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fastreactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts say spent fuel can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel. Market Forces The uranium market experienced significant declines through the 1980s and 1990s because of the end of the Cold War arms race as well as a cessation in construction of new nuclear plants. Disarmament of nuclear-weapons stockpiles added surplus weapons-grade uranium to the market leading to a price drop as low as seven dollars a pound. Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a very different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report (PDF), by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and only supplied about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available weapons-grade uranium, a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine and the need for fuel at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant increases in uranium prices in the last few years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound. However, analysts say the uranium market also can be difficult to predict because many transactions are not transparent. Some experts worry that the lagging uranium industry, in need of more manpower and infrastructure upgrades, will cause delays in the expansion of nuclear power. “Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them,” says Thomas Neff, a nuclear energy expert at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. India, which is locked out of the world uranium market because of its nuclear weapons program, has shut down five of its seventeen reactors due to a shortage of nuclear fuel. The controversial nuclear deal with the United States would have helped India obtain more nuclear fuel, but is now imperiled by domestic opposition in India. Uranium Mining More than half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Experts say Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium in the world. Although Australia has the largest supply, access is constrained by a 1982 law that limits uranium mining in the country.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

39 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Uranium is key to diversifying Kazakhstan’s economy. Fortune Magazine March 27, 2008 http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/news/international/uranium_kazakhstan.fortune/index.htm KP Dzhakishev, 44 years old, is a rare breed: a Moscow-educated entrepreneur who took over a floundering mining industry - and the world's largest uranium deposit outside Australia - when the Soviets broke camp here. Now, after three years of skyrocketing uranium prices, he has found himself at the forefront of a global uranium boom that is fast making him one of the most powerful men in the country - and increasingly influential beyond it. Kazakhstan's ascendancy is far from assured, but Dzhakishev, described by colleagues as Kasparov-sharp and poker-faced, makes it sound as if he already has it all wrapped up. His confidence might be laughable if his arguments weren't so damn convincing. As Dzhakishev sees it, a widespread nuclear renaissance is not only inevitable but well underway. And he's probably right. Global warming is weighing heavily on the international conscience, and with it comes a newfound sense of urgency to dispense with coal and other carbon fuels. No alternative is more developed, economically viable, and emission-free than nuclear energy. Since world electricity use is expected to double in the next few decades, nearly every industrialized country is considering a fresh buildout of nuclear power. Worldwide, 34 new reactors are under construction, and 280 are being planned or proposed. China alone has broken ground on five reactors to feed that nation's insatiable need for power. That has raised questions about whether uranium producers can find enough of the element to fuel this long-term growth. In 2006 producers met only 62% of demand. (The rest was recycled from a diminishing supply of decommissioned warheads or taken from dwindling Cold War stockpiles.) The World Nuclear Association says uranium mining could need to increase by almost 300% in the next two decades. Talk of such a crunch has brought the market to fever pitch. Spot prices for uranium jumped from about $7 a pound in late 2000 to a record high of $136 in June. Prices today hover at $74. More than 400 uranium companies are listed publicly, hedge funds buy warehouses of the stuff, and old U.S. mines are grinding back to life. Applications for new mines in Colorado and Utah have risen more than 200% since 2003. Internationally, the world's largest uranium suppliers - Canada's Cameco, France's Areva, and Australia's BHP Billiton (BHP) and Rio Tinto (RTP) - are scouring for pay dirt at a pace rivaled only by Big Oil. And though existing mines are being expanded in Canada, Australia, and Africa, what producers really want is access to the deposits in Kazakhstan. "Kazakhstan needs to deliver," says Nick Carter, an analyst at Ux Consulting, a U.S. research firm. The boom has put Dzhakishev in an enviable position. First, he made an audacious promise to more than quintuple production by 2015, to 27,000 metric tons a year, which could quench the market's thirst. Now he wants the world to rely on Kazakhstan for all things nuclear - not just the metal for fuel. Uranium, which today accounts for a fraction of the nation's GDP, would become as important for its economy as the $35 billion Kazakh oil industry is currently. In the past few months Dzhakishev has gone on a high-profile international deal-signing tear, landing agreements aimed at transforming Kazatomprom from an obscure Third World mining group to a full-fledged, integrated nuclear energy powerhouse. Last summer he locked up contracts to ship half of China's uranium imports, agreed to buy 10% of U.S. reactor maker Westinghouse (owned by Japan's Toshiba), and scored a deal with Cameco (CCJ) to build a conversion facility, a technologically advanced link in the nuclear fuel cycle. "It's been honeymoon, honeymoon, honeymoon," he gloats. But the game is far from over. Dzhakishev's production forecasts are wildly optimistic, requiring the skilled labor, improved infrastructure, and materials to run 16 new mines. That would be tough to execute in any business environment; Kazakhstan is an especially rough-and-tumble place. It is an emerging market with an autocratic government and a rap sheet for bribery that ranked it near the bottom of Transparency International's global corruption index last year. And Dzhakishev's plan could be laid waste by the kind of volatility to which metals commodities are prone. When fresh supply flooded the market, the price of uranium plunged last July, sending futures contracts down with it. "I don't know if they have the resources to do it," says Benoit de Galbert, project manager for Katco, Dzhakishev's joint venture with Areva, who believes a top-to-bottom modernization is needed. "Dzhakishev is pushing, but sometimes you have the impression he is alone."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

40 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Inherency Yucca Mountain Too Expensive With 21% Budget Shortfall—opening in 2017 will be delayed. Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08, Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change, lexis, bc The Yucca Mountain Project is bogged down in uncertainty roughly 21 years after former President Ronald Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which established the DOE repository program, into law and nearly a decade after the department was supposed to begin disposing of utility spent fuel. Under standard contracts DOE signed with nuclear utilities in 1983, the DOE repository was to have begun disposal operations by January 30, 1998. Instead, the department is wrestling with a 21% budget shortfall that threatens to delay the program further. Meanwhile, the country's inventory of utility spent fuel tops 56,000 metric tons and grows at a rate of roughly 2,000 mt a year, according to industry estimates. Unless Congress lifts the current 70,000 mt cap on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository, the existing US fleet of power reactors will have generated enough spent fuel by 2010 to fill the facility, Sproat said. Any spent fuel generated over the 70,000 mt limit would have to be disposed of in a second repository, and many believe that efforts to site and build a second facility won't be easier. DOE and industry officials have maintained that technically the Yucca Mountain site could accommodate at least twice the amount of spent fuel permitted under the existing cap. DOE's ability to submit a repository license application by the department's self-imposed June deadline will remain up in the air until senior managers report in six to eight weeks on the impact of its fiscal 2008 budget cut, according to Sproat. But he reiterated he is "cautiously optimistic" an application can be sent to NRC sometime this calendar year (NW, 17 Jan., 3). Sproat also told industry officials that the department won't meet its previous goal of having a repository ready to operate in 2017, which the department has described as the "best achievable" date for repository operations. That date, which many program observers called overly optimistic, could be met only if the program received adequate funding, wasn't delayed by lawsuits, and was licensed by NRC in three years. Meanwhile, there are quiet informal discussions under way at DOE, which Sproat described as hallway talk, about what kind of changes should be made to the program to help ensure its success. Options aren't limited to shifting the program to a government corporation, he said.

Nuclear Power won’t receive necessary government support – it needs a lot more incentives to truly revive the industry. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) "That's just the economic side of it," Moore says. "It's for these kinds of reasons, plus questions of safety, that Wall Street really doesn't support this industry. The only way they can go is if they get continued government subsidies. I don't think the subsidies are going to come in at the levels I've just referred to." Last year, Congress funneled $18.5 billion into the nuclear-power industry in the form of government subsidies, including research subsidies, loan guarantees, tax credits and construction subsidies. More subsidies are expected to make it out of Congress this year as part of the congressional effort to address global warming. "That's a lot of money, but it's a drop in the bucket to what it would take to have a 'nuclear renaissance' in the United States," Moore says.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

41 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

In the status quo U.S. nuclear industry will be completely dead by 2056. Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis The long lead time for, and large uncertainties in, nuclear reactor construction and licensing have stymied growth in the industry in the United States. American utilities have not ordered a nuclear reactor since 1978, and that order was subsequently canceled. The last completed reactor in the United States was the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar 1, which was ordered in 1970 and began operation in 1996. Despite the lack of reactor orders, the contribution of nuclear-generated electricity has increased in recent years in the United States. During the past decade, average operating costs have decreased, and time needed for refueling outages has shortened, allowing nuclear power plants to operate longer at full capacity or, in industry terms, “increasing the load factor.” (The load factor in the United States increased from 65 3 Energy Information Agency, “Country Analysis Brief: United States, Electricity,” November 2005. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Electricity.html. 7 percent in the 1980s to 90 percent by 2002.) Moreover, several nuclear plants have received licenses to increase their power ratings, again permitting production of more electricity. While the industry has yet to order any new domestic reactors, changes in U.S. law have helped renew interest among several companies in applying for reactor licenses. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 began a reform of the licensing process to allow combining construction and operating licenses in one application. In principle, a combined license should help streamline the application process. Yet, large uncertainties in construction costs continue to impede investors. To try to jump-start the nuclear industry, which was already receiving more subsidies than any other no- and low-carbon energy sources, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided billions of additional dollars’ worth of incentives to nuclear and smaller amounts of incentives to other no- and lowcarbon energy sources. (See the Appendix for an analysis of this act.) Nonetheless, the process of new nuclear reactor licensing and construction is estimated to take ten to fifteen years. Even if their license applications are approved, the utilities have still not committed to building the reactors. In the coming decades, the U.S. nuclear industry will have to run faster on the treadmill of impending nuclear power plant retirements to replace the aging fleet of reactors. Initially, commercial reactors received forty-year licenses. While a number of reactors never reached their forty-year nominal life spans before being decommissioned, much of the current fleet of reactors has, in recent years, received twenty-year license renewals. As of the end of 2006, more than forty reactors have obtained twenty-year license extensions and about a dozen more have applied for renewal. Figure 1 shows that even assuming all 103 currently operating reactors receive twenty-year license renewals and no new reactors are constructed, the U.S. fleet will cease operations by 2056.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

42 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

U.S. nuclear industry is stalled. World Nuclear News, June 08, US nuclear to grow, but not fast enough, http://www.worldnuclear-news.org/EE_US_policies_see_nuclear_grow_but_not_fast_enough_2706082.html, ASH Current US policies are not enough to give nuclear power a leading role in climate protection. Although policies would promote a 15% increase in nuclear power capacity by 2030, American energy use overall would grow by 19%, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 16%. The data comes from the US Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) Annual Energy Outlook 2008, which projects the effects of current energy policies to 2030 using the National Energy Modeling System. The report makes it clear that future US administrations must affect fairly radical changes in energy policy if they truly wish to control CO2 emissions. Past editions of the report have been noted as sceptical about the possibilities for nuclear power in coming years, but this edition's reference scenario puts nuclear at a total capacity of 114.9 GWe in 2030 up from 100.2 GWe now. The increase includes 2.7 GWe of power uprates at existing reactor units, plus 17 GWe of new nuclear build, and 4.5 GWe of retirements. The projection of 15% growth in nuclear by 2030 is 33% higher than that in last year's report, but still compares less favourably to an overall growth in energy use of 19% as other energy sources grow faster. Under current policies, some 40% of new power plants are expected to be coal-fired; non-hydro renewables more than double. Compared with these sources, nuclear power's growth rate looks essentially flat, apart from a small step change around 2018 which the EIA links to the helpful

financial measures of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which also help renewables. The USA's second major source of low carbon electricity after nuclear, hydro, is not expected to grow. South Carolina closed the nation’s only waste storage facility to 47 states Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB Tribunes Business News, 8 Jul 2008, Tribune Business News, “Waste shipments limited”, Proquest, AB Jul. 8--July 1 was a red-letter day for South Carolina. On that day, the nuclear waste disposal facility in Barnwell County quit accepting waste from across the country. The Barnwell waste site was the only one of its kind in the nation. It has been accepting low-level radioactive waste from across the nation for nearly four decades, and the battle to end South Carolina's status as the national nuclear waste dump has been long and hard fought. As of July 1, the first day of the state's fiscal year, use of the facility was restricted to South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. Under a deal struck in 2000, these states comprise the Atlantic Compact that excludes waste shipments from any other state.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

43 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

CA Dry Cask storage is safe Dry cask storage is safe. Inside Energy With Federal Lands, 3-3-08, NRC still sure of waste rule: Klein, lexis, bc Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein on Monday said his agency remains confident that at-reactor storage of spent nuclear fuel will pose no safety risk, despite new delays in the schedule for opening a geological repository. In remarks to a nuclear waste conference in Phoenix, Arizona, Klein said spent fuel stored in dry casks at many nuclear power plant sites is safe for at least 100 years and deepgeological disposal of that fuel is technically feasible. Under its so-called "waste confidence" rule, NRC has stated it believes spent fuel can be safely stored until permanent storage is available. In the rule, the agency said it is confident a repository will be available to begin accepting shipments by 2025.Klein said later that a "significant or unusual change" in the Energy Department's repository program would need to occur to trigger a new rulemaking. "Clearly, just a minor delay isn't significant," he said.

Dry casks are a safe storage option. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP In the meantime, spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor sites in dry casks. And even after it is placed in a geologic repository, it would remain retrievable for at least a century. So in the unlikely event that technology or economic circumstances change drastically enough that the benefits of reprocessing exceed the costs and risks, that option would still be available. But it makes no sense now to rush into an expensive and potentially catastrophic undertaking on the basis of uncertain hopes that it might reduce the long-term environmental burden from the nuclear power industry.

Casks are safe. Samantha Williams, UNLV January 29, 2008, “Debate over Yucca continues” (DS) Lexis University Wire Instead of pushing this risky project, Hassenzahl suggests an on-site dry cask storage system. While it would be costly up front, he said, it would be much safer in the long run.

Dry storage is safe. Nucleonics Week Magazine ‘8, 5/22, Nucleonics Week Magazine, “Jaczko suggests rule change to encourage dry cask storage” Lexis. tk The use of dry storage systems, which frees up pool storage space for hotter and newer spent fuel, has grown, Jaczko said. It has proven to be "a very successful and effective way" to manage spent fuel, and NRC has developed a "very established" licensing methodology, he said. Those factors present the agency with "a real policy issue" ?- that is, whether to move more spent fuel now stored in pools to storage casks, Jaczko said. A probabilistic risk assessment of dry storage that NRC staff published last year shows the risk is so low ? about a 10-12 probability of latent cancer fatalities ? that "from a safety perspective, this is really the optimal way to store fuel," he added.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

44 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Using the dry-cask storage would allow time to inform the public about waste disposal. PAUL SLOVIC, JAMES H. FLYNN, and MARK LAYMAN, Decision Research professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 December 1991, Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste, nna The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has been impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk. Analysis of these perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present since the discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these images to reality and the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation's military weapons facilities has contributed toward creating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or easily. Postponing the permanent repository and employing dry-cask storage of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for difficult social and political issues to be resolved.

Dry-casks are the optimal way to store spent fuel. Nuclear Fuel Magazine ‘8, 6/2, Nuclear Fuel Magazine, “Jaczko expands dry storage idea” Lexis. tk NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko's recent suggestion that NRC consider a rule change to encourage utilities to move spent fuel into dry storage faster was intended to "begin discussion on that issue," but a number of things would need to be worked out before a rulemaking would go forward, Jaczko said in a May 22 interview. Jaczko made the proposal May 13 at the Nuclear Energy Institute's annual Dry Storage Information Forum in Bonita Springs, Florida (Nucleonics Week, 22 May, 11). Noting the recent expansion and success of dry storage, Jaczko suggested in his speech that NRC's well-established licensing methodology presents the agency with "a real policy issue" on whether to encourage utilities to move more fuel currently stored in pools into dry casks. Speaking with Platts on a variety of subjects, Jaczko said the Florida speech was just the beginning of a dialogue he hoped to initiate with his fellow commissioners, the public, and other stakeholders about the merits of encouraging utilities to move fuel into storage casks after an initial cooling period in the pool. Jaczko pointed to the very low risk, about 10 -12 chance of latent cancer fatalities, in arguing that dry casks are, from a safety standpoint, "really the optimal way to store spent fuel." He acknowledged that many licensees have already turned to dry storage and said it would take some time to work through and "really understand what the ramifications would be and how we would go about doing" a rulemaking. The timeframe and conditions for transitioning from pool to dry storage would need to be addressed as part of the rule development process, he said. "For me, right now the most important thing is just having the discussion about whether we should move to some kind of rulemaking in this area to make this a uniform practice throughout the industry."

Dry cask systems will minimize the damage caused by any successful terrorist attack on a storage facility Lyman and Von Hippel ‘8, staff writers, Arms Control Today, April 2008 edition, Lexis, tk In comparison, dry-cask storage of spent fuel, which is being used at U.S. nuclear power plants to handle the overflow from spent fuel storage pools that have reached capacity, is benign. Ninety-five percent of all U.S. spent fuel is at nuclear power plants that will operate for decades longer. At such sites, the added risk from the spent fuel is small in comparison to that from the fuel in the reactor cores and the spent fuel pools. If cooling water is lost to a reactor core, it will begin releasing vaporized fission products within minutes. If cooling water is lost from a spent fuel pond, recently discharged fuel would heat up to ignition temperature with hours. In contrast, the heat from several-year-old spent fuel in dry casks is carried away passively by the convection of the surrounding air. Also, because each dry cask contains only a small fraction of the radioactive material contained in a reactor core or spent fuel pool, even a successful terrorist attack on a dry cask would have a relatively limited impact.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

45 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Dry cask storage will buy time for new disposal measures Bunn et al. ‘1, researchers from the Harvard University Project on Managing the Atom and the Tokyo University Project of Sociotechnics on Nuclear Energy, “Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel”, http://lyman.q.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~todoriki/BCSIA.pdf tk The diverse technologies now available for storing spent nuclear fuel—from wet pools to dry casks—offer safe, secure, and cost-effective options for storing the spent fuel generated by the world’s power reactors for decades, or for much shorter periods of time, as circumstances warrant. These interim storage possibilities will allow time for permanent options for management and disposal of spent fuel and nuclear wastes to be prepared and implemented with the care they require. Interim storage of spent fuel can also allow time for spent fuel management technology to improve, and for the economic, environmental, and security advantages of different approaches to permanent management of spent fuel and nuclear wastes to become clearer.

Dry casks are a good short term option. Koerner ’08, 4/15, staff writer, Slate Magazine, Lexis. tk It seems like the good citizens of Nevada would sooner elect an orangutan as governor than let the federal government fill Yucca Mountain with radioactive waste. Can't blame them, I guess, but that spent nuclear fuel has to go somewhere. What, then, are the alternatives to stashing it beneath Yucca Mountain? For the moment, the only real option is to leave the waste where it was created, encased in metal cylinders and stowed in concrete bunkers. Barring the machinations of some truly ingenious evildoers, that approach should get us safely through the next century or so. Unfortunately, we'll still have another 9,900 years to go until the waste becomes no more radioactive than unmined uranium. So, we better hope that over the next 100 years, our nation's best and brightest figure out a feasible workaround-one that may involve proton beams or (the Lantern kids you not) extremely hardy microbes. Before we get to the gee-whiz proposals, though, a little Yucca Mountain background is in order. Though the facility has been in the works since the Reagan administration and has already cost upward of $8 billion, there's a good chance it will never store a spoonful of waste. The state of Nevada has vowed to litigate the project to death, citing concerns over the potential for groundwater contamination and the prevalence of earthquakes in the area. (Nevada's point-bypoint anti-Yucca dossier can be found here [PDF].) Strict rationalists pooh-pooh the Silver State's concerns, pointing out that the odds of a catastrophe are vanishingly small. But when it comes to the specter of radiation, people are rarely comforted by actuarial arguments. Unless the government can prove that Yucca Mountain's storage casks won't leak a speck of waste over the next 10 millenniums-a scientific impossibilityNevadans generally want nothing to do with the project. (The Lantern sees both sides of the argument-he likes to think of himself as a proud man of reason, but he also remembers being seriously freaked out by Chernobyl as a child.) As a result of Nevada's litigiousness-as well as Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's political maneuvering-the opening of Yucca Mountain has already been delayed for a decade. The best-case scenario now has the facility opening sometime around 2020; the Lantern guesses, however, that the project is kaput, especially if there's a Democrat in the White House come January. (Both Clinton and Obama are opposed to Yucca Mountain; McCain is not.) But Yucca Mountain's woes may not be a great tragedy, seeing as how the project would solve little over the long term: According to a high-ranking official at Argonne National Laboratory, the nation will need nine Yucca-sized waste repositories by 2100, assuming that nuclear-power generation increases by 1.8 percent annually. The good news is that we've got a viable stopgap solution: drycask storage. After nuclear fuel rods have been used up, they're cooled in pools of water. After five years of such cooling, they can be placed in sealed casks made of heat-resistant metal alloys and concrete. This technique is currently used at 31 locations nationwide, all of which must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC asserts that there has never been a single incident at any of these sites.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

46 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

CA Companies want to build nuclear power plants There are companies interested in building nuclear power plants. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “Domenici Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f6294ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM “It is clear that momentum for nuclear energy in America is continuing to grow. After 30 years with no action, we have now seen three applications to build new plants in the last three months, with even more possible in the near future. This is an exciting time for nuclear, and for those that want cleaner energy in our nation,” Domenici said. “It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as other nations have done,” he continued.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

47 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CA Public opposes nuclear power Public perception against nuclear power has changed. Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc When "The Simpsons" first aired in 1989, Matt Groening created the perfect hometown for his satirical family - Springfield. It was Anywhere, America, with a convenience store, a pub, a prison, and a nuclear plant that would become a setting for regular and profound social commentary on American industrialism. Nuclear energy production is depicted by the infamous, gushing green ooze. Some speculate that the show's writers often hint that this uncontained, carelessly handled by-product of the nuclear facility is to blame for Springfield's idiosyncrasies, including Marge's blue hair and the fact that Springfield's inhabitants never age. However, the evolution of the nuclear industry in the public eye is a marked departure from the Simpsons' debut. Just as it had its place in the premise of "The Simpson's" television show, nuclear must have its place in the national dialogue about the animated family's movie premiere. Thankfully, the nuclear industry isn't frozen in time like it is in Springfield and the show provides a great benchmark to measure how much improvement in plant performance and in public perception of nuclear has occurred over nearly two decades. There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Finally, nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe, economical source of energy. And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change, environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. Unlike the '90s when energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life, energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States. A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington, coming in behind only Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy. As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more and more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again. A survey conducted by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition last year found that the more people learn about nuclear, the more supportive they are of it. After a quick lesson about energy issues and nuclear's capabilities, 73 percent of respondents said that they felt favorably or somewhat favorably about the use of nuclear. Similarly, Bisconti Research found that 86 percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important part of meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent agree that utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the next decade. Even some policy makers who have been lukewarm to nuclear seem to be coming around to its merits. People like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barack Obama are beginning to understand that nuclear energy needs to be part of the energy mix if we are going to meet our future energy demands safely and cleanly. "The Simpsons" is almost 20 years old. Although time may stand still in Springfield, it certainly hasn't for the nuclear industry which is experiencing a reported "renaissance" in this country. Nuclear perceptions are finally catching up with nuclear reality as Americans accept nuclear power as a reliable, efficient, and safe source of energy that is also kind to the environment. It's clear that nuclear does, in fact, belong in Anywhere, America.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

48 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CA Nuclear power is too expensive Nuclear energy is economically sound – costs will go down if nuclear energy is revived. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB First, economics. Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a new plant makes nuclear power uneconomical when compared with other sources of power. But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new plant would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are unusually high. As we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down as lenders become more comfortable.

Nuclear power costs going down. Kemeny, Leslie, 2008. Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy, Canberra Times, July 4, 2008, p.15/A. Lexis V.F As well it cites the remarkable performance of nuclear power in the United States in 2007. In that year, America's 104 nuclear power stations established a high average capacity factor of 91.8 per cent and produced a massive 807 billion kilowatt hours of energy at a record low cost of 1.68c per kilowatt hour. Some 10 years after Kyoto, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has published its Cool Earth 50 program. It is a detailed road map of energy related technologies that will halve the level of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has prioritised advanced nuclear power for this project.

New plants solve cost and worker problems Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB It's also true that a shortage of parts and skills is raising the cost of new plants. But if we start building more plants, the number of companies supplying parts will increase to meet the demand, lowering the price.

High costs of nuclear power are less than the costs of carbon emissions Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of "cheaper" fossil fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Add those costs, and suddenly, nuclear power will look like a bargain.

The imminent imposed cost of carbon emissions will make nuclear look viable Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB That's likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to greenhouse gases, through either a direct tax (based on the carbon content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which would set a limit on emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower than the cap to sell or trade credits to companies whose pollution exceeds the cap. Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coalproduced electricity are going to look a lot more expensive compared with low-carbon sources -- in particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower. It's estimated that a carbon "price" of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal. That should be enough to ease investor concerns about utilities that build new nuclear plants.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

49 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

A carbon tax makes nuclear cost effective Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB In all the hysteria about global warming, environmentalists have, for the most part, agreed on one thing above all -- that the use of fossil fuels must be made more expensive. Every proposal currently under consideration for the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions seeks to raise prices as a brake on emissions, through either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. Once this expense is included in the calculations, nuclear power becomes extremely competitive, and remains considerably cheaper than wind power. The Congressional Budget Office found that nuclear power is the most attractive source of electricity once the price of carbon emissions reaches $45 a ton. If natural-gas prices increase as rapidly as they have done recently, then that figure will come down even further. The Britishgovernment review found that nuclear provides "economic benefit regardless of the carbon price." Moreover, it provides carbon reductions much more cheaply than wind power does. Using nuclear power, it costs 60 cents to eliminate a ton of CO2 emissions, as opposed to a staggering $100 per ton for onshore wind power. It is true that a carbon tax amounts to a subsidy for nuclear power. But if carbon emissions are to be taxed, then that is the only subsidy that nuclear power will ever need.

We can use already existing coal mines to get uranium. Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB For the rest of us, what we might do with it is the whole point -- we might increase human prosperity and welfare. If we're determined to price coal out of the energy market, then nuclear is it. If we're determined to cure our "addiction to oil," then we will need nuclear facilities to power our plug-in hybrid electric cars or to make the hydrogen for our fuel cells. This is not a green pipe dream. In fact, given the way automotive technology is developing, it is plausible that a majority of vehicles sold in the U.S. by 2020 will use electric power trains, increasing our need for electricity. We might not even need to close our coal mines, since we can get more energy from the uranium found in coal than from burning the coal itself.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

50 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CA they say “No uranium will stop a resurgence of nuclear energy” Increased prices are already increasing the uranium supply. NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, March 2008 KP http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/policybriefs/uraniumfuelsupplyadequatepage4 However, the utility industry is confident that the fuel supply industry will respond to the increasing demands of the market. In addition to the ongoing exploration for new uranium deposits, some existing deposits now are economic to produce, given the much higher price that the metal can command in the market. “Resource totals, on balance, increased between 2003 and 2005, indicating that increased uranium prices have already begun to impact resource totals, principally through re-evaluation of existing resources,” according to the OECD/IAEA report. “However, the recent dramatic increase in exploration expenditures can be expected to lead to further additions to the uranium resource base, just as periods of heightened exploration efforts in the past have done.” There are about 4.7 million tons of identified resources of uranium that companies can mine for less than $130 per kilogram ($50 per pound U3O8), according to the OECD/IAEA report. At 2004 nuclear generation rates, that would be enough to supply the world’s reactors for 85 years. More efficient fast reactors could extend that period to more than 2,500 years. However, total world resources of uranium are much higher—some 35 million tons, according to the OECD/IAEA report.

Exploration is increasing now. NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, March 2008 KP http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/policybriefs/uraniumfuelsupplyadequatepage4 Uranium is one of the world’s most abundant metals and can provide fuel for the world’s commercial reactors for generations to come. Higher uranium prices are encouraging a re-examination of existing deposits and the exploration for new ones, as well as efforts to expand the infrastructure involved in converting uranium into nuclear fuel for reactors. Bolstering confidence in future supply is the fact that some of the world’s richest deposits of uranium are in politically stable countries, such as Canada and Australia.

High uranium prices are creating a boom in uranium mining. CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP Because of recent high uranium prices, some places are seeing a mining boom despite these obstacles. The United States, for example, has experienced steep rises in mining claims even though almost all of the nation’s identified reserves is of a quality that puts it on the more expensive end of process costs. Going forward, more global exploration to locate uranium—especially ore lower in cost to recover—is expected as long as market prices remain high. Some U.S. miners have expressed concern about how the market might be affected by uranium released from stockpiles held in various forms by the U.S. Energy Department. But Energy department officials assure that the agency would not be a source of market instability.

There is more uranium than any other resource – if we don’t switch now our economy will inevitably collapse. Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP After coal, the other natural resource we still have a lot of is uranium. Yet we get only 19% of our power from nukes. The French are way ahead of us at 78.1%. Even the Bulgarians, at 43.6%, are smirking at us. If oil suddenly gets more expensive, they'll make some sacrifices and squeeze by, while our cheap-oil-driven economy collapses like a house of cards.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

51 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DOE Solves your impact, if prices become too high, they will open their stockpile. NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, March 2008 http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/policybriefs/uraniumfuelsupplyadequatepage4 In addition to traditional uranium deposits, the U.S. Department of Energy has a stockpile of uranium that it could release to the market if needed. This is one of the “secondary sources” of uranium, which also include excess commercial inventories, the expected delivery of low-enriched uranium from U.S. and Russian warheads, re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails (byproducts from enrichment operations), and possible reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. Uranium also is available from non-conventional sources, such as the recovery of uranium byproduct from other metal mining (e.g., from copper mining in Utah), phosphate fertilizer mining (e.g., Florida, Morocco and Brazil) or gold mining (e.g., South Africa, where millions of tons of gold mining tailings are being processed for their uranium contents). As an example of the potential value of these sources, worldwide phosphate deposits contain about 22 million tons of uranium.

Reprocessing substantially reduces the need for Uranium mining. University of Wisconsin ‘8, 2/28, “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: A cure that’s worse than the disease?” http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=2.txt, tk Thirty years after the United States rejected reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste, the DOE is reinvestigating reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, initiated in 2006. GNEP offered this deal to other nations: If you want to use nuclear electricity, the United States will supply the fuel -- if you promise to send your waste back to trusty Uncle Sam for reprocessing. Gregory Choppin, a professor of chemistry at Florida State University who has a long acquaintance with radiation chemistry says efficiency is a key argument for reprocessing, which extracts more energy from the uranium fuel, and therefore reduces the need to mine uranium. "If we go into reprocessing to recover the 99.5 percent of unburned uranium, and recycle it, we would not have to do any more uranium mining for 400 years," says Choppin. "That would be a tremendous advantage because uranium mining is very dangerous," especially in terms of lung disease, including cancer.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

52 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CA they say “Yucca will run out of room” 1. Our plan creates a permanent repository for nuclear waste disposal, not just Yucca, which means we solve this problem. 2. Yucca could be expanded to take more waste. Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis Assuming that Yucca Mountain is eventually approved for waste storage, continued spent fuel production in the next few years will exceed the current storage limits based on current legal restrictions. According to some technical analyses, the current legislative limit of 77,000 metric tons appears arbitrary. For example, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman has requested that the allowed storage capacity be determined by the physical capacity of the mountain, estimated to exceed 120,000 metric tons of waste. In addition, according to an Electric Power Research Institute study, Yucca Mountain could hold at least four times the legislative limit and possibly nine times that limit, allowing that site to store “all the waste from the existing U.S. nuclear power plants, but also waste produced from a significantly expanded U.S. nuclear power plant fleet for at least several decades.”25 But opposition to using or expanding use of the proposed repository in Nevada, a state that has never had a commercial nuclear power plant, could well demand that the United States establish more than one repository. The waste storage problem in the United States is manageable. The United States should pursue a dual-track approach: commit to developing a consensus and then opening up a permanent repository and in parallel store as much spent fuel as possible in dry casks that are hardened against attack at existing reactor sites. The combination of interim storage and commitment to a permanent repository would provide the assurances needed by the public and the investment community for continued use of nuclear power.

3. Reprocessing would reduce the amount of waste so Yucca would have plenty of room. University of Wisconsin ‘8, 2/28, “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: A cure that’s worse than the disease?” http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=2.txt, tk Thirty years after the United States rejected reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste, the DOE is reinvestigating reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, initiated in 2006. Ahearn says reprocessing could reduce the needed volume of the repository by 30 percent, which "would go a long way toward resolving the issue of whether there is enough space in Yucca Mountain."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

53 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT T Generic It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing nuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to debate it. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “Domenici Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f6294ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM “It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as other nations have done,” he continued.

Nuclear power is the only way for the U.S. to reduce CO2 emissions. AEI (American Enterprise Institute) October 6, 2006 http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1394,filter.economic/transcript.asp KP What are some of the pieces that she would need to help you solve this problem? If you try to think about it, all at once you probably cannot think of anything that is going to get you the whole way there, and even as you will see, when you divide it into seven pieces it is pretty daunting. One example of a wedge - this is just 1/7 of what we have to do - would be two billion cars going at 60 miles per gallon instead of 30 miles per gallon. So you can imagine it, but it is not easy. And another wedge that is commonly mentioned that he has talked about, but, of course, Vice-President Gore apparently does not talk about is you need about 700 gigawatts a nuclear power; that would be about a wedge which is about twice current global capacity. So our view is that we do look at nuclear power as one of the potential wedges, particularly for a couple of reasons. One is it is one of those things we have already done. We have nuclear power. We know that we can do it. And also it is a really important potentially GHT-free source of base load power, so that is something that we think is important. We did a report about a year-and-a-half ago by Granger Morgan and some of his colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, and they looked at what would it take over the next 50 years to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from United States electricity sector. They found a very important role for energy efficiency and renewables. Our organization is very supportive of moving ahead on that front. But they found they could not figure out, when they did the modeling and tried to play around with different costs and different rates of technology penetration, they really could not see how we could get big reductions at least over the next 50 years. If you go out a hundred years sometimes people think it looks a little easy. You can see energy efficiency and renewables ramping up fast enough to get you deeper reductions over a very long term, even beyond 50 years, but over the next 50 years it really looked like you needed either nuclear power or coal burning, but with carbon-captured storage or coal use because it might be coal gasification with carbon capture and storage as one of those needed to work to meet the base-load needs [indiscernible] in a low-carbon way in order to really get the deep reductions over 50 years.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

54 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear Power Is the Only Viable Alternative Energy Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change, lexis, bc As a cofounder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore used to call nuclear energy "synonymous with nuclear holocaust." But he now believes "nuclear is the cleanest, safest and has the smallest footprint" of any major energy-alternative source. He says that nukes are cheap and reliable, unlike alternative-energy sources like wind and solar. Neither do nuclear plants spew sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, like coal-powered plants do, or create massive volumes of CO2 emissions, like gas-fired plants do. The attitude of Moore, who co-chairs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, an industry-backed supporter of nuclear energy, is virtually indistinguishable from that of David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG: "Advanced nuclear technology is the only currently viable large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation to produce none of the traditional air emissions--and most importantly in this age of climate change--no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases." Another megatrend is working in nuclear's favor: demographics. In 2006, an estimated 41.3 percent of the population was below 30. Which is to say that the percentage and number of Americans who remember the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl decline with every passing year.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

55 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive 1. counter definition – incentives must be positive. Knowler, 99 - UN Food and Agricultural Organization (D., “Incentive Systems for Natural Resource Management: The Role of Indirect Incentives”, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x2247e/x2247e00.pdf) 1.8 Incentives may be broadly defined, as in “everything that motivates or stimulates people to act” (Giger 1996). What is important about such a broad definition is that it allows for incentives to be of either a passive or an active nature. In the former case, we can think of incentives as signals in the producer’s environment which influence decision-making about farming practices, whether intended or otherwise. Many macroeconomic policies, being remote from the producer and targeted at objectives other than promoting sustainable farming practices, would fit into this category. In contrast, the notion of ‘active’ refers to a government’s ability to actually design or modify policies with a desire to bring about certain conservation outcomes. McNeely (1988), for example, refers to this concept of incentive when he defines incentives as “any inducement which is specifically intended to incite or motivate governments, local people, and international organizations” (p.38-39). We draw this distinction because of the need to consider both active and passive aspects when assessing the importance of incentives for NRM. While governments may be most concerned with the design of good policies aimed at improving NRM, they need to be cognizant of the sometimes counterproductive influence exerted by a poor incentive structure, in the passive sense. 1.9 McNeely (1988) also makes the useful distinction between incentives, disincentives and perverse incentives. In contrast to incentives, which we have described above, disincentives are purposely designed to discourage particular behaviours and can include taxes, fines and various other penalties or moral suasion. For purposes of this study, we will not consider disincentives as distinct from incentives per se, but it is useful to be aware of the distinction. In contrast, perverse incentives incite resource users to damage or deplete the resources in question in a socially inefficient manner and are closely related to the concept of policy failure, which is discussed in Chapter 2.

2. superior interpretation – our interpretation substantially narrows the topic since it excludes regulation affs and prevents a bidirectional topic. 3. we meet the counter interpretation – industry wants waste storage before doing nuclear power. 4. we meet both their interpretation and ours – that’s the 1AC evidence from Hipple ’08. It says that the government has already given the industry a variety of incentives but the one they have to have is a way to dispose of waste.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

56 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive ext. Waste storage key to NP Opening Yucca is an incentive to increasing nuclear power. Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma last week introduced nuclear waste legislation aimed at fasttracking DOE's beleaguered repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and at making DOE's obligation to dispose of utility spent fuel the basis for an NRC declaration of waste confidence. Five other Republican senators co-sponsored the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2008 that Inhofe introduced January 24. Inhofe, who has supported nuclear power as a vital component of the country's energy mix, last week expressed concern that continuing delays in opening a repository at Yucca Mountain would "hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the US." Speaking on the Senate floor, Inhofe noted that the location of the country's sole repository site was decided in 2002 when President George W. Bush recommended that Yucca Mountain be developed as a high-level waste repository and Congress adopted that recommendation.

The nuclear industry can not expand without waste storage, hence the provision of new storage is a direct incentive for growth William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis More than fifty years of commercial nuclear energy use has left the world with a legacy of tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. If nuclear power production expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal will also significantly increase. Although several countries are exploring various long-term disposal options, no country has begun to store waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories. Industry officials generally believe that further growth of nuclear energy depends on establishing these repositories.

Current Storage legislation, represses the still safe potential of current long term storage facilities and in turn the Growth of the nuclear industry Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis More than fifty years of commercial nuclear energy use has left the world with a legacy of tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. If nuclear power production expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal will also significantly increase. Although several countries are exploring various long-term disposal options, no country has begun to store waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories. Industry officials generally believe that further growth of nuclear energy depends on establishing these repositories.

Yucca Mountain Key To Nuclear Power Expansion And National And Environmental Security Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc The Yucca Mountain repository, located 16 miles from the California border, would eventually store 70,000 metric tons of waste that has been accumulating since the first reactors went online. And the amount of waste will grow at an increasing rate in future decades: In the last year, utilities have launched a nuclear power renaissance, announcing plans for 15 new commercial reactors. The application "will further encourage the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, which is absolutely critical to our energy security, to our environment and to our national security," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

57 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

A waste disposal site is the sole hindrance to the nuclear industry Bonyun ’08 (30 Jun, Sean C. Bonyun, HT Media Inc., “Rep. Upton – A Greater Commitment to Nuclear Will Power Millions of Homes, US Economy”, AB, Proquest) Upton also believes that it is imperative that we fulfill our nation's obligation to permanently and safely store nuclear waste deep inside Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Upton has introduced bipartisan legislation (H.R. 3358) to expedite the construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site and remove a barrier in the licensing process. The measure will facilitate funding for the licensing and construction phase of Yucca Mountain and grant the NRC a sufficient level of confidence to approve new reactor licenses, knowing the spent fuel will have a permanent repository. Removing this burden from the licensing process will help expedite the construction of new nuclear plants as well as the expansion of existing sites. Earlier this month, the Department of Energy formally submitted the license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct the nuclear repository, marking the culmination of more than two decades of scientific investigations and engineering at Yucca Mountain

SDI 2008 WHAM!

58 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT T they say “Nuclear isn’t an alternative energy” Only true alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. Waste News, 10-1-07, Revisiting the nuke debate, lexis, bc It's back! After some 30 years, applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the United States. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. NRG Energy is seeking to build two new facilities in Texas, the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since then. What may be different now is that the nation is willing to take a more serious look at alternative forms of energy, as imperfect as they all are. Probably the biggest thing nuclear power has going for it right now is that, at this point in time, it is the only real large-scale alternative to fossil-fuel generated energy. But to what extent its pros outweigh its cons, if at all, continues to be heatedly debated. But the current energy portfolio needs to change, and quickly. Part of that means throwing away some of our preconceptions of the past. This is a crucial crossroad for the nuclear power industry, and we hope they are up to the challenge. A solid, viable alternative energy source such as nuclear would be a badly needed shot in the arm for America's energy game plan.

Nuclear Energy is an emerging technology. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanent subsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to remember that although nuclear energy has been around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is more like an emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

59 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT T Only renewables are topical we meet – nuclear power is a renewable resource. Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy The case for nuclear power is even stronger when considering the weakness of the case against it, which rests largely on a series of panics 20 to 30 years old. For example, the Chernobyl disaster was the product of horrific Soviet mismanagement over the many years prior to the meltdown, followed by equally abysmal crisis management. It simply had nothing to do with the upkeep challenges of a modern nuclear plant. Worries about the impact of radioactive waste, by contrast, are at least marginally connected to real features of current nuclear plants, but they are wildly overblown. For one thing, the vast majority of nuclear waste as much as 95% or more - can be reprocessed and reused, making it a truly renewable resource.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

60 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT T substantially we meet – contextual evidence that our incentive is substantial William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis More than fifty years of commercial nuclear energy use has left the world with a legacy of tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. If nuclear power production expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal will also significantly increase. Although several countries are exploring various long-term disposal options, no country has begun to store waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories. Industry officials generally believe that further growth of nuclear energy depends on establishing these repositories.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

61 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Generic – nuclear power expanding now Nuclear power is increasing worldwide – that’s the first card in our 1AC that says nuclear power is flourishing in Europe and Asia. U.S. using Nuclear Energy Now Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Finally, nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe, economical source of energy. And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change, environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. Unlike the '90s when energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life, energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States. A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington, coming in behind only Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy. As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030.

Nuclear Impacts Inevitable—UK, Germany, and France Using Nuclear in Squo Macer Hall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bc MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers - but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources, including wind turbines and solar panels, cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe, secure energy. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a low-carbon form of energy, " Mr Brown said. Foreign energy firms including the French-owned EDF, German power company E.On and British Gas parent Centrica have all showed their eagerness to take part. EDF is hoping to build four nuclear power stations in the UK. Industry insiders predict new atomic power stations could be under construction over the next decade, with EDF ready to open a new generator by 2017. Tory frontbencher Alan Duncan welcomed the commitment to nuclear power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

62 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear Energy is inevitable worldwide. Dipka Bhambhani, 2-11-08, Inside energy with federal lands, Spending for DOE nuclear programs up 40% in fiscal 2009 budget request, lexis, bc Vienna, 18 September: Making a strong pitch for international nuclear energy cooperation with India, Atomic Energy Commission [AEC] chairman Anil Kakodkar made it clear on Tuesday [18 September] that nuclear power was an "inevitable option" and pressed for "reformation" of global thinking on it. "There is a need for reformation of global thinking that is necessary and consensus on closed fuel cycle has to be reached by those going to participate in the future nuclear renaissance," Kakodkar said. He was speaking at the scientific forum, an integral part of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) being attended by more than 500 participants. "The world has to move forward with nuclear power as an inevitable option based purely on partnership on objective, reliable and predictable basis with holistic mutual understanding and trust as a pre-requisite," he said. Kakodkar's carefully-worded comments come amidst a raging political debate on the India-US nuclear deal in India with Left parties and the opposition closely watching his approach at the IAEA. The Left parties have warned the UPA government of a "political crisis" if it went ahead with operationalising the deal. An India-specific safeguards agreement and changes in guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group are required to put the deal into force.

Nuclear power increasing worldwide. Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Staff Writers, The Heritage Foundation, July 8, 2008, FrontPage Magazine, Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other Nations, nna http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7048A616-ECFB-49E9-86FC-D2EF8F0226D2 Nuclear power is gaining momentum in the United States as the nation seeks environmentally friendly and affordable sources of energy that can meet growing demand. As the U.S. deliberates the possibility of building new nuclear power plants, other nations have already begun the process. France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is a net exporter of electricity.[1] Germany, alternatively, decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this energy.[2] Japan is another country that has looked to nuclear power as a clean, safe and reliable form of energy. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity; however, Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017.[3] Finland, ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption, has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources, Finland has begun constructing a modern 1,600megawatt reactor, which will likely be a model used throughout the United States. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially. Presently, the U.K. has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. Because the U.K. is already a net importer of energy and all but one of its coal-fired and nuclear plants are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2023, building new reactors is a must for the U.K. if it is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies. The British government, while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power, has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry.

Nuclear energy inevitable, strong nations already pursuing it Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, “Nuclear energy now our only option”, p. 17/A. Lexis VF They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low. Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste, which takes 50 years to decay. Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. Australia would need to invest in research and development, and in education and training across a range of fields. Australia can only benefit from the great impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. Concerted effort around the world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during the past four years. We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly known

SDI 2008 WHAM!

63 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

elsewhere by green activism, by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political implications, rather than on their merits. It is time to put it behind us.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

64 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear power expanding now – Australia, Canada, China, France, Russia and the UK. James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 International Momentum Growing Nuclear power is favored by leaders of such otherwise disparate nations as Australia, Canada, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. "Economically, nuclear power has a lot going for it," explained a May 22 house editorial in the Australian. "Though reactors are pricey to build, once up and running, the fuel costs in OECD nuclear power plants run to about one-third of those in coal-fired plants and a quarter of those in natural gas plants. "Furthermore," the editorial continued, "taking the Chernobyl disaster--the result of Soviet-era construction and mismanagement--out of the equation, nuclear power is comparatively safe. France, which 30 years ago took 80 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels, now generates approximately that same percentage from uranium, and has not suffered a significant accident." "At the beginning of the century, China and India's economies began taking off, and you need energy to accomplish this," Heymer observed. "China has recently begun looking into nuclear power, for economic and environmental reasons. In China alone, they are going to build a substantial number--at least 40--nuclear power plants in the next 25 years. One million tons of CO2 emissions will be avoided if these are operating. That is a significant benefit to the environment." U.S. Outlook Bright The international popularity of nuclear power is not being lost on U.S. legislators. Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here," observed Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) at a May 22 meeting with citizens in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The reprocessing program under GNEP will help to avoid proliferation Green ’8, Michael, a physicist, 7/11, Charleston Gazette, “Nuclear power, recycling needed now” Lexis, tk The administration has asked Congress for funds needed to establish a nuclear recycling center, which would include the recycling plant, an advanced "fast reactor" capable of using the recycled fuel and a research facility to develop new technologies for recycling that would make it more difficult to convert plutonium into a bomb. But Congress has provided little money for GNEP. Some members of the House and Senate are reluctant to acknowledge that nuclear non-proliferation safeguards are more likely to be observed by countries if they're given an opportunity to obtain nuclear fuel for electricity production. Moreover, the failure to provide adequate funds for GNEP shows an ignorance of nuclear power's importance globally. The International Atomic Energy Agency forecasts as many as 1,000 nuclear plants operating by 2050, more than double the number today. Egypt, Vietnam, Malaysia and Argentina are among the countries planning to build nuclear plants.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

65 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear Energy popular now – Europe Proves Catherine Field, 5/30/08 “Nuclear power popular again as energy prices soar” New Zealand Herald o.z. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10513349&pnum=2 Slammed by the surging cost of energy imported from volatile regions and befuddled about how to meet their pledges for tackling global warming, European countries are reviving nuclear's role in their energy strategies. Pro-nuclear countries are pushing ahead with plans for next-generation reactors, encountering so far either minimal opposition or even acquiescence. In some anti-nuclear countries, decisions to phase out power are being reversed or are under threat. "We need nuclear energy as part of the energy mix," the President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Poettering, said this week before a ceremony to honour environmentally friendly projects. Such an endorsement would have been unthinkable two or three years ago. European memories were still seared by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, when a stricken Soviet nuclear plant spewed fallout over the continent. But in January this year, the British Government gave the go-ahead to replace 14 nuclear plants that date from the 1970s. France, which gets 78 per cent of its electricity needs from nuclear, has started work on a new-generation European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), a model that is also being built in Finland by the French firm Areva and Germany's Siemens. Recent weeks have also shown weakening or defections among the anti-nuclear camp - Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands - which either have no nuclear plants or are in the process of phasing them out. Last week, Italy's new centre-right Government said that by 2013 it would restart building nuclear reactors, reversing a 1987 referendum vote to abandon nuclear power and shut down Italy's four nuclear plants. In 1998, Germany vowed to phase out its nuclear plants by 2020. Its 17 remaining plants account for 28 per cent of its electricity needs. Chancellor Angela Merkel favours extending their lifespan - a view shared by 49 per cent of Germans, according to opinion polls - but has her hands tied by a coalition agreement with the Social Democrats to keep the phaseout in place. A similar dilemma prevails in Sweden, which depends on atomic power for nearly half of its electricity needs. In 1999, the country decided to phase out all 12 nuclear power stations within the next 30 years. But new polls say that 48 per cent of the public want replacements to be built. In eastern Europe, Lithuania is teaming up with Poland, Latvia and Estonia to build a new reactor, estimated to cost between ¬2.4 billion ($4.8 billion) and ¬4 billion, by 2015. Slovakia and Bulgaria are to build new reactors to replace Soviet-era models. Nuclear owes its European resurgence to a double whammy. First is the soaring price of imported oil and gas and doubts about the reliability of this lifeline. Italy, which depends on imports to meet 87 per cent of its energy needs, suffered in the winter of 2006 when supplies of Russian gas were disrupted. The second cause is the European Union's commitments to tackle carbon pollution - emissions from nuclear plants are negligible. "Nuclear energy can, of course, make a major contribution to this battle against climate change," said the head of the EU's executive commission, Jose Manuel Barroso. "Nuclear energy also helps to enhance [the] EU's security of energy supplies and it increases diversification of our energy sources and reduces our dependence on imported gas." The EU has vowed to reduced its emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and give clean energies to a fifth of the energy market. Hydro, wind, biomass and solar are on this list, but nuclear is not, at the behest of anti-nuclear countries led by Austria. How to meet the lofty target is a puzzle. Clean renewables are still in their infancy yet will be required to deliver gigawatts of power when many fossil-fuel plants and nuclear power stations are at the end of their operational life. Nuclear now accounts for 15 per cent of EU power supplies. After keeping a low, almost apologetic profile for years, the nuclear industry is eagerly pointing out the conundrum. France's state firms have launched an especially aggressive sales pitch to other European countries and nations on the EU rim. As a sign of its new confidence, the industry is calling on the EU to scrap its patchwork of certification rules for building plants and introduce common rules to save time and costs.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

66 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Generic – Lots of incentives to do nuclear power now The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a number of incentives to increase nuclear power resulting in 30 nuclear power plants being on the drawing board. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM “Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. Most importantly, its available right now. Many countries around the world have already realized this, which is why nuclear power is flourishing in Europe and Asia. The good news is that thanks to the Energy Policy Act we passed in 2005, it is beginning to flourish here as well and we now have more than 30 nuclear power plants on the drawing board in the United States,” Domenici said. The Energy Policy Act provided loan guarantee authority, production tax credits, and insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation for nuclear power projects. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. If all the proposed nuclear power plants come online, an additional 38,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020—enough to power 28 million American households.

Non-U: subsidies to nuclear energies already in place and more expensive then plan Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis To try to jump-start the nuclear industry, which was already receiving more subsidies than any other no- and low-carbon energy sources, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided billions of additional dollars’ worth of incentives to nuclear and smaller amounts of incentives to other no- and lowcarbon energy sources. (See the Appendix for an analysis of this act.) Nonetheless, the process of new nuclear reactor licensing and construction is estimated to take ten to fifteen years. Even if their license applications are approved, the utilities have still not committed to building the reactors. In the coming decades, the U.S. nuclear industry will have to run faster on the treadmill of impending nuclear power plant retirements to replace the aging fleet of reactors. Initially, commercial reactors received forty-year licenses. While a number of reactors never reached their forty-year nominal life spans before being decommissioned, much of the current fleet of reactors has, in recent years, received twenty-year license renewals. As of the end of 2006, more than forty reactors have obtained twenty-year license extensions and about a dozen more have applied for renewal. Figure 1 shows that even assuming all 103 currently operating reactors receive twenty-year license renewals and no new reactors are constructed, the U.S. fleet will cease operations by 2056.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

67 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Dry Casks Non-unique some companies already using dry cask storage. Nuclear Fuel Magazine ‘8, 6/2, Nuclear Fuel Magazine, “Jaczko expands dry storage idea” Lexis. tk NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko's recent suggestion that NRC consider a rule change to encourage utilities to move spent fuel into dry storage faster was intended to "begin discussion on that issue," but a number of things would need to be worked out before a rulemaking would go forward, Jaczko said in a May 22 interview. Jaczko made the proposal May 13 at the Nuclear Energy Institute's annual Dry Storage Information Forum in Bonita Springs, Florida (Nucleonics Week, 22 May, 11). Noting the recent expansion and success of dry storage, Jaczko suggested in his speech that NRC's well-established licensing methodology presents the agency with "a real policy issue" on whether to encourage utilities to move more fuel currently stored in pools into dry casks. Speaking with Platts on a variety of subjects, Jaczko said the Florida speech was just the beginning of a dialogue he hoped to initiate with his fellow commissioners, the public, and other stakeholders about the merits of encouraging utilities to move fuel into storage casks after an initial cooling period in the pool. Jaczko pointed to the very low risk, about 10 -12 chance of latent cancer fatalities, in arguing that dry casks are, from a safety standpoint, "really the optimal way to store spent fuel." He acknowledged that many licensees have already turned to dry storage and said it would take some time to work through and "really understand what the ramifications would be and how we would go about doing" a rulemaking. The timeframe and conditions for transitioning from pool to dry storage would need to be addressed as part of the rule development process, he said. "For me, right now the most important thing is just having the discussion about whether we should move to some kind of rulemaking in this area to make this a uniform practice throughout the industry."

Dry cask being used now and it’s safe. Koerner ’08, 4/15, staff writer, Slate Magazine, Lexis. tk But Yucca Mountain's woes may not be a great tragedy, seeing as how the project would solve little over the long term: According to a high-ranking official at Argonne National Laboratory, the nation will need nine Yucca-sized waste repositories by 2100, assuming that nuclear-power generation increases by 1.8 percent annually. The good news is that we've got a viable stopgap solution: dry-cask storage. After nuclear fuel rods have been used up, they're cooled in pools of water. After five years of such cooling, they can be placed in sealed casks made of heat-resistant metal alloys and concrete. This technique is currently used at 31 locations nationwide, all of which must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC asserts that there has never been a single incident at any of these sites.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

68 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Generic – nuclear power is unsafe Concerns about the safety and the impact of the waste of nuclear power are blown out of proportion based on nuclear power as it existed 30 years ago not modern nuclear power. Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy The case for nuclear power is even stronger when considering the weakness of the case against it, which rests largely on a series of panics 20 to 30 years old. For example, the Chernobyl disaster was the product of horrific Soviet mismanagement over the many years prior to the meltdown, followed by equally abysmal crisis management. It simply had nothing to do with the upkeep challenges of a modern nuclear plant. Worries about the impact of radioactive waste, by contrast, are at least marginally connected to real features of current nuclear plants, but they are wildly overblown. For one thing, the vast majority of nuclear waste - as much as 95% or more - can be reprocessed and reused, making it a truly renewable resource. For another, the technology required to render radioactive waste inert and harmless already exists, and it ought to be largely perfected by the time any new plants go online. Then there are the silly and borderline mystical grounds for opposition to nuclear power, about which the less said the better (but let's be indulgent). Nuclear power plants, as the anti-nuclear movement frequently points out, use the same fuel sources and much of the same science as nuclear weapons. But that makes them as much like nuclear weapons as heart medications containing nitroglycerin are like dynamite. Alternatively, some anti-nuclear activists treat all nuclear technology as some sort of inherent transgression against nature. That argument relies on deeply reactionary concepts of "naturalness" and "unnaturalness" that also form the basis of opposition to any number of technologies that improve the quality of human life in countless ways. The argument against nuclear power as unnatural deserves no more or less respect than the arguments against childhood vaccination and stem-cell research as unnatural. Whatever else can be said about them, such sentiments have precious little to do with environmentalism. Obama, however, brushed aside nuclear power as a policy option in approximately one half of one sentence in his speech, on grounds different from and even worse than any of the foregoing. McCain's "proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain" makes no sense, Obama told the Las Vegas crowd. But did Obama propose some other site for storing nuclear waste or offer some further argument against nuclear power? No, he just dropped the subject. In other words, even as he rightly mocked the risible gimmicks McCain has cobbled together as an ersatz energy policy, Obama's opposition to nuclear energy, in its entirety, is nothing more than a naked pander for Nevada's five electoral votes. For a politician ostensibly committed to environmentalism in general and curbing global warming in particular, omitting nuclear power from his energy programme - let alone doing so on no principle higher than grabbing votes - is irresponsible.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

69 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Anti-Nukers have been “crying wolf” over the safety concerns regarding nuclear plants for over 45 years while history proves it is safe. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation, February 1, 2008, The Heritage Foundation, Nuclear Safety Paranoia, nna http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/020108a.cfm On January 4, The Washington Post ran a front-page story about guards found asleep at a nuclear power plant. The article also contained accusations that a whistle-blower had been ignored. Scary stuff, eh? Until you realize it's the same old story New York's WCBS-TV broke four months earlier. Even when new, the story wasn't exactly front-page material. The plant was never in jeopardy, nor was anyone endangered. The media's continued fixation on this story suggests alarmism, at best, and bias against nuclear power at worst. At the very least, such reporting misleads the public about the safety of nuclear power. Let's be clear. Some guards were sleeping on the job. They should not have been sleeping. When the company that runs the plant found out, it promptly fired the contractors in charge of security. In short: A problem arose; it was identified, and it was solved. That should have been the end of the story. But it wasn't. In the months since the sleeping-guards story first aired, numerous articles have been printed -- and not just by The Post. USA Today ran the story in September, editorialized on it in October, and revisited it again in December. Each article included independent, third-party analysis giving credibility and legitimacy to alarmist views. The problem is that the analysis always comes from the same anti-nuke crowd that's been "crying wolf" about nuclear power since the 1960s. So why have they been more vocal lately? Well, with rising energy prices and growing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power is enjoying a comeback. Awkwardly, for the people who railed against nuclear energy in the past under the auspices of environmentalism, the best way to reduce CO2 is to produce more emissions-free nuclear energy. The obvious contradiction has forced even ardent activists to make some accommodation for nuclear power in their anti-CO2 rhetoric. One of the least expensive forms of energy production, nuclear power has proven extraordinarily safe over the past four decades. The worst commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history, the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, caused no fatalities or casualties. Although nuclear power's safety record means that activists can no longer play on "China Syndrome" fears, three decades of anti-nuclear propaganda have left their mark. Many Americans remain concerned about nuclear safety, and the anti-nuclear movement's updated message is calculated to play upon that anxiety. Increasingly, the anti-nukers preach acceptance -- but with a catch. Their conditions generally hinge on safety concerns. What seems reasonable, however, quickly becomes ridiculous. Their formula includes overstating the safety concerns, misstating the information used to support their positions, and then demanding an unattainable set of stipulations to meet their conditions. This allows them to avoid being overtly anti-nuclear while advancing an anti-nuclear agenda. Their arguments are then fed to major media outlets that use them to frame nuclear-related articles. The result: stories that often portray nuclear power as inherently unsafe. Some recent examples include incidents at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont. At the Davis-Besse plant, safety inspections revealed a hole forming in a vessel-head. An inch of steel cladding prevented the hole from opening. Although the problem was fixed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the plant could have operated another 13 months without incident, and that the steel cladding could have withstood pressures 125 percent above normal operations, the incident was portrayed as a safety failure. A partial cooling tower collapse at the Vermont Yankee plant was far less serious than the DavisBesse incident. Non-radioactive water was spilled in the collapse, but no radiation was released. Nonetheless, activists cite it as example of the risks posed by power reactors. Safety should remain a priority at nuclear power plants, but exploiting fears about safety to advance an anti-nuclear agenda helps no one. The unfortunate thing is that there are great, newsworthy stories to be written about nuclear power: No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U.S.; terrorists have never attacked a nuclear power plant; nuclear power is clean, affordable and emits nothing into the atmosphere. The list goes on. A handful of guards taking a 15-minute nap on company time does not fairly reflect the industry's level of safety. For a news story, it's pretty thin gruel. Yet that's what leading media are feeding the public. Repeatedly.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

70 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

New technology makes nuclear plants safer. James Hoare 12/1/07 “Idaho Governor Lobbying Hard for Nuclear Power” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22365&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 "Nuclear power is the only economically feasible means to reduce greenhouse gases, if we assume for the sake of argument that reducing greenhouse gases is a worthwhile public policy goal," said Jay Lehr, science director for The Heartland Institute. "Impressive new technology is also making nuclear power safer and less expensive all the time," Lehr added. "The future of energy production in this country is definitely nuclear."

US Nuclear Accidents Never Resulted In Injury—The Real Threat Is Global Warming John Dyson and Matt Bennett, board member of the group Third Way, former chairman of the New York State Power Authority. vice president for public affairs of Third Way, 9-16-07, Boston Globe, Just say `oui' to nuclear power, lexis, bc nuclear power on fears about safety. They are unfounded. Dozens of studies on the impact of TMI have found that the worst nuclear accident in American history resulted in no injuries or deaths. Moreover, plant design and operations have improved radically in the decades since TMI, and the nuclear industry is now one of the safest in our country, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Full disclosure: Our organization, Third Way, receives some donations - less than 1 percent of our budget - from the nuclear industry.) Indeed, much greater danger is looming. Humanity faces an existential threat from global warming, and America faces an array of economic and security threats relating to energy. Are Democrats ready to put aside outmoded fears and embrace a proven, carbon-free technology to help us meet those threats? Are Republicans ready to ask the French, who have 40 years of experience, for their help and expertise? As the United States enters its nuclear renaissance, real leadership is required from both sides.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

71 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA proliferation 1. Cross apply our nuclear power leadership advantage – if the U.S. revives it’s nuclear energy they will be able to decrease proliferation.

Very small risk of nuclear power spread causing proliferation. Michael Angwin, director of the Australian Uranium Association, April 29, 2008 OPINION pg.18 LC People would probably still ask, however, what is the risk of companies operating civil nuclear power enrichment plants or the countries in which they operate (such as Britain and the U.S.) allowing the plants to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Bearing in mind the high probability of detection of such crude breaches of their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations and the impact of that on their prestige, credibility and influence, the prospects of companies or countries doing that are very small.

No Impact Of Terrorism—US Systems Well-Proven John Dyson and Matt Bennett, board member of the group Third Way, former chairman of the New York State Power Authority. vice president for public affairs of Third Way, 9-16-07, Boston Globe, Just say `oui' to nuclear power, lexis, bc But the likelihood of it falling into the wrong hands is infinitesimal - the United States has well-proven systems to safeguard nuclear material. Moreover, the plutonium that comes out of this reprocessing system would be difficult for terrorists to handle without advanced training and laboratory equipment. Recycling waste is expensive - a plant would cost $15 billion. But not recycling is even more costly. By law, the US government was supposed to begin taking spent fuel from commercial reactors in 1998, but it has defaulted and is now running up a tab that could total $56 billion. What's more, even if Yucca Mountain were to open its doors tomorrow, it would soon be at capacity with the waste that already has accumulated.

Risk of proliferation from nuclear waste is exaggerated Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB To be effective in a weapon, a given volume of plutonium must contain no more than 7 percent Pu-240. Spent fuel from civilian nuclear plants is typically composed of about 26 percent Pu-240. This makes it extremely difficult even for experts to use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons -- and well nigh impossible for amateurs.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

72 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Yucca mountain is unsafe Volcanoes and earthquakes are a virtual zero risk scenario – there haven’t been any near Yucca for millions of years. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html There are other matters to consider, including the potential effects of climate change, volcanoes, and earthquakes. All of these now seem to be of minimal concern. The closest major earthquake was 90 miles to the west in 1872, and there has been no major faulting or folding of rocks for over 10 million years. The climate has been arid for over 2 million years, and there have been no volcanoes for several million years. But investigating these matters is an important part of the research program.

Your impact is massively overstated In the rare case of an atomic bomb or nuclear failure, there will be very few mutations or cancers; any health risks will be preventable. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 The idea that radiation from atomic bombs has caused a substantial increase of genetic mutation has no scientific support. There is no evidence of increased mutation, genetic diseases, or cancer in animals or humans following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. This is true even around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where atomic bombs ended the war with Japan. Likewise, there is no scientific evidence the population near Chernobyl experienced an increase in overall cancer incidence, mortality, or nonmalignant disorders related to radiation exposure following the Chernobyl nuclear power plant failure. The worst large-scale consequence from Chernobyl has been thyroid cancer in Ukrainian and Belarusian children. Readily available potassium iodide tablets would have protected the children by preventing the uptake of radioactive iodine 131, but Moscow unnecessarily delayed allowing distribution of the tablets. Even so, 95 percent of the affected children recovered completely. Chernobyl was a failure not of nuclear power but of the Soviet political system. The predicted increase in cancer from Chernobyl would probably be too small to notice but for the extra scrutiny the Chernobyl area receives. Cleaner than Coal The annual solid residues of coal combustion come to 890 pounds per American. Cravens calculates that if an American got all his or her electricity from coal over a lifespan of 77 years, that person's mountain of solid waste would weigh 68.5 tons. A coal-fired plant releases more radiation than a nuclear plant. The corresponding amount of waste from a lifetime of nuclear power, by contrast, would weigh two pounds and fit into a soda can. And of that amount, only a trace is long-lived. The many experts Cravens consulted were adamant in pointing out terrorists could neither penetrate the security at an American nuclear plant nor make an atomic bomb from its fuel. Regarding future nuclear power plants, some estimates indicate a plant of standardized, streamlined design, with many more built-in, passive safety features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other components, could be built in five years, as is already being accomplished in France. The price per plant comes to about $3 billion, which makes nuclear power much less expensive than solar or wind power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

73 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

No link – the plan creates the opportunity to reopen discussions about where waste should be stored. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Part of the problem is the view in Nevada that the Reagan administration and Congress acted unfairly in 1987 when they cut short an objective evaluation of other candidate sites and designated Yucca Mountain as the location for the future nuclear waste repository. To overcome this perception, it may be necessary to reopen deliberations for choosing an additional site. Such a move should not be difficult. Indeed, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 requires the secretary of energy to report to Congress by 2010 on the need for a second storage facility. Given the disastrous record of the DOE in dealing with radioactive waste, however, consideration should also be given to establishing a more specialized and less politicized agency for this purpose.

Yucca Mountain Is Safe—EPA and State Of Nevada Agrees Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc In addition, DOE's obligation to dispose of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste would be declared sufficient to support an NRC finding that spent fuel generated by new reactors will be disposed of in a safe and timely manner. The bill also names the US Environmental Protection Agency the permitting agency for air permits needed for work at Yucca Mountain. The state of Nevada, which has spent decades fighting the planned repository, now is the permitting entity. In addition, the bill would eliminate the existing 70,000 metric ton limit on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository. It also calls for phased licensing of the repository, with the first phase being a 300-year operations phase. During that period, the bill says, waste would be retrievable and the facility would be "actively monitored." It added that new information on the site and technological innovations could be incorporated into the license through a license amendment process every 50 years. If NRC authorizes DOE to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 days later the department would have to file a license amendment request with NRC seeking authorization to receive and possess spent fuel and HLW at the site.

Yucca Mountain Inevitable—No matter who wins the election. Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08, Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change, lexis, bc The next administration, whether Democratic or Republican, cannot unilaterally kill the DOE repository project in Nevada, DOE waste program director Edward Sproat said January 22. Instead, a new administration would have to convince Congress to change the federal law governing it, he said. Responding to an audience question following his address at the Nuclear Energy Institute fuel supply forum in Washington, DC, Sproat said the next administration would have three options. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE is to site and build, if licensed by NRC, a repository at Yucca Mountain. The next administration, Sproat said, can comply with the law, ignore it, or change it. Still, the next administration also could withdraw a repository license DOE submitted to NRC, Sproat later told reporters. However, he added that the administration would have to show some basis for taking such action, especially if NRC had already deemed the application acceptable for review.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

74 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Non-unique the Yucca area is already a radioactive wasteland. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html Yucca mountain is in a very barren desert region, adjacent to the nuclear weapons testing facility, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island known as the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The NTS itself was originally part of, and along with Yucca mountain is still surrounded by, a much larger U.S. Air Force bombing and gunnery range. Because of the NTS, radioactivity is not a stranger to the area. About 100 nuclear bomb tests were conducted in the atmosphere there between 1951 and 1963, and since 1963, 600 more announced tests have been conducted underground. Additional tests were not announced to the public. In the late 1980s, an average of 14 tests per year were announced. Each underground bomb test can be considered as a miniature high-level waste repository. One can stand on high ground overlooking Frenchman's Flat and see many dozens of craters, each caused by surface subsidence above a cavity caused by an underground nuclear explosion. One can see heavily damaged buildings and bridges exposed to the earlier tests in the atmosphere. The most spectacular sight is Sedan crater, 1,280 feet in diameter and 320 feet deep, created in a test of the potential use of nuclear bombs for large excavation projects — that one bomb removed 12 million tons of earth. But most testing is now conducted in "rooms" leading off of tunnels drilled into the sides of mountains. Yucca mountain is several miles away from the part of NTS used for bomb testing. The NTS areas nearby have been used for testing nuclear reactors developed for spaceship propulsion, a project that has now been abandoned. Any possible effects of the bomb testing on the security of the waste repository will be carefully considered.

Best studies prove Yucca is safe. Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc The dump has become one of the biggest geographic disputes in modern U.S. history, pitting Nevada against a nuclear power industry centered in the East. California's two senators, as well as others in the West, have supported Nevada's opposition to the dump. Edward "Ward" Sproat, director of the Energy Department's office of civilian radioactive waste, disputed the idea of a geographic divide, saying the dump would relieve 39 states of stored nuclear waste. "I don't see it as an East versus West issue," Sproat said. "I see it as a national issue." The design of the dump will provide for safe storage of the waste and represents 20 years of work by the nation's leading scientists, engineers and technical experts, including eight of the national laboratories and the U.S. Geological Survey, Bodman said. The Energy Department has long argued against critics who want to leave the waste in place until technology improves. It would be irresponsible to not deal with the problem, the department has said.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

75 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Multiple safety checks ensure Yucca is safe. The Department Of Energy. June 2008. The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/license/docs/Safety_of_a_repository.pdf, AP The safety principles implemented in the design of the surface facilities are to prevent events that can be foreseen and to make responses to any events that occur as automatic as possible. Accordingly, the surface facilities are designed (1) to give priority to preventing events (i.e., reducing the likelihood of occurrence) rather than mitigating consequences (i.e., reducing the impact if they should occur); (2) where it is appropriate, to use engineering features in preference to administrative controls to prevent events; (3) to rely on passive features rather than active features or controls; and (4) to allow the automatic startup of safety equipment rather than requiring human intervention to start the equipment. A design that employs this safety philosophy results in a facility with less overall risk. Operational complexity is also reduced because safety features are simple and robust, automatically initiating if there is a need. Features of the Repository Facilities that are Important to Safe Operations—The repository facilities are designed to protect workers and the public. Safety analyses are used to develop a design that prevents, to the extent practical, event sequences that could lead to the release of radioactive material or result in radiological exposure of workers or the public. This strategy requires using prevention features in the repository design wherever reasonable. Information is developed to identify (1) the essential safety functions needed to ensure worker and public safety, (2) the components relied on to ensure these essential safety functions are performed with a high degree of reliability and with margin, and (3) the administrative and procedural safety controls that, in conjunction with the repository design, ensure operations are conducted safely. The design incorporates the means to limit concentration of radioactive material in air. Design features are incorporated to minimize and control the flow of airborne contaminants. Areas of potential contamination are identified and evaluated. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems capable of limiting the spread of airborne radioactive contamination are provided in the surface handling facilities. These systems control the flow of air from areas with a low potential for contamination to areas with a higher potential for contamination. These systems ensure that radiological material released due to a potential breach of a waste container will pass through highefficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters prior to exhaust to the atmosphere, thereby mitigating the consequences of this event sequence and protecting workers and the public from releases of radioactive material. The sampled air is continuously monitored for radioactivity by monitors located in potential release points in the surface facilities. The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems are designed to minimize the spread of radioactive contamination by filtration zones and to ensure air flows from areas of low potential contamination toward areas of higher potential contamination. For example, the subsurface ventilation system is designed to have two separate systems for the ventilation of the emplacement drifts and the development area. The air flow and pressure differential between the construction side and emplacement side of the subsurface repository is maintained to ensure that airflow leakage travels from the construction side (supply positive pressure system) to the emplacement side (exhausting negative pressure system) of the subsurface repository. Thus, any leakage that could occur in the emplacement portion of the subsurface would not leak to the construction side. The design protects workers from exposure to radiation by limiting the time required to perform work in the vicinity of radioactive materials. Design features and controls are implemented to reduce the time required to work in radiological areas during normal operations, consistent with design principles that ensure radiation dose levels are as low as reasonably achievable. Access to high radiation areas or airborne radioactivity areas is controlled, which limits the potential for workers to be exposed to radiation. This includes access control to and within restricted areas. Controlling personnel access to normally unoccupied high radiation areas, very high radiation areas, or airborne radioactivity areas is part of normal operations. Suitable shielding is provided to protect workers from exposure. Shielding materials absorb radiation and protect workers in the areas where wastes are handled and in transportation underground. The pool of the Wet Handling Facility provides shielding, as do thick concrete walls and appropriate liner material. A radiation alarm system to warn of significant increases in radiation levels, concentrations of radioactive material in air, and increased radioactivity in effluents will be used. Alarm annunciation will occur if a threshold radiation level has been reached, allowing workers to take appropriate action to protect themselves. Radiation detectors are interlocked with shield doors to ensure that the shield doors are not inadvertently opened if high radiation conditions are present. The facilities incorporate appropriate explosion and fire detection systems and appropriate suppression systems. Related controls include limiting the presence of combustibles and flammable material in areas in which SNF or HLW are present. The design includes the means to control radioactive waste and radioactive effluents and to permit prompt termination of operations and evacuation of personnel during an emergency. These functions protect workers and the public from exposure to radiation. The design process identifies those structures, systems, and components that are important to safe operation of the repository. The process also provides the assurance that the intended safety functions will be performed. Reliable and timely emergency power will be provided if there is a loss of primary electric power so that instruments, utility service systems, and functions important to safety will continue to operate. Redundant diesel generators and filtration systems are provided as needed to maintain, with adequate capacity, the continued operation of important safety functions.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

76 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Yucca will contaminate ground water It would take millions of years for waste to get into the groundwater. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html Yucca mountain is one of the driest places in the United States, with only 6 inches of rainfall per year, only 5% of which (0.3 inches per year) soaks into the ground. The water table is more than 2,500 feet deep, so that the 1,200-foot-deep repository will be 1,300 feet above it. Only a tiny amount of moisture can therefore contact the buried waste. The rock below the repository is especially rich in zeolites, materials with chemical properties that make them efficient at absorbing dissolved radioactive materials out of water passing through. It is estimated that water percolating down would take 2,0008,000 years to travel this 1,200 feet from the repository to the water table. If any radioactive waste should be dissolved out, and if it should somehow escape adsorption in the zeolites and reach the water table, consequences would still be minimal. Groundwater in the region moves especially slowly, only about 1 foot per year! The nearest place it could reach the surface is 30 miles away — 150,000 years at 1 foot per year — in the Amargosa desert, which is a closed drainage basin — water flowing into it stays there until it evaporates. Note that the 1 foot per year flow rate applies to the water; as explained previously, materials dissolved in it move hundreds or thousands of times more slowly. For them to travel 30 miles would take many millions of years! In summary, there is virtually no moisture to dissolve the waste, which is in any case in insoluble form and protected by casings and backfill material. If any material is dissolved, the only escape path is downward 1,300 feet to the top of the water table through rock that is highly efficient at adsorbing out the dissolved materials. If it should reach the water table it would take many millions of years to reach the surface, and that would leave it trapped in the middle of a virtually uninhabited desert with no way to get out. Note that this is very much safer than the situation assumed in our risk analysis above for average underground conditions in which the waste is submerged in groundwater (i.e., below the top of the water table) that moves at a velocity of 1 foot per day, and flows into a river through a region of U.S. average population.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

77 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear waste deposits in the Yucca Mountain are safe. The Department Of Energy. June 2008. The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/license/docs/Safety_of_a_repository.pdf, AP Internationally, there is a consensus that geologic disposal is the best means for final disposal of SNF and HLW, that geologic disposal can be safe, and that the regulations and analytical approaches used to demonstrate such safety are reasonable. The science supporting the understanding of Yucca Mountain has been developed over more than 30 years by world-recognized experts and has been internationally reviewed. Scientists from the country’s National Laboratories, including Sandia, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley, and Argonne, have been involved since the program’s beginning. Internationally recognized experts from the U.S. Geological Survey were responsible for the suggestion to look to the unsaturated zone (see below) for repository development to take advantage of the conditions of limited water. The engineering designs were developed to complement the site’s unsaturated characteristics and, especially for the operational period, to build upon decades of precedent experience in the safe handling of SNF and other radioactive materials. Yucca Mountain was one of nine sites initially studied for the first repository under the NWPA. Its identification as a potential site followed early work by the U.S. Geological Survey showing that disposal in the unsaturated zone would offer advantages in deep geologic disposal of SNF and HLW. The conclusion was based on the premise that, because water was the medium that would eventually transport radionuclides away from the repository, a repository site in an environment with limited water would be a benefit to repository performance that was provided by the natural system. The Yucca Mountain site, shown in Figure 1, is located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The mountain consists of a series of ridges extending 25 miles from Timber Mountain in the north to the Amargosa Desert in the south. The water table at Yucca Mountain is approximately 1,600 to 2,600 ft below the surface of the mountain at the repository location. The underground facility will be located in the unsaturated zone, about 660 to 1,600 ft below the surface and, on average, about 1,000 ft above the water table. The deep water table and thick unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain are the result of the low infiltration rate of surface water due to low annual rainfall and high rates of evaporation and transpiration (the process by which water passes from soil into plants and then into the air). The repository will be located in volcanic rock called tuff that was deposited by a series of eruptions between approximately 11 and 14 million years ago. The characteristics of the volcanic rock have been studied in underground excavations and boreholes and by extensive geologic mapping of the surface. Mapping and other studies show that faults are present in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. The location, timing, and amount of movement on these faults have been characterized as part of the DOE seismic hazard analysis. The location of the underground facility was identified using several factors, including the thickness of overlying rock and soil, the characteristics of the rock that would host the repository, the location of faults, and the depth to groundwater. The facility will be sited deep enough underground to prevent waste from being exposed to the environment and to prevent accidental human intrusion. The host rock for a geologic repository must be stable enough to sustain excavated openings during repository operations. The rock must also be able to absorb heat generated by the SNF and HLW. The Topopah Spring Tuff rock unit in which the underground facility will be constructed exhibits these characteristics. The combination of the desert environment and the deep water table with the thick unsaturated zone between the surface and the water table define the hydrologic nature of the repository system at Yucca Mountain. The desert environment with its low rainfall and limited infiltration of water into the subsurface is a favorable long-term characteristic of the Yucca Mountain setting. Far in the future, the return of glacial climate conditions to North America would still leave Yucca Mountain in a desert environment. The location of the site significantly contributes to the inherent safety of repository operations. The site boundary is approximately 5 miles away from the waste handling facilities, and there are no permanent residents within approximately 14 miles of the repository. This remote location reduces the effects of potential radioactive releases from normal operations and the abnormal, highly unlikely events considered in the safety analysis. There are design features of the repository and waste handling operations facilities that prevent unlikely events or reduce their potential impact. These safety-enhancing design features are comparable to proven features currently required of nuclear power plants.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

78 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Yucca mountain earthquakes Japan proves that nuclear plants and waste disposal can be made to withstand earthquakes.. John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D., 10/1/07 “Nuclear Power Plant Withstands Major Earthquake” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21986&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 In a real-world test of nuclear power plant safety, the world's largest nuclear power plant, at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Japan, took the brunt of a major earthquake on July 16, 2007 and passed the test admirably. Little Damage Suffered Despite a magnitude 6.8 earthquake striking the nuclear power plant, the August 7 Daily Yomiuri reported, some "unnecessary fuss over the leak of a small amount of radioactive material" failed to undermine the positive significance of the event, because the release amounted to less than one-10 millionth of the dose of annual radiation an ordinary person is exposed to from the natural environment. "Although the plant suffered damage, including a small fire at a power transformer, the safety of the plant's nuclear reactors was never jeopardized," the Daily Yomiuri observed. No Special Precautions Taken Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to meet the anti-seismic guidelines set up by the nation's Nuclear Safety Commission. The potential radiation exposure from the small amount of leakage in the earthquake was essentially meaningless, as the Daily Yomiuri noted. A single chest x-ray with all normal safety precautions entails far more radiation exposure than the radiation effects from the earthquake's damage to the power plant. Nuclear safety analysts were further encouraged because the nuclear plant did not have any special earthquake-resistant design technology, yet performed so well in the crosshairs of a major quake. Even though the facility was built on a major fault line, the integrity of the plant was never jeopardized. The London Times sent an obviously concerned reporter to the scene with a gamma counter to measure radiation. The reporter, Leo Lewis, reported his gamma counter measured no unusual radioactivity after the quake. As a result, Lewis was left to report about the tremendous damage to various structures around the earthquake epicenter, and to wonder how the nuclear power plant endured so safely. Nuclear Safety Confirmed The answer, experts note, is that a nuclear plant core is in a very strong confinement area cooled by water. Radioactive material is embedded in metal rods that are in a core surrounded by protection and insulation. Even with no special earthquake precautions taken, the containment facility is remarkably strong. "It is indeed remarkable that the combination of human fallibility and mechanical failure over the last 40 years has resulted in a nuclear safety record unsurpassed by any other industrial activity," said Jay Lehr, science director for The Heartland Institute. "Commercial nuclear electricity in the United States has killed zero members of the public over that period. Conventional electric power plants powered by coal, oil, and natural gas produce more than 200 accidental deaths per year," Lehr continued. "The worst built and maintained nuclear plant in history, at Chernobyl, which could never have passed muster in the West, provides the worst-case scenario of fewer than 100 deaths from nuclear radiation. Three Mile Island in the United States, ballyhooed as a plant failure, was in fact a safety success, as automated shutoff systems resulted in neither sickness nor death," Lehr added.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

79 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Even if the Yucca Mountain were to close after usage, the public would still be safe. The Department Of Energy. June 2008. The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/license/docs/Safety_of_a_repository.pdf, AP The safety of the repository at Yucca Mountain after permanent closure (postclosure) is ensured by the use of two safety principles. First, the engineered barrier system is designed so that, working in combination with the natural features of the site, potential, very distant future radiological doses to a reasonably maximally exposed individual described in the regulation are expected to be well below the limits specified by the NRC. In other words, the engineered components must be designed to take advantage of the characteristics of the natural features of the Yucca Mountain site. The second safety principle is that the geologic repository includes multiple barriers, consisting of both natural barriers and an engineered barrier system. Geologic disposal of radioactive waste is predicated on the expectation that one or more features of the geologic setting will be capable of contributing to the isolation of radioactive waste, meaning it acts as a barrier to the movement of radionuclides out of the repository. While there is an extensive geologic record ranging from thousands to millions of years, this record includes many uncertainties. In addition, there are uncertainties in the isolation capability and performance of engineered barriers over very long timeframes. These two types of uncertainties are addressed by requiring that multiple barriers make up the repository system to ensure that repository performance is not wholly dependent on a single barrier. As a result, the system is more tolerant of failures and external challenges, such as earthquakes.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

80 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Yucca Mountain volcanoes

SDI 2008 WHAM!

81 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Nuclear plant meltdowns The health risks of nuclear reactor accidents are highly exaggerated claims made by fearmongers Steven J. Milloy 4/13/06 “Twenty Years After Chernobyl” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/019,05270.cfm April 26 marks the 20th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Anti-nuclear activists are still trying to turn Chernobyl into a bigger disaster than it really was. Although the Number Four nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded just before dawn on April 26, 1986, Soviet secrecy prevented the world from learning about the accident for days. Once details began to emerge, however, the anti-nuclear scare machine swung into action. Three days after the accident Greenpeace “scientists” predicted the accident would cause 10,000 people to get cancer over a 20-year period within a 625-mile radius of the plant. Greenpeace also estimated that 2,000 to 4,000 people in Sweden would develop cancer over a 30-year period from the radioactive fallout. At the same time, Helen Caldicott, president emeritus of the anti-nuclear Physicians for Social Responsibility, predicted the accident would cause almost 300,000 cancers in 5 to 50 years and cause almost 1 million people either to be rendered sterile or mentally retarded, or to develop radiation sickness, menstrual problems and other health problems. University of CaliforniaBerkeley medical physicist and nuclear power critic Dr. John Gofman made the most dire forecast. He predicted at an American Chemical Society meeting that the Chernobyl accident would cause 1 million cancers worldwide, half of them fatal. But the reality of the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident seems to be quite different than predicted by the anti-nuke crowd. As of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths were attributed to radiation from the accident – that’s according to a report, entitled “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” produced by an international team of 100 scientists working under the auspices of the United Nations. Almost all of those 50 deaths were rescue workers who were highly exposed to radiation and died within months of the accident. So far, there have been about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children. But except for nine deaths, all of those with thyroid cancer have recovered, according to the report. Despite the UN report, the anti-nuclear mob hasn’t given up on Chernobyl scaremongering. According to a March 25 report in The Guardian (UK), Greenpeace and others are set to issue a report around the 20th anniversary of the accident claiming that at least 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the accident. Ukraine's government appears to be on board with the casualty inflation game, perhaps looking for more international aid for the economically-struggling former Soviet republic. The Guardian article quoted the deputy head of the Ukraine National Commission for Radiation Protection as touting the 500,000-deaths figure. A spokesman for the Ukraine government’s Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine told The Guardian, “We’re overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the [UN] data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago.” Putting aside the anti-nuclear movement’s track record of making wild claims and predictions in order advance its political agenda, I put more credence in the UN’s estimates because it squares with what we know about real-life exposures to high levels of radiation. Among the more than 86,000 survivors of the atomic bomb blasts that ended World War II, for example, “only” about 500 or so “extra” cancers have occurred since 1950. Exposure to high-levels of radiation does increase cancer risk, but only slightly. There is no doubt that Chernobyl was a disaster, but it was not one of mythical proportions. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island – the U.S. nuclear plant that accidentally released a small amount radiation in 1979 – are examples of how the anti-nuclear lobby takes every available opportunity to scare the public about nuclear power. But no one was harmed by the incident at Three Mile Island. The Chernobyl accident can be chalked up to deficiencies in its Sovietera design and operation. Neither reflect poorly on the track record of safety demonstrated by nuclear power plants designed, built and operated in countries like the U.S., U.K., France and Japan.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

82 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear power plants are safe and productive Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, “Nuclear energy now our only option”, p. 17/A. Lexis VF They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low. Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste, which takes 50 years to decay. Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. Australia would need to invest in research and development, and in education and training across a range of fields. Australia can only benefit from the great impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. Concerted effort around the world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during the past four years. We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly known elsewhere by green activism, by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political implications, rather than on their merits. It is time to put it behind us.

Their impact is overclaimed – radiation post accident or terrorist attack wouldn’t be a substantial problem. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 The idea that radiation from atomic bombs has caused a substantial increase of genetic mutation has no scientific support. There is no evidence of increased mutation, genetic diseases, or cancer in animals or humans following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. This is true even around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where atomic bombs ended the war with Japan. Likewise, there is no scientific evidence the population near Chernobyl experienced an increase in overall cancer incidence, mortality, or nonmalignant disorders related to radiation exposure following the Chernobyl nuclear power plant failure. The worst large-scale consequence from Chernobyl has been thyroid cancer in Ukrainian and Belarusian children. Readily available potassium iodide tablets would have protected the children by preventing the uptake of radioactive iodine 131, but Moscow unnecessarily delayed allowing distribution of the tablets. Even so, 95 percent of the affected children recovered completely. Chernobyl was a failure not of nuclear power but of the Soviet political system. The predicted increase in cancer from Chernobyl would probably be too small to notice but for the extra scrutiny the Chernobyl area receives. Cleaner than Coal The annual solid residues of coal combustion come to 890 pounds per American. Cravens calculates that if an American got all his or her electricity from coal over a lifespan of 77 years, that person's mountain of solid waste would weigh 68.5 tons. A coal-fired plant releases more radiation than a nuclear plant. The corresponding amount of waste from a lifetime of nuclear power, by contrast, would weigh two pounds and fit into a soda can. And of that amount, only a trace is long-lived. The many experts Cravens consulted were adamant in pointing out terrorists could neither penetrate the security at an American nuclear plant nor make an atomic bomb from its fuel. Regarding future nuclear power plants, some estimates indicate a plant of standardized, streamlined design, with many more built-in, passive safety features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other components, could be built in five years, as is already being accomplished in France. The price per plant comes to about $3 billion, which makes nuclear power much less expensive than solar or wind power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

83 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear plants have the security to withstand earthquakes without harm, they are perfectly safe John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D., 10/1/07 “Nuclear Power Plant Withstands Major Earthquake” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21986&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 In a real-world test of nuclear power plant safety, the world's largest nuclear power plant, at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Japan, took the brunt of a major earthquake on July 16, 2007 and passed the test admirably. Little Damage Suffered Despite a magnitude 6.8 earthquake striking the nuclear power plant, the August 7 Daily Yomiuri reported, some "unnecessary fuss over the leak of a small amount of radioactive material" failed to undermine the positive significance of the event, because the release amounted to less than one-10 millionth of the dose of annual radiation an ordinary person is exposed to from the natural environment. "Although the plant suffered damage, including a small fire at a power transformer, the safety of the plant's nuclear reactors was never jeopardized," the Daily Yomiuri observed. No Special Precautions Taken Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to meet the anti-seismic guidelines set up by the nation's Nuclear Safety Commission. The potential radiation exposure from the small amount of leakage in the earthquake was essentially meaningless, as the Daily Yomiuri noted. A single chest x-ray with all normal safety precautions entails far more radiation exposure than the radiation effects from the earthquake's damage to the power plant. Nuclear safety analysts were further encouraged because the nuclear plant did not have any special earthquake-resistant design technology, yet performed so well in the crosshairs of a major quake. Even though the facility was built on a major fault line, the integrity of the plant was never jeopardized. The London Times sent an obviously concerned reporter to the scene with a gamma counter to measure radiation. The reporter, Leo Lewis, reported his gamma counter measured no unusual radioactivity after the quake. As a result, Lewis was left to report about the tremendous damage to various structures around the earthquake epicenter, and to wonder how the nuclear power plant endured so safely. Nuclear Safety Confirmed The answer, experts note, is that a nuclear plant core is in a very strong confinement area cooled by water. Radioactive material is embedded in metal rods that are in a core surrounded by protection and insulation. Even with no special earthquake precautions taken, the containment facility is remarkably strong. "It is indeed remarkable that the combination of human fallibility and mechanical failure over the last 40 years has resulted in a nuclear safety record unsurpassed by any other industrial activity," said Jay Lehr, science director for The Heartland Institute. "Commercial nuclear electricity in the United States has killed zero members of the public over that period. Conventional electric power plants powered by coal, oil, and natural gas produce more than 200 accidental deaths per year," Lehr continued. "The worst built and maintained nuclear plant in history, at Chernobyl, which could never have passed muster in the West, provides the worst-case scenario of fewer than 100 deaths from nuclear radiation. Three Mile Island in the United States, ballyhooed as a plant failure, was in fact a safety success, as automated shutoff systems resulted in neither sickness nor death," Lehr added.

Nuclear energy is safe-tech, standards, training, and drills prove Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB The truth is that there's little doubt that in the U.S., at least, plants are much safer now than they were in the past. Those accidents led regulators and the industry to bolster safety at U.S. nuclear plants. There are more safety features at the plants, plant personnel are better trained, and reactors have been redesigned so that accidents are far less likely to occur. For instance, every U.S. plant has an on-site control-room simulator where employees can hone their skills and handle simulated emergencies, and plant workers spend one week out of every six in the simulator or in the classroom. The next generation of plants is designed to be even safer, using fewer pumps and piping and relying more on gravity to move water for cooling the hot nuclear core. This means fewer possible places where equipment failure could cause a serious accident.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

84 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

A nuclear accident won’t release any radiation Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB And even if a serious accident does occur, U.S. plants are designed to make sure that no radiation is released into the environment. Reactors are contained inside a huge structure of reinforced concrete with walls that are as much as four feet thick; the Chernobyl reactor lacked such a structure.

Nuclear Industry Safe—Empirically Proven Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change, lexis, bc So what's changed? Thirty years of safe operations have helped pave the way for NRG, and for a couple of dozen other possible plants in the works. Indeed, even as they're mocked in popular culture--like on "The Simpsons"--the nation's 104 commercial nuclear generating units have been quietly humming along without significant incident. "The Bureau of Labor Statistics will tell you that the nuclear industry is the safest place to work--safer than real estate and Wall Street," former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman tells NEWSWEEK. (You remember her--she played the environmentalist in the first Bush term). Through the first half of this year, nukes provided 19.8 percent of U.S. electricity generation, about the same proportion as they did in 1990. More important, thanks to developments in the broader environment, many longtime critics are changing their tune.

Chernobyl won’t repeat – multiple reasons Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP The only nuclear accident to release truly deadly amounts of radiation was the Chernobyl explosion. Incredibly, the Soviets built this Ukrainian plant (and several others) without a containment shell. All reactors operating in Western nations operate within four feet of steel and concrete, which means that if something goes wrong, there's a Plan B to prevent high levels of radiation from escaping into the air and ground water. Leakage even under extraordinary conditions (like the recent earthquake in northern Japan) has not been massively life-threatening. Can't nuclear power plants explode? Only if, like Chernobyl, they process weapons-grade fuel. The nuclear fuel used in a civilian power plant is not enriched enough to produce uncontrolled fission — that is, an explosion. Western plants are designed to withstand earthquakes (though building one atop a fault line is undoubtedly a bad idea). A direct hit from an aircraft would damage the containment shell but would not penetrate it.

Chernobyl will never happen again-design flaws Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB As to the safety of nuclear power stations, there is now a significant history to demonstrate that these concerns are no longer justified, even if they may have had some precautionary legitimacy in the 1970s. It has long been recognized that the Chernobyl accident was caused by features unique to the Sovietstyle RBMK (reaktor bolshoy moshchnosti kanalniy -- high-power channel reactor). When reactors of that sort get too hot, the rate of the nuclear reaction increases -- the reverse of what happens in most Western reactors. Moreover, RBMK reactors do not have containment shells that prevent radioactive material from getting out. The worse incident in the history of nuclear power, Chernobyl killed just 56 people and made 20 square miles of land uninhabitable. (The exclusion zone has now become a haven for wildlife, which is thriving.) There are suggestions that hundreds or thousands more may die because of long-term effects, but these estimates are based on the controversial Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) theory about the effects of radiation.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

85 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Nuclear waste is dangerous Nucler Waste is No Issue—Over 90% Can Be Recycled Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more and more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again.

Nuclear energy tries to clean up pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions combined with new technology may make nuclear a greener option Financial Times October 28 2005, Understanding Environmental Technology, LC, For the past 20 years, they have been seen as dangerous and uneconomic. Moreover, countries have been unsure about how to dispose of the dangerous radioactive waste they produce. But supporters of nuclear power say that advances in technology have enabled the construction of a new generation of nuclear plants that are cheaper, safer and produce less waste than their predecessors. A key change, they argue, is that modern reactors are designed to shut down in the absence of constant intervention. At the same time, within a few years China hopes to be self-sufficient in reactor design and construction. It plans to build a next-generation "pebble-bed" reactor, which uses helium rather than water to cool nuclear fuels. Proponents say this new technology is far safer and cheaper than existing designs; detractors argue it produces more dangerous radioactive waste. Still, some leaders of the green movement now believe that the risks posed by climate change outweigh those posed by radioactive waste. From an environmental perspective, one of the most intractable problems faced by the nuclear industry is what to do with the radioactive waste from existing facilities, some of which will remain dangerous for centuries.

Non-unique - Lots of nuclear waste now. Brad Glosserman is Director of Research at Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based think tank, and a Contributing Editor to The Japan Times. June 15, 2001. Pac Net. Solving Asia's Nuclear-Waste Dilemma. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0125.pdf A half century of nuclear development has left a considerable legacy. It is estimated that world accumulation of spent fuel will reach 341,095 tons by 2010; Asia's share is 50,610 tons. That is enough material to cover a road 10 meters wide and 300 km long to a depth of one meter. That mountain of radioactive waste will accumulate even if no additional nuclear capacity is installed in Northeast Asia; it is the product of plants already under construction or which were well in to the planning stage. Were that not sobering enough, there is the fact that that waste will contain 450 tons of plutonium. Dealing with that waste is, argues Ron Smith, director of defense and strategic studies at the University of Waikato, New Zealand and who has been studying the back-end problem for several years, "the Achilles heel of the nuclear question."

Nuclear waste can be recycled for more energy Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp Rather than dispose of spent fuel, however, we could follow the French. Using technology we developed, they recycle the fuel for even more energy. California, after all, is a national leader in recycling. Nuclear power can be slightly more expensive than coal-fired power, but the current energy options allowed in California are far more expensive than either coal or nuclear, and coal has become subject of an effective ban in California as well.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

86 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Turn – nuclear power generates less hazardous waste than other power sources and they monitor it to ensure safety. James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 Others Switching Sides Bourne joins a substantial number of environmental activists who have indicated support for nuclear power as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace; James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Earth theory; and Hugh Montefiore, former chairman and trustee for Friends of the Earth, are just a few of the high-profile environmental activists who have recently switched sides on the nuclear issue. "Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases or nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide," explained Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "This, of course, gives nuclear a tremendous environmental advantage over other economically competitive power sources. "Compared with a lot of other industries," Heymer added, "we don't generate as much hazardous waste. Plus, we monitor it--we know where it is, and we make sure that people and the environment are adequately protected from it."

No real impact – if anything low level exposure to radiations helps humans. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 The annual public radiation exposure permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for nuclear facilities is 15 millirem. The average person in the United States is exposed to 200 millirem of radiation per year. If you spent all your time in Grand Central Station, you would get an annual radiation dose of nearly 600 millirem. At Three Mile Island, the total calculated dose Pennsylvanians received after the accident was far less than the measured dose New Mexicans receive from nature every day. Interestingly, in New Mexico the cancer rate is much lower than the national average although natural background radiation is much higher than the national average. The same is true for Denver. Residents of Finland receive an annual dose of radiation three times higher than a person would receive living in the zone surrounding Chernobyl now excluded from habitation. As of 2006, nuclear-powered submarines and ships had safely traveled a total of 134 million miles and registered 5,700 naval reactor years of safe operation with a total of 254 reactors. Hormesis What may explain these facts is the biological theory of hormesis: Organisms are made more resilient by low-level exposure to a substance that is toxic in larger doses. Cravens covers this topic, but in attempting to present both sides of the issue she does not cover the wide literature base of studies on animals and humans that confirm the beneficial effects of low-level radiation. Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst has published extensively in this field and is a good source for additional information. In spite of this science, governments continue to use the linear no-threshold model, which says any radiation dose, no matter how small, is harmful. Misuse of this model has produced spending in excess of $1 trillion in the United States alone for negligible health benefits just for government environmental cleanup programs, while truly significant measures that would protect the public health remain unfunded.

We can figure out how to solve the waste problem. Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change, lexis, bc There's also still the huge problem of where to put the waste. But as Rudy Giuliani suggested recently, if a bunch of European socialists can figure out what to do with the radioactive leftovers, why can't we? "France is ahead of us in nuclear power," he said recently, with the same sort of disgust he might use in reporting that the Red Sox were ahead of his beloved Yankees.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

87 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Radiation Background radiation inoculates against cancer and other diseases, is not harmful Jay Lehr, Ph.D, science director of the Heartland Institute, 4/1/07, “Radiation Myths Harming Public Health” o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20823&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 ellipses in original Let us first examine the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) theory, by which we have been held hostage for so long. To take it to an absurd extreme so you will easily understand it, the theory basically says that if 100 percent of a given population will die from a fall from a 100 foot cliff, and 50 percent would die when falling from a height of 50 feet, then we can expect that one person of a hundred would die when falling from a height of one foot. Silly as this seems, we use the same theory when studying the effects of chemicals and heavy metal intake by humans. Substances such as mercury, lead, tin, cadmium, oxygen, fluorine, arsenic, and selenium are toxic in large quantities, yet critical to our health in small quantities. We call the phenomenon of harm at high doses and help at low doses "hormesis," derived from the Greek word "hormo," which means to excite. Thus, a substance that excites a positive bodily response at a low dose and is harmful at high doses is considered hormetic. Vitamins and trace minerals clearly show the difference a dose makes. The same is true of sunlight, noise, and stress. Radiation Fears Unwarranted A common measure of nuclear radiation is the millirem, or mrem. The average background radiation in the United States is 300 mrem per year, though higher at altitudes well above sea level, such as Denver. Lowlevel radiation is a "green issue." The media tends not to criticize their green friends who oppose any and all forms of radiation. Indeed, if low levels of radiation are realized to be benign, then there goes a central argument of anti-nuclear activists. There is in fact no scientifically credible evidence that lowlevel radiation is harmful, yet there is substantial evidence that it actually inoculates the body to resist the negative effects of future high doses. At the same time, low-dose radiation appears to have positive effects in increasing immune system competency. Hiserodt informs us that if we want to avoid our natural annual background radiation, we would have to move to Antarctica or live underwater in a nuclear submarine. We could also encourage people to move from the high plains of Colorado--where the cancer rates are low--to states where background radiation is low ... but cancer rates are higher. But of course we are not going to do any of these things, because if an increase in low-level radiation caused any problems at all we would have seen the evidence long ago, in the form of dead bodies. If low-level radiation harmed human health, Deadwood, Colorado (elevation 11,000 feet) would be well known for its citizens' short life spans, but that is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true. According to Hiserodt, the only people who think there is any real danger from low-level radiation are the regulators, antinuclear activists, environmental zealots, and government scientists who cling to the Linear No-Threshold hypothesis.

Some radiation is very healthy: Studies prove that government restrictions on nuclear power are wasteful Jay Lehr, Ph.D, science director of the Heartland Institute, 4/1/07, “Radiation Myths Harming Public Health” o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20823&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 The greatest proof, worth repeating, lies among the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima--who were exposed to low-level radiation and went on to experience longer and healthier life spans than Japanese living elsewhere. Study after study of nuclear power plant workers further illustrate the enhanced health of those working in an environment of low-level radiation. The most inclusive study, which was intended to show negative impacts on our nuclear workforce, began at Johns Hopkins University in 1980 and was reported 15 years ago. It conclusively showed positive effects of low-level radiation on 72,356 workers. Perhaps the most telling real-world evidence of the benefits of low-level radiation is how the uneven distribution of background radiation around the world parallels the variations in human cancer rates. The higher the natural radiation background, the lower the local cancer rates. Hiserodt briefly but clearly describes nuclear reactors, saying, "the new designs are even safer than the old--but how do you get safer than no deaths, no injuries, and no negative effects to the public from several thousand reactor years of operation with thousands of giga watt-hours of life-enhancing electrical energy having been generated?" The question of whether tiny amounts of radiation must be avoided, even at great cost, is neither abstract nor trivial. Hundreds of billions of dollars are targeted to remediate U.S. sites even though there is no scientific basis for claiming any health or other benefit from removing low-level radiation. Worldwide, Hiserodt tells us, the cost of such remediation has been estimated at more than a trillion dollars.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

88 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Radiation can be solved by using a satellite monitoring system. Kazuko Hamada. A Review of the Work of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific’s Nuclear Energy Experts Group. ’03 CSCAP’s NEEG: Exploring Nuclear Energy Transparency as a Regional Confidence and Security Building Measure. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/issuesinsights_v03n07.pdf, AP Radiation Monitoring. The section of radiation monitoring provides near-real time, publicly available information on radiation levels to address safety and environmental concerns. Currently the website features monitoring of radiation in the air and water in cooperation with six partner institutions: The Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC) has provided three links to hourly data at their O-arai, Tokai, and Tsuruga facilities. Similarly, the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) has offered a link to their nationwide monitoring system, IERNet. The Taiwan Radiation Monitoring Center has both offered a link and sent their data directly to the CSCAP website. The Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation (MINATOM), in collaboration with the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), has provided radiation monitoring data for the Bilibino nuclear power plant in the Russian Far East. The LANL has offered a link to monitoring 17 from several western states in the U.S. Finally, the Desert Research Institute (DRI) Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) from the Department of Energy in the U.S. joined the group to provide a link to a network of 24 monitoring stations located in communities surrounding the Nevada Test Site. In addition to the six partner institutions, the Hong Kong Meteorological Observatory has given official permission to post their annual report, and several other institutions or organizations have also offered links to their radiation monitoring data or reports available in their respective language. The website front end now provides a direct access to radiation safety data from Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Russia, and the U.S. The CMC and the Japan Nuclear Fuel Cycle Development Institute (JNC) have integrated the radiation data into a user-friendly display. This offers “one-stop shopping” access to a wide range of data and encourages other nuclear organizations to join in this trend toward broad transparency. Future development of this radiation monitoring section will be to develop a common display format to view all of these databases. Further integration of this data continues to be a high priority.

Nuclear energy safe – radiation is everywhere Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP What frightens us about nukes is, of course, radiation. But radiation is all around us, says the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: We get it from outer space, the surface of the Sun, and the Earth's crust. We ingest it via air, water, and foods. Some radiation occurs naturally in the human body.

Estimates of massive radiation impacts are based on flawed EPA studies. Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB Official EPA doctrine, based on the LNT theory, holds that no level of radiation is safe, and that the maximum allowable exposure to radiation is an extremely stringent 15 millirems (mrem) per year. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, researchers discovered that 600,000 mrem was a sufficient dose of radiation to kill anyone exposed to it, and 400,000 mrem killed half the people exposed. Symptoms of radiation sickness develop at 75,000-100,000 mrem. By extrapolating linearly, the model holds that there is no level of radiation at which someone is not adversely affected (hence "non-threshold"). Therefore, if a million people are exposed to a very low dose of radiation -- say 500 mrem -- then 6,250 of them will die of cancer brought on by the exposure. At least according to the theory. But this is mere assumption, with no epidemiological evidence to back it up. As Prof. Donald W. Miller Jr. of the University of Washington School of Medicine wrote in 2004, "Known and documented healthdamaging effects of radiation -- radiation sickness, leukemia, and death -- are only seen with doses greater than 100 rem [which is to say, 100,000 mrem]. The risk of doses less than 100 rem is a black box into which regulators extend 'extrapolated data.' There are no valid epidemiologic or experimental data to support linearly extrapolated predictions of cancer resulting from low doses of radiation."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

89 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Empirically denied-low level radiation is not harmful Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB In fact, Americans are naturally exposed to around 200 mrem a year of background radiation. In some places around the world that background level is much higher. In Ramsar, Iran, thanks to the presence of natural radium in the vicinity, residents get 26,000 mrem a year, but there is no increased incidence of cancer or shortened lifespan. This is a real problem for the LNT theory. The predicted deaths and cancer cases haven't materialized.

Cancer outbreaks do not prove anything Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB In Britain, much hay was made by Greenpeace and other organizations of the emergence of greater incidences of leukemia in children living near the nuclear-reprocessing plant at Sellafield in the early 1990s. But such "cancer clusters" appear all over the place, and are just as likely to appear next to an organic farm -- to borrow the formulation of British environment writer Rob Johnston -- as next to a nuclear facility. There does not appear to be any greater incidence of leukemia in the children of those who work in the nuclear industry. In fact, there is so little evidence of significant safety risks related to nuclear power that the British government "continues to believe that new nuclear power stations would pose very small risks to safety, security, health and proliferation," according to a recent analysis it undertook. It also believes that "these risks are minimized and sensibly managed by industry."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

90 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Reprocessing Non-unique - U.S. moving toward reprocessing now. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Under pressure to start moving the fuel off the sites, the DOE has returned to an idea that it abandoned in the 1970s—to “reprocess” the spent fuel chemically, separating the different elements so that some can be reused. Vast reprocessing plants have been running in France and the U.K. for more than a decade, and Japan began to operate its own $20-billion facility in 2006. So this strategy is not without precedent. But, as I discuss below, reprocessing is an expensive and dangerous road to take.

Turn Dry casks can easily be stored removing the need to reprocess. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Is there enough physical room to keep them? Yes, there is plenty of space for more casks at U.S. nuclear power plants. Even the oldest operating U.S. reactors are having their licenses extended for another 20 years, and new reactors will likely be built on the same sites. So there is no reason to think that these storage areas are about to disappear. Eventually, of course, it will be necessary to remove the spent fuel and put it elsewhere, but there is no need to panic and adopt a policy of reprocessing, which would only make the situation much more dangerous and costly than it is today.

Nuclear recycling would reduce proliferation and nuclear waste. Miller, William H., professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at the university's research reactor, June 29, 2008, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Swords to plowshares: nuclear bombs to electricity, Lexis, VF With recycling, nuclear waste would be less of a problem. One repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would have enough capacity to hold all of the waste from nuclear power plants and the defense program. Consequently, there would be no need for additional storage facilities. If recycling were revived, countries interested in developing their own nuclear power programs would have access to nuclear fuel produced in the United States and other nations that have uranium enrichment capability, such as Russia, France and Great Britain. Through such international partnerships, countries seeking to launch nuclear power programs would have no need to build their own enrichment or recycling facilities. That would reduce the likelihood of nuclear proliferation. As former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, a non-proliferation expert, said recently in regard to the megatons to megawatts program, "Who would have thought this possible in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or even in the early 90s? It would have certainly been seen as a mountain too high to climb." But we have climbed the mountain and reduced the risk from nuclear weapons in the world with nuclear power.

Countries are using mox and nuclear energy now. Nuclear Energy News, may 08, EPZ applies to use MOX fuel at Borssele, http://www.worldnuclear-news.org/ENF-EPZ_applies_to_use_MOX_fuel_at_Borssele_0905082.html, ASH MOX nuclear fuel is widely used in Europe and is also planned for wide use in Japan. Currently about 40 reactors in Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and France) are licensed to use MOX, and over 30 are doing so. Japan also plans to use MOX in up to 20 of its reactors. Most reactors use it as about one third of their core, but some will accept up to 50% MOX assemblies. France aims to have all its 900 MWe series of reactors running with at least one-third MOX. Japan aims to have one third of its reactors using MOX by 2010, and has approved construction of a new reactor with a complete fuel loading of MOX. Advanced light water reactors such as the ABWR, EPR and AP1000 can accept complete fuel loadings of MOX.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

91 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Recycling of nuclear waste is the safest form of disposal. France and Britain prove. Miller, William H., professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at the university's research reactor, June 29, 2008, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Swords to plowshares: nuclear bombs to electricity, Lexis, VF Fifty percent of the fuel used in U.S. nuclear plants to generate electricity comes from Russian nuclear warheads. Use of this converted fuel has extended available uranium supplies and reduced the need to open new uranium mines. As a result, it has made nuclear power more competitive economically and helped to ensure its long-term viability. This raises an important question: If nuclear fuel can be produced safely from bombgrade uranium, why not make use of spent fuel being stored at nuclear plants throughout the United States? The spent fuel - more than 55,000 metric tons of it - contains valuable uranium and plutonium that can be reprocessed chemically to produce a mixed-oxide fuel for use in generating more electricity. Such recycling was done in the United States until the mid-1970s, when President Jimmy Carter banned its use on grounds that the process posed a risk of nuclear proliferation. France and Great Britain, however, have continued to recycle spent fuel. France obtains 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and sells surplus electricity to neighboring countries. Great Britain is gearing up to build more nuclear plants. The United States finally is reawakening to the value of spent-fuel recycling. The U.S. Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership calls for the resumption of recycling in the United States by 2020. Research on improved recycling technologies is under way.

turn – reprocessing reduces the amount of weapons grade material available Miller, William H., professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at the university's research reactor, June 29, 2008, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Swords to plowshares: nuclear bombs to electricity, Lexis, VF Nuclear power's resurgence in the United States is tied to a surprisingly effective program that is helping to make the world a safer place from nuclear weapons. Known as the "megatons to megawatts" program, it has led to the elimination of huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons materials, thus making it much more difficult for rogue countries and terrorist groups to obtain them. Established 15 years ago by the United States and Russia, the megatons to megawatts accord has a single goal: It calls for the conversion of 500 metric tons of highly enriched, bomb-grade uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium to be used at U.S. nuclear power plants to produce electricity. The program has succeeded beyond all expectations. To date, 327 metric tons of Russia's highly enriched uranium has been turned into nuclear fuel for use in U.S. commercial reactors, according to USEC Inc., the publicly traded company originally created by the U.S. Department of Energy. USEC is the U.S. government's exclusive agent for the program. The conversion of that bomb-grade uranium is equivalent to the destruction of nearly 13,100 Russian nuclear warheads aimed at U.S. cities. By 2013, when the program is scheduled to be completed, the equivalent of 20,000 Russian warheads will have been recycled into fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants.

Mox recyceling is very safe and chances of getting sick or injured from nucleur activity is low. Enviormental News Service, ’05, First American MOX Nuclear Fuel Factory Will Emit  Radioactivityhttp://www.ens­newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005­02­01­02.asp ASH SRS employees working elsewhere on the site would be exposed to a fatal cancer risk of one chance in 33 million. Operation of the facilities is considered to have an insignificant impact on members of the public - 1 chance in 500 million. Duke Cogema Stone & Webster has proposed to treat exhausts from the proposed MOX facility with a two stage high efficiency filter system to remove radioactive materials before the exhaust is discharged to the atmosphere.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

92 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Empirically denied – French example proves. Jack Spencer, Research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, December 28, 2007, The Heritage Foundation, Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can't Oui?, nna http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed010108d.cfm What if the government allowed you to burn only 25 percent of every tank of gas? Or if Washington made you pour half of every gallon of milk down the drain? What if lawmakers forced us to bury 95 percent of our energy resources? That is exactly what Washington does when it comes to safe, affordable and CO2free nuclear energy. Indeed, 95 percent of the used fuel from America's 104 power reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, could be recycled for future use. To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this "spent" fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled. Over the past four decades, America's reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That "waste" contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it's just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste! The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since. Other countries have not taken such a backward approach to nuclear power. France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. They turned to nuclear power in the 1970s to limit their dependence on foreign energy. And, from the beginning, they made recycling used fuel central to their program. Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French. Antinuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions. France meets all of its recycling needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La Hague's capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries' spent nuclear fuel. Since beginning operations, France's La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel--enough to power France for fourteen years. Their success has sparked plenty of interest abroad. The French company AREVA has already helped Japan with its reprocessing facility and is currently looking at the feasibility of building a similar plant in China. The British, Japanese, Indians, and Russians all engage in some level of reprocessing. Of course, there is still waste involved. But recycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the French deal with it effectively--placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain. All is not perfect in France. They are still working to open a permanent geologic storage facility. But the critical issue is that they have an organization to handle used nuclear fuel that allows their program to advance without being held hostage to the politics of geologic storage. If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel. A viable reprocessing capability not only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill Yucca's legal limit of 70,000 metric tons--subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater. It would also put the United States back on the map as a leader in commercial nuclear technology, which today it is not. Nuclear fuel reprocessing is a safe activity that should be part of America's nuclear energy program. It can be affordable and is technologically feasible. The French are proving that on a daily basis. The question is: Why can't oui?

SDI 2008 WHAM!

93 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Pebble Bed reactors Non-unique China will use pebble bed reactors Financial Times October 28 2005, Understanding Environmental Technology, LC, At the same time, within a few years China hopes to be self-sufficient in reactor design and construction. It plans to build a next-generation "pebble-bed" reactor, which uses helium rather than water to cool nuclear fuels. Proponents say this new technology is far safer and cheaper than existing designs; detractors argue it produces more dangerous radioactive waste.

Non-unique China and India. Reinhoudt, research assistant at AEI Aug 17. 2007 KP http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26672,filter.all/pub_detail.asp. Martin embraces solar and wind energy as alternative sources of energy, but is more enthusiastic about the potential of new nuclear technology for large-scale electricity generation. Pebble-bed reactors are a product of so-called "fourth generation" nuclear technology: pebble-bed reactors shut down automatically by virtue of their design if the temperature gets too hot so there is no risk of a meltdown. Unlike the uranium used by today's nuclear power plants, the uranium used by pebble-bed reactors is only 9% enriched, making it extremely difficult to divert for nuclear weapon use , reducing proliferation. Unlike the waste produced by today's nuclear power plants, the waste of pebble bed reactors (small balls with hard silicon-carbide shells) can be easily stored. Pebble-bed reactors are also smaller and far more affordable than conventional reactors, making them useful for developing nations. South Africa is set to export such reactors in just a few years, and China is set to build many of them in its quest to reduce energy dependence.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

94 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Russian dependency Non-unique - The US is dramatically increasing its energy reliance on Russia with this new deal Novosti, Russian International News Agency, 02/ 02/ 2008 KP http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080202/98225772.html Russia and the United States have signed a trade deal allowing Russia to boost enriched uranium exports to the U.S., Russian state nuclear agency Rosatom said Saturday. Rosatom director Sergei Kiriyenko made a one-day working visit to the United States on Friday, meeting in Washington with U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. He also met with chief executives of U.S. energy companies affiliated with Ad Hoc Utilities Group, an industrial group comprised of owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power plants. "The deal is worth $5-6 billion over the next 10 years," said Kiriyenko, after signing the document together with Carlos Gutierrez. The deal allows for sales of Russian enriched uranium directly to U.S. utilities. Previously, such direct transactions were not permitted. Gutierrez said: "The agreement will encourage bilateral trade in Russian uranium products for peaceful purposes. It will also help to ensure that U.S. utilities have an adequate source of enriched uranium for U.S. utility consumers." A Rosatom spokesman said with the new trade deal the volumes of direct deliveries of uranium enrichment services may total 20% of the market. Under the deal, Russian uranium exports to the U.S. increase slowly over a 10-year period, beginning in 2011, when shipments would be allowed to reach 16,559 tons. Last September, the United States Court of International Trade lifted discriminatory, anti-dumping restrictions on Russian low-enriched uranium (LEU) supplies, ordering, the U.S. Department of Commerce within 60 days to cancel a 112% duty on Russian low-enriched uranium used by some 50% of U.S. nuclear power plants. Russia currently exports uranium to the U.S. duty free via the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a special intermediary agent, under a conversion program called HEU-LEU. The HEU-LEU contract, also known as the Megatons to Megawatts agreement, was signed in February 1993 and expires in 2013. It aims to convert 500 metric tons of high-enriched uranium (HEU), the equivalent of approximately 20,000 nuclear warheads, from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is then converted into nuclear fuel for use in U.S. commercial reactors.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

95 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Economy Nuclear Power Creates Huge Job Pool, Booming The Economy Jenny Weil, 6-23-08, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Nuclear Construction could create thousands of jobs, group says, lexis, bc A nuclear revival in the US could create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs if the 30 reactors that are currently on the drawing boards are actually built, according to a report released last week by a nuclear energy advocacy group. The report, released Tuesday by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, or CASEnergy, said that each of the 30 reactor projects might create jobs for as many as 4,000 highly skilled construction workers. Additionally, each new reactor might generate between 400 and 700 permanent positions, the report said. Christine Todd Whitman, one of the group's two co-chairs, said the report shows that expanding nuclear energy would be a boon for the US economy. "A renewed focus on nuclear energy will translate into tens of thousands of high-paying American jobs needed to build and operate new reactors," said Whitman, a Republican who formerly served as the governor of New Jersey and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The figure for the peak construction period is much higher than the 2,400-worker estimate previously cited by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. But neither CASEnergy nor NEI specified whether the 4,000 or 2,400 jobs would be needed to build one or two nuclear generating units. NEI has said that building a plant would create about an average of 1,400 to 1,800 jobs. CASEnergy, which was established in 2006, is comprised of various companies, business and labor groups, and elected officials who support nuclear power. Funding for much of the coalition's early activities was provided by NEI. High salaries seen Overall, CASEnergy estimated that as many as 21,000 new jobs could be added to the market if the 30-plus reactors are built. Moreover, the average salaries for plant workers are often "substantially more" than the pay for other jobs in the community near the plant, the group said. Specifically, the report said that the median salary for a senior reactor operator is $85,426, and that standard reactor operators earn about $77,782, on average. Electrical technicians can earn about $67,517, and mechanical technicians are paid about $66,581, the report said. The jobs range from engineers to radiation protection specialists to maintenance and skilled craft workers and plant operators. Support staff would be needed in areas such as recordkeeping, general maintenance and janitorial services, the report said. Another concern for the nuclear industry is replacing retiring workers. The report estimated that about 35% of the current workforce will be eligible to retire within five years, providing an opportunity for hiring about 19,600 workers. CASEnergy noted, for example, that 36% of plant operators are 48 years old or older, and 27% will be eligible to retire in the next five years. An additional 12% might leave for other reasons, and 21% could be promoted to other jobs, the report said.

Turn - Plan spurs consumer spending. Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007. www.oxfordeconomics.com VF Finally, there are further significant benefits for the economy arising from the induced effects of spending of those directly or indirectly employed as a result of the nuclear energy investment program. Once again, these induced effects are particularly pronounced for the manufacturing phase, thanks to the relatively high wages (and therefore high spending of employees) in that sector.

Non-unique – the oil market is jacking the economy now. Jessica Mancari ’08 (June 24th, Sen. Forbes Assistant, The Wall Street Journal, “Rep. Forbes ‘New Manhattan Project’ featured in Wall Street Journal”, AB, Proquest) Rep. Forbes is an earnest Republican congressman from Virginia who has distinguished himself by calling for a "Manhattan Project" to fully end the U.S.'s dependence on foreign energy within 20 years. The Manhattan Project label harks back to the government's crash project to develop and field a nuclear weapon within just a few years to prevail in World War II. The implication is that the country's fate is no less at stake now that its economy is being held hostage by a world oil market so out of control that even Saudi Arabia is watching helplessly.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

96 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear Power Plants boost the US economy and creates more jobs Bonyun ’08 (30 Jun, Sean C. Bonyun, HT Media Inc., “Rep. Upton – A Greater Commitment to Nuclear Will Power Millions of Homes, US Economy”, AB, Proquest) In addition to providing stable, emissions-free electricity, the economic benefits of nuclear power are substantial. Each of today's 104 reactors generates an estimated $430 million a year in total output for the local community, and nearly $40 million per year in total labor income. Nuclear power today accounts for 20 percent of our nation's energy supply (coal supplies are nearly 50 percent; natural gas, 20 percent; hydroelectric, 7 percent; and other renewables such as wind and solar account for just 2.4 percent). While supplying just 20 percent of our electricity, nuclear power accounts for an extraordinary 70 percent of our nation's emissions-free electricity. If we were to maintain the current ratio of electricity generation, to meet future demand over the next 20 years, we will have to construct 747 new coal plants, 52 new nuclear plants and 1,994 new hydro-electric plants. Currently, at least 30 new reactors are under consideration in the United States. According to the Bechtel Power Corporation (outlined by the CASEnergy Coalition) if the U.S. builds 33 to 41 new nuclear power plants, 610,000 high-paying jobs would be added to the U.S. economy: * 72,000 to 79,000 plant construction and operations jobs * 37,000 to 38,000 nuclear manufacturing jobs * 181,000 to 250,000 indirect nuclear power jobs * 218,000 to 242,000 jobs in nonnuclear industries "Although we have not built a new nuclear plant in over three decades, it is imperative that clean, safe nuclear power is at the forefront as we seek to solidify our nation's energy supply and foster a new era of energy independence and reduced emissions," said Upton. "As applications for at least 30 new nuclear plants are expected over the next three years, we are on our way to fulfilling our commitment to nuclear power. Not only will our environment be better for it, our national security will also be bolstered. Millions of households will be powered by zero-emission nuclear power and our nation's economy will be powered by nuclear as well." As a consequence of not having constructed a new nuclear facility in over 30 years, an entire manufacturing sector has literally been shuttered. Through a renewed commitment to nuclear power, and the construction of dozens of new plants on American soil, we will foster the rebirth of the manufacturing industry and the creation of tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

97 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Price Volitility Nuclear Power is the only energy source that is non intermittent and not subject to price fluctuations CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, November 6, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html KP If Michael short-sightedly wants to oppose nuclear energy, he’s free to do so. But he shouldn’t do it with bogus arguments about which technologies are ready for prime time and which aren’t. Nuclear energy is our country’s only large-scale energy source capable of producing electricity around the clock while emitting no air pollutants or greenhouse gases during production. Nuclear energy is also the lowestcost large-scale producer of electricity in this country. And nuclear’s production costs are stable and not subject to fluctuations in the natural gas or oil market. As a domestic energy technology with fuel from the United States and reliable trading partners, nuclear energy is essential to our nation’s energy security.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

98 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Spending Failure to create a federal repository means the government has to pay $300 million per year for dry casks. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks, each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S. nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.

No link – DOE has been collecting money for a permanent repository since 1989. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is charged with the responsibility for managing the waste, has faced this difficult situation by adopting the position that repository site selection is strictly a scientific problem, requiring a tremendous research effort which it is more than happy to undertake. The money for it is available from the 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour tax on nuclear electricity. Through 1989, $6 billion had already been collected. Managing a large research program is clearly advantageous to the careers of those in charge, and it also delays the pain of making a decision. The longevity of individuals in top government positions is such that they personally will probably never have to make a final decision — for a government bureaucrat that is the ideal situation.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

99 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Terrorism Turn – we take away a major source of revenue for terrorist organizations. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB One final point about security: One of the biggest dangers to our security is from oil nations providing support to anti-U.S. terrorist groups. The faster we can move away from carbon-based energy, the faster we take away that funding source. Nuclear energy offers the fastest and most direct path to that safer future.

Nuclear energy secure from previous methods of successful attack such as air planes NRC, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 02, 2008, “Protecting Against Aircraft” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-spotlight/index.html Since 9/11, the issue of an airborne attack on this nation’s infrastructure, including both operating and potential new nuclear power plants, has been widely discussed. The NRC has comprehensively studied the effect of an airborne attack on nuclear power plants. Shortly after 9/11, the NRC began a security and engineering review of operating nuclear power plants. Assisting the NRC were national experts from Department of Energy laboratories, who used state-of-the-art experiments, and structural and fire analyses. These classified studies confirm that there is a low likelihood that an airplane attack on a nuclear power plant would affect public health and safety, thanks in part to the inherent robustness of the structures. A second study identified new methods plants could use to minimize damage and risk to the public in the event of any kind of large fire or explosion. Nuclear power plants subsequently implemented many of these methods. The NRC is now considering new regulations for future reactors’ security. The goal is to include inherent safety and security features to minimize potential damage from an airborne attack.

Their impact is overclaimed – it would be virtually impossible for terrorists to do any damage and if they did the radiation impacts would be minimal. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 The idea that radiation from atomic bombs has caused a substantial increase of genetic mutation has no scientific support. There is no evidence of increased mutation, genetic diseases, or cancer in animals or humans following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. This is true even around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where atomic bombs ended the war with Japan. Likewise, there is no scientific evidence the population near Chernobyl experienced an increase in overall cancer incidence, mortality, or nonmalignant disorders related to radiation exposure following the Chernobyl nuclear power plant failure. The worst large-scale consequence from Chernobyl has been thyroid cancer in Ukrainian and Belarusian children. Readily available potassium iodide tablets would have protected the children by preventing the uptake of radioactive iodine 131, but Moscow unnecessarily delayed allowing distribution of the tablets. Even so, 95 percent of the affected children recovered completely. Chernobyl was a failure not of nuclear power but of the Soviet political system. The predicted increase in cancer from Chernobyl would probably be too small to notice but for the extra scrutiny the Chernobyl area receives. Cleaner than Coal The annual solid residues of coal combustion come to 890 pounds per American. Cravens calculates that if an American got all his or her electricity from coal over a lifespan of 77 years, that person's mountain of solid waste would weigh 68.5 tons. A coal-fired plant releases more radiation than a nuclear plant. The corresponding amount of waste from a lifetime of nuclear power, by contrast, would weigh two pounds and fit into a soda can. And of that amount, only a trace is long-lived. The many experts Cravens consulted were adamant in pointing out terrorists could neither penetrate the security at an American nuclear plant nor make an atomic bomb from its fuel. Regarding future nuclear power plants, some estimates indicate a plant of standardized, streamlined design, with many more built-in, passive safety features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other components, could be built in five years, as is already being accomplished in France. The price per plant comes to about $3 billion, which makes nuclear power much less expensive than solar or wind power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

100 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Unique turn – we spur a move to dry cask storage which solves the terrorism risk. William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis In considering alternative storage options, the study assessed, “Dry cask storage has inherent security advantages over spent fuel storage, but it can only be used to store older spent fuel.”24 Removal of older spent fuel would also relieve overcrowded conditions in many spent fuel pools, thus decreasing safety and security risks of the remaining spent fuel in the pools. While some plants have begun using dry cask storage on-site to relieve the storage burden on spent fuel pools, most plants have not. Hardened onsite storage of dry spent fuel casks would reduce the risk of attack or sabotage. Spent fuel could be moved to dry cask storage after cooling for five years in pools. Estimates are that dry cask storage can safely and securely store spent fuel for up to one hundred years.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

101 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Terrorism – dry cask extensions Light,dry storage casks best – prevent terrorism Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Would such storage be dangerous? I would argue that keeping older fuel produced by the once-through system in dry storage casks represents a negligible addition to the existing nuclear hazard to the surrounding population. The 10 kilowatts of radioactive heat generated by the 10 tons of 20-year-old fuel packed in a dry storage cask is carried off convectively as it warms the air around it. Terrorists intent on doing harm might attempt to puncture such a cask using, say, an antitank weapon or the engine of a crashing aircraft, but under most circumstances only a small mass of radioactive fuel fragments would be scattered about a limited area. In contrast, if the coolant in the nearby reactor were cut off, its fuel would overheat and begin releasing huge quantities of vaporized fission products within minutes. And if the water were lost in a storage pool containing spent fuel, the zirconium cladding of the fuel rods would be heated up to ignition temperature within hours. Seen in this light, dry storage casks look pretty benign.

NRC studies concluded dry storage is safe even if a terrorist attack is successful. Elaine Hiruo, 7-16-08, Nuclear Fuel, Impact of terrorist attack on Yucca must be fully assessed, Loux says, lexis, bc NRC concluded in late May in a draft SEA on spent fuel dry storage at Diablo Canyon that security requirements combined with design requirements for dry storage casks would provide adequate protection against successful terrorist attacks on an Isfsi at a nuclear power plant (NF, 4 June, 14). Agency staff said that the construction and operation of an Isfsi at Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s Diablo Canyon plant would not have a significant impact on the environment.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

102 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Terrorism – Yucca extensions Nuclear waste can best be disposed underground Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Most experts agree that the best way to dispose of waste is deep underground, where radioactive materials can be prevented from entering the environment and where it can be guarded against theft or terrorist attack. In the U.S., the Energy Department picked Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada for a repository, but political wrangling has so far blocked proceeding with the site, and final approval is considered a long shot.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

103 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Terrorism – Nuclear plants protected extensions Armed Guards, motes and the DBT prevent terrorist threats NRC, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 02, 2008, “Defending Against Adversaries” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-spotlight/index.html Commercial nuclear power plants are heavily fortified with well-trained and armed guards. They also have layered physical security measures, such as access controls, water barriers, intrusion detection and strategically placed guard towers. Together, these make up the plants’ response to the Design Basis Threat – usually called the DBT. The DBT is developed from real-world intelligence information and describes the adversary force – coming from both ground and water – the plants must defend against. DBT specifics are not public in order to protect sensitive information that could aid terrorists. The NRC regularly reviews the DBT and adds new requirements when necessary.

Layered defensive of nuclear Storage facilitiss and plants make them impregnable NRC, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 02, 2008, “Defending Category I Fuel-Cycle Facilities” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-spotlight/index.html There are two NRC-licensed Category I Fuel-Cycle Facilities in the U.S. that make reactor fuel for nuclear plants. Since these plants handle nuclear material that could be targeted by adversaries, they also must defend against a DBT similar to that for nuclear power plants. While security of the nation’s nuclear power plants has always been a top priority, the NRC has responded to today’s threat environment with heightened scrutiny and increasingly stringent requirements. NRC-regulated nuclear facilities are, in fact, considered among the most secure of the nation’s critical infrastructure. The key is layers of defense. As a first layer, nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures, built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Additional security measures as previously explained are then layered on top. A final layer of protection is NRC’s close coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense and local law enforcement. This coordination is focused on building an integrated federal, state and local response to protect the public. The NRC Operations Center, at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., provides an around-the-clock conduit for information and coordinated response. Together, these layers make a formidable defense – they provide a level of security second to none in the commercial power sector.

The US is prepared to handle any potential security threats from terrorism on nuclear facilities Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis The United States has taken steps to improve the security of nuclear power plants against terrorist attack or sabotage. Soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission launched a top-to-bottom review of security procedures and requirements. Despite these updated security requirements, some independent groups continue to express concern about security vulnerabilities at U.S. nuclear power plants. In part to address such concerns, Congress placed statutory requirements for nuclear plant security in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In particular, the act requires that each nuclear plant conduct force-on-force exercises at least once every three years, which is the NRC’s current policy. The act also calls for the exercises to simulate threats in the design-basis-threat (DBT) and for the NRC “to mitigate any potential conflict of interest that could influence the results of a force-on-force exercise, as the Commission determines to be necessary and appropriate.” In addition, the act requires the NRC to revise the DBT at least every eighteen months, factoring in all conceivable modes of attack, including use of multiple teams of attackers, several plant employees aiding the attackers, and large explosives. The new law also includes requirements to fingerprint and conduct background checks of plant personnel and for the NRC to consult with the Department of Homeland Security about the vulnerability of proposed nuclear facilities to terrorist attack. Until June 2006, private citizens and nongovernmental organizations were stymied in post-9/11 attempts to challenge the government and industry about security concerns at U.S. nuclear power plants. At that time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NRC violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not reviewing the vulnerability of a proposed spent nuclear fuel facility at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. The

SDI 2008 WHAM!

104 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

NRC rejected the security review under NEPA in part because it believed that security is already carefully evaluated outside of environmental legal requirements.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

105 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Terrorism – Oil revenue fuels terrorism extensions Oil revenue fuels terrorism Sean Whaley, May 29, 2008, Las Vegas Review Journal LC http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do Much of the oil revenue goes to countries that don't like the United States, and some of it ends up in the hands of terrorists. The country's oil dependence is a national security issue, a climate issue and an economic issue, McCain said. In remarks prior to taking questions from the audience, McCain said he would stop the spending spree that Congress has been engaged in over the past several years. He said the United States is winning the war in Iraq, and he criticized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, for not visiting the country to see what is happening firsthand."My friends, this is about leadership," he said. McCain mentioned Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., only once, and as an afterthought. He mentioned President Reagan several times but did not mention President Bush.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

106 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Terrorism – no transportation risk extensions Waste transport is safe and even if there was a terrorist impact there would be very few deaths. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html We will confine our attention to the shipping of spent fuel, since that is where there has been the most experience; other high-level waste shipments will be handled analogously. One general safety measure is to delay shipping as long as possible to allow short-lived radioactivity to decay away. For spent fuel, the minimal delay has been 6 months. But the most important safety device is the cask in which the spent fuel is shipped. It typically costs a few million dollars, and one can well imagine that a great deal of protection can be bought for that kind of money. These casks have been crashed into solid walls at 80 miles per hour, and hit by railroad locomotives traveling at similar speeds, without any release of their contents.10 These and similar tests have been followed by engulfment in gasoline fires for 30 minutes and submersion in water for 8 hours, still without damage to the contents. In actual practice, these casks have been used to carry spent fuel all over the country for more than 40 years. Railroad cars and trucks carrying them have been involved in all sorts of accidents, as might be expected. Drivers have been killed; casks have been hurled to the ground; but no radioactivity has ever been released, and no member of the public has been exposed to radiation as a consequence of such accidents. If we try to dream up situations that could lead to serious public health consequences, we are limited by the fact that nearly all of the radioactivity is solid material, unable to leak out like a liquid or a gas. There is no simple mechanism for spreading it over a large area even if it did get out of the cask. In almost any conceivable situation, significant radiation exposure would he limited to people who linger for several minutes in the immediate vicinity of the accident; hence the number of people exposed would be relatively small. When all relevant factors are included in an analysis, studies indicate that with a very full nuclear power program there would eventually be one death every few thousand years in the United States resulting from radioactivity releases in spent fuel transport accidents.11 Of course, there would be many times that number of deaths from the normal consequences of these accidents. Some people have posed the problem of terrorists blowing up a spent fuel cask while it is being transported through a city.12 To study this, Sandia National Laboratory carried out tests with high-explosive devices and lots of instruments to help determine just what was happening. Their conclusion was that even if several hundred pounds of high explosives were used on a cask traveling through downtown Manhattan at noon on a week day, the total expected number of eventual deaths would be 0.2; that is, there is only a 20% chance that there would be a single death from radiation-induced cancer. A more important effect is the slight radiation exposure to passers-by as trucks carrying radioactive waste travel down highways. Some gamma rays emitted by the radioactive material can penetrate the walls of the cask to reach surrounding areas. (Due to weight limitations, it is not practical to have as thick a shield wall on a truck as is used around reactors.) Even with a full nuclear power program, however, exposures to individuals would be a tiny fraction of 1 mrem. The effects would add up to one death every few centuries in the United States.11 Some perspective on these results can be obtained by comparing them with impacts of transport connected with other energy technologies. Gasoline truck accidents kill about 100 Americans each year and injure 8 times that number. It has been estimated that coal-carrying trains kill about 1,000 members of the public each year. Clearly, the hazards in shipment of radioactive waste are among the least of our energy-related transportation problems.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

107 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Terrorism – terrorists can’t run planes into plants Nuclear plants could withstand a plane slamming into them. Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP The only nuclear accident to release truly deadly amounts of radiation was the Chernobyl explosion. Incredibly, the Soviets built this Ukrainian plant (and several others) without a containment shell. All reactors operating in Western nations operate within four feet of steel and concrete, which means that if something goes wrong, there's a Plan B to prevent high levels of radiation from escaping into the air and ground water. Leakage even under extraordinary conditions (like the recent earthquake in northern Japan) has not been massively life-threatening. Can't nuclear power plants explode? Only if, like Chernobyl, they process weapons-grade fuel. The nuclear fuel used in a civilian power plant is not enriched enough to produce uncontrolled fission — that is, an explosion. Western plants are designed to withstand earthquakes (though building one atop a fault line is undoubtedly a bad idea). A direct hit from an aircraft would damage the containment shell but would not penetrate it.

Terrorists won’t attack a reactor and the damage would be minimal anyway Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”, Proquest, AB There is some concern that nuclear power plants present an attractive target for terrorists. After the attacks of Osama bin Laden's impromptu air force in 2001, the Department of Energy commissioned a study into the effects of a fully fueled jetliner's hitting a reactor containment vessel at maximum speed. In none of the simulations was containment breached. Given the massive investment that would be needed to compromise a nuclear power station, it is highly unlikely that terrorists would seek to attack such a hard target -- especially when their revealed preference has been for soft targets offering the maximum possible loss of civilian life.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

108 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Natural Gas – you stop it Natural gas prices are too high – people won’t switch to it. James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 Pointing out that nuclear plants produce more than three-quarters of France's power, and that nations such as Russia and China are rapidly expanding their nuclear power supply utilizing the latest technological advances, McCain said nuclear roadblocks in the United States are "a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem." "The potential for growth in the United States is positive," Heymer agreed. "Ten years ago, when natural gas was $1.75, if you had mentioned new nuclear power plants, people would not have taken the idea seriously. Now, with CO2 concerns, environmental concerns, and natural gas prices floating around $7.00, nuclear is a very sensible option. We need to build our base load power generation in a manner that minimizes pollution and CO2 emissions.

Non-unique - Nuclear power is cost competitive with natural gas already. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Even without a carbon tax, rising natural-gas prices are beginning to make nuclear power more competitive. That's true even in some deregulated markets, such as Texas. NRG Energy Inc., based in Princeton, N.J., has filed an application to build a reactor adjacent to an existing plant in Texas. Though it's too early to know how much the plant will eventually cost -- or even if it ultimately will get built -- high natural-gas prices alone are enough to justify construction, according to NRG.

Natural gas will increase costs and cause dependency. St. Petersburg Times, National, pg. 12A, May 21, 2008 LC The first thing we need to seriously consider is the avoidance of new power generation capacity using natural gas. Although natural gas is the energy resource of choice for new power generation plants, we are now facing a downturn in domestic natural gas production capacity. Energy companies are drilling more holes than ever but they have been unable to increase domestic production of natural gas for a number of years. The addition of nuclear power plants will mitigate our dependence on costly domestic natural gas and imported LNG to replace domestic production. The long-term nature of nuclear power plant development will allow us time to recover from a routine economic downturn and allow us to plan for new forms of transportation. [We should] add this nuclear capacity to avoid further commitment to natural gas at higher prices and to provide the added capacity for alternative energy platforms based on electricity. We should all think long-term and take control of our future by supporting Progress Energy's project in Levy County.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

109 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Uranium prices Demand for uranium increasing now. Michael Angwin, director of the Australian Uranium Association, April 29, 2008 OPINION pg.18 LC The remainder of Falk and Williams' article was mostly a point-scoring attempt. They disparage the uranium industry for being ``small''. Of course, even ``small'' export industries play an important role in Australia's prosperity. Global demand for uranium is being driven by climate change and energy security. Australia's exports will grow rapidly under those influences, with substantial economic benefits for South Australia. Falk and Williams make the surprising claim that the Australian uranium industry ``ignores'' greenhouse-friendly renewables. This is classic verballing. Renewables do have a key role in addressing climate change. That role should ultimately be shaped by informed technological and economic judgments having regard to the energy issues facing the world. Finally, on climate change, it is worth bearing in mind that nuclear power produces about the same amount of greenhouse gas as wind and hydro and less than solar power. In addition, Australia's uranium exports avoid about 400 million tons of greenhouse gas every year in producing nuclear power overseas, compared with the coal that would otherwise be used.

Prices of Uranium are rising now. CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a very different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report (PDF), by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and only supplied about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available weapons-grade uranium, a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine and the need for fuel at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant increases in uranium prices in the last few years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound. However, analysts say the uranium market also can be difficult to predict because many transactions are not transparent.

We can get uranium from converted warheads. Miller, William H., professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at the university's research reactor, June 29, 2008, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Swords to plowshares: nuclear bombs to electricity, Lexis, VF Fifty percent of the fuel used in U.S. nuclear plants to generate electricity comes from Russian nuclear warheads. Use of this converted fuel has extended available uranium supplies and reduced the need to open new uranium mines. As a result, it has made nuclear power more competitive economically and helped to ensure its long-term viability. This raises an important question: If nuclear fuel can be produced safely from bombgrade uranium, why not make use of spent fuel being stored at nuclear plants throughout the United States? The spent fuel - more than 55,000 metric tons of it - contains valuable uranium and plutonium that can be reprocessed chemically to produce a mixed-oxide fuel for use in generating more electricity. Such recycling was done in the United States until the mid-1970s, when President Jimmy Carter banned its use on grounds that the process posed a risk of nuclear proliferation. France and Great Britain, however, have continued to recycle spent fuel. France obtains 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and sells surplus electricity to neighboring countries. Great Britain is gearing up to build more nuclear plants. The United States finally is reawakening to the value of spent-fuel recycling. The U.S. Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership calls for the resumption of recycling in the United States by 2020. Research on improved recycling technologies is under way.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

110 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Politics – they say “Nuclear power is unpopular” Global warming provides political cover for increasing nuclear power. England proves. Steven J. Milloy 6/18/07 “Hold the Line on Global Warming” Originally found on Junkscience.com o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/019,05984.cfm When Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister in 1979, her mandate was to reduce Britain’s economic decline. Thatcher wanted to make the UK energy-independent through nuclear power – she didn’t like her country’s reliance on coal, which politically empowered the coal miner unions, or oil, which empowered Middle Eastern states. So Thatcher latched onto her science adviser’s notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide warmed the planet in a harmful way, thereby providing the perfect political cover for advancing her nuclear power agenda without having to fight the miners or Arab oil states. She empowered the U.K. Meteorological Office to begin global climate change research, a move that eventually led to the 1988 creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ group that has come to be the “official” international agency for global warming alarmism. The Europeans now see global warming as a means of hampering U.S. economic competitiveness through increased energy prices. In a global warming-worried world, it becomes more expensive to use coal, for example. About 52 percent of U.S. electricity is produced by burning coal. France, in contrast, gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Guess whose economy takes the hit. The Europeans also know that environmentalists and trial lawyers will ensure that greenhouse gas emissions regulations are strictly enforced in the U.S. The same cannot be said for Europe.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

111 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT DA Politics – they say “Obama will do the plan (DA turns the case)” Obama Against Going Nuclear Christina Bellantoni, 7-7-08, The Washington Times, GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states; Economy takes focus, lexis, bc But Barack Obama? For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes. No to nuclear. No to more production. No new solutions," a narrator says. "Barack: just the party line." The spot will run in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Both parties have identified these states as critical battlegrounds for the Nov. 4 general election, and both candidates have made multiple visits. The RNC plans to spend about $3 million onthe ad, its first that targets Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. An Obama campaign spokesman labeled the ad an "attack" and said the energy crisis can be solved only through honest debate. "There's a real choice in this election between John McCain 's promise to continue the Bush approach of trying to drill our way out of our energy crisis - which even he admits won't lower prices this summer - or Barack's plan to provide meaningful short-term relief for our families and to make a historic investment in alternative energy development that will create millions of new jobs, keep the cost of energy affordable and secure our energy independence once and for all," spokesman Hari Sevugan said. The Republican ad accuses Mr. Obama of saying "no to nuclear," though the senator from Illinois has been criticized by environmentalists for his qualified past support for nuclear power. Mr. Obama has panned Mr. McCain's proposal for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. The RNC cites a December campaign stop in Newton, Iowa, where Mr. Obama told voters, "I am not a nuclear energy proponent." A recent McCain Web ad used a longer version of the same remark while arguing that Mr. Obama says "no" to "clean, safe nuclear energy." Mr Brown will arrive in New Delhi on Sunday [20 January] for a two-day visit to India his first as the prime minister of Britain. Strengthening education and trade links, and learning from India's experience of promoting cohesion in a multicultural and multi-religious society, will also engage his attention here.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

112 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP States Failure to create a federal repository means the federal government has to pay $300 million per year for dry casks – the states counterplan doesn’t solve this because it’s a legal obligation the federal government has to energy companies. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks, each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S. nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.

Yucca will still be used for military waste. Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc The nation has been trying to resolve the issue since the late 1970s. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In his first term, President Bush, with congressional approval, selected Yucca Mountain as the designated site for what is mostly spent fuel from commercial reactors but also military nuclear waste. Since then, Nevada has waged an effective legal, political and technical fight against it, drawing on the state's growing fiscal and political clout.

CP wouldn’t be able to use Yucca Mountain – it’s on federal land. Isaac J. Winograd and Eugene H. Roseboom Jr, Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 June 2008, NUCLEAR WASTE: Yucca Mountain Revisited, nna The physical setting of the proposed YM repository (i.e., in consolidated rocks ~300 meters above the water table) lends itself to such an approach by permitting ready access to and monitoring of the wastes (the major assets of surface storage), while isolating them at depth at a single location (the chief asset of geologic disposal) on remote federal land.

The counterplan can’t offer cradle-to-grave fuel cycle services which undermines antiproliferation efforts. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org During the last several decades, the U.S. has been struggling to implement a national policy for management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, independently of whether it will result in direct disposal of the spent fuel or reprocessing and recycle. In fact, the U.S. Government is presently in protracted litigation with most U.S. utilities for monetary damages associated with DOE's inability to accept their spent fuel and dispose of it as called for in contracts that it has with each of these customers. One adverse implication that this may have on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is that it seriously undermines the ability of the U.S. to offer fuel leasing or cradle-to- grave fuel cycle services to foreign countries. The ability to make such offers could be a valuable tool for discouraging the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

113 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Other alternative energies Nuclear power produces less c02, is more affordable, and can provide a substantial amount of power – it’s better than all the other alternatives. Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy Nuclear power is green in multiple senses. The most important criteria by which to judge any viable alternative to petroleum is the magnitude of its contribution to global warming. Well, uranium or petroleum fission produces no carbon emissions whatsoever, since there is no carbon involved. The cooling process does produce water vapour, but water vapour and carbon dioxide are both greenhouse gases in the same sense that Roger Federer and I are both tennis players (and water vapour emissions, moreover, can be controlled). The environmental downsides of nuclear power are therefore not any more severe than other alternative energy sources, such as wind or solar power, and are arguably less severe than biofuels like the ethanol that Obama heartily supports. These energy sources all entail waste heat, produce solid waste and have other drawbacks - but the environmental drawbacks of all of them, nukes included, are quite modest. From a fiscal perspective, nuclear power enjoys enormous advantages over other environmentally friendly energies. At their present state of technological development, nuclear reactors can already power large industrial societies. Wind and solar power are not there yet, and biofuels (particularly ethanol) are something of an embarrassing racket, being extraordinarily inefficient and requiring huge government subsidies to be propped up.

It will take 1200 years for other alternative energies to catch nuclear power. CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, November 6, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html KP It’s a shame this is an online discussion, because surely Michael Mariotte couldn’t have written his remarks with a straight face. You do the math: Nuclear energy annually has provided 20 percent of U.S. electricity supplies since the early 1990s, and even with a marked increase in overall electricity demand, it constitutes more than 70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or controlled pollutants into the atmosphere. Renewable energy technologies over that same time period—even with subsidies like production tax credits in place—have increased their share of U.S. electricity production to 3.1 percent from 2.9 percent. At that rate of growth, it will take renewable technologies another twelve hundred years just to equal the share of electricity production that nuclear energy has provided since 1992. But just to give Michael the benefit of the doubt, let’s take a more generous look at what wind power’s true believers are saying, as reported by Reuters last June from the American Wind Energy Association’s annual conference in Los Angeles: “The U.S. wind power industry will see half a trillion dollars of investment by 2030 to take the renewable source up to 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation, an industry conference heard on Monday.” Hmmm … 20 percent by 2030. Remind me again which technology’s offerings Michael proclaims to be “too little, too late.” The silly premise that Michael and many other critics employ with regard to nuclear energy’s clean-air benefits is to suggest that, simply because a substantial number of new nuclear plants is needed to accommodate our sector’s “wedge” of carbon prevention, then construction shouldn’t be undertaken at all. That line of thinking used to be called throwing out the baby with the bath water. The reality is that all carbon-free energy technologies, working hand in hand with improved energy efficiency and conservation measures, are needed to meet this threat.

Renewable energy is simply not ready yet Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP Despite the promise of renewables like solar, wind, and hydro power — which by the 22nd century will be all we've got left — their current forms can't sustain more than a fraction of our current energy usage. Yes, let's pursue them aggressively, but let's also keep the lights on in the meantime.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

114 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Biofuels Biofuels, especially ethanol, use too much energy. Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP Forget the whole genre of biofuels. They're a mirage, due to something called ERoEI: energy return on energy invested. It takes too much fuel to make these fuels. Ethanol is only the most notorious example of a bad bunch. Sure, it comes from corn, but corn production is impossible without massive inputs of chemical fertilizer made largely from natural gas — you know, one of those fossil fuels we're running out of. With other alternative fuels, such as oil shale and tar sands, the story varies but the ending is the same. These technological shell games are unlikely to run the power plants (or vehicles) of the future.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

115 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Hydroelectric No way to expand hydroelectric power. Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf The future for hydroelectric generation is rather dim. Little unexploited potential remains. Indeed, there are pressures even today to remove hydropower dams in place because of various environmental concerns. And whenever an oil supply crisis emerges, a call for greater use of solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass inevitably arises. Their future is always just around the corner but we have yet to turn that corner and I cannot say for certain that we ever will. That leaves the nuclear option. The nuclear industry is far more regulated than are competing forms of energy. With electricity becoming more essential to our way of life, is it not time to develop a set of criteria to measure the effectiveness of the individual forms of power generation, to give nuclear energy the benefit of a level playing field?

SDI 2008 WHAM!

116 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Solar Solar power can’t provde enough energy. Macer Hall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bc MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers - but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources, including wind turbines and solar panels, cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe, secure energy. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a lowcarbon form of energy, " Mr Brown said.

Nuclear Energy is a consistent source of energy and more cost effective than solar. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available rain or shine.

Solar and wind are subsidized, nuclear solves better James Hoare 12/1/07 “Idaho Governor Lobbying Hard for Nuclear Power” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22365&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Pointing out that solar and wind power are heavily subsidized and expensive, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) is stumping across the state for nuclear power. "Alternative energy, clean energy--those are all great ideas," Otter told the University Presidents Council of Idaho universities on October 2. "But when you take a look at the impact they have and the subsidy they need, solar and wind both are tremendously subsidized. I think there are other clean energy alternatives. I think nuclear is one of them. I'm behind nuclear."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

117 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Solar power is too expensive and can’t be used in many areas of the country. James Hoare 12/1/07 “Idaho Governor Lobbying Hard for Nuclear Power” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22365&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Idaho does not rank in the top 10 states for wind power suitability, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Moreover, the state's northern latitude makes it ill-suited for solar power. Even in the ideal location of southern California's Mojave Desert, solar power cannot be produced at prices anywhere near being cost-competitive with conventional power plants. Nuclear Power Less Expensive Otter's stumping for nuclear power is likely to boost the chances for construction of the proposed Grand View nuclear power plant. The facility, which will generate 1,600 megawatts of power at a construction cost of $3.5 billion, is being touted as a more cost-effective means for Idaho to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, a state-of-the-art solar power plant currently being proposed in Florida by Florida Power & Light will cost nearly half as much money as the proposed Idaho nuclear power plant and will produce less than one-fifth as much power. A similar solar plant in Idaho would be even less efficient than the proposed Florida solar power facility, as Idaho gets far less solar energy than Florida. "Nuclear power is the only economically feasible means to reduce greenhouse gases, if we assume for the sake of argument that reducing greenhouse gases is a worthwhile public policy goal," said Jay Lehr, science director for The Heartland Institute. "Impressive new technology is also making nuclear power safer and less expensive all the time," Lehr added. "The future of energy production in this country is definitely nuclear."

Future nuclear power plants will be better and safer and wil cost way less than solar or wind power. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Regarding future nuclear power plants, some estimates indicate a plant of standardized, streamlined design, with many more built-in, passive safety features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other components, could be built in five years, as is already being accomplished in France. The price per plant comes to about $3 billion, which makes nuclear power much less expensive than solar or wind power.

Wind and solar energies would require massive amounts of land to replace nuclear power. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Although Cravens believes alternate energy sources such as wind and solar are important, she offers an honest assessment of their huge limitations. For example, a 2006 National Academy of Sciences study found the Indian Point Nuclear Plant near New York City produces about 10 percent of the electricity for New York State. To replace that power with a wind farm would require 300,000 acres--nearly 500 square miles--of windmills operating under the most favorable conditions. At the McGuire Nuclear Station in North Carolina, where strong winds are rare, 50 square miles of photovoltaic cells would be required to replace the nuclear facility with solar power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

118 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Solar energy is way worse than nuclear energy, especially environmentally Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html Even if there were a competition between solar and nuclear electricity, there is no technically valid reason to prefer the former. It was pointed out previously that production of the materials for deploying a solar cell array requires burning 3% as much coal as would be burned in generating the same amount of electricity in coal-burning power plants. Roughly the same is true for the power tower and wind turbine applications of solar energy. That means that they produce 3% as much air pollution as coal burning. This is not a great environmental problem, but it still makes them more harmful to health than nuclear power. In addition, there are long-term waste problems, discussed in Chapter 12, which pose many times more of a health problem than the widely publicized nuclear waste. There are lots of poisonous chemicals used in fabricating solar cells, such as hydrofluoric acid, boron trifluoride, arsenic, cadmium, tellurium, and selenium compounds, which can cause health problems. Also, there is much more construction work needed for solar installations than for nuclear; construction is one of the most dangerous industries from the standpoint of accidents to workers. If photovoltaic panels on houses become widespread, how many people would be killed and injured in cleaning or replacing solar panels on roofs, or in clearing them of snow? What about the dangers in repairing the complex electric conversion systems? Over a thousand Americans now die each year from electrocution, and the powerconditioning equipment needed for a solar electricity installation would represent a major increase in this risk. Back-up systems, most especially diesel engines in the home, have serious health problems. Diesel exhausts include some of the most potent carcinogens known, and they contribute to most of the other air pollution problems discussed in connection with coal burning in Chapter 3. Large solar plants also create environmental and ecological problems. What happens to the land and animals that live on it when a 5-mile diameter area is covered with solar cells or mirrors? Desert areas, which are most attractive for solar installations, are especially fragile in this regard. Wind turbines are noisy, and some consider them to be ugly, especially if they dominate the landscape for many miles in every direction — recall that it takes a thousand very large installations to replace one nuclear plant. Central receivers use a great deal of water, which is generally in short supply in deserts where these installations would be most practical. All solar electricity technologies require a lot of land, inhibiting its use for other purposes.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

119 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Wind Wind power can’t provide enough energy Macer Hall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bc MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers - but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources, including wind turbines and solar panels, cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe, secure energy. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a lowcarbon form of energy, " Mr Brown said.

Nuclear power is more cost effective and isn’t subject to fuel volatility. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available rain or shine.

Nuclear Power requires fewer acres to generate power than wind farms Dr. Patricia A. Lapoint is professor of management at McMurry University and president of P&L Consultants. 6/7/2008. Abilene Reporter News. There's a price for subsidizing wind energy with taxpayer dollars. AP http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/press/theres-a-price-for-subsidizing-wind-energy-with-taxpayer-dollars Currently, there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States that generate over 97,000 MW. Nuclear plants operate at 90 percent capacity compared to 30-33 percent for wind farms (ERCOT). For a comparable amount of electricity output, a nuclear power plant requires approximately 50 acres of land vs. 80,000 acres of land for wind farms -- 1,600 times the land usage for wind generated power! For the same or less taxpayer money, why not put those taxpayer dollars into more nuclear power plants and protect our natural environment from the thousands of square miles of industrial wind turbines dotting the landscape?

Solar and wind are subsidized, nuclear solves better James Hoare 12/1/07 “Idaho Governor Lobbying Hard for Nuclear Power” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22365&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Pointing out that solar and wind power are heavily subsidized and expensive, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) is stumping across the state for nuclear power. "Alternative energy, clean energy--those are all great ideas," Otter told the University Presidents Council of Idaho universities on October 2. "But when you take a look at the impact they have and the subsidy they need, solar and wind both are tremendously subsidized. I think there are other clean energy alternatives. I think nuclear is one of them. I'm behind nuclear."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

120 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Future nuclear power plants will be better and safer and wil cost way less than solar or wind power. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Regarding future nuclear power plants, some estimates indicate a plant of standardized, streamlined design, with many more built-in, passive safety features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other components, could be built in five years, as is already being accomplished in France. The price per plant comes to about $3 billion, which makes nuclear power much less expensive than solar or wind power.

Wind and solar energies would require massive amounts of land to replace nuclear power. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Although Cravens believes alternate energy sources such as wind and solar are important, she offers an honest assessment of their huge limitations. For example, a 2006 National Academy of Sciences study found the Indian Point Nuclear Plant near New York City produces about 10 percent of the electricity for New York State. To replace that power with a wind farm would require 300,000 acres--nearly 500 square miles--of windmills operating under the most favorable conditions. At the McGuire Nuclear Station in North Carolina, where strong winds are rare, 50 square miles of photovoltaic cells would be required to replace the nuclear facility with solar power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

121 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Natural Gas Nuclear power is less expensive and isn’t subject to fuel volatility. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available rain or shine.

Natural gas prices are too high to be cost competitive. James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 Pointing out that nuclear plants produce more than three-quarters of France's power, and that nations such as Russia and China are rapidly expanding their nuclear power supply utilizing the latest technological advances, McCain said nuclear roadblocks in the United States are "a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem." "The potential for growth in the United States is positive," Heymer agreed. "Ten years ago, when natural gas was $1.75, if you had mentioned new nuclear power plants, people would not have taken the idea seriously. Now, with CO2 concerns, environmental concerns, and natural gas prices floating around $7.00, nuclear is a very sensible option. We need to build our base load power generation in a manner that minimizes pollution and CO2 emissions.

CP doesn’t solve dependency. St. Petersburg Times, National, pg. 12A, May 21, 2008 LC The first thing we need to seriously consider is the avoidance of new power generation capacity using natural gas. Although natural gas is the energy resource of choice for new power generation plants, we are now facing a downturn in domestic natural gas production capacity. Energy companies are drilling more holes than ever but they have been unable to increase domestic production of natural gas for a number of years. The addition of nuclear power plants will mitigate our dependence on costly domestic natural gas and imported LNG to replace domestic production. The long-term nature of nuclear power plant development will allow us time to recover from a routine economic downturn and allow us to plan for new forms of transportation. [We should] add this nuclear capacity to avoid further commitment to natural gas at higher prices and to provide the added capacity for alternative energy platforms based on electricity. We should all think long-term and take control of our future by supporting Progress Energy's project in Levy County.

Nuclear energy has a lower energy input-output ration than natural gas Alex Hutchinson, writer, Oct. 2006, “The Next Atomic Age: Can Safe Nuclear Power Work for America?”, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html?page=1, VP The amount of energy inputs required for a nuclear power plant with 1GWe capacity over its lifetime of 40 years is around 50 PJ. Its lifetime production of electrical energy is about 3000 PJ. In other words, the energy input is about 1.7% of the total produced energy. As a point of reference, for natural gas the published figures range from 3.8% to 20%.

New energy sources are need, natural gas production declining. Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP Our flatlining fossil-fuel supply cannot keep pace with rising world demand. U.S. oil production peaked in 1970. Worldwide oil production may be peaking right around now. And domestic naturalgas production has been declining for nearly as long as oil production. We need new energy sources.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

122 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

SDI 2008 WHAM!

123 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Tidal power Nuclear power cheaper than tidal power. Financial Times October 28 2005, Understanding Environmental Technology, LC, "Nuclear power generation has made great strides," Lord Broers, president of the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering, wrote in the FT earlier this year. "After a period when it was believed to be hopelessly uneconomic, it is now close to competing in real economic terms with gas-powered generation. And even after making allowance for decommissioning costs, nuclear is significantly cheaper than wind or wave power."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

124 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Cap and Trade Perm do both. Perm solvency - Only nuclear power can make a cap and trade system feasible. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact, nna http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm To argue that the waste problem must first be solved, but then to stand in the way of building Yucca Mountain or reprocessing nuclear fuel (both of which are safe methods of waste management), is equally dubious. If one views atmospheric emissions as such a threat that CO2 reductions should be made the central organizing tenet of America's economic and energy policy (and thus society), then the moral policy should be to achieve that objective in an economically rational way. The motives of anyone who denies society access to the technologies best capable of achieving its stated goals, either by explicit antagonism or through implicit passivity, must be questioned. On the other hand, if CO2 reduction is truly the objective, then maximizing America's nuclear resources as quickly as possible should be a top priority. While doing so would still not likely allow the U.S. to meet the levels of nuclear power described in either the EIA or the EPA analyses, it could at least minimize the economic impact of Lieberman–Warner.

Cap and trade will hurt the economy. Steven J. Milloy 5/15/08 “McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech” Originally published in FoxNews.com o.z. http://cei.org/articles/mccain’s-embarrassing-climate-speech This is unlikely since cap-and-trade’s economic harms have been exposed and condemned by the likes of the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency and renown economists such as Alan Greenspan and Arthur Laffer. Even the Clinton administration warned of the economic harms that would be caused by cap-and-trade.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

125 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Carbon Taxes 1. perm do both the plan and the counterplan 2. Nuclear Power is the only way the counterplan would be affordable. ABC News 7/4/08 “Nuclear power could become popular: Switkowski” o.z.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/04/2294142.htm Uranium explorers say the public could warm to the idea of nuclear power once the costs associated with carbon trading are released. A report on the cost of climate change from economist Professor Ross Garnaut is expected to be made public today. West Australian uranium explorers are hoping Australians will change their attitude to nuclear energy when the cost of an emissions trading scheme hits home. The physicist and businessman who chaired the Howard Government's nuclear task force, Ziggy Switkowski, says nuclear power would reduce emissions. "If fossil fuels are progressively seen to be unacceptable because of their emissions then the only alternative to fossil fuel for large scale production of electricity remains nuclear power," he said. Mr Switkowski says other countries have made the most of reasonably priced nuclear power. "I would assume that the recent trip that Prime Minister Rudd has made along with Minister Carr around the world would have exposed him to the changing opinions right around the world," he said. "Countries are now supporting and in fact accelerating their own plans to introduce more nuclear power into their mix."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

126 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP PIC out of Yucca Mountain perm – do the plan and don’t build Yucca. The plan didn’t specify that we build Yucca so this part of the cp isn’t competitive. Yucca Mountain is key to implementing non-proliferation initiatives to discourage the spread of sensitive nuclear facilities to other countries. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org Materially reducing the volume of waste that will have to be disposed of in the U.S. has been one of the major motivating forces behind the R&D objectives of GNEP to develop new advanced closed fuel cycles. However, even though Yucca Mountain may have the physical capacity to store more than 130,000 tons of spent fuel, Congress must take a separate action to authorize it to go beyond its present statutory limit. Aside from capacity limits, there remain numerous legal, technical and regulatory issues that must be resolved before the Yucca Mountain repository will become operational even for domestic spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. In the absence of legislative changes by Congress, the present statutory capacity of Yucca Mountain will be fully utilized to accommodate domestic civilian and government spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. All this suggests that the ability of the United States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital to implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitive nuclear facilities to other countries.

Yucca key to GNEP Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth, Australia, 2007-05-29, “US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, jlk, http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energypartnership/?searchterm=legislate Even if the Yucca Mountain repository is eventually opened, the current legal limit for the repository is insufficient for the total projected waste output of the current cohort of reactors operating in the US, although the GNEP reprocessing and transmutation plans aim to partly address this problem. Steve Kidd (2006) from the World Nuclear Association states: "The difficulties encountered with establishing Yucca as an operating repository have undoubtedly influenced the move towards GNEP. The likelihood of having to establish several Yuccas in the USA alone, if there is a significant boom in nuclear power in the 21st century, has obviously concentrated a lot of official thinking."

GNEP key to solve prolif Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program, lexis, bc GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide. It aims to reduce proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Even though the waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury, it has been used in appropriations processes over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

127 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Dry cask storage will cost the government billions of dollars in lawsuits if they don’t also pursue Yucca and the DOE won’t cooperate which means the counterplan solves zero of the case. They can’t fiat over this – our evidence says Congress mandated a similar policy before and the DOE just ignored it. Watkiss ‘8, staff writer, Electric Light and Publishing, May/June 2008 Edition, Lexis. tk Temporary or interim storage in dry casks, pending completion of Yucca Mountain or some other permanent deep geologic storage, remains an economically viable and secure option, but violates the 1982 Act pursuant to which nuclear utilities agreed to pay the federal government a fee of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour and the government agreed to begin taking control of their nuclear wastes for transport to permanent storage beginning in 1998. The government's 20-year-plus breach of this agreement has resulted in 60 lawsuits against the Department of Energy, damage awards of $342 million as of February 2007, and ultimate liability projected at $7 billion if Yucca Mountain opens for business as currently projected in 2017, or $11 billion if that date slips to 2021 as is widely expected. Recently, Congress mandated the DOE to study potential temporary storage for high-level nuclear waste in order to demonstrate that the nation is capable of moving forward "in the near term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy." But the DOE balked, contending that interim storage "is clearly not the solution" and argued that the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act bars the DOE from taking title to spent fuel until after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a license for the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. A self-imposed June 2008 deadline for submitting the application to license Yucca Mountain was recently postponed.

Although dry casks are basically good there is a slightly bigger risk of terrorism. Koerner ’08, 4/15, staff writer, Slate Magazine, Lexis. tk The conventional wisdom is that these dry-cask storage sites will suffice for at least the next 100 years. But they'll fill up at some point, and some worry over their vulnerability to terrorist attacks, natural catastrophes, or theft. The whole rationale for Yucca Mountain was to secure all high-level nuclear waste in a single, safe location; with that project now imperiled, what's a nuclear nation to do?

We Need To Open Yucca Mountain to revive the nuclear industry. Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma last week introduced nuclear waste legislation aimed at fasttracking DOE's beleaguered repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and at making DOE's obligation to dispose of utility spent fuel the basis for an NRC declaration of waste confidence. Five other Republican senators co-sponsored the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2008 that Inhofe introduced January 24. Inhofe, who has supported nuclear power as a vital component of the country's energy mix, last week expressed concern that continuing delays in opening a repository at Yucca Mountain would "hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the US." Speaking on the Senate floor, Inhofe noted that the location of the country's sole repository site was decided in 2002 when President George W. Bush recommended that Yucca Mountain be developed as a high-level waste repository and Congress adopted that recommendation. "It's high time that we accomplish this task," he said. "We've passed laws and resolutions to do it. We've collected over $27 billion ? from electricity consumers to pay for it. And courts have affirmed that we have a legal obligation to do it." Inhofe drafted the bill without input from the nuclear power industry, though several of its sections are in line with industry priorities. Portions of the bill also resemble legislation Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced in 2006 (NF, 9 Oct. '06, 9).

SDI 2008 WHAM!

128 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Yucca Mountain Key To Nuclear Power Expansion And National And Environmental Security Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc The Yucca Mountain repository, located 16 miles from the California border, would eventually store 70,000 metric tons of waste that has been accumulating since the first reactors went online. And the amount of waste will grow at an increasing rate in future decades: In the last year, utilities have launched a nuclear power renaissance, announcing plans for 15 new commercial reactors. The application "will further encourage the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, which is absolutely critical to our energy security, to our environment and to our national security," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday. The license application, which is 8,600 pages long, was filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has up to four years to act. If everything goes unfettered, Bodman said, Yucca Mountain could be open for business by 2020 at a cost of about $70 billion. Although the impetus for a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain may be greater than ever, the legal and political hurdles for the project are vast.

Yucca needed to revive nuclear energy. Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bc Michael Skelly , the Democratic candidate for the gerrymandered 7th Congressional District in Houston, told Natural Gas Week "we've got to open Yucca Mountain" before any progress can be made in the next wave of nuclear generation. Skelly is the president of the multi-billion-dollar Horizon Wind Energy, one of the leading wind developers in the nation ( see p8 ). But Yucca Mountain has hit its share of political snags. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) vowed never to let it open ( NGW Nov.5 ,p12 ). Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois), this year's Democratic candidate for president, and his former opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York), also oppose opening Yucca Mountain . Yucca Mountain will actually be a fuel reprocessing facility set up as a federally-owned entity -- much like Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bonneville Power Administration. The entity would handle all elements related to the back end of the nuclear cycle, as is done in Europe , and could lead the administration's efforts to rekindle nuclear fuel reprocessing under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. As such it has drawn considerable fire from environmentalists. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review process is expected to take about three years, federal officials said, and the earliest it could open would be 2020. Last month, the Department of Energy awarded contracts to Areva Federal Services and NAC International for shipping canisters to get the waste to Yucca Mountain . Both contracts are for a term of up to five years, and could total as much as $13.8 million, if the DOE exercises all options.

Yucca Mountain Only Way To Stop Climate Change Without Hurting The Economy Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change, lexis, bc While there's broad agreement on the need for more investment in solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energies, expected amendments on the needs to relaunch a nuclear power initiative could also further splinter support for the bill. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a long-awaited license application to build a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada - a move that supporters say is essential to revive the nuclear-power industry. Nuclear-power advocates hope to use the global-warming bill as a vehicle for reviving the industry. They make the case that without a significant increase in nuclear power, it will be impossible to lower carbon emissions without a blow to US living standards. "It's time we begin the nuclear renaissance in America and Yucca Mountain is a vital step," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, in a statement after the announcement. "If Congress is serious about reducing carbon emission, nonemitting nuclear energy must play an even larger role than it does today."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

129 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Yucca Mountain necessary for the next wave of nuclear generation. Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bc The new nuclear buildout isn't waiting solely for an authorized national plan for nuclear waste disposal -- the holdup has more to do with burgeoning capital costs and manufacturers' reluctance to commit to a fixed price. Nonetheless, it doesn't hurt that the US Department of Energy finally has applied for the license to operate the facility at the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada . The only site earmarked by Congress, the Yucca Mountain Repository, ensconced in the Nevada desert about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has already cost $27 billion since the Nuclear Waste Fund was set up in 1983. And it's likely to cost billions more as vociferous debate over the project drags on. No other subject of regulatory licensing triggers the NIMBY syndrome more than nukes' spent fuel. Michael Skelly , the Democratic candidate for the gerrymandered 7th Congressional District in Houston, told Natural Gas Week "we've got to open Yucca Mountain" before any progress can be made in the next wave of nuclear generation.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

130 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP International repository Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive components of the counterplan. International repositories are unethical. Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks, http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author. Even if citizen consent is adequately achieved for proposed host communities, two ethical issues still remain: 1) Consent by the present host community does not circumvent the problem that future communities will be burdened with the waste, yet these future generations have no possibility of consenting to the decision. 2) Nor does consent by the host community circumvent the probable lack of consent of transit countries who would be burdened with the transport risks outlined above.

No country will want to take someone else’s nuclear waste. Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks, http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author. Repositories According to a poll undertaken by the European Commission10 on nuclear waste disposal— only 7 percent of European residents polled were willing to store waste from another country. This ªgure may be even lower if only members of prospective host communities were polled. In Finland, Kimma Tuikka, a representative of the Kivelty movement based near the once-proposed host community of Aanekoski, stated that members of his movement were afraid that the proposed facility would end up receiving radioactive waste from other EU countries.11 In Australia, one of the proposed host countries for a international repository, 12 an independent survey commissioned by Greenpeace in 199913 found that 85% of Australians were against the importing of radioactive waste. In the two proposed host states, South Australia and Western Australia, the respective governments have voted to ban the importation of foreign radioactive wastes into their respective territories14 (this was done despite the federal Government electing not to ban such imports). As far as exporting nuclear waste is concerned, ICM Research15 found that from 1991 to 1994, between 17 and 20 percent of people in the Cumbria County Council were in favor of the idea of transporting waste to other countries. This ªgure may be higher than the average because the county concerned has in the past been identiªed as a potential host for a long-term waste management facility. In studies about public attitudes to radioactive waste, international repositories are sometimes mentioned impromptu. For instance in Kelly and Finch’s work for Defra16 it was stated that: Alan Marshall • 7 10. Eurobarometer 2002. 11. Posiva Oy 1999. 12. McCombie and Stoll 2000. 13. Green 1999. 14. Australian Conservation Foundation 2001. 15. ICM Research 1994. 16. Kelly and Finch 2002. Various different suggestions for siting occur in the research, including . . . an international site. For eg, mentions were made of a ready-made site in the US and of the idea of storage in Siberia. Despite occasional willingness to entertain the thought that waste could be sent away to another country, many public attitude studies indicate that waste should be handled on a national basis. For example: In a recent NWMO public consultation process one issue that was voiced is that every nation should take care of its own waste.17 While there seems to be evidence to suggest that the public from any one country are more averse to receiving waste than they are to sending it away, it is also generally observable that international trade in waste is not a popular way of addressing the problem. Summary In summary the key issues that seem to emerge with regard to international repositories for nuclear waste are as follows: • the relinquishing of a responsibility to manage one’s own wastes. • the passing on of burdens to countries and communities less able to bear them. • subjecting another country’s people to lower standards than you would accept for your own. • subjecting third parties to security/environmental/health risks via transportation uncertainties. • doing all of the above to avoid the social and political problems, and negative public feeling, associated with managing the nuclear waste in your own country. • doing all of the above for economic advantage.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

131 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

International Repositories Fail – Laundry List Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks, http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author. In order to ensure there is not a skills/information/technology gap between rich and poor countries, OECD countries might contribute to a fund to enable such sharing with non-OECD countries. For example Lois Wilson, a member of the Seaborn panel, a federal environmental assessment panel in Canada, questions whether Canada should provide free technical advice and assistance to customer countries of the developing world that have bought Canadian CANDU nuclear reactors: there are serious ethical questions about the amount a poor country, which is presently a CANDU client, can be expected to pay for the advisory and technical services of AECL in managing the resultant wastes from the CANDU reactors.6 This would imply that all nuclear power station suppliers must consider arranging some sort of funding for developing world client countries so that they may adequately deal with the waste now and in the future. Security Motivations for International Repositories One of the oft-cited beneªts of international repositories is that they offer a solution against proliferation of nuclear weapons since they provide an economically viable way to seal away spent nuclear fuel that could otherwise be sitting around waiting to be stolen or subjected to terrorist assault. This issue has become more important in the eyes of many since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Three counterpoints emerge against this point of view. Firstly, it is the ongoing policy of most nuclear states to carry on researching and using nuclear weapons despite what they do with their waste, and so a safe waste solution probably only protects the world from nongovernmental theft and terrorism, not from state-sponsored nuclear proliferation. Secondly, some of the candidate host countries may openly or secretly regard spent nuclear fuel as a military resource, and so waste sent to these countries may be contributing to the nuclear stockpile rather than neutralizing it. 4 • Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste 5. Nilson 2001. 6. Wilson 2000. Thirdly, some candidate host countries, like Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Botswana and Namibia, which have been chosen because of their geological stability lack sufªcient social and political stability as well as managerial capacity to ensure the security and integrity of a nuclear waste facility. McCombie and Stoll7 declare that there are candidate host countries that have the right geological features and the right measure of social and political stability to maximize safeguards and security. The country these advocates recently chose as an example is Australia. But in this case, there is great public and political hostility to hosting an international repository. It may be the case generally that those countries with good security/safety/environmental records are those that will tend to be very suspicious of importing waste. How would Uncertainties affect International Nuclear Waste Repositories? There are number of uncertainties which increase the risks and dangers associated

with international repositories: Contingency Plans: Is there an obligation (or a practical system) to repatriate radioactive waste if something goes wrong with the international repository? Who shall have liability under such a circumstance? How will exporter countries help in the case of an accident? Volumes: What conªdence is there that the repository will have enough waste to accrue its stated advantages and not too much so that it exceeds the repository’s design limits? Crossjurisdictional Policing and Liability: What conªdence is there that an international governing authority can be formed that will be able to handle disputes and crises? Invisibility: The disposal of waste overseas is a process reliant on invisibility. As some have pointed out with regards to other kinds of hazardous waste,8 once one hands the waste over to the transport service, it disappears. There’s even a disincentive to follow what happens to the waste because this costs money. Proponents of international repositories say that some sort of governing authority can be invented to make sure that the waste is monitored and accounted for,9 but the effectiveness and robustness of such an authority has not been tested before in the realm of nuclear waste management. It is unlikely that such an authority can exist over the lifetime of the facility, let alone the waste. Scientiªc and Technical Uncertainties: The same scientiªc and technical uncertainties that beset the design and operation of national facility, such as the vagaries of geological knowledge and the use of untested technologies, will beset inter- Alan Marshall • 5 7. McCombie and Stoll 2000. 8. O’Neill 2002. 9. World Nuclear Association 2003. national repositories. The ethical question is whether it is fair to subject just one country (or one geographical location) to these uncertainties. If the answer comes out as yes, then there still has to be a discussion about the responsibility of exporting countries in the face of these uncertainties. Transportation Issues: A number of transport

uncertainties have been identiªed with regard to the operation of domestic waste management facilities. For instance, transport increases environmental/safety risks and it involves these risks being distributed over a much wider area (and thereby, perhaps, endangering more people). Transportation is also acknowledged as vulnerable phase in the security of nuclear waste. In a transnational post-9/11 setting it is not clear how these risks and vulnerabilities will be dealt with in law, politics or the national publics. Nor is it clear how an emergency or crisis situation might be dealt with. Given the large volumes that an international repository might be expected to handle, these transport uncertainties may be exacerbated in an international setting compared to a national setting. Social and Political Uncertainties: Due to the long-lived nature of the waste, a number of social and political uncertainties dog the management of national inventories and these are likely to be exacerbated under international conditions. For example: • are exporting authorities obliged to fund the importing authorities in order to compensate for negative local impacts (and if so, how far into the future must this continue)? • might wars/disputes between states result in efforts to repatriate the waste so it can (or cannot) be used in nuclear and radiological weapons? • might political boundary changes result in new owners of the facility (and the waste). • might changing relationships between exporting states result in disputes over responsibility, funding, policing, administrating, liability etc. • if a policy change occurs in the host country (resulting, for example, in waste reprocessing or re-siting) what rights does the exporting country have in decisions over funding commitments, monitoring, access or repatriation? These uncertainties are not the results of knowledge-gaps which can be ªlled in by R&D, but involve indeterminate social and political factors whose parameters and causes cannot be predicted. How is Citizen Consent to be Dealt with? In advanced industrialized countries, it is taken for granted that some form of consent is necessary in the process of siting and constructing a hazardous facility. So far these processes have not always been satisfactory or successful. However, in many of the proposed host countries, like Russia, China and Mongolia, the processes may be even less satisfactory (if judged by developed country stan- 6 • Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste dards). This harks back to the point that international repositories may take advantage of less stringent planning processes that are typical of poor and transitional countries

SDI 2008 WHAM!

132 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Responsibility under an international repository would be graver; it is more likely to be situated in a poorer country. Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks, http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author. Nuclear waste has been piling up in almost 50 countries over the past half century. Few, if any, of these nations can be said to have adequately dealt with the problem even as judged by their own national policy frameworks. One proffered solution to the problem of nuclear waste is to construct international repositories whereby one nation hosts a facility designed to house waste from other nations. A number of private and public organizations world-wide have recently invested time and resources into exploring this idea, including key ªgures in the nuclear sector such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, British Nuclear Fuels Limited, and also the Dutch, Italian, Hungarian and Belgian governmental nuclear waste agencies. The nations slated as potential host nations for an international repository range from Australia to Mongolia and the Czech Republic to Russia. This paper poses questions against the rationales for such suggested international repositories in the hopes of clarifying the ongoing debate for all interested in this global environmental issue. Should Each Country be Responsible for its Own Nuclear Waste? The idea of taking responsibility for one’s own waste is generally spoken about with one of two practical reasons in mind: 1) to protect one’s own country from wastes produced in other countries. 2) to protect other countries from waste produced in one’s own country. The argument emerging from those proposing international repositories, such as those members of the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage, is that such repositories do not necessarily negate the concept of responsibility. Rather, an international repository just administers this responsibility in a different way than domestic repositories. Producer countries would still be responsible for their own waste under international repository programmes because: a) they would have to pay for it to be disposed; and b) this disposal would be subject to strict legal standards to ensure security, environmental integrity and health safety. However, in response to these points, it might be asked whether monetary payment is a sufªciently engaging process that engenders adequate responsibility. Sending money overseas may do nothing to encourage responsibility in the same way physical care of the waste does. Also, poor countries (or those in ªnancial difªculty) may be enticed into taking on more risks than they normally would. With regard to “b” above, if an international repository program is instigated under a regime of variable safety/environmental standards between nuclear waste generating countries, it is possible that countries with lesser standards will be chosen as the importing repository country to facilitate an easier disposal path for exporter countries. It must also be acknowledged that if a multinational repository program is instigated under a regime of common standards (in order to address the point immediately above), this does nothing to ensure the widely varying policing of these standards within different nuclear waste generating countries. What are the Political Motivations behind International Repositories?

A lack of public acceptance will prevent an international repository. Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks, http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author. One of the things that all advanced industrialized countries have had to contend with is a lack of public acceptability of proposed nuclear waste facilities. Disposal and storage facilities have been subjected to extensive public disapproval and siting failures in most nuclear countries.1 The desire to circumvent domestic unacceptability may be a motivating factor for governments and waste producing organizations to consider the viability of international repositories. The decision-making processes within producer states will no doubt vary widely. Some countries will not be as democratic as others, so that decisions to site a repository will probably be in the hands of an elite with vested interests. This raises the issue of whether it is right to export waste to nations in the knowledge that the citizens of these other countries are less able to resist a repository than the citizens of one’s own country. What is the Economic Motivation behind International Repositories?

SDI 2008 WHAM!

133 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

The free trade principle masks the actual negative aspects of sharing waste when everything but waste should be shared. Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks, http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author. One of the reasons why international repositories seem more acceptable to some rather than others may have to do with a prior faith in the beneªts of world trade. This is not to say that those who are averse to international repositories are anti-trade but that they probably believe, as BAN does, that hazardous waste materials, as a special case, are not suitable for trade among inequitable partners. What are the Scientiªc Motivations for International Repositories? McCombie and Chapman4 state that: a) geological disposal is “the only foreseeable sustainable solution”; and that b) not all countries possess optimum geological conditions for such disposal. Thus, if “a” and “b” are taken together, it must be concluded, assert McCombie and Chapman, that multinational repositories are essential. Needless to say, propositions “a” and “b” are debatable, thus throwing doubt on the conclusion. For those who start out sceptical of international repositories, yet who are sensitive to a) the advantages of geological disposal, and b) the advantages of internationally-minded solutions, then another way out of McCombie and Chapman’s conclusion is to seek international collaboration. In other words, Alan Marshall • 3 3. Basel Action Network 2002. 4. McCombie and Chapman 2002. countries should be encouraged to share their skills and expertise, experience and knowledge, hardware and software, staff and techniques, strategies and policies, operating procedures and management practices, as well as political advice, values and beliefs. In fact, they should share everything BUT the waste in order to help each other. On this score, the Swedish-based radioactive waste ethics committee called the Alternatives Group, concluded: The ethical principle of an equitable distribution of beneªts and burdens also makes it difªcult to justify exporting waste from Sweden. The Alternatives Group, like many other actors, has drawn the conclusion that we must ªnd a solution within the country’s borders. This does not, however, exclude the possibility of co-operation with other countries.5

SDI 2008 WHAM!

134 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Siberian International Repository Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive components of the counterplan. Shipping fuel to Siberia would be impractical, complex, and defy the NPT Keith Rogers, 5-30-08, Review Journal, “Siberia repository for nuclear waste called 'impractical'”, rks, http://www.lvrj.com/news/19384624.html. Shipping thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel from U.S. nuclear power reactors across the ocean to an international repository in Siberia, if one is built, would be "impractical," a nuclear industry official said Thursday. The comments of Steve Kraft, a senior director at the Nuclear Energy Institute, were made in reference to Arizona senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain's statement this week that an out-of-country, international repository for nuclear waste could eliminate the need for a U.S. repository at Yucca Mountain. Kraft was speaking in a call to reporters in anticipation that the Department of Energy will submit its long-awaited license application to U.S. regulators for the Yucca Mountain site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Not only would shipping such large amounts of highly radioactive waste overseas be impractical, but "it is also geopolitically very complex," Kraft said. "My guess ... what he (McCain) meant was the right role for an international repository was for smaller countries' (used fuel) that could be brought together in one location," he said. Kraft cited a 1993 case involving a very small amount of used fuel from New York's Shoreham nuclear plant's operators who considered shipping it to France for reprocessing after the plant was shut down. The company had filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an export permit. While all the requirements could be met, and the NRC staff recommended to proceed with the plan, the Department of Defense intervened with a letter saying that such an action was inconsistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy. Read AT CP International repositories

SDI 2008 WHAM!

135 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT CP Reprocessing Reprocessing more expensive than direct disposal Daniel Horner, 11-19-07, Nuclear Fuels, Federal corporation an option for spent fuel, DOE official says, lexis, bc Also at the hearing, Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag testified that "across a wide range of plausible assumptions," reprocessing would be more expensive than direct disposal of spent fuel. He estimated that the cost of reprocessing would be about 25% higher than direct disposal. The CBO analysis was based largely on two studies that came to different conclusions on the comparative costs. A 2006 study by Boston Consulting Group, commissioned by Areva, said the costs were roughly similar; a 2003 report by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government found that reprocessing was significantly more expensive. Orszag acknowledged there were "major sources of uncertainty" in the CBO analysis and that the costs of reprocessing and direct disposal were comparable "under limited circumstances." He also said that policy makers may have considerations other than cost, such as "extending uranium resources." But Matthew Bunn, a former US nonproliferation official and one of the authors of the Kennedy School study, said the policy factors tilt against reprocessing.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

136 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT K Discursive We create in-round education necessary to restore U.S. nuclear leadership. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in 2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008 The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

137 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT K Nuclear power is unnatural Concerns about the safety and the impact of the waste of nuclear power are blown out of proportion. Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy Alternatively, some anti-nuclear activists treat all nuclear technology as some sort of inherent transgression against nature. That argument relies on deeply reactionary concepts of "naturalness" and "unnaturalness" that also form the basis of opposition to any number of technologies that improve the quality of human life in countless ways. The argument against nuclear power as unnatural deserves no more or less respect than the arguments against childhood vaccination and stem-cell research as unnatural. Whatever else can be said about them, such sentiments have precious little to do with environmentalism. Obama, however, brushed aside nuclear power as a policy option in approximately one half of one sentence in his speech, on grounds different from and even worse than any of the foregoing. McCain's "proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain" makes no sense, Obama told the Las Vegas crowd. But did Obama propose some other site for storing nuclear waste or offer some further argument against nuclear power? No, he just dropped the subject. In other words, even as he rightly mocked the risible gimmicks McCain has cobbled together as an ersatz energy policy, Obama's opposition to nuclear energy, in its entirety, is nothing more than a naked pander for Nevada's five electoral votes. For a politician ostensibly committed to environmentalism in general and curbing global warming in particular, omitting nuclear power from his energy programme - let alone doing so on no principle higher than grabbing votes - is irresponsible.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

138 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT K Capitalism Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should remain mired in poverty. Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized the current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear power, or poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from poverty is incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be made to keep poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind power and other forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to resolving this dilemma in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of renewables in EU energy demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time, nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.” Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol should sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is that the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide. New generations may be able to use new technologies. For us the choice is between global warming, nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the courage to make.”

SDI 2008 WHAM!

139 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT K You hurt the poor Nuclear power helps the poor by lowering energy costs Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy and Nick Loris is Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 14, 2007, The Heritage Foundation, Congress Should Not Overlook Benefits of Nuclear Energy, nna http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1704.cfm Congress is considering an assortment of legislative proposals to ostensibly curb greenhouse gases and promote energy independence. Unfortunately, the result of most of these proposals would be less energy, greater dependence on foreign sources of energy, and higher prices.[1] Most of the bills focus too much on the process of energy production rather than on the product itself. For example, some language under consideration excludes nuclear power by creating mandates that can only be fulfilled with other sources of energy; or it creates so-called renewable portfolio standards that mandate only certain types of energy production. This approach artificially eliminates energy sources that are compatible with Congress's proclaimed goals of reducing CO2 emissions and energy dependence. Nuclear technology is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly energy source. It can generate massive amounts of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. If the desired result is clean, emissions-free, domestic energy, the legislation should set the target and allow the market to determine the best way forward. If Congress passes any climate change bill, it should endorse free-market solutions and not force specific technologies on Americans. The energy crises in the 1970s prompted a significant expansion of publicly subsidized research and development for wind, solar, biofuel, and geothermal technology. Congress passed a bevy of legislation in the late 1970s and 1980s designed to spur a renewable energy movement. For instance, the Energy Tax Act of 1978 promised residential energy tax credits for wind and energy equipment expenditures and business incentives that allowed investors to receive tax credits of up to 25 percent of the cost of technology.[2] Subsequently, the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001 all attempted to establish sustainable investments in and consumption of renewable energy.[3] More recently, the energy bill of 2005 required more agricultural-based renewable fuels; the proposed House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill would do the same. Notwithstanding Congress's efforts, consumers have shown little faith in renewable energy's ability to meet energy demands. The portion of total energy consumption provided by renewable energy sources is small and has remained relatively flat over the past 20 years.[4] Despite decades of government largesse, the United States still gets only 2.4 percent of its electricity from non-hydro renewables such as solar and wind. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, provides about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. In and of itself, this statistic may be unremarkable. However, nuclear power continues to generate a significant portion of America's electricity despite over-burdensome regulation and decades of organized anti-nuclear propaganda.[5] Given the fact that it emits no carbon dioxide, it would be extremely bad policy for Congress to create mandates meant to curb CO2 emissions that do not recognize the contribution of nuclear power. Congress should not choose nuclear power over other carbon-free energy sources, but Congress should not discriminate against it either. The purpose of public policy should be to protect Americans' freedom to choose courses of action that best suit them as individuals; it is not to engineer an America that is consistent with a specific political agenda. Unfortunately, Members of Congress often have too many conflicts of interest and represent too many special constituencies to always make objective decisions. It simply has neither the expertise nor the moral authority to tell Americans how to generate power or what kinds of power they should consume. Every time they do, Americans end up footing a higher energy bill. If CO2 emissions and foreign energy dependence are obstacles to individual freedom, then they are legitimate subjects of public policy. Rather than picking winners and losers, Congress should allow the market economy to find the most efficient and cost-effective solution to the proposed energy problems. Instead of telling America how to decrease CO2 emissions and foreign energy dependence, Congress should simply set the goals, remain technology-neutral, and allow the private sector to meet those goals. Most current energy legislation does the exact opposite. It not only sets an objective but then limits America's options for how to achieve it. Washington's heavy-handedness does not respect the uniqueness of America's diversity. Every region in the nation is different and has different energy requirements. For example, according to the Energy Information Administration, the southern part of the United States, particularly the Southeast, has extremely poor wind-generating potential.[6] This means that to meet Washington's decrees, regional utilities cannot use wind power, the least expensive and most flexible of the very expensive and inflexible renewable options. So they will have to use something else, which will be even more expensive and limiting than wind. The irony is that most Southern utilities are clamoring to build nuclear power plants. They know their market and understand that meeting energy demand projections will require substantial increases in generating capacity. Yet if passed, most current legislation will force them to divert their scarce resources toward less efficient and sometimes unworkable projects. Ultimately, these will be exposed as bad energy choices, they will fade when the subsidies go away, and the people of the Southeast will face even more energy problems than they do now. Current

legislative approaches will inevitably lead to higher costs for the consumer, which, because everyone needs energy, disproportionately affects the poorest parts of the U.S. population. The political and social elite pushing green initiatives have the financial means to pay higher electricity prices while America's poor suffer the consequences. The free market creates options and allocates resources to their most efficient use. Congress's view of a market solution for reducing energy dependence and curbing greenhouse emissions is certainly a distorted one. With enough meddling, Members of Congress can engineer whatever outcome they like and call it a market solution. By imposing enough restrictions on America's citizens, limiting their choices, and taxing their activities, Congress can make wind and solar the only options left to produce electricity. But just because they can, it does not follow that they should.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

140 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Fear mongering Wind and solar energies are inefficient, nuclear energy is only prevented by government propaganda Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Although Cravens believes alternate energy sources such as wind and solar are important, she offers an honest assessment of their huge limitations. For example, a 2006 National Academy of Sciences study found the Indian Point Nuclear Plant near New York City produces about 10 percent of the electricity for New York State. To replace that power with a wind farm would require 300,000 acres--nearly 500 square miles--of windmills operating under the most favorable conditions. At the McGuire Nuclear Station in North Carolina, where strong winds are rare, 50 square miles of photovoltaic cells would be required to replace the nuclear facility with solar power. Newly Discovered Reality Cravens' book demonstrates how, time and again, political fear-mongering and misperceptions about risk have trumped science in the dialogue about the feasibility of nuclear energy. Among the closing words from this onetime skeptic are these: "How amazing it was to find that something so completely familiar turned out in reality to be so very different from what I had assumed all my life."

Nuclear energy is key and has a bad image Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB But the issue is far from settled. Proponents insist that nuclear is a necessary alternative in an energyconstrained world. They say that the economics make sense -- and that the public has a warped image of the safety risks, thanks to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and "The China Syndrome."

Nuclear power not popular now b/c of public misinformation Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html Unfortunately, the public has developed a very clear impression that the danger of radiation is incomparably greater than what is indicated by these scientific estimates. The reasons for this large difference include heavy media coverage of even the most trivial incidents involving radiation exposure, use of inflammatory adjectives like "deadly" or "lethal" in describing radiation, and frequent TV appearances by scientists from far outside the mainstream.

Claims to make nuclear power are ludicrous – there hasn’t been a single death because of commercial nuclear power. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact, nna http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm It is ironic that support for Lieberman–Warner that is based on such unrealistic scenarios is often coupled with strong antagonism toward nuclear power. Passive support is no better. Given the role of nuclear energy in minimizing the economic impacts of CO2 reductions, those who support such cuts should actively support nuclear power. Many politicians and organizations attempt to remain agnostic or tepid toward nuclear energy by arguing that nuclear power might have a role to play if certain conditions are met. They then ensure that their conditions are set in such a way as to be unattainable. To suggest that the nuclear industry must improve its safety record is an example of this. No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. How does one improve on this?

SDI 2008 WHAM!

141 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

This debate can serve as an educational outlet for correcting misperceptions about Yucca Mountain Isaac J. Winograd and Eugene H. Roseboom Jr, Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 June 2008, NUCLEAR WASTE: Yucca Mountain Revisited, nna A third factor influencing the public's adverse perceptions about YM is the belief that emplacement of HLWs underground precludes their retrieval in the event of discovery of a major flaw with geologic isolation, a future decision to reprocess the spent fuel, or the future availability of a superior isolation scheme. However, this belief ignores one of the major attributes of YM for HLW isolation. The repository is to be constructed 300 meters above the water table within consolidated volcanic strata, a physical setting that lends itself to retrieval and monitoring of the HLWs (3). Last, and hardly least, is the decades-old public opposition to a geologic repository, not only in Nevada and across the United States, but in Europe as well (17, 18). This opposition stems from various concerns and/or agendas, including: fear of nuclear radiation; distrust of governmental and technical community assurances regarding safety; opposition to nuclear power; and various NIMBY ("not in my backyard")-related issues (17, 18). We suspect that even in the absence of technical questions regarding YM, it would still be opposed by segments of the public. In view of the above matters, it has been argued that HLWs should be stored at the surface, perhaps even for a century or two during which time better solutions may develop (17). However, extended surface storage of the HLWs (presently about 60,000 metric tons) at 72 commercial reactor sites--many adjacent to metropolitan areas and all next to rivers, lakes, or the ocean--introduces its own set of uncertainties. For example, what is the likelihood that more pressing future national problems could cause final isolation of the HLWs to be postponed indefinitely? What is the probability that the funds for HLW disposal, now being generated by a surcharge on nuclear-generated electricity, will still be available a century in the future? In the event of accidents, sabotage, or a loss of institutional control, a variety of scenarios can be envisioned that would create environmental hazards greater than any that could result from emplacement of HLWs in an underground repository. In their analysis of the likelihood of future human intrusion into a HLW repository, the National Research Council concluded [(9), p. 106], "there is no technical basis for predicting either the nature or the frequency of occurrence of intrusions." This conclusion applies even more compellingly to HLWs presently stored at the surface not only at nuclear power plants but also at dozens of other locations (see map, page 1426). Given that both geologic isolation of HLWs and their storage at the surface are fraught with uncertainty, how might we proceed with the disposition of HLWs in a manner that restores public confidence? First, it behooves the earth science community, the involved federal agencies, and the mainstream environmental groups to inform the courts, the public, and legislators that, in view of the unending questions, potential surprises, and limitations on prediction that are inherent to the scientific endeavor, the fate of HLWs over time frames of hundreds of millennia is not knowable. There need be no embarrassment to admit to the limitations of our explanatory and predictive capabilities. After all, questions regarding the cause of the ice ages still abound after more than a century and a half of study (19), and earthquake prediction remains elusive after decades of work (20). Decisions on the isolation of HLWs, as well as on other pressing environmental issues, will likely have to be made with incomplete knowledge. Second, because of the absence of experience in the construction and operation of a geologic repository for HLWs, and given the possibility that such efforts are likely to encompass several generations (current plans call for keeping the repository open for more than a century), it appears prudent to construct and operate a proposed repository in stages, initially as a pilot plant, and with experience from each operational stage providing feedback to that which follows. The use of such an adaptive management approach was recently proposed in great detail by the National Research Council (21). Last, the importance of monitoring during the construction and operation of each stage cannot be overstated, as has been argued for civil engineering endeavors in general (22). Only monitoring over a time frame of decades to perhaps a century can provide the data needed to begin to calibrate, test, and, as necessary, modify, current conceptual models that assess the ability of a proposed repository to isolate HLWs for even 10,000 years. In summary, quantification of the fate of HLWs, whether emplaced underground or left at the surface is problematic. Should geologic isolation of the HLWs be opted for--as recommended repeatedly by national and international panels (9, 16, 17, 21)--a pilot plant approach to repository development (21) would be prudent. The physical setting of the proposed YM repository (i.e., in consolidated rocks ~300 meters above the water table) lends itself to such an approach by permitting ready access to and monitoring of the wastes (the major assets of surface storage), while isolating them at depth at a single location (the chief asset of geologic disposal) on remote federal land.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

142 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Yucca Mountain’s use for nuclear waste is unpopular and some concerns will never be answered. Isaac J. Winograd and Eugene H. Roseboom Jr, Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 June 2008, NUCLEAR WASTE: Yucca Mountain Revisited, nna In papers published over a quarter of a century ago , we discussed the assets and liabilities of isolating high-level radioactive wastes (HLWs) (chiefly spent fuel from nuclear reactors) from the environment by burying them in areas with deep water tables, specifically within the several-hundred-meter-thick unsaturated zones common to the arid and semiarid Southwest U.S.A. This idea--endorsed for further study by our colleagues at the U.S. Geological Survey and by scientists at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --eventually led to identification of Yucca Mountain as a potential repository for HLWs. In the ensuing decades, a voluminous body of knowledge of the geology, hydrology, geochemistry, and paleoclimatology of YM and the surrounding southern Great Basin was acquired and documented in hundreds of studies by federal, state, university, and industry scientists. As a result of these efforts, this region is the best-characterized portion of the Great Basin. Despite this unprecedented body of earth science information YM remains controversial for storage and possible ultimate disposal of HLWs. With the benefit of hindsight, we examine several reasons for this outcome, two of which would apply to any site being considered for the geologic isolation of HLWs, and suggest a potential way to move beyond the controversy. Figure 1 Sites in the United States at which spent nuclear fuel, other high-level radioactive waste, and/or surplus plutonium are stored at the surface. Yucca Mountain, NV, also shown The idea of storing radioactive waste at YM was born into political controversy. In 1987, Congress, via an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, selected YM from a group of three previously identified potential repository sites. The 1982 Act had mandated detailed study of all three sites before selection of a finalist, a requirement dispensed with by the amendment. Not surprisingly, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 became known among Nevadans as the "screw Nevada bill." That YM had been identified several years earlier as a potential repository solely on the strength of its technical attributes was thus irrevocably lost on the public who rightly resented the change in site-selection rules. A second factor contributing to the controversy is the nature of scientific and first-of-a-kind engineering endeavors. The more we learn about a given subject--especially one involving the interface of multiple disciplines over geologic time frames--the more complex it becomes. Another decade of study of YM will likely provide the data needed to address some of the current questions about this site, but probably will also introduce new questions, as well as unearth surprises. Thus, there is unlikely to be complete closure. Nor will honest disagreements among scientists and engineers regarding some YM issues likely ever cease. This reality enables critics of this use of YM to ignore major attributes of the site while highlighting the unknowns and technical disputes for the press. Not surprisingly, the press, the public, and our elected officials are left with the impression of a flawed site.

Using the dry-cask storage would allow time to inform the public about waste disposal. PAUL SLOVIC, JAMES H. FLYNN, and MARK LAYMAN, Decision Research professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 December 1991, Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste, nna The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has been impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk. Analysis of these perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present since the discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these images to reality and the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation's military weapons facilities has contributed toward creating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or easily. Postponing the permanent repository and employing dry-cask storage of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for difficult social and political issues to be resolved.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

143 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

There is no chance of a nuclear accident of substantial magnitude Elizabeth Spiers, 9 Jun 2008, Fortune, “The Case for Nukes”, Proquest, AB Although the ban has been reversed, the fears still linger. But irrational fear of improbable safety breaches is responsible for most opposition to nuclear power in this country. The unlikely culprit? Pop culture. We've seen The China Syndrome, and we worry that nuclear-reactor employees may be bumbling Homer Simpsons, capable of accidentally pushing the red button. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island-the former of which killed 36 people and the latter of which killed none--have become so outsized in the American imagination that our perception of actual risk has been completely distorted. We're willing to tolerate the health risks and environmental repercussions of other fuels to avoid the infinitesimally small and comically improbable possibility of a catastrophic accident that resembles something out of a 1979 Jane Fonda movie, the likes of which have never happened in the history of nuclear power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

144 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Centrifuge technology Enrichment using centrifuge technology is energy efficient Tribune Business News ’08 (9 Jul, Dee DePass, Financial and Political reporter for the Tribune Business News, “An enriched opportunity for Alliant: As the appeal of nuclear power grows, Alliant Techsystems is set to become a key player”, AB, Proquest) The Eden Prairie company will complete a centrifuge rotor-tube factory in West Virginia next month that will play a crucial role in delivering cheaper enriched uranium to the resurgent nuclear power industry. Alliant's 125,000-square-foot plant will employ 120 people and produce 11,500 rotor tubes for U.S. Enrichment Corp. (USEC). Alliant's towering rotors, which are key components inside USEC's centrifuges, rotate to separate and concentrate desired uranium isotopes. The resulting enriched uranium will be sold to nuclear power plants around the globe, USEC officials said. Centrifuge technology was developed nearly 20 years ago but shelved in its infancy by the U.S. Department of Energy in favor of a laser-based technology that didn't pan out. Centrifuge technology made a comeback after 2001. It uses less electricity and operates at a fraction of the cost of the more common gasdiffusion enrichment methods. "When USEC goes from the gaseous diffusion process to the gas centrifuge process it uses 95 percent less electricity to produce the same amount of enriched uranium. With today's energy costs you can see why this [technology] is very, very important," said Alliant Aerospace Structures Vice President Mark Messick. "This centrifuge plant is going to be the only one that uses U.S. technology, so it's strategically important to America," Messick said. Nuclear energy is a novel venture for the $4.2 billion Alliant Techsystems (ATK). The company began making tubes in 2006 for USEC's demonstration plant in Piketon, Ohio. ATK officials expect their initial $10 million pilot project to blossom into a full production contract worth about $250 million. USEC will complete an adjacent commercial production plant next year to make 11,500 centrifuges -- each with an ATK rotor inside. Honeywell, Babcock & Wilcox in Virginia and Major Tool and Machine in Indiana will also supply that plant.

Centrifuge technology removes the proliferation risk. Tribune Business News ’08 (9 Jul, Dee DePass, Financial and Political reporter for the Tribune Business News, “An enriched opportunity for Alliant: As the appeal of nuclear power grows, Alliant Techsystems is set to become a key player”, AB, Proquest) ATK rotor tubes are made of extremely strong, lightweight and heat-resistant carbon-epoxy composites. They're roughly 2 feet in diameter and 43 feet long. Each tube is encased inside a centrifuge and rotated at high speed to separate gaseous uranium into two types -- desired uranium235 (U235) isotopes and undesired uranium-238 isotopes, Stuckle explained. Cascades of centrifuges keep processing and separating the uranium gases, until the concentration of U-235 increases from 0.7 percent to 4 to 5 percent, Stuckle said. To compare, a nuclear bomb requires a concentration closer to 95 percent and significantly more equipment, Stuckle said. While uranium enrichment for energy is considered acceptable, the United States government remains skeptical that other nations' enrichment technologies are benign. In 2003, the Bush administration cited concerns over centrifuge rotor tubes getting into the hands of Saddam Hussein among its reasons for going to war in Iraq. The concerns proved to be unfounded. USEC wants to set up low-level uranium enrichment programs for producing electricity, not military-grade uranium, Stuckle said. The 4 percent U-235 created at its new plant in Ohio is cooled into a solid form and transported to power plants. Still, she noted that the company and its suppliers must employ extreme security measures. Phone conversations must take place in secure rooms and electronic communications are restricted. It can take two years for a worker to be cleared to work for USEC or a contractor on the project, she said. USEC and the NRC monitor the work for compliance. The 'clear' in nuclear power ATK's foray into nuclear energy comes at an opportune time. After accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island put nuclear power in the hot seat, the idea of nuclear's carbon-neutral energy production has found favor again amid worries about global warming.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

145 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Uranium suppliers Kazakhstan is on pace to become the world’s largest producer in Uranium CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP Interest in the use of nuclear power is on the rise, as the world’s growing demand for cheap, reliable electricity vies with the need to reduce air pollution. Nonproliferation of weapons and the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel dominate the debate on nuclear power, while nuclear fuel supplies have garnered little attention. Russia and Europe, currently shut out of the normal U.S. nuclear fuel market, want to sell directly to U.S. utilities, raising concerns about the U.S. enrichment industry. Meanwhile uranium mining is making a comeback after a two-decade slump, but obstacles such as infrastructure problems, stable access to enrichment services, and environmental concerns continue to dog the industry. Discerning Supply and Demand Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known to be recoverable. Australia leads with more than one million tons (about 24 percent of the world’s known supply), followed by Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each. In a 2006 background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes the overall amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up to about 20 percent of the country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent. Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fastreactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts say spent fuel can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel. Market Forces The uranium market experienced significant declines through the 1980s and 1990s because of the end of the Cold War arms race as well as a cessation in construction of new nuclear plants. Disarmament of nuclear-weapons stockpiles added surplus weapons-grade uranium to the market leading to a price drop as low as seven dollars a pound. Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a very different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report (PDF), by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and only supplied about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available weapons-grade uranium, a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine and the need for fuel at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant increases in uranium prices in the last few years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound. However, analysts say the uranium market also can be difficult to predict because many transactions are not transparent. Some experts worry that the lagging uranium industry, in need of more manpower and infrastructure upgrades, will cause delays in the expansion of nuclear power. “Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them,” says Thomas Neff, a nuclear energy expert at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. India, which is locked out of the world uranium market because of its nuclear weapons program, has shut down five of its seventeen reactors due to a shortage of nuclear fuel. The controversial nuclear deal with the United States would have helped India obtain more nuclear fuel, but is now imperiled by domestic opposition in India. Uranium Mining More than half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Experts say Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium in the world. Although Australia has the largest supply, access is constrained by a 1982 law that limits uranium mining in the country.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

146 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Australia is looking to assert itself in the Uranium market CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP Interest in the use of nuclear power is on the rise, as the world’s growing demand for cheap, reliable electricity vies with the need to reduce air pollution. Nonproliferation of weapons and the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel dominate the debate on nuclear power, while nuclear fuel supplies have garnered little attention. Russia and Europe, currently shut out of the normal U.S. nuclear fuel market, want to sell directly to U.S. utilities, raising concerns about the U.S. enrichment industry. Meanwhile uranium mining is making a comeback after a two-decade slump, but obstacles such as infrastructure problems, stable access to enrichment services, and environmental concerns continue to dog the industry. Discerning Supply and Demand Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known to be recoverable. Australia leads with more than one million tons (about 24 percent of the world’s known supply), followed by Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each. In a 2006 background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes the overall amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up to about 20 percent of the country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent. Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fast-reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts say spent fuel can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel. Market Forces The uranium market experienced significant declines through the 1980s and 1990s because of the end of the Cold War arms race as well as a cessation in construction of new nuclear plants. Disarmament of nuclear-weapons stockpiles added surplus weapons-grade uranium to the market leading to a price drop as low as seven dollars a pound. Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a very different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report (PDF), by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and only supplied about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available weapons-grade uranium, a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine and the need for fuel at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant increases in uranium prices in the last few years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound. However, analysts say the uranium market also can be difficult to predict because many transactions are not transparent. Some experts worry that the lagging uranium industry, in need of more manpower and infrastructure upgrades, will cause delays in the expansion of nuclear power. “Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them,” says Thomas Neff, a nuclear energy expert at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Currently,

there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. India, which is locked out of the world uranium market because of its nuclear weapons program, has shut down five of its seventeen reactors due to a shortage of nuclear fuel. The controversial nuclear deal with the United States would have helped India obtain more nuclear fuel, but is now imperiled by domestic opposition in India. Uranium Mining More than half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Experts say Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium in the world. Although Australia has the largest supply, access is constrained by a 1982 law that limits uranium mining in the country. Recent increases in uranium demand have sparked debate in Australia, pitting the mining industry and nuclear advocates against environmentalists and activists for indigenous land rights. Other impediments to increases in mining in Australia and elsewhere include the need for infrastructure, environmental concerns, and a lack of experienced workers. Because of recent high uranium prices, some places are seeing a mining boom despite these obstacles. The United States, for example, has experienced steep rises in mining claims even though almost all of the nation’s identified reserves is of a quality that puts it on the more expensive end of process costs. Going forward, more global exploration to locate uranium—especially ore lower in cost to recover—is expected as long as market prices remain high. Some U.S. miners have expressed concern about how the market might be affected by uranium released from stockpiles held in various forms by the U.S. Energy Department. But Energy department officials assure that the agency would not be a source of market instability.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

147 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

SMART Act The SMART Act will promote the establishment of nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities, along with economic incentives United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 6-27-2008, “Domenici Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710, CM WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, last night introduced bipartisan legislation that will allow America to fully realize the promise of nuclear energy by laying the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. Domenici, along with Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.) introduced the Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act (S.3215). The legislation promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy (DOE) and private industry to finance engineering and design work —and the development of license applications-- for up to two spent fuel recycling facilities. The bill also establishes an economic incentive program for communities that wish to host interim storage facilities for waste. The SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services and for storage facility operators. “After a decade of hard work, there can now be no doubt that a nuclear renaissance is under way. Increasing our use of nuclear energy is the only way for America to meet our increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential. I’m pleased to introduce this legislation which takes the first step toward resolving the question of nuclear waste,” Domenici said.

Nuclear recycling can permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 6-27-2008, “Domenici Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710, CM “Nuclear recycling will help us permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel while simultaneously increasing the amount of nuclear material available to generate base load power. In the past, the issue of waste disposal has provided an argument to object to expanding nuclear power, and I’m hopeful this legislation will jump-start recycling in America – leading to more clean, reliable nuclear power here at home. It is time the United States caught up with other nations that have demonstrated that recycling can be conducted in a safe and cost-efficient way,” Sessions said. “Nuclear power is one of the most promising alternative technologies that can help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It emits no pollutants, and does not contribute to global warming. But if we do not get serious about managing nuclear waste, the technology will not advance. This bill will finally help resolve the nuclear waste stalemate that has paralyzed U.S. nuclear energy production for more than 30 years,” Landrieu said.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

148 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

The SMART Act will be funded by a revolving fund, which will not need annual Congress appropriations United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 6-27-2008, “Domenici Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710, CM “Given how important it is for this nation to cut carbon emissions, it is vital that we tear down all the roadblocks that have slowed nuclear power’s revival. Setting up a program for the government to help the private sector develop nuclear waste recycling plants, creating a funding mechanism to pay for the work and then allowing only the communities that want the economic activity that a waste recycling plant will produce to apply are all useful steps that will help the economics of nuclear power. It will allow for the economic recycling of fuel and help reduce waste volumes and their toxicity protecting the environment,” Murkowski said. The SMART Act is funded by allowing access to a small portion (around five percent) of the $20 billion Nuclear Waste Fund. The bill establishes a $1 billion revolving fund, which will also receive contributions from annual interest on the Nuclear Waste Fund. The revolving fund will allow projects to proceed without the need for annual appropriations from Congress.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

149 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

GNEP GNEP solves prolif. Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program, lexis, bc GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide. It aims to reduce proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Even though the waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury, it has been used in appropriations processes over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit.

More money needed for GNEP Dipka Bhambhani, 2-11-08, Inside energy with federal lands, Spending for DOE nuclear programs up 40% in fiscal 2009 budget request, lexis, bc The Energy Department called for a 40% boost in funding for nuclear energy programs in the fiscal 2009 budget it unveiled last week. One of the biggest items in the budget is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a controversial spent-fuel recycling program. DOE requested $302 million for GNEP, even though Congress cut that amount in half last year. "We're going to have to do a better job explaining to the Congress why this program is critical to the expanded use of [nuclear energy] in the US and internationally," said Dennis Spurgeon, DOE's assistant secretary for nuclear energy. GNEP is a partnership of 20 countries that work together to spur the use of nuclear energy while ensuring that the spent fuel and other byproducts that are created in the process do not fall into the hands of terrorists. The program became mired in controversy last fall, after a congressionally chartered panel of scientists urged DOE to abandon its plans for GNEP.

GNEP solves prolif – U.S. participation key. Barlow, Karen, 2007. Reporter for ABC. ABC, . July 20, 2007. “Govt leak confirm Australia-US nuclear plan.” Lexis VF KAREN BARLOW: The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is an American initiative, designed to advance clean, carbon free energy while stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. The Generation IV International Forum represents governments of nuclear powered countries. Australia is not part of those groups but is in discussions with a view to join. Just this week the Prime Minister renewed his Government's commitment to nuclear power, saying Australia should take advantage of its vast uranium deposits. Eminent nuclear physicist professor, Leslie Kemeny, says the letter is timely. LESLIE KEMENY: It could give us the possibility of constructing nuclear power stations with the right sort of joint venture partners - they could well be United States, on the other hand France may be drawn into this, and in turn we might be asked to go beyond mining uranium and exporting the yellowcake and letting other people make the fuel.

GNEP will control proliferation. Michael Angwin, director of the Australian Uranium Association, April 29, 2008 OPINION pg.18 LC Proliferation risk does not arise primarily from trade in uranium, however extensive it is. It arises from the technology used to produce nuclear fuel. Constraining the growth of the Australian uranium industry will not reduce proliferation risk. Only a small portion of natural uranium is able to produce energy in a nuclear power reactor. This must be ``enriched'' to a small degree to produce the large amounts of energy that generates electricity. The proliferation risk arises because the plant needed to ``enrich'' uranium for nuclear power can potentially produce highly enriched uranium, at which point it can be used in nuclear weapons. At present, enrichment plants are operated by only a small number of companies in a small number of countries. The job to be done to manage proliferation risk is to control the spread of enrichment technology; and to detect efforts to enrich uranium beyond the point needed for electricity generation. This is the focus of anti-proliferation thinking and policy. For example, following proposals from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia, and in connection with the U.S.-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), there are moves to establish international uranium-enrichment centers so as to supply the world's growing need for nuclear fuel while controlling the spread of the technology and the risk.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

150 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

GNEP will allow us to recycle nuclear fuel and produce even more electricity Green ’8, Michael, a physicist, 7/11, Charleston Gazette, “Nuclear power, recycling needed now”Lexis, tk AT A time when America is paying $1.5 billion a day for imported oil, it seems incomprehensible that something isn't being done to remove the albatross around the neck of nuclear power. For that we can thank Congress. It is supporting renewable energy, everything from solar and wind power to biofuels and other green sources. While renewable sources might help meet peak energy demand, they simply can't provide the "base-load" electricity that our nation needs to drive the economy. Whether or not we like nuclear power, the reality is that, next to coal, no other source of electricity is more important. Nuclear plants account for 20 percent of the nation's electricity, operating safely and dependably, free of the whims of Middle East sheiks and corrupt Russians. Yet U.S. nuclear utilities do not have access to a critically important technology that is available to their counterparts in France, Great Britain, Japan and other countries. The irony is the technology - known as nuclear recycling, or reprocessing - was developed in the United States a half-century ago but banned by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, on grounds that it could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Often mistaken for nuclear waste, spent fuel possesses uranium and plutonium that can be chemically recycled into new nuclear fuel to produce electricity. Currently there is 55,000 metric tons of spent fuel stored at nuclear plant sites around the country, awaiting shipment to a central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. If the spent fuel were to be saved for recycling, it could provide electricity for decades, extend uranium supplies and significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste. Experts say recycling in the United States poses no proliferation risk, and its revival would enable our country to make good use of a valuable energy resource. Essentially, the only nuclear waste that would need to be shipped to the Nevada repository for permanent disposal is a relatively small amount of spent fuel that can't be recycled. President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - known as GNEP - calls for construction of a recycling plant that would be ready by 2020. GNEP's goal is to encourage the use of nuclear power worldwide, while preventing the loss or misuse of plutonium. The idea is to persuade countries that are planning to build their first nuclear power plants to forego recycling and instead obtain reactor fuel from the United States or a few other countries that already possess recycling capability.

The reprocessing program under GNEP will help to avoid proliferation Green ’8, Michael, a physicist, 7/11, Charleston Gazette, “Nuclear power, recycling needed now” Lexis, tk The administration has asked Congress for funds needed to establish a nuclear recycling center, which would include the recycling plant, an advanced "fast reactor" capable of using the recycled fuel and a research facility to develop new technologies for recycling that would make it more difficult to convert plutonium into a bomb. But Congress has provided little money for GNEP. Some members of the House and Senate are reluctant to acknowledge that nuclear non-proliferation safeguards are more likely to be observed by countries if they're given an opportunity to obtain nuclear fuel for electricity production. Moreover, the failure to provide adequate funds for GNEP shows an ignorance of nuclear power's importance globally. The International Atomic Energy Agency forecasts as many as 1,000 nuclear plants operating by 2050, more than double the number today. Egypt, Vietnam, Malaysia and Argentina are among the countries planning to build nuclear plants. How will they obtain nuclear fuel if it's not available from the United States and a few other countries with recycling capability? The short answer is they will develop their own capability. And the risk of plutonium diversion for weapons production will pose a serious threat to world peace. In all likelihood, Congress will stick its head in the sand, hoping that when it re-emerges solar energy will be there in abundance to meet our needs, confirmation that our energy policy borders on the irrational. The energy problem is terribly serious. We can ill afford not to use sources of energy - primarily nuclear power and clean coal technology - which we know how to use and which, in combination, could satisfy our energy needs. To slough off the need for nuclear recycling because of the hope that solar or wind energy may eventually become important is a dangerous thing for our country and for the world.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

151 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

GNEP will put an end to pure plutonium, which can be used to make weapons Lyman and Von Hippel ‘8, Edwin and Frank, April 2008, Arms Control Today, “Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership” Lexis. tk Yet only two years after Bush's speech, spurred by the fear that the inability to remove spent nuclear fuel piling up at reactor sites in the United States and many other countries would threaten a nuclear renaissance, the Bush administration subsumed its initial proposal into a new scheme known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). One of the chief objectives of GNEP was to promote the virtues of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and the civil use of plutonium as a nuclear waste management strategy. Although GNEP represented a reversal of previous U.S. policies that opposed the spread of reprocessing, the Bush administration billed GNEP as a nonproliferation initiative because it would still limit reprocessing facilities to the nuclear-weapons states and Japan and would use reprocessing technologies that would not separate pure plutonium, unlike the PUREX (plutonium and uranium extraction) technology in use today. GNEP member states without reprocessing plants would be encouraged to send their spent fuel to other countries for reprocessing. At U.S. urging, 20 other countries, including South Korea (see page 12), have now joined the United States in signing a GNEP Statement of Principles that embraces the development and use of reprocessing technology and contains no commitments on the part of its members to limit the spread of sensitive fuel cycle facilities such as reprocessing plants. In promoting the development of pyroprocessing and other experimental separations technologies, the Bush administration says it hopes to persuade those countries that currently use conventional PUREX reprocessing to switch to these other technologies eventually, thereby ending the production of pure plutonium. Yet through GNEP, the administration is promoting reprocessing primarily to countries that do not reprocess at all but rather store their spent fuel. Spent fuel storage is a far more proliferation nresistant management strategy than any form of reprocessing. GNEP will allow the United States to cut down on risks of proliferation by giving developing countries the recycled (harmless) fuel Idaho National Laboratories ‘7 (anonymous, date not specified), http://nuclear.inel.gov/gnep/. tk As the demand for energy swells, GNEP invites developing nations to build small nuclear power plants. More-developed nations would help provide fuel from established advanced facilities capable of recycling, reprocessing and enriching new fuels. This method would close the fuel cycle, reduce proliferation risks and make robust power generation a reality for all partner nations.

The reprocessing under GNEP would mean that less uranium would be mined University of Wisconsin ‘8, 2/28, “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: A cure that’s worse than the disease?” http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=2.txt, tk Thirty years after the United States rejected reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste, the DOE is reinvestigating reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, initiated in 2006. GNEP offered this deal to other nations: If you want to use nuclear electricity, the United States will supply the fuel -- if you promise to send your waste back to trusty Uncle Sam for reprocessing. Gregory Choppin, a professor of chemistry at Florida State University who has a long acquaintance with radiation chemistry says efficiency is a key argument for reprocessing, which extracts more energy from the uranium fuel, and therefore reduces the need to mine uranium. "If we go into reprocessing to recover the 99.5 percent of unburned uranium, and recycle it, we would not have to do any more uranium mining for 400 years," says Choppin. "That would be a tremendous advantage because uranium mining is very dangerous," especially in terms of lung disease, including cancer.

If the reprocessing under GNEP is followed, the storage at Yucca Mountain won’t be a problem University of Wisconsin ‘8, 2/28, “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: A cure that’s worse than the disease?” http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=2.txt, tk Thirty years after the United States rejected reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste, the DOE is reinvestigating reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, initiated in 2006. Ahearn says reprocessing could reduce the needed volume of the repository by 30 percent, which "would go a long way toward resolving the issue of whether there is enough space in Yucca Mountain.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

152 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Passing GNEP will strengthen ties with Russia State Department Press Release ‘8, 6/13, “Speeches: Agreement Between the United States and Russia for Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy”, Lexis, tk Growing energy needs and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions have increased international demand for nuclear power, which in an increasingly globalized nuclear industry places a premium on working with foreign partners. In addition, nuclear nonproliferation and the need to prevent nuclear terrorism are at the top of the U.S. national security agenda, including with Russia, generating strong interest in the development of more proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies and approaches to the fuel cycle that can be advanced through cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. Upon entry into force, this agreement would establish a legal basis for what we expect to be mutually beneficial peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and Russia. Some U.S.-Russia cooperation is already ongoing on nuclear safety and security, and Russian commercial nuclear fuel sales to the United States under the HEU Agreement. We believe that this existing cooperation will be enhanced by having this agreement in place. At the same time, the agreement looks to additional possibilities in the future, both commercial and government-to-government. It establishes a framework of nonproliferation conditions and controls for transfers of civil nuclear commodities between the two countries, but in itself it does not deal with specific projects. Implementation of this agreement would take place on the basis of export licenses issued in conformity with the requirements of U.S. law and policy at the time the license is applied for. For the United States, having the agreement in place will provide a framework for potential commercial sales of civil nuclear commodities like reactor fuel and major reactor components to Russia by U.S. industry. Under Russia's export system such commodities may be transferred to the United States without such an Agreement (and in fact are taking place right now). Having the Agreement in place will rectify an imbalance between the two countries in terms of the legal structure available to accommodate commercial opportunities for the United States. The Agreement would facilitate greater U.S.-Russia cooperation in developing technologies that are important to advancing our nuclear nonproliferation objectives under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), where we are seeking to cooperate with other nations to develop new technologies like advanced reactors that would consume plutonium and new forms of recycling spent fuel that would reduce the risk of proliferation by not separating plutonium that could be diverted for use by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons. In areas like advanced fast burner reactors and advanced nuclear fuel and fuel cycle facilities, Russia possesses experience and facilities not widely available in the United States. For example, the Department of Energy would like to send advanced fuel for testing in Russian fast neutron reactors, but can only do so with a 123 Agreement in place. The Agreement also advances mutual nonproliferation goals by facilitating the transfer of nuclear materials for forensic purposes in potential nuclear smuggling cases.

Passing GNEP will increase alternate energy innovation at the university level Opar ‘8, Alisa, staff writer for Plenty magazine, Plenty magazine, 5/29, “In Depth: Can nuclear waste be recycled?”, Lexis, tk Through this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Department of Energy is awarding tens of millions of dollars to industry, federal labs, and universities for developing the technology needed to get the first American recycling facilities and reactors up and running by 2025. In April, the agency announced up to $7.3 million for advanced reactor research, and publicized an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which operates six nuclear reactors, to explore fuel recycling. "We're just getting started, but the project is going to yield technical information used to develop national implementation strategies to manage nuclear fuel," says TVA spokesman Gil Francis.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

153 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

GNEP budget cut. EnergyWashington Week, July 2, 2008, Newsroom Notes, Lexis VF Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking Republican on the Senate energy committee, has introduced legislation that he and his co-sponsors hope will jump-start nuclear waste recycling in the United States, thereby clearing the way for an expansion of nuclear power, which Domenici says is "the only way for America to meet our increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." The new bill, "Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act (S.3215)-- introduced along with Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL.), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) -- seeks to promote the establishment of privately owned and operated facilities for the storage an recycling of used nuclear fuel. Under the proposal, Congress would establish a new competitive 50-50 cost share program between DOE and private industry to finance up to two spent fuel recycling facilities--from engineering and design work through the development of license applications. Domenici is certain that a nuclear renaissance is underway -- as does the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which issued a report on the issue--and believes S. 3215 will help it along. Co-sponsor Sessions has this to say about the bill: "Nuclear recycling will help us permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel while simultaneously increasing the amount of nuclear material available to generate base load power. In the past, the issue of waste disposal has provided an argument to object to expanding nuclear power, and I'm hopeful this legislation will jump-start recycling in America -- leading to more clean, reliable nuclear power here at home. It is time the United States caught up with other nations that have demonstrated that recycling can be conducted in a safe and cost-efficient way." Nuclear renaissance or not, Domenici and his co-sponsors can expect an uphill struggle. Just two days ago, the House Appropriations Committee approved legislation to fund DOE for fiscal year 2009 that includes eliminating spending on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Bush administration's signature nuclear power initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, as we reported.

DOE proposed the Global Energy Partnership, aimed at the development, demonstration, and deployment of advanced separations and burner reactor systems. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org Lastly in February 2006 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed a major new initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) aimed at the development, demonstration and deployment of advanced separations and burner reactor systems. The initiative has several important features: a) The demonstration of new separation techniques for recycling nuclear fuel that would allow the U.S. to close its fuel cycle and to develop somewhat more proliferation-resistant technologies by avoiding the presence of separated plutonium. In this connection, the U.S. nuclear services firm, Energy Solutions has acquired many BNFL employees as well as BNFL’s technologies in modern fuel reprocessing and waste treatment and is seeking to offer an alternative to the MOX fuel cycles without separating pure plutonium. Similarly AREVACOGEMA, Inc. is also offering the prospect of treatment recycling plants with no separated plutonium. b)The advancement of the nuclear waste management program within the United States by coupling these new separation techniques with advanced recycling reactors with the objective of reducing the volume of waste per reactor that would have to be disposed of in Yucca Mountain. The program is specifically intended to remove the need to follow the Yucca Mountain Project with several additional geological repositories. It assumes work will continue that is devoted to completing the Yucca Mountain Project. c) The establishment of a new international nuclear fuel assurance regime in order to discourage the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities. A major long-term aspect of this objective is a proposal that those supplier states with industrial enrichment and fuel recycling capabilities should work to provide so-called “cradle-to grave” services to states that agree to refrain from acquiring enrichment and reprocessing facilities. Under this approach the supplier states would lease enriched uranium to consumer nations and would accept the return of the resultant spent fuel for recycling. Under the proposal contained in GNEP, achievement of this goal will take some time since such cradle-to-grave services would be put into place only after the proposed advanced recycling technologies have been proven and have become operational.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

154 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Sub-seabed disposal SSD solves. Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Storing spent nuclear fuel poses no problem. The Yucca Mountain site in Nevada was supposed to open in 1998, but delays have continued to plague the project. And Cravens mentions an alternative we had not heard: the Sub-Seabed Operation. Cravens points out that in the ocean there is a vast red-clay formation that has maintained great stability and uniformity over millions of years--far longer than the half-lives of almost all the radionuclides in nuclear waste. The clay has low permeability and the consistency of peanut butter. A pointed steel canister containing high-level nuclear waste dropped to the ocean floor would sink through this muck to a depth of 30 meters. The continuous rain of sediments from above would bury it deeper. Many thousands of square miles of seabed like this exist under many miles of water hundreds of miles from shore. Such sites, though costing several orders of magnitude less than Yucca Mountain, have long been overlooked as potential storage sites for spent nuclear fuel.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

155 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Reprocessing Reprocessing wourd spur the nuclear energy. EnergyWashington Week, July 2, 2008, Newsroom Notes, Lexis VF Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking Republican on the Senate energy committee, has introduced legislation that he and his co-sponsors hope will jump-start nuclear waste recycling in the United States, thereby clearing the way for an expansion of nuclear power, which Domenici says is "the only way for America to meet our increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." The new bill, "Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act (S.3215)-- introduced along with Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL.), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) -- seeks to promote the establishment of privately owned and operated facilities for the storage an recycling of used nuclear fuel. Under the proposal, Congress would establish a new competitive 50-50 cost share program between DOE and private industry to finance up to two spent fuel recycling facilities--from engineering and design work through the development of license applications. Domenici is certain that a nuclear renaissance is underway -- as does the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which issued a report on the issue--and believes S. 3215 will help it along. Co-sponsor Sessions has this to say about the bill: "Nuclear recycling will help us permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel while simultaneously increasing the amount of nuclear material available to generate base load power. In the past, the issue of waste disposal has provided an argument to object to expanding nuclear power, and I'm hopeful this legislation will jump-start recycling in America -- leading to more clean, reliable nuclear power here at home. It is time the United States caught up with other nations that have demonstrated that recycling can be conducted in a safe and cost-efficient way." Nuclear renaissance or not, Domenici and his co-sponsors can expect an uphill struggle. Just two days ago, the House Appropriations Committee approved legislation to fund DOE for fiscal year 2009 that includes eliminating spending on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Bush administration's signature nuclear power initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, as we reported.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

156 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Space disposal repository Space storage of nuclear waste is safe, is better than burial underground, and will open space to its full potential. Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. Where would this much new cargo come from? Fortunately, there is an answer. Unfortunately, it’s not intuitively attractive, at least at first glance: it’s high-level nuclear waste, the 45,000 tons and 380,000 cubic meters of high-level radioactive spent fuel and process waste and detritus (as opposed to the more abundant but far less dangerous and shorter-lived low-level waste) from six decades of nuclear weapons programs and civilian power plants. There are three good reasons to send nuclear waste into space. First, it is safe. Second, space disposal is better than the alternative, underground burial. Third, it may finally open the door to widespread utilization of space. Because of the obvious and real concern about moving such dangerous material anywhere, let alone into space, this proposal justly raises the question of safety. Can nuclear waste be safely launched into earth orbit? The answer is yes. By keeping the launch system on the ground instead of putting it on the vehicle, designing and building unbreakable containers, and arranging multiple layers of safety precautions, we can operate in a judicious and safe manner.

Nuclear Waste Doesn’t belong on Earth…its EVIL! Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. Historically, garbage has been something to bury or recycle. Consequently, nuclear waste disposal has remained the province of the geologists, who are professionally inclined to look down, not up. That’s shortsighted. The permanent elimination of high-level radioactive waste demands a reconceptualization of the problem. We need to look up, not down. Let’s put high-level radioactive waste where it belongs, far out in space where it will not endanger anyone on earth.

Ground Based Launch Systems are Best – Safer by a lot Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. Neither the space shuttle nor conventional rockets are up to this task. Not only are they expensive, but they lack the desired reliability and safety as insurance rates demonstrate. Instead, we need to develop a new generation of launch systems where the launcher remains on the ground so the spacecraft is almost all payload, not propellant. As well as being more efficient, ground-launched systems are inherently safer than rockets because the capsules will not carry liquid fuels, eliminating the in-flight danger of an explosion. Nor will the capsules have the pumps and other mechanical equipment of rockets, further reducing the chances of something going wrong.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

157 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Space disposal of waste would work like this: 1) A laser would shoot an indestructible capsule into space by exploding air 2) The capsule would reach escape velocity 3) Through the use of a solar sail, the waste will leave Earth 4) A second launch can be made almost immediately Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. How would disposal of nuclear wastes in space actually work? In the simplest approach, a ground-based laser system will launch capsules directly out of the solar system. In a more complicated scheme, the laser system will place the capsules into a nuclear-safe orbit, at least 1,100 kilometers above the earth, so that they could not reenter for several hundred years at a minimum. Next, a space tug will attach the capsules to a solar sail for movement to their final destination orbiting around the sun, far, far from earth. The underlying concept is simple: the launcher accelerates the capsule to escape velocity. Like a gun, only the bullet heads toward the target, not the entire gun. Unlike a shuttle or rocket, ground systems are designed for quick reuse. To continue the analogy, the gun is reloaded and fired again. These systems would send tens or hundreds of kilograms instead of tons into orbit per launch. Of the three possible technologies—laser, microwave, and electromagnetic railguns—laser propulsion is the most promising for the next decade. In laser propulsion, a laser beam from the ground hits the bottom of the capsule. The resultant heat compresses and explodes the air or solid fuel there, providing lift and guidance. Although sounding like science fiction, the concept is more than just an elegant idea. In October 2000, a 10-kilowatt laser at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico boosted a two-ounce (50 gram) lightcraft over 60 meters vertically. These numbers seem small, but prove the underlying feasibility of the concept.

Capsules containing Nuclear Waste can either be sent to the Sun to be destroyed or to Venus to possibly retrieve back later Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. Where should the nuclear waste ultimately go? Sending the capsules out of the solar system is the simplest option because the laser can directly launch the capsule on its way. Both Ivan Bekey, the former director of NASA’s of Advanced Programs in the Office of Spaceflight, and Dr. Jordin T. Kare, the former technical director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization’s Laser Propulsion Program, which ran from 1987-90, emphasized solar escape is the most reliable choice because less could go wrong. A second option, a solar orbit inside Venus, would retain the option of retrieving the capsules. Future generations might actually find our radioactive wastes valuable, just as old mine tailings are a useful source of precious metals today. After all, the spent fuel still contains over three-quarters of the original fuel and could be reprocessed. Terrorists or rogue states might be able to reach these capsules, but if they have that technical capability, stealing nuclear wastes will be among the least of our concerns. This approach is more complex, demanding a temporary earth orbit and a solar sail to move it into a solar orbit, thus increasing the possibility of something going wrong.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

158 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Launching storage in Space is safe; there is no risk of explosion and since the bullet shaped capsules ballistic characteristics are known, trajectories can be pre-calculated in failure. Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. Assuring safety is possible. The two major concerns are launching the capsule and ensuring the integrity of the capsule. Laser launching is safer and more reliable than rockets. The absence of rocket propellants and its accompanying propulsion systems eliminates the possibility of an explosion. The major problem would be if the laser failed before the capsule reached escape velocity. Because the capsule will be bullet-shaped, its ballistic characteristics are well known. Thus, if a launch failure occurred, the capsule would land only in known recovery zones. Launch trajectories would be designed to avoid populated areas.

Excessive launch tests can be made with inert capsules; rocket launches of waste cannot solve this. Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. One advantage of a laser launch system is that the safe return from these aborted missions can be demonstrated by testing with inert capsules. Scores of launches could test every conceivable scenario, the equivalent of firing a new rifle to understand all its characteristics. This could not be done with a rocket. If another layer of safety is desired, placing the launch system on an island in the Pacific Ocean will further decrease the chance of an aborted flight landing in a populated area. Such isolation would also improve security.

A2: Capsule will burn up in Atmosphere – Current technology prevents this Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. Jordin Kare, now an independent aerospace consultant, was more optimistic. The laser can accelerate the capsule slowly in the lower atmosphere, reducing heating. Furthermore, noted NASA nuclear engineer Dr. Robert C. Singleterry, the same aerobraking analyses and technologies that use a planet’s atmosphere to slow down a visiting spacecraft as the Mars Global Surveyor demonstrated in 1997 can ensure the control of a capsule leaving the earth’s atmosphere.

A2: Capsule won’t solve – Current technology and knowledge ensures it; Remember nuclear warheads? Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. The integrity of a capsule can be demonstrated too. The aerospace industry has accumulated decades of research and experience on how to contain radioactive material in containers that can maintain their integrity despite atmospheric re-entry, accidents, explosions, and other potential catastrophes. They are called nuclear warheads. Designing containers for space disposal is well within the state of the art. Dr. Rowland E. Burns, the engineer who led a NASA study in the mid-1970s on this issue, stated it is feasible to design and construct containers that can safely withstand the demands of even a catastrophic explosion, claiming, “I won’t say you would have to nuke the container to break it, but it would take something like that.”

SDI 2008 WHAM!

159 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

A2: Cost inefficient – Once a launch center is built, costs will plummet Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. Space disposal may prove a similar opportunity. Once a ground launcher is developed and built, constructing additional launchers will be far less costly and risky. The dream of affordable access to space may then come true, opening up the final frontier in ways that we have not dreamed of since the 1960s. As important, we will be acting ethically, providing our children a safer earth and inexpensive access to space for people as well as plutonium.

The large systems will cost as less as $10/kg. Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”, RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1. Laser propulsion uses a large fixed laser to supply energy to heat an inert propellant in a rocket thruster. Such a system has two potential advantages: extreme simplicity, of the thruster, and potentially high performance -- particularly high exhaust velocity. By taking advantage of the simplicity of the thruster, it should be possible to launch small (10 - 1000 kg) payloads to orbit using roughly 1 MW of average laser power per kg of payload. The incremental cost of such launches would be of order $200/kg for the smallest systems, decreasing to essentially the cost of electricity to run the laser (a few times $10/kg) for large systems. Although the individual payload size would be small, a laser launch system would be inherently highvolume, with the capacity to launch tens of thousands of payloads per year. Also, with high exhaust velocity, a laser launch system could launch payloads to high velocities -- geosynchronous transfer, Earth escape, or beyond -- at a relatively small premium over launches to L.EO.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

160 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Loan Guarantees Incentives solve costs Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanent subsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to remember that although nuclear energy has been around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is more like an emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

161 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Pebble bed reactors New Technology breakthroughs solve nuclear proliferation and have built in safety features that prevent meltdowns. Reinhoudt, research assistant at AEI Aug 17. 2007 KP http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26672,filter.all/pub_detail.asp. Martin embraces solar and wind energy as alternative sources of energy, but is more enthusiastic about the potential of new nuclear technology for large-scale electricity generation. Pebble-bed reactors are a product of so-called "fourth generation" nuclear technology: pebble-bed reactors shut down automatically by virtue of their design if the temperature gets too hot so there is no risk of a meltdown. Unlike the uranium used by today's nuclear power plants, the uranium used by pebble-bed reactors is only 9% enriched, making it extremely difficult to divert for nuclear weapon use , reducing proliferation. Unlike the waste produced by today's nuclear power plants, the waste of pebble bed reactors (small balls with hard silicon-carbide shells) can be easily stored. Pebble-bed reactors are also smaller and far more affordable than conventional reactors, making them useful for developing nations. South Africa is set to export such reactors in just a few years, and China is set to build many of them in its quest to reduce energy dependence.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

162 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Integral Fast Reactors Integral Fast Reactors are the solution to the energy crisis Amos ’08 (27 Jun, Tribune Business News, reporter, “Can the US be Energy Independent”, AB, Proquest) In today's economy of skyrocketing gas prices, many Americans are listening more closely to suggestions for weaning the United States from its oil addiction, and one Culpeper man thinks he holds the key. Robert Wical, who has lived in Culpeper for the past 25 years with his wife, is the author of "Total Energy Independence of the United States: A Twelve-Year Plan." Wical is a retired computer programmer and electronics engineer with a master's degree in business. Wical is not a scientist, but rather an inventor who spent four years researching his 12-year plan on the Internet, which he says is the first "viable, selffinancing plan" that is publicly available. His idea involves the country investing trillions in "integral fast reactors," or IFRs, that would generate hydrogen as fuel and consume nuclear waste. "I just kept looking," Wical said. "With all the things that have been invented and done recently, why is it that nobody has come up with a plan or suggested anything to solve the problem? You can search the world over; there is no plan to make the United States energy independent."

IFRs don’t consume fuel Amos ’08 (27 Jun, Tribune Business News, reporter, “Can the US be Energy Independent”, AB, Proquest) The IFR, which Wical said comprises known science and proven technology, would use nuclear waste to heat water into steam, using the steam to create electricity. The IFR, according to Wical, recycles its own fuel and thus never has to be refueled It could also generate liquid hydrogen as a fuel source for the country.

IFRs could replace all other energy sources Amos ’08 (27 Jun, Tribune Business News, reporter, “Can the US be Energy Independent”, AB, Proquest) "One of these reactors is a gigawatt of power," he said. "That's a billion watts. That's enough to light Culpeper, Charlottesville and Warrenton for 40 years. We could do away with Dominion. And the icing on the cake is it would consume all the nuclear waste we're trying to get rid of." Wical said the IFRs produce electricity for a penny a kilowatt. Today, he said it costs $6 a gallon to make a gallon of hydrogen from water. If the IFR was implemented countrywide, it would cost 35 cents.

IFRs are NOT dangerous Amos ’08 (27 Jun, Tribune Business News, reporter, “Can the US be Energy Independent”, AB, Proquest) Because people are afraid of nuclear power, Wical said solutions like the IFR are ignored. "(People) are ignorant of the facts. Thank God there's a cure for ignorance," he said. "They don't understand (nuclear power). They think everything's like Chernobyl. What they don't realize is that if you wanted to plan an accident with a nuclear power plant, you'd build it like Chernobyl. Anything you could do wrong was done at Chernobyl. You don't have any of those problems with the IFR."

Wical, the inventor of IFR, is well qualified Amos ’08 (27 Jun, Tribune Business News, reporter, “Can the US be Energy Independent”, AB, Proquest) Robert Wical, who has lived in Culpeper for the past 25 years with his wife, is the author of "Total Energy Independence of the United States: A Twelve-Year Plan." Wical is a retired computer programmer and electronics engineer with a master's degree in business. Wical is not a scientist, but rather an inventor who spent four years researching his 12-year plan on the Internet, which he says is the first "viable, selffinancing plan" that is publicly available. His idea involves the country investing trillions in "integral fast reactors," or IFRs, that would generate hydrogen as fuel and consume nuclear waste. "I just kept looking," Wical said. "With all the things that have been invented and done recently, why is it that nobody has come up with a plan or suggested anything to solve the problem? You can search the world over; there is no plan to make the United States energy independent." Wical said he had patents for past inventions, which include an electronics assembly machine and "a cute little flowerpot hanger."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

163 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Lieberman-Warner link to nuclear power bad DA’s Lieberman-Warner would hurt the economy without a massive expansion of nuclear power. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact, nna http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm Although many supporters of Lieberman–Warner are quick to call attention to conclusions that show the least negative economic impact, they often fail to mention that the results depend on a massive expansion of nuclear power. For example, as noted by the Environmental Defense Fund, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis concludes that economic growth would be minimally affected by Lieberman–Warner but makes no mention of the fact that this conclusion depends on a broad expansion of nuclear energy.[2] It is not just that nuclear power is needed, but that a massive amount of nuclear power is needed in a relatively short period of time. The EPA analysis assumes a 150 percent increase in nuclear power by 2050.[3] While meeting this demand would require a substantial industrial effort, it is miniscule in comparison to an Energy Information Agency (EIA) analysis that suggests that the U.S. must increase its nuclear capacity by 268 gigawatts of new nuclear power by 2030.[4] These numbers must be put into perspective. The U.S. has 104 operating reactors today with a capacity of approximately 100 gigawatts. New reactors would likely be larger, on average, than existing reactors. Assuming that the average new reactor will produce about 1.3 gigawatts of electric power, the EPA analysis would require nearly 50 new reactors, while the EIA's analysis would require approximately 200 over the next 25 years. The reality is that the United States has not ordered a new reactor since the mid1970s and it does not have the industrial infrastructure to build even one reactor today. Its industrial and intellectual base atrophied as the nuclear industry declined over the past three decades. Large forging production, heavy manufacturing, specialized piping, mining, fuel services, and skilled labor all must be reconstituted in massive quantities. Global supply is no more promising, especially when one considers that the rest of the world is coming to similar conclusions about the emerging role of nuclear power in meeting CO2 reductions. The global nuclear industrial base currently supports 33 reactors under construction (mostly in Asia and Russia) and the normal operation and maintenance of the world's existing 439 reactors (including those in the U.S.).

SDI 2008 WHAM!

164 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

SHARED NEGATIVE

SDI 2008 WHAM!

165 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Inherency takeouts There are incentives to increase nuclear power now. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM The Energy Policy Act provided loan guarantee authority, production tax credits, and insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation for nuclear power projects. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes.

Nuclear Energy reform has already occurred- Energy Policy Act of 2005 Solves the case AEI (American Enterprise Institute) October 6, 2006 http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1394,filter.economic/transcript.asp KP We recently had what I would describe as a very supportive set of policies for the nuclear industry that was enacted last year, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We have generous tax credits, loan guarantees and risk protection to encourage construction of new plants, extension of the Price-Anderson Act, funding for nuclear energy R&D, standby support for new reactor delays if it is not the utility’s fault. Tax treatment of decommissioning funds has become more usable for plants operating at a competitive environment and funding and support for personnel and training. We have licensing reform.

Nuclear Power has gotten 20 billion in subsidies the last two years. Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) In addition to being risky, nuclear power is unable to meet our current or future energy needs. Because of safety requirements and the length of time it takes to construct a nuclear-power facility, the government says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs; yet by 2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity, at about half the cost of nuclear power. Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration has given the bulk of taxpayer energy subsidies-a total of $20 billion-to atomic power

SDI 2008 WHAM!

166 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Solvency takeouts Fast expansion of nuclear power is bad – it can’t solve anyway and trying to rush it will just exacerbate safety problems. CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, Nov. 2 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP Nuclear energy is unlikely to play a major role in the coming decades in countering the harmful effects of climate change or in strengthening energy security, concludes a new Council Special Report authored by Charles D. Ferguson, Council fellow for science and technology. To significantly combat climate change in the near term, the “nuclear industry would have to expand at such a rapid rate as to pose serious concerns for how the industry would ensure an adequate supply of reasonably inexpensive reactor-grade construction materials, well-trained technicians, and rigorous safety and security measures,” says the report. There are currently 103 nuclear reactors operating in the United States. Even with twenty-year extensions of their planned lifespan, all existing reactors will likely need to be decommissioned by the middle of the century. To replace them, the United States would have to build a new reactor every four to five months over the next forty years. “However, based on the past thirty years, in which reactor orders and construction ground to a halt, this replacement rate faces daunting challenges. For this reason alone, nuclear energy is not a major part of the solution to U.S. energy insecurity for at least the next fifty years,” says the report, Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks.

This turns the case if there is another accident it will cause worldwide antinuclear backlash. ***double turn alert – if you say np bad don’t read this*** Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB The safety of nuclear plants has certainly improved, thanks to changes adopted in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident. But safety problems persist, because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't adequately enforcing existing safety standards. What's more, countries where nuclear power is likely to expand don't have a strong system for regulating nuclear safety. The important thing to remember about safety is this: The entire nuclear power industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst performers, because an accident anywhere in the world would stoke another antinuclear backlash among the public and investors.

People will not use nuclear energy, even if there are incentives. Jerry Taylor and Navin Nayar, Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, 6-21-03, Cato.org, “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134, CM In fact, a recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm, commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations -termed "show stoppers" -- without which the industry would grind to a halt. These "show stoppers" include the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear accident -- leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs; federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful interventions from opponents. But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry. Nuclear generated electricity remains about twice as expensive as coal- or gas-fired electricity. Although the marginal costs of nuclear are lower, the capital costs are much higher. In light of this resounding cold shoulder from Wall Street, the federal government is opening the treasury wider than ever before.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

167 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear power Can’t Solve Climate Change Macer Hall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bc Industry insiders predict new atomic power stations could be under construction over the next decade, with EDF ready to open a new generator by 2017. Tory frontbencher Alan Duncan welcomed the commitment to nuclear power. But he warned: "On no account should there be any kind of subsidy for nuclear power." Anti-nuclear protesters have vowed to fight any planned reactors. Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said: "New reactors will do little to tackle climate change." He was echoed by Greenpeace executive director John Sauven, who said: "This is bad news for our efforts to beat climate change."

Nuclear Power Won’t Solve Climate Change, brownouts, or dependency Daniel Martin and David Derbyshire, 1-11-08, Daily Mail, Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills, lexis, bc The actual increase in energy bills will depend on how much of the total cost is passed on to consumers. Robin Oakley, of Greenpeace, said: 'Gordon Brown's fascination with nuclear power is hugely misguided and painfully imprudent. 'Nuclear power won't tackle climate change, it won't tackle the looming energy gap, it won't tackle our dependence on oil and gas, but it will clobber every household for hundreds of pounds every year.' The Conservatives backed the Government's move, despite previously saying nuclear power should be considered only 'as a last resort'. Alan Duncan, the party's energy spokesman, said: 'Carbon emissions are changing our climate, we are paying $100 for oil, and we are facing a clear and massive energy shortfall. 'It is our duty to set aside political scrapping so as to make sure we do what's right for our country.' He demanded there be no subsidy from Government however. The Liberal Democrats are opposed to nuclear power, as are a number of Labour backbenchers led by former environment minister, Michael Meacher. Steve Webb, the LibDems' environment spokesman, said: 'This is a flawed decision based on a sham consultation - we all know that ministers made their minds up long ago. 'John Hutton was not able to give a cast iron guarantee that taxpayers will not have to subsidise the costs of nuclear in the future.'

Nuclear Power won’t be online before 2014. Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change, lexis, bc To be sure--in any article dealing with alternative energy, there's always a "to be sure" section--nuclear power has some serious problems. It takes a lot of money, and a long time to build new capacity. NRG says that if all goes well, its new nuclear units, which could power 2 million homes, may come online in 2014 and 2015. And investors aren't eager to commit billions of dollars to controversial long-term projects that might never get built. The government is trying to help by providing risk insurance and streamlining the approval process.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

168 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Solvency takeouts – China and India China and India will offset any U.S. CO2 reductions. Steven J. Milloy 5/15/08 “McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech” Originally published in FoxNews.com o.z. http://cei.org/articles/mccain’s-embarrassing-climate-speech Although China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, vows not to reduce its emissions, McCain says the U.S. should act anyway. So as China, India and other developing nations become the world's greenhouse gas smokestacks, thereby nullifying any reductions made by the U.S., McCain willingly condemns the U.S. to more expensive and less available energy supplies for no environmental benefit whatsoever.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

169 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Solvency takeouts – Yucca Yucca isn’t big enough – if nuclear power increases the U.S. will need several new repositories. Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth, Australia, 2007-05-29, “US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, jlk, http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energypartnership/?searchterm=legislate Even if the Yucca Mountain repository is eventually opened, the current legal limit for the repository is insufficient for the total projected waste output of the current cohort of reactors operating in the US, although the GNEP reprocessing and transmutation plans aim to partly address this problem. Steve Kidd (2006) from the World Nuclear Association states: "The difficulties encountered with establishing Yucca as an operating repository have undoubtedly influenced the move towards GNEP. The likelihood of having to establish several Yuccas in the USA alone, if there is a significant boom in nuclear power in the 21st century, has obviously concentrated a lot of official thinking."

Yucca doesn’t have enough space to fill current nuclear waste of the US Chris Gardner, 7-8-2008, “10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy”, rks, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/nuclear_energy.html. There is currently nowhere to store the radioactive nuclear waste that is a byproduct of nuclear energy generation. In the unlikely event that Yucca Mountain is opened to nuclear waste, the repository will not be large enough to store even current waste. Proponents of nuclear power note that nuclear waste can be reprocessed, although this would not actually reduce the waste problem, and would add 1.5 to 3 cents to the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

170 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Solvency takeouts – Uranium Mining uranium, transporting nuclear waste, and building Nuclear facilities are all HUGELY carbon intensive- This acts as a direct turn to your Global Warming Adv. Mark Diesendorf, University of New South Wales. He is co-editor with Clive Hamilton of the interdisciplinary book, “Human Ecology, Human Economy: Ideas for an Ecologically Sustainable Future”, and co-author of the national scenario study, “A Clean Energy Future for Australia”. & Peter Christoff is the co-coordinator of Environmental Studies at the School of Social and Environmental Enquiry at the University of Melbourne. He lectures on climate politics and policy in the University’s Centre for Public Policy, and has published widely on Australian and international environmental policy. November 2006 energyscience.org.au The recent push for a revival of nuclear energy has been based on its claimed reduction of CO2 emissions where it substitutes for coal-fired power stations. In reality, only reactor operation is CO2free. All other stages of the nuclear fuel chain – mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management – use fossil fuels and hence emit CO2. Also the transport between these parts of the fuel cycle can be very energy intensive as they can be in different countries and require shipping, trucking or rail. These emissions have been quantified by researchers who are independent of the nuclear industry. Early work was published by Nigel Mortimer, until recently Head of the Resources Research Unit at Shefield Hallam University, UK. In the 2000s a very detailed study was done by Jan Willem Storm Van Leeuwen, a senior consultant in energy systems, together with Philip Smith, a nuclear physicist, both of whom are based in Holland. These studies find that the CO2 emissions depend sensitively on the grade of uranium ore used. Following Van Leeuwen and Smith, we define high-grade uranium ores to be those with at least 0.1% uranium oxide (yellowcake U3O8). In simpler terms, for each tonne of ore mined and milled, at least 1 kg of uranium can be extracted. For high-grade ores, such as most of those currently being mined in Australia, the energy inputs from uranium mining and milling are relatively small. However, there are significant emissions from the construction and decommissioning of the nuclear power station, with the result that the station must operate for 2-3 years to generate these energy inputs. (For comparison, wind power requires only 3-7 months.)Low-grade uranium ores contain less than 0.01% yellowcake, i.e. they are at least 10 times less concentrated than the high-grade ores. To obtain 1 kg of yellowcake, at least 10 tonnes of low-grade ore has to be mined. This entails a huge increase in the fossil energy required for mining and milling. Van Leeuwen and Smith find that the fossil energy consumption for these steps in the nuclear fuel chain becomes so large that nuclear energy emits total quantities of CO2 that are comparable with those from an equivalent combined cycle gas-fired power station. Furthermore, the quantity of known uranium reserves, with ore grades richer than the critical level of 0.01%, is very limited. The vast majority of the world’s known uranium resources are low-grade. With the current contribution by nuclear energy of 16% of the world’s electricity production, the high-grade reserves would only last several decades. If nuclear energy were to be expanded to contribute (say) half of the world’s electricity, high-grade reserves would last less than a decade. No doubt more reserves of high-grade uranium ore will be discovered, perhaps even doubling current reserves, but this would be insufficient for a sustainable substitute for coal. Recently a physicist, Martin Sevior has produced a critique of Van Leeuwen and Smith’s results. Sevior’s results for high-grade uranium ore are based on the unpublished data from the Swedish electricity utility, Vattenfall. Unpublished sources have low scientific credibility. The actual results are unbelievable: for instance, based on these data, Sevior claims that the energy inputs to the construction of a nuclear power station are generated in only 1.5 months of its operation. This extraordinarily low result is contradicted by several earlier studies by independent analysts, who find that the energy payback period for the construction of both nuclear and coal fired power stations (which use similar types and quantities of construction materials) is several years. There can be no doubt that, if uranium ore grade declines by a factor of 10, then energy inputs to mining and milling must increase by at least a factor of 10. As ore grade decreases, there has to be grade at which the CO2 emissions from mining and milling become unacceptably high. However, the exact value of this critical ore grade is still subject to continuing scientific debate. Are there alternative future pathways for nuclear energy that could have lower CO2 emissions? Although there are vast quantities of uranium oxide in the Earth’s crust, almost all exist at very low concentrations, typically 4 x 10-4 %, at which 1000 tonnes of ore would have to be mined to obtain 4 kg of uranium in the form of yellowcake. In this case the energy inputs to extract uranium would be much greater than the energy outputs of the nuclear power station. Sea-water contains uranium at a concentration of about 2 x 10-7 %, meaning that 1 million tonnes of sea-water would have to be processed to extract just 2 kg of uranium.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

171 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Lack of uranium will stop a resurgence of nuclear energy. CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP Meanwhile uranium mining is making a comeback after a two-decade slump, but obstacles such as infrastructure problems, stable access to enrichment services, and environmental concerns continue to dog the industry. Discerning Supply and Demand Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known to be recoverable. Australia leads with more than one million tons (about 24 percent of the world’s known supply), followed by Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each. In a 2006 background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes the overall amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up to about 20 percent of the country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent. Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fast-reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts say spent fuel can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel. Market Forces The uranium market experienced significant declines through the 1980s and 1990s because of the end of the Cold War arms race as well as a cessation in construction of new nuclear plants. Disarmament of nuclear-weapons stockpiles added surplus weapons-grade uranium to the market leading to a price drop as low as seven dollars a pound. Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a very different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report (PDF), by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and only supplied about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available weapons-grade uranium, a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine and the need for fuel at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant increases in uranium prices in the last few years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound. However, analysts say the uranium market also can be difficult to predict because many transactions are not transparent. Some experts worry that the lagging uranium industry, in need of more manpower and infrastructure upgrades, will cause delays in the expansion of nuclear power. “Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them,” says Thomas Neff, a nuclear energy expert at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. India, which is locked out of the world uranium market because of its nuclear weapons program, has shut down five of its seventeen reactors due to a shortage of nuclear fuel. The controversial nuclear deal with the United States would have helped India obtain more nuclear fuel, but is now imperiled by domestic opposition in India. Uranium Mining More than half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Experts say Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium in the world. Although Australia has the largest supply, access is constrained by a 1982 law that limits uranium mining in the country. Recent increases in uranium demand have sparked debate in Australia, pitting the mining industry and nuclear advocates against environmentalists and activists for indigenous land rights. Other impediments to increases in mining in Australia and elsewhere include the need for infrastructure, environmental concerns, and a lack of experienced workers.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

172 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Current uranium can’t supply the worlds demand for electricity for the long term. Peter Bunyard, senior scientist at Cambridge University and is on the independent science panel, 06, Taking The Wind Out Of Nuclear Energy, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00155.htm#a, ASH Current uranium reserves, according to 2003 data from the World Nuclear Association, are about 3.5 million tonnes, enough to last 50 years but only at present consumption rates. If large numbers of nuclear reactors were to be built to satisfy our ever-increasing demand for electricity, reserves of high-grade ore would be rapidly exhausted, leaving huge quantities of low-grade ores most of which would cost more energy to utilise than it would deliver in electricity. Even if useful uranium resources were found to be much larger than now estimated, it would only satisfy global demand for several decades and then the world would be left with huge quantities of radioactive waste with no source of energy to sequester it safely. According to detailed research published this year (2005), if all the world’s electricity, currently 55 exajoules (1018 joules) or 15,000 terawatt(1012 watts)-hours, could be generated by nuclear reactors, the world’s known uranium reserves would last only 3.5 years, if full dismantling costs of nuclear plants are included.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

173 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Solvency takeouts – Fast expansion of nuclear power impossible extensions The infrastructure doesn’t exist for a fast expansion of nuclear power. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact, nna http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm The reality is that the United States has not ordered a new reactor since the mid-1970s and it does not have the industrial infrastructure to build even one reactor today. Its industrial and intellectual base atrophied as the nuclear industry declined over the past three decades. Large forging production, heavy manufacturing, specialized piping, mining, fuel services, and skilled labor all must be reconstituted in massive quantities. Global supply is no more promising, especially when one considers that the rest of the world is coming to similar conclusions about the emerging role of nuclear power in meeting CO2 reductions. The global nuclear industrial base currently supports 33 reactors under construction (mostly in Asia and Russia) and the normal operation and maintenance of the world's existing 439 reactors (including those in the U.S.).

Nuclear Power too slow. The Roanoke Times ’08 (6 Jul, AB, “A power shift for energy: Americans are waking up to the fact that clean coal is an oxymoron. It also won't remain 'cheap' for long. The search for alternatives leads to nuclear”, Roanoke Times, Proquest) Nuclear isn't the only answer to the country's energy problems and it may not prove to be the best answer. A palatable solution to storing waste has yet to be found, and it takes many years to gain regulatory clearance to build a plant. Dominion, which is first in line for approval, doesn't expect that it would come any sooner than late 2010. At the earliest, it will be 2016 before North Anna 3 would come on line.

Nuclear Power is not viable-more expensive and time consuming than other renewables Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) In addition to being risky, nuclear power is unable to meet our current or future energy needs. Because of safety requirements and the length of time it takes to construct a nuclear-power facility, the government says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs; yet by 2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity, at about half the cost of nuclear power. Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration has given the bulk of taxpayer energy subsidies-a total of $20 billion-to atomic power

SDI 2008 WHAM!

174 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

It takes 10-20 years just to build one nuclear plant. The Japan Times, July 10, 2008, Power utilities under pressure to clean up their act, Lexis, VF Currently, increasing the use of nuclear plants is the most effective way to secure electricity and cut greenhouse gas emissions at the same time, a federation official said, "But a nuclear power plant cannot be built in a year or two," said the official, who asked not to be named. "It takes a decade or two." To increase nuclear reactors' operational rate, the government is currently discussing easing nuclear plant inspection rules, under which plants must be checked every 13 months and their operations halted for about three months during the inspections. The industry is not only working on its nuclear plants, but is also improving energy efficiency at its thermal power plants by introducing newer and more efficient models. Japan's thermal power plants are considered among the most efficient in the world, with an efficiency rate of about 43 percent, while the figure is 38 percent in the United States and 30 percent in China.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

175 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Brownouts/Blackouts Nuclear power is limited and cannot meet the demand – the reasons it works in the EU don’t apply to the U.S. Lawrence Solomon, May 13, 2008 Financial Post LC Nuclear reactors cannot possibly meet 80% of America's power needs -- or those of any country whose power market dominates its region -- because of limitations in nuclear technology. McCain needs to find another miracle energy solution, or abandon his vow to drastically cut back carbon dioxide emissions. Unlike other forms of power generation, nuclear reactors are designed to run flat-out, 24/7 -- they can't crank up their output at times of high demand or ease up when demand slows. This limitation generally consigns nuclear power to meeting a power system's minimum power needs -- the amount of power needed in the dead of night, when most industry and most people are asleep, and the value of power is low. At other times of the day and night, when power demands rise and the price of power is high, society calls on the more flexible forms of generation -- coal, gas, oil and hydro-electricity among them -- to meet its additional higher-value needs. If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people. That large market --more than 10 times France's population -- is able to soak up most of France's surplus off-peak power. The U. S. is not surrounded, as is France, by far more populous neighbours. Just the opposite: The U.S. dominates the North American market. If 80% of U. S. needs were met by nuclear reactors, as Senator McCain desires, America's off-peak surplus would have no market, even if the power were given away. Countries highly reliant on nuclear power, in effect, are in turn reliant on having large non-nuclear-reliant countries as neighbours. If France's neighbours had power systems dominated by nuclear power, they too would be trying to export off-peak power and France would have no one to whom it could offload its surplus power. In fact, even with the mammoth EU market to tap into, France must shut down some of its reactors some weekends because no one can use its surplus. In effect, France can't even give the stuff away. But McCain does not know France well enough to know why nuclear power's negative record over there says nothing positive about what it can do for people over here, on this side of the Atlantic.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

176 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Coal We would need hundreds of reactors to reduce our reliance on coal. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest) LeRoy Moore, one of the founders of Houlder, Colo's Kocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center and a lay expert on nuclear issues, says there are many reasons why the United States shouldn't shift its effort toward nuclear energy, starting with cost. It takes at least 15 years and $10 to $16 billion-conservative estimates-to build a single two-reactor nuclear power plant. The United States currently has 104 nuclear power plants that generate about 20 percent of the nation's electrical power. At the moment, there are plans by the nuclear-power industry to build at least 28 additional reactors in the United States at 19 sites around the country. But for the United States to replace coal-burning power plants with nuclear power would require the construction of not dozens, but hundreds more nuclear reactors.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

177 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Competitiveness Nuclear Power plants are expensive, we would need hundreds to reduce our reliance on coal and it would take 15 years just to build one. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest) LeRoy Moore, one of the founders of Houlder, Colo's Kocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center and a lay expert on nuclear issues, says there are many reasons why the United States shouldn't shift its effort toward nuclear energy, starting with cost. It takes at least 15 years and $10 to $16 billion-conservative estimates-to build a single two-reactor nuclear power plant. The United States currently has 104 nuclear power plants that generate about 20 percent of the nation's electrical power. At the moment, there are plans by the nuclear-power industry to build at least 28 additional reactors in the United States at 19 sites around the country. But for the United States to replace coal-burning power plants with nuclear power would require the construction of not dozens, but hundreds more nuclear reactors. "We would have to have a new reactor opening every few months for 30 years," Moore says. "If you calculate the cost of that, it would be a trillion dollars to construct the things. If this could actually be accomplished in 30 to 40 years-and I think it's totally unrealistic-you'd have to start over, because most of the reactors would be ending their period of useful life."

Global supply chain doesn’t allow massive expansion of nuclear power sufficient to reduce the economic impacts and reduce CO2. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact, nna http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm Even under today's conditions, bottlenecks emerge within the global supply chain for items such as heavy forgings, piping, skilled labor, and manufacturing. While building enough nuclear power plants to minimize the economic impacts of CO2 caps may be desirable, the reality is that the global industrial base could not support such a project in the U.S., much less the rest of the world. Thus, the amount of nuclear power required to sustain the optimistic Lieberman–Warner economic projections is impossible to achieve within the timeframes that they would require. This is especially true as the U.S. has yet to resolve many issues that continue to face the nuclear industry. Using such optimistic nuclear projections to support an analysis with minimal economic consequences of S. 3036 is therefore completely unrealistic.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

178 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Dependency Nuclear power is bad-expensive, high emissions, unsustainable, and creates foreign dependency Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) From an economic perspective, atomic power is inefficient at addressing climate change because dollars used for more expensive, higher-emissions nuclear energy cannot be used for cheaper, loweremissions renewable energy. Atomic power is also not sustainable. Because of dwindling uranium supplies, by the year 2050 reactors would be forced to use low-grade uranium ore whose greenhouse emissions would roughly equal those of natural gas. Besides, because the United States imports nearly all its uranium, pursuing nuclear power continues the dangerous pattern of dependency on foreign sources to meet domestic energy needs.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

179 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Global Warming Nuclear energy will tradeoff with other forms of effective alternative energy and cause more greenhouse gasses to accumulate Mycle Schneider(international consultant on energy and nuclear), Lutz Mez (executive director of FFU), and Steve Thomas (researcher at the Public Service International Research Unit) 2006. Canberra Times, July 27, 2k6.” Why nuclear power is not the global cure-all” Lexis VF This decline will not be prevented even if some major plans for additional capacity become reality. Unfortunately, the current focus on nuclear may prevent societies from massively investing in energy conservation and efficiency and might actually constitute a significant barrier to the implementation of necessary and urgent greenhouse gas abatement strategies.

Nuclear power is too small to make an impact in carbon dioxide emissions-1150 plants by 2058 Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB In fact, the sheer number of nuclear plants needed to make a major dent in greenhouse emissions means the industry hasn't a prayer of turning nuclear power into the solution to global warming. One study from last year determined that to make a significant contribution toward stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide, about 21 new 1,000- megawatt plants would have to be built each year for the next 50 years, including those needed to replace existing reactors, all of which are expected to be retired by 2050. That's considerably more than the most ambitious industry growth projections.

Money spent on nuclear energy could be better used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB The cost issue alone will mean that few if any new nuclear power stations will get built in the next few years, at least in the U.S., and any that do will require expensive taxpayer subsidies. Instead of subsidizing the development of new plants that have all these other problems, the U.S. would be better off investing in other ways to meet growing energy demands and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.

Money is better spent on other alternatives. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB More important, though, there are less-costly ways of weaning ourselves off these carbon-emitting energy sources. Even if a high price of carbon makes nuclear economic, the costs of renewable energy such as wind and solar power are cheaper, and getting cheaper all the time. By contrast, nuclear is more expensive, and getting more expensive all the time.

Nuclear power leads to the emission of global warming gases. The New York Times, September 26, 2006 Tuesday, Section F; Column 1; Science Desk; LC The process by which nuclear power is generated creates large quantities of global warming gases. This fact, together with the enormous expense of constructing and decommissioning reactors, the dangers of nuclear power in an age of terrorism and the problems associated with the disposal of radioactive waste, militate against the concept of nuclear-generated electricity. Instead, available technology associated with an array of renewable energy sources, combined with conservation, would supply the world's electricity needs.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

180 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear power does not solve for global warming. USA TODAY, April 6, 2007 Friday, NEWS; Pg. 10A, LC USA TODAY's article "Some rethinking nuke opposition" might suggest to some readers that the position of the Natural Resources Defense Council toward nuclear power has changed in response to global warming pollution, but our view remains the same (News, March 23). Because it is a source of low-carbon electricity in a number of countries, including the USA, nuclear power cannot be ignored. But acknowledging this reality and society's obligation to manage nuclear power responsibly is a far cry from endorsing its expansion as a solution to global warming. Nuclear power remains a costly, complex and heavily state-subsidized way to generate electricity. It imposes burdens that have not been managed successfully -- including nuclear waste disposal and proliferation of materials for nuclear weapons. The low-carbon profile of nuclear energy is offset by other threats, such as uranium mining and security concerns. Given its limitations and dangers, expansion of nuclear power should not -- and probably won't -- play a major role in the global effort to solve global warming.

Nuclear power does not solve for global warming. Jenny Weil, Nucleonics Week, Washington November 2, 2006; LC Nuclear power is not crucial for mitigating the effects of global warming, nor is it greenhouse gas emissions-free, asserts a new report issued by the GRACE Energy Initiative, a New York City-based operation that promotes renewable sources and energy conservation and efficiency. In a report released October 26, GRACE, or the GrassRoots Action Center for the Environment, says the nuclear industry is misleading the public on these and other issues as it mounts a campaign to earn a greener, more environmentally friendly reputation. The Nuclear Energy Institute fired back that many of the assertions in the report are "gross inaccuracies and blatant misrepresentations."The report concludes that money invested in nuclear reactors will divert government resources and private investment from "cheaper, faster" and "more effective" solutions. It cites proliferation risks, security and safety concerns, and environmental issues as reasons why more nuclear reactors should not be built in the US. The report is titled "False Promises: Debunking Nuclear Industry Propaganda." The cover page contains a photograph of someone crossing his index and middle fingers in a sign of a disingenuous promise. A line across the photograph reads, "Nuclear power is NOT the answer to climate change." Cullen told reporters in an October 26 conference call that the nuclear fuel life cycle is not emissions-free because of the milling, mining, processing and transportation of uranium. The report called these activities "carbon-intensive." The report claims that for nuclear power to make "even a modest impact" on greenhouse gas emissions, one new nuclear reactor would have to come on line every few weeks for the next 50 years. Cullen and Alvarez offered few alternatives to nuclear baseload, if it were phased out or the current expansion effort killed. They said solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable resources should become the central focus of US policy, along with an aggressive conservation program.

Nuclear Energy isn’t carbon free when you account for the full fuel cycle. Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) The myth of clean atomic power arises partly because some sources, like a pro-nuclear energy analysis published in 2003 by several professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, call atomic power a "carbon-free source" of energy. On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Energy, which is also a proponent of nuclear energy, calls atomic power "emissions free." At best, these claims are half-truths because they "trim the data" on emissions. While nuclear reactors themselves do not release greenhouse gases, reactors are only part of the nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle. This cycle includes mining uranium ore, milling it to extract uranium, converting the uranium to gas, enriching it, fabricating fuel pellets, generating power, reprocessing spent fuel, storing spent fuel at the reactor and transporting the waste to a permanent storage facility. Because most of these nine stages are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, nuclear power thus generates at least 33 grams of carbon-equivalent emissions for each kilowatt-hour of electricity that is produced. (To provide uniform calculations of greenhouse emissions, the various effects of the different greenhouse gases typically are converted to carbon-equivalent emissions.) Per kilowatt-hour, atomic energy produces only one-seventh the greenhouse emissions of coal, but twice as much as wind and slightly more than solar panels.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

181 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Economy is high now Novosti 15/ 06/ 2007 http://en.rian.ru/world/20070615/67276895.html Kazakhstan's GDP will increase 10% year-on-year in 2007 to $100 billion, the president of the oil-rich Central Asian republic said Friday. Speaking at a meeting of the country's Foreign Investors' Council, Nursultan Nazarbayev said: "In 15 years of independence, we have proved that Kazakhstan is a state with a dynamically developing economy. Kazakhstan's gross domestic product is growing by around 10% each year, and according to expert estimates, this trend will persist in the future." The Kazakh president said the ex-Soviet nation had set a goal of achieving a GDP figure of $300 billion by 2015. According to Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan's GDP climbed 10.6% in 2006 to $80.5 billion and exceeded $5,000 per capita. At the same time, the Kazakh president said he was dissatisfied with the level of revenue earned by domestic companies from the transit of goods. According to Nazarbayev, revenue of Kazakhstan's transport companies has remained at an annual level of $500 million per year, or just 1% of the market for transit carriages between Europe and Asia. "This is evidence that the existing infrastructure is failing to meet the requirements of the growing economy, even despite the fact that budget spending on infrastructure development is rising considerably every year," Nazarbayev said. The president said that Kazakhstan as a transit country was interested in building trans-continental transport and communication corridors and large transport and logistic centers to turn the republic into a major link between the West and the East.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

182 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Proliferation Fast expansion of nuclear power will undermine the anti-proliferation system. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Nuclear Energy causes proliferation By far the greatest risk is the possibility that an expansion of nuclear power will contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Plants that enrich uranium for power plants can also be used to enrich for bombs; this is the path Iran is suspected of taking in developing a weapons program. An ambitious expansion of nuclear power would require a lot more facilities for enriching uranium, broadening this risk. Facilities for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for reuse pose the danger that the material can be diverted for weapons. Expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. doesn't pose a great proliferation risk, but a nuclear renaissance will put a strain on the current antiproliferation system. Most of the growth world-wide is expected to be in countries -- such as those in the Middle East and Africa -- where a nuclear-energy program could give cover to surreptitious weapons development and create the local expertise in handling and processing nuclear materials.

U.S. Nuclear leadership can’t stop proliferation – the countries that we are most likely to help want nuclear energy so they can counter Iranian proliferation. Daniel Horner, 7-16-07, Nuclear Fuels, Bush-Putin statement pledges increased effort on nuclear issues, lexis, bc Sokolski, who was a nonproliferation official in the George H.W. Bush administration, has criticized that approach (NF, 21 May, 3). Sokolski also took issue with the section of the document in which Bush and Putin declare that they "are determined to play an active role in making the advantages of the peaceful use of nuclear energy available to a wide range of interested states, in particular developing countries, provided the common goal of prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons is achieved." Sokolski questioned how "peaceful" large reactors would be in "the places where we're pushing them." Part of the reason countries such as Egypt and Turkey are interested in having nuclear programs is to give themselves the capability to counter the developing Iranian nuclear weapons program, he said.

Nuclear Energy generation fuels nuclear proliferation. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) One of the byproducts of nuclear power is plutonium. Contained in spent fuel rods, it can be removed from the other radioactive byproducts and, once removed, it can be used to create nuclear weapons. Quite simply, nuclear power means continued nuclear proliferation, Moore says. "If this industry continues, it's easier for nuclear materials to be in wide circulation globally, and if we're worried about their falling into the hands of terrorists or enemies of the United States-and that's certainly a concern for many people-nuclear energy is not the way to deal with our [global warming] problem," he says. It's not just the plutonium itself that presents a danger, but the mere existence of radioactive nuclear waste.

Nuclear energy causes proliferation Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Finally, critics say that an expansion of nuclear power will increase the danger that potentially hostile nations will use nuclear material from a power program to develop atomic weapons, or that rogue states or terrorists will steal nuclear material to make bombs.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

183 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Can’t solve proliferation even with nuclear energy leadership. CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, September 12, 2006 http://www.cfr.org/publication/11433/lining_up_to_enrich_uranium.html Never underestimate the potential for erratic policy when economic and political interests collide, even when the policy involves preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. This happened last month when, in rapid succession, Argentina, Australia and South Africa joined a growing list of countries interested in enriching uranium for commercial purposes. That is the same activity that Iran claims as its inalienable right, and that the United States, the European Union, Russia and China insist must be halted in the interest of nonproliferation. Is it fair or feasible to allow some countries to enrich uranium while attempting to prevent others from doing it? The answer is not simple. It turns on a number of technical, economic and political considerations. The technical dimension is most straightforward. It pertains to the dual purpose of uranium enrichment: to produce fuel for civilian reactors and explosive material for nuclear weapons. It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the countries that have an active or latent uraniumenrichment industry also possess, once made, or tried to acquire nuclear weapons. Today, most of the arguments in support of new enrichment capacity are couched in economic terms, generally linked to the buzz about major global expansion in nuclear energy. Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Africa, for example, portray their renewed interest in terms of projected domestic consumption and new export opportunities. In fact, current global enrichment capacity exceeds demand. The projected boom in nuclearenergy development in most countries has yet to be matched by major new orders, and the ability of newcomers to supplant the entrenched suppliers is problematic. Moreover, the financial costs of reviving antiquated and previously uneconomical enrichment facilities in Argentina and South Africa are likely to be enormous. So other factors are at play. Almost all the new and prospective entrants in the enrichment business appear anxious to establish their credentials as having existing technology in place. Driving this process, in part, is the perception that all countries will soon be divided into uranium enrichment “haves” (suppliers) and “have-nots” (customers) under various proposals to establish multinational nuclear fuel centers and fuel-supply arrangements. These proposals include President George W. Bush’s call two years ago for the Nuclear Suppliers Group to refuse to sell enrichment technology to any state that did not already possess a full-scale, functioning enrichment plant, and the idea promoted about the same time by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, for a five-year moratorium on new enrichment plants in order to buy time for developing more equitable means to ensure fuel supplies while stemming proliferation. More recently, the United States and Russia have proposed that a small set of countries would serve as enrichment providers while all others would forego such technology. But the basis for becoming an approved enricher remains unclear. While the United States opposes allowing Iran to enrich uranium, Dennis Spurgeon, the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, recently said that “special rules” apply to Australia and Canada because they “have the majority of economically recoverable uranium resources. These rules appears founded more on political grounds that distinguish between allies and adversaries. Such a policy of exceptionalism is at odds with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It is also a recipe for failure, as the history of U.S.Iranian nuclear cooperation in the 1970s should make clear, since today’s friend could become tomorrow’s foe. There is no foolproof means of promoting peaceful nuclear energy while preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear energy increases proliferation-empirically proven Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) Nuclear energy actually increases the risks of weapons proliferation because the same technology used for civilian atomic power can be used for weapons, as the cases of India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan illustrate. As the Swedish Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alven put it, "The military atom and the civilian atom are Siamese twins." Yet if the world stopped building nuclear-power plants, bomb ingredients would be harder to acquire, more conspicuous and more costly politically, if nations were caught trying to obtain them. Their motives for seeking nuclear materials would be unmasked as military, not civilian.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

184 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Russian Relations Next President Solves US/Russia Relations CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, April 14, 2008 http://www.cfr.org/publication/16049/piontkovsky.html KP Andrei A. Piontkovsky, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, says the transition to a new U.S. presidential administration will likely coincide with more conciliatory policy by the Kremlin toward the West and the United States. The election of Dmitri Medvedev as the next Russian president, he says, is part of that approach. “It seems to me that now we have reached the end of the latest negative confrontational cycle and there are the first indications of an upward tendency,” he says. “Strategically, the needs of Russia dictate a very close alliance with the West because we face the same fundamental security challenges of Islamic radicalism and a rising China. But at the same time there have been a lot of internal political impulses pushing the Kremlin to strained relations with the West.” First, there is the deep psychological setback of defeat in the Cold War and loss of superpower status suffered by the Russian political elite. Second, it’s been useful politically to portray the West as the enemy to justify outgoing President Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime. There are also the financial interests of the ruling group because they not only rule Russia; they also in effect “own” Russia, being de facto owners of the main oil and gas companies. They are interested in very high oil prices, so there is a tendency in Russian foreign policy to keep tensions high in the Middle East, and that’s especially clear in the case of Iran’s nuclear problem. So it is inevitable that Russian foreign policy is contradictory and has a cyclic character. It seems to me that now we have reached the end of the latest negative confrontational cycle and there are the first indications of an upward tendency. Both during the recent ministers’ meeting in Moscow and during the Sochi summit [April 2008 meeting between Putin and Bush], Moscow was rather conciliatory. Earlier, the Kremlin had threatened to target its nuclear missiles on European cities and so on. But in Moscow and during Sochi, Putin went out of his way to emphasize that he believed that Russian concerns were understood by the United States and Americans were sincerely trying to assuage our concerns. There is now a tendency to reduce a bit the anti-Western posturing in government policy and propaganda.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

185 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

AT ADV Waste storage Producers have 20 years worth of storage Tribune Business News ’08 (5 Jul, Rory Sweeney, Lead staff writer at the Times, “Nuke waste in holding pattern: Facility that accepted low-level waste now closed to Pa., 36 other states”, Tribune Business News, AB, Proquest) As July 1 approached, however, DEP surveyed its nuclear licensees regarding their storage plans, Rathbun said. The response was that facilities have storage space, an average of 20 years worth, he said. "We haven't really identified anyone who's going to have a problem at this point," he said.

A new waste facility will open. Tribune Business News ’08 (5 Jul, Rory Sweeney, Lead staff writer at the Times, “Nuke waste in holding pattern: Facility that accepted low-level waste now closed to Pa., 36 other states”, Tribune Business News, AB, Proquest) PPL Corp.'s Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in Salem Township has a "very large" warehouse for the material, plant spokesman Joe Scopelliti said. "The amount of waste we have that would not be able to go to Clive, Utah, is very small, like on the order of a few canisters a year," he said. Since there are many facilities in the country that will eventually need a new storage facility, he said, "I think it's a matter of time before someone fills that void." Local medical facilities also don't expect problems. Wilkes-Barre General Hospital uses a radioactive element called technetium as a tracer for imaging, but the element has a very short half-life, so the hospital needs to store it for just 61 hours before it's decayed enough to be disposed of like other medical waste. The situation is the same for Geisinger facilities, said spokeswoman Amy Lingobardo.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

186 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

T – Nuclear power isn’t an alternative energy Interpretation - Alternative energy excludes nuclear and all fossil fuels Simon, 07 – professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno (Christopher, Alternative energy: political, economic, and social feasibility, p. 39-40) The federal definition of alternative energy is best summarized by Title 26, chapter 79, §7701 of the revised U.S. Code: “the term ‘alternative energy facility’ means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source for the facility is not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.” The primary purpose of this definition relates to the issuance of tax credits to “alternative energy facility[ies],” which meet certain standards as defined in Title 26, chapter 1, §48 “Energy Credit.” Tax credits are one method by which the federal government encourages the private sector to make certain economic choices; in the case of energy policy, this definition of alternative energy will have a definitive impact on how alternative energy will be defined by those individuals and corporate bodies seeking federal recognition (and benefit) by adopting a particular definition of alternative energy. Many state definitions of alternative energy closely follow federal definitions. Case law confirms that federal guidelines supercede state-level guidelines. Federal standards also impact the state and local receipt of alternative energy grants, subsidies, and tax exemptions. It is reasonable, therefore that state and local definitions would be consistent with federal policy. Consistency between federal and state definitions does not mean there are not a few variations. In many ways, variation at the state level illustrates the dynamic and evolving alternative energy paradigm, which is by no means unique to the U.S. policy process. B. Violation – the plan is an incentive for nuclear power not for an alternative energy. C. This is a voting issue – 1. Limits - their interpretation explodes the topic – there are a huge number of incentive mechanisms which means reducing what we define as “alternative energy” is the only way the negative can effectively prepare. 2. Predictability – our definition is based on U.S. code, it’s how the federal government defines it which is the most predictable on a topic about federal government policy.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

187 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

T Lack of waste repository doesn’t stop expansion of nuclear power. Lack of waste disposal doesn’t stop new reactors. Inside Energy With Federal Lands, 3-3-08, NRC still sure of waste rule: Klein, lexis, bc Klein also said that he does not believe waste confidence is an issue that "impacts new reactors significantly." DOE, faced with a $100-million cut in its fiscal 2008 funding for the repository program, said recently it can no longer meet a 2017 target for opening the repository in Nevada. The department has not announced a new target date.

A lack of a permanent repository won’t stop nuclear energy. William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis Estimates are that dry cask storage can safely and securely store spent fuel for up to one hundred years. Although a lack of a permanent repository in the coming years would not derail the potential for a major expansion of nuclear energy in the United States.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

188 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear power is very expensive Nuclear Power is expensive to the government and citizens Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) Some states allow the energy industry to pass costs onto consumers, which means some portion of the high cost of these facilities would come from the pockets of people heating their homes. The subsidies themselves come, of course, from the wallets of taxpayers. "One of the main problems with nuclear is that it is pretty expensive," says Arjun Makhijani, and engineer specializing in nuclear fusion and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). "It's been that way for some time. And the costs of nuclear are escalating pretty rapidly, even as the cost of solar is going down." The decreasing value of the dollar makes everything more expensive in a globalized market, driving up the costs of construction. The United States now competes with the rapidly escalating demand from India and China for steel and other raw materials, further driving up costs. Skilled labor has become more expensive, as well.

There are cheaper alternatives than nuclear power Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) "Wind energy is cheaper today than nuclear, and solar energy is going to be cheaper than nuclear within just a few years," Makhijani says. "It's very clear that one of the things that makes solar somewhat more expensive is essentially the small scale of manufacturing. As soon as the manufacturing facilities are in place and the scale is right, solar will become cheaper than nuclear." If the United States were to invest in a "nuclear renaissance," it would be using scarce resources for expensive power, a solution that makes no sense to Makhijani. "You can actually reduce CO2 much better by going for efficiency with renewable sources," he says.

Nuclear power plants cost up to $9 billion each Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB While no one knows what a new reactor will cost until one gets built, estimates for new construction continue to rise. Building a new plant could cost as much as $6,000 a kilowatt of generating capacity, up from estimates of about $4,000 a kilowatt just a year ago. FPL Group, of Juno Beach, Fla., estimates that two new reactors planned for southeast Florida would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion each.

Nuclear power can’t succeed without key parts which are hard to get and are expensive. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB Part of the reason for the rising cost estimates is the small number of vendors able to supply critical reactor components, as well as a shortage of engineering and construction skills in the nuclear industry. Perhaps the biggest bottleneck is in the huge reactor vessels that contain a plant's radioactive core. Only one plant in the world is capable of forging the huge vessels in a single piece, and it can produce only a handful of the forgings a year. Though the plant intends to expand capacity in the next couple of years, and China has said it plans to begin making the forgings, this key component is expected to limit development for many years.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

189 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear power is expensive-subsidies distort truth Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) Achieving greater energy efficiency, however, also requires ending the lopsided system of taxpayer nuclear subsidies that encourage the myth of inexpensive electricity from atomic power. Since 1949, the U.S. government has provided about $165 billion in subsidies to nuclear energy, about $5 billion to solar and wind together, and even less to energy-efficiency programs. All government efficiency programs-to encourage use of fuel-efficient cars, for example, or to provide financial assistance so that low-income citizens can insulate their homes-currently receive only a small percentage of federal energy monies. Nuclear energy is three times more expensive than wind-studies prove After energyefficiency programs, wind is the most cost-effective way both to generate electricity and to reduce greenhouse emissions. It costs about half as much as atomic power. The only nearly finished nuclear plant in the West, now being built in Finland by the French company Areva, will generate electricity costing 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Yet the U.S. government's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory calculated actual costs of new wind plants, over the last seven years, at 3.4 cents per kilowatthour. Although some groups say nuclear energy is inexpensive, their misleading claims rely on trimming the data on cost. The 2003 M.I.T. study, for instance, included neither the costs of reprocessing nuclear material, nor the full interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital, nor the total costs of waste storage. Once these omissions-from the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle-are included, nuclear costs are about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

190 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Breeder Reactors are expensive Empirically Denied: Sodium-cooled reactors fail Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP During the 1960s and 1970s the leading industrial countries, including the U.S., put the equivalent of more than 50 billion of today’s dollars into efforts to commercialize such fast-neutron reactors, which are cooled by molten sodium rather than water. These devices were also called breeder reactors, because they were designed to generate more plutonium than they consumed and therefore could be much more efficient in using the energy in uranium. The expectation was that breeders would quickly replace conventional water-cooled reactors. But sodium-cooled reactors proved to be much more costly to build and troublesome to operate than expected, and most countries abandoned their efforts to commercialize them.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

191 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Uniqueness generic – Nuclear power decreasing now. Nuclear power decreasing now – no new plant has been built since 1973. Jerry Taylor and Navin Nayar, Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, 6-21-03, Cato.org, “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134, CM With federal government spending through the roof and projected deficits setting new records every day, it is perhaps surprising that the Bush administration and Congress want to use billions of taxpayer dollars to singlehandedly resurrect the moribund nuclear industry. Old habits, however, die hard. The federal government has always maintained a unique public-private partnership with the nuclear industry, wherein the costs of nuclear power are shared by the public but the profits are enjoyed privately. In an attempt to resuscitate this dying industry, the current Senate energy bill proposes unprecedented federal support for nuclear power. Despite extensive and continuous government assistance -- including more than $66 billion in research and development alone -- no nuclear power plant has been ordered and built in the U.S. since 1973. After building more than a hundred plants between 1954-1973, orders have been cancelled over the last thirty years, and capacity in the industry has stagnated since 1989. The decline of nuclear power is a result of several factors: the Three Mile Island disaster heightened public safety fears and citizen opposition to the siting of plants in their neighborhoods grew. But nuclear power was ultimately rejected by investors because it simply does not make economic sense. In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government.

Without new reactor construction nuclear power will substantially decrease. Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis Without new reactor construction, a precipitous falloff will begin about twenty years from now. While Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Dale E. Klein has recently discussed considering license renewals for up to eighty total years for a selected number of reactors, prudent planning would suggest counting on replacing practically all of the current reactors within the coming decades. The replacement rate would be on the order of one new reactor every four to five months over the next forty years. Based on the periods of the 1960s and 1970s, when most of the current fleet was built, this construction rate appears feasible. However, based on the past thirty years, in which reactor orders and construction ground to a halt, this replacement rate faces daunting challenges.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

192 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear energy will not solve alternative energy concerns. It is on the decline. Mycle Schneider(international consultant on energy and nuclear), Lutz Mez (executive director of FFU), and Steve Thomas (researcher at the Public Service International Research Unit) 2006. Canberra Times, July 27, 2k6.” Why nuclear power is not the global cure-all” Lexis VF NUCLEAR power is back on the agenda. Media attention is remarkable. The G8 Summit has just made it an issue. But what is behind the "nuclear revival"? Surprisingly little, so far, as a brief analysis reveals. Today worldwide there are 442 operating nuclear reactors. Only 19 more than in 1989 and two less than in 2002, they represent an installed capacity of 370,000MW. Nuclear power plants provide 16 per cent of the world's commercial electricity (and not "16 per cent of the world's energy" as Greg Hunt, parliamentary secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who should know better, wrote in The Australian on July 17). This represents the same 6 per cent share in commercial primary energy as hydropower, which equally covers about 2 per cent of final energy in the world. In the European Union nuclear power has declined steadily since 1989, when the number of operating units reached an historic high with 172. There are now 147 reactors operating - 25 units less than 17 years ago. There are 31 countries with nuclear power plants, but the big six alone - the United States, France, Japan, Germany, Russia and South Korea - produce three-quarters of the world's nuclear electricity. Even in these countries the role of nuclear power in the overall energy supply is limited. France, the "most nuclear" country, generates 78 per cent of its electricity (not of its energy, as Greg Hunt wrote) with nuclear power, yet this still only provides 17.5 per cent of its final energy. Like most other countries, France is highly dependent on fossil fuels, which provide more than 70 per cent of final energy consumption. In the other big five countries the nuclear contribution is not more than 7 per cent of their final energy and in the US and Russia it is less than 4 per cent. Globally the International Atomic Energy Agency lists 27 reactors as "under construction". However, 11 of these have been "listed" for between 18 to 30 years. The Indian expansion program is essentially limited to small domestic-type reactors and there is little prospect that nuclear power will provide significantly more than the current 2 per cent of its electricity any time in the near future. And China? The country will have a maximum of 10,000MW installed by 2010, again providing less than 2 per cent of the country's electricity. As to figures of up to 40,000MW by 2020, they are nothing more than wild speculation with little industrial credibility. Lead times for nuclear plants - the time from final investment decisions to grid connection - are about 10 years. Many projects experience extreme delays. The last nuclear reactor to be built in the US was under construction for more than 23 years before it was finally connected to the grid in 1996. France has decided to build a new plant, but the main reason is fear of a competence gap. It is 15 years since the French began construction of a reactor. Interest in nuclear related technical and higher education options are decreasing. The effect is not as dramatic as in a country like Germany, where in five years only two students took a full nuclear option, but it is there. Maintaining competence has become a major issue. Finland is also building a new reactor, the first one to be ordered in the European Union outside France, since the 1980s. After one year of construction, the project is already delayed by about a year. Finland has had the highest electricity consumption growth rate in the European Union, mainly because of pricing policy and the largescale introduction of space heating. The country doubled per-capita consumption over the past 20 years to reach a level 60 per cent higher than Australia. Existing nuclear power plants are aging rapidly. The current average age of operating reactors is roughly 22 years. Experience with longer operating times is limited. Industry expectations of 40 years on average seem highly optimistic. That aside, about 80 reactors will be 40 or older by 2015. An additional 200 units will be 40 by 2025. So even if it was possible to double the current average operating age of all reactors, their replacement at age 40 would mean a need to connect a unit to the grid every 45 days until 2015 and one every 18 days between 2015 and 2025! Considering the long lead times of nuclear power plants such a scheme is impossible. In other words, either the average age of operating plants must be significantly extended beyond 40 years, or the number of operating units will decline. We expect the latter, a slow but steady decline, where new units don't make up for the ones that are shut down. In conclusion, nuclear power plays a modest role in the international energy situation. In sharp contradiction to numerous reports and media "hype", the number of nuclear power reactors in the world is very likely to decline.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

193 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics – Uniqueness Washington won’t take any major action on the energy crisis – any proposals will be small. Jessica Mancari ’08 (June 24th, Sen. Forbes Assistant, The Wall Street Journal, “Rep. Forbes ‘New Manhattan Project’ featured in Wall Street Journal”, AB, Proquest) Here, then, is the real energy shortage in America. The stunning part of Washington's reaction to $4-agallon gasoline is that there has been so little reaction at all. This is as close as the country has been to a genuine energy crisis in 30 years, yet there has been no unifying cry to mount the ramparts as a nation, to rally together to rid America of the curse of oil addiction, to rise to this challenge as America has to others in its history. INSTEAD, the energy "debate" that has emerged is mostly a lame repeat of 20year-old arguments over the virtues of offshore oil drilling and a series of congressional hearings on the role speculators have in driving up the price of oil that have nothing to do with actually increasing the production of energy. As presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama are at least trying to rally the country - Sen. McCain by devoting virtually two whole weeks of his campaign to the topic - but the effort has served mostly to highlight their differences. There are several possible explanations for this meekness in the face of challenge, but the most likely, and the most distressing, is this: America and its political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith in their ability to do so. A political system that expects failure doesn't try very hard to produce anything else. If you wonder why voters have made "change" the catchword of this campaign year, that's a pretty good explanation. This timidity in the face of challenge troubles Rep. Forbes. "Maybe one of the reasons we've developed some of the mediocrity we have is that we aren't thinking bigger," he says. "I really hope for once we can lay aside the partisan bickering, and we can lay aside the posturing." THE PROBLEM, of course, is that there is little sign that Washington, in its current state of gridlock and partisan paralysis, is capable of doing that. When President Bill Clinton tried to overhaul the health-care system, he couldn't get even a committee vote on his plan in a Congress his party controlled. When President George W. Bush tried to revamp Social Security, he couldn't get even a committee vote on his plan in a Congress his party controlled. Last year's effort to overhaul the U.S.'s deeply flawed immigration system collapsed what once looked like a rare bipartisan success. President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education program has become a partisan football. An energy bill that passed after much effort earlier in this Congress now seems limp when compared with the threat that energy prices suddenly pose to the American economy. Washington, in short, has no recent track record in solving big problems. That hardly means the only route for such solutions is big-government programs. Rep. Forbes, for example, is hardly a wild-eyed liberal proposing a bureaucratic solution on energy. He's a conservative Republican who in 2006 won a 100% rating from the Chamber of Commerce for his voting record. He doesn't argue that government can or should solve the problem for Americans watching in horror as the dollars add up at the gas pump. "Government won't do it for them," he says. "Government can't. But we're saying we can lay the challenge out for the American people.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

194 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – Dry cask storage is popular Congress supports dry cask storage. Whitney ’08, staff writer, McClatchy Newspapers, Lexis, tk. At a House Science and Technology Committee hearing Wednesday, expansion of nuclear power was viewed as an opportunity. Gone are the days when lawmakers questioned the safety of reactor technology. Even among those for whom waste is an issue, there is a high comfort level with storing used fuel in dry casks for decades at the reactor sites while a more comprehensive solution is studied.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

195 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – global warming key election issue Politics link – global warming regulation is the most important domestic election issue. Steven J. Milloy 5/15/08 “McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech” Originally published in FoxNews.com o.z. http://cei.org/articles/mccain’s-embarrassing-climate-speech Undaunted by facts, McCain appears to be programmed with every nonsensical green platitude and policy — a truly worrisome situation since global warming regulation is shaping up to be the most important domestic policy issue of the upcoming election.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

196 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – Yucca mountain unpopular Yucca is very controversial. Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth, Australia, 2007-05-29, “US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, jlk, http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energypartnership/?searchterm=legislate RADIOACTIVE WASTE Establishing interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for nuclear waste has been a protracted and controversial issue in the US and it is a long way from resolution. The waste management problems could jeopardise plans to build new reactors. The US House Committee (2006) questions whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would licence new reactors in the absence of a clear disposal path for spent fuel, and notes that DOE's response is to seek legislation eliminating the availability of disposal space in a permanent repository as a consideration for the NRC in licensing new reactors. The Committee argues that attempting to "legislate away" the waste problem is not a responsible course of action. The estimated opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada has been pushed back to 2017 — initially it was planned to be in operation in 1998. The US House Committee (2006) notes that DOE's latest plan for Yucca Mountain envisages a license application for construction being filed in fiscal year 2008, construction starting three to four years later and disposal of commercial spent fuel sometime near the end of the next decade. This is a seven-year delay from the schedule just two years ago, the Committee notes. In other words, Yucca Mountain is not drawing closer but receding into the future!

Support For Yucca Mountain Softened Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program, lexis, bc How much attention anybody is paying to this at this stage of the game is another issue." The Nevada congressional delegation remains fiercely opposed to putting the repository in the state. "The Bush administration is desperate to show that growing reports of Yucca Mountain's death are premature, but this is clearly a project whose days are numbered," Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat-Nevada, who saw the PowerPoint presentation, said in a statement."Now DOE is looking at a public-private partnership to run Yucca Mountain, but that will not eliminate the danger or change Nevada's opposition to becoming the nation's nuclear garbage dump. We need to stop this $80-billion disaster waiting to happen and keep nuclear waste on site, where it's safe for the next 100 years." Berkley's communications director, David Cherry, said DOE seems to want "the efficiency of a private undertaking paired with the power of the federal government to fund and license activities relating to nuclear waste disposal, including the ability to overcome powerful opposition based on health, safety and cost issues." Jon Summers, communications director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, said DOE's "radiation road show" to gain support for an alternative plan to advance Yucca Mountain is futile. "You can't privatize something that's not going to be built in the first place," he said. "The dump is not [going to be built]." Summers said DOE can promote the idea to Republican lawmakers, but "Republicans are in the minority, and not even all of them support Yucca Mountain anymore," he said. "The support for Yucca Mountain has softened on Capitol Hill and among the nuclear industry itself." The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would need to pass legislation for DOE to restructure its nuclear waste program, said David Marks, a spokesman for panel chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. The committee has not seen any DOE proposal or presentation to that end, Marks said. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman John Keeley said industry would support the idea of a government-chartered corporation "conceptually," but added that "the devil is in the details."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

197 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Empirically, introducing Yucca causes political controversy. Alexander Duncan,12-10-07, Electric Utility Week, Climate bill wins crucial approval, sending measure on to action by Senate next year, lexis, bc The Isakson package would have clarified federal loan guarantee language to facilitate new projects, eliminated the mandatory adjudicatory hearing for uncontested nuclear power plant license applications, encouraged policies to develop a skilled workforce to build nuclear reactors and provided tax incentives for new construction of nuclear plants. Boxer, a noted nuclear skeptic, said she would consider the nuclear issues on the floor. Yet overall she decried these and other Republican "killer amendments" designed to fracture the "delicate balance" in her committee. "I don't think we want to bring Yucca Mountain into this," she said. "That would sink this bill pretty fast." Long-time nuclear advocate and bill cosponsor Lieberman said that carbon caps would be plenty to help the industry. "You've got to set the goal, and American innovation will meet them," he said. Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of Delaware, also plans to offer an amendment on the Senate floor aimed at giving emission allowances to nuclear and renewable plants.

Yucca is one of the nation’s biggest political disputes. Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc The dump has become one of the biggest geographic disputes in modern U.S. history, pitting Nevada against a nuclear power industry centered in the East. California's two senators, as well as others in the West, have supported Nevada's opposition to the dump.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

198 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links - Waste Storage is unpopular Storage is very controversial. Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth, Australia, 2007-05-29, “US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, jlk, http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energypartnership/?searchterm=legislate RADIOACTIVE WASTE Establishing interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for nuclear waste has been a protracted and controversial issue in the US and it is a long way from resolution. The waste management problems could jeopardise plans to build new reactors. The US House Committee (2006) questions whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would licence new reactors in the absence of a clear disposal path for spent fuel, and notes that DOE's response is to seek legislation eliminating the availability of disposal space in a permanent repository as a consideration for the NRC in licensing new reactors. The Committee argues that attempting to "legislate away" the waste problem is not a responsible course of action. The estimated opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada has been pushed back to 2017 — initially it was planned to be in operation in 1998.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

199 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – Nuclear power unpopular Nuclear power is still a hot button issue. Waste News, 10-1-07, Revisiting the nuke debate, lexis, bc It's back! After some 30 years, applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the United States. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. NRG Energy is seeking to build two new facilities in Texas, the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since then.

AT Enviornmentalists support nuclear power - Only a few environmentalists support nuclear power. Elisabeth Bumiller, Nytimes media group, 6-20-08, International Herald Tribune, McCain sets target of 45 new nuclear reactors, lexis, bc Although there has been a shift of opinion in the industry and among some environmentalists toward more nuclear power - it is clean and far safer than at the time of the nuclear accident in 1979 at Three Mile Island, in Pennsylvania - most environmentalists are skeptical of the most recent claims by advocates of nuclear energy. They also say that no utility will put its own financing into building a plant unless the U.S. government lavishly subsidizes it. ''Wall Street won't invest in these plants because they are too expensive and unreliable,'' said Daniel Weiss, who heads the global warming program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal research group. ''So Senator McCain wants to shower the nuclear industry with billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts.''

Yucca mountain is a key issue for Nevada voters – they oppose it strongly Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nov. 28, 2007, “Poll finds Nevada voters strongly oppose Yucca, Survey shows 76 percent are against nuclear waste project”, JaretLK, http://www.lvrj.com/news/11882701.html ellipses in original RENO -- Nevada voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to federal plans to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, according to a statewide poll published Tuesday. The survey of 600 likely Nevada voters conducted for the Reno Gazette-Journal found that 76 percent oppose the project and 57 percent say the issue will be important in making their choice for president. The survey also found that opposition to the project crosses party lines, but Democrats think it's a more important issue in the presidential election than Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Democrats said the issue is important to them in the presidential race, compared with 38 percent of Republicans. The poll was conducted Nov. 16-19 by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4 percent. "From a national perspective, any campaign that wants to win the hearts and minds of Nevada voters has to be prepared to talk about long-term radioactive storage," said GOP strategist Greg Ferraro of Reno. "These numbers will also force the candidates to look at alternatives for the waste." Yucca Mountain has gained more attention from presidential candidates since Nevada moved up its presidential caucuses to Jan. 19, following Iowa on Jan. 3 and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. Nevada's congressional delegation is adamantly opposed to the project. Congress in 2002 picked the Yucca Mountain site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor fuel. Political analysts said the issue's importance in presidential elections has been questionable. They cite President Bush's ability to carry Nevada in 2004, despite his support of the Yucca Mountain site. "Yucca Mountain is not going to swing it for them from one candidate to another," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. "Among Democrats, this is a far more salient issue. There is no nuance allowed. ... Republicans, even those who are opposed to Yucca Mountain, are not as adamant as are the Democrats," he said. Every Democratic presidential candidate has come out against Yucca Mountain, but Rep. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to come out strongly against it. The Department of Energy is preparing a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct the project.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

200 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

The link is better than the turn – people want a better energy policy but once you get specific support goes down. Susan Milligan, Globe Staff, 11-14-07, The Boston Globe, For candidates roving US, energy stance is fraught with risks - Region to region, priorities conflict, lexis, bc ellipses in original John Edwards voted for making Nevada's Yucca Mountain a nuclear waste repository, but now he opposes it. Bill Richardson allowed the Yucca project to proceed when he was Bill Clinton's energy secretary, but now says he opposes it as a waste dump. Hillary Clinton several times voted against bills expanding the amount of ethanol required in gasoline, but now wants the government to help pay for the biofuel that is so important to Iowans. Energy policy, presidential candidates in both parties agree, is a critical national priority. But the regional special interests involved in energy use, production, and waste disposal have created political problems for the presidential contenders as they woo voters across the country. "Democrats and Republicans are generally saying the same thing about energy policy, that global warming is an issue and we need to be energy-independent," said Frank Maisano, a veteran lobbyist for the energy industry. "Once you start talking about specifics ... that's where people get gun-shy. That's why we don't get much substance on energy in presidential races."

Nevada Wont Agree to Yucca Mountain—Polls Prove Jean Chemnick, 6-2-08, Inside energy with federal lands, McCain says Yucca Mtn. might not be needed, then changes course next day, lexis, bc And Yucca is very unpopular with Nevada voters; polls consistently show that about 75% of them are not in favor of the DOE project, which has been effectively blocked from completion by the rise of Nevada Democrat Harry Reid to Senate majority leader. Both of the Democratic candidates who are vying for their party's nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, oppose the Yucca Mountain project.

Yucca Mountain Is Unpopular in Nevada which is a swing state. Maeve Reston and Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writers, 6-25-08, LA Times; campaign 08: race for the white house: Santa Barbara fumes over drill plan; Even some of McCain's supporters berate him for backing the idea of offshore oil exploration, lexis, bc "But I'm not running for president to do what polls well." Obama also lambasted McCain for wanting to open more federal land to oil exploration when energy companies are not fully exploiting the drilling rights they already have. And he cited McCain's support for storing nuclear waste at the remote Nevada desert site of Yucca Mountain, a highly unpopular proposal in the political battleground state, where the Arizona senator will campaign today.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

201 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – Nuclear power is popular Global warming concerns have made nuclear power popular. Tribune Business News ’08 (9 Jul, Dee DePass, Financial and Political reporter for the Tribune Business News, “An enriched opportunity for Alliant: As the appeal of nuclear power grows, Alliant Techsystems is set to become a key player”, AB, Proquest) The 'clear' in nuclear power ATK's foray into nuclear energy comes at an opportune time. After accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island put nuclear power in the hot seat, the idea of nuclear's carbonneutral energy production has found favor again amid worries about global warming.

Environmental activists are pushing nuclear power. James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 Greg Bourne, CEO of World Wildlife Fund Australia, appears to have joined a growing list of prominent environmental activists who support increased use of nuclear power. According to the May 9 Australian, Bourne has set out to convince other WWF officials to support increasing the use of nuclear power. "The outspoken chief of environment group WWF Australia has gone to London to lobby the international organization to overturn its anti-nuclear stance," reported the Australian. Changing Position? While Bourne continues to argue Australia has alternative renewable power sources that make new nuclear power plants in the nation unnecessary, he apparently believes global warming concerns mean an increase in nuclear power production must be considered in the world energy market as a whole.

Nuclear Power popular Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html As the public becomes more concerned about these problems, its attitude toward nuclear power is changing. Recent polls show that the American public now recognizes the need for new energy supplies, and that it wants and expects a much larger contribution from nuclear power. In fact, a substantial majority of the public believes that nuclear power will, and should, supplant coal as our primary source of electricity generation in the very near future. At the same time, the nuclear industry has been developing new types of power plants that are cheaper and very much safer than facilities now in operation. The stage seems to be set for a new surge in building nuclear power plants.

Several high profile Senators support nuclear power David Corn 3/4/08 “McCain’s Nuclear Waste” Washington Dispatch http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-nuclear-waste.html "Lieberman didn't seem to care for this provision," one of the green lobbyists remembers, "but he needed McCain, and McCain was pushing hard" for the nuclear subsidies. Part of McCain's motivation was political. According to Wicke, he and his aides figured that these subsidies could attract several pro-nuclear Republicans, and they had their eyes on Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Liddy Dole of North Carolina.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

202 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – Nuclear power has a powerful congressional lobby Nuclear energy has a powerful lobby Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest) But behind the seeming swell of interest in nuclear energy is a well-funded lobbying effort that has tunneled millions into Congress and the Hush administration, earning billions in subsidies for itself-as well as a preferential treatment during Vice President Dick Cheney's secret energy talk.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

203 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – McCain and Bush would be tied to nuclear power McCain and Bush would be tied to any big nuclear power policy. Jason Leopold, June 27, 2008 Atlantic Free Press “McCain's Nuclear Power Policy Identical to Bush Administration's” LC ellipses in original Presidential candidate John McCain's ambitious plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 as a means to combat global warming and add juice to the power grid is a policy ripped from the Bush administration's failed National Energy Policy, first introduced by Vice President Dick Cheney during the height of the California energy crisis seven years ago. At a time when public awareness surrounding renewable energy resources (OTCBB:RWER) , the devastating effects of global warming and the importance of conservation is at an all-time high, the Bush administration has steered tens of billions in taxpayer dollars toward revamping the dormant nuclear power industry, touting it as the only proven technology to combat climate change. One of the cornerstones of President Bush's National Energy Policy, released in May 2001, was "the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy." "We have [an] opportunity to increase our supplies of electricity. Key aspects of McCain's energy policy unveiled Wednesday are nearly identical to the Bush administration's plan, specifically, McCain's stance on nuclear energy. In fact, one of McCain's advisers on energy policy has been David Conover, the former principal deputy assistant secretary office of policy and international affairs at the Department of Energy. Conover briefed members of Congress in July 2005 on the Bush administrations' plan of reviving the dormant nuclear power industry to deal with the threat of climate change, a position McCain has embraced."Concerns over... climate change suggest a larger role for nuclear power as an energy supply choice," Conover told the Committee on Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts in testimony July 20, 2005. "The Nuclear Power 2010 program is working with industry to demonstrate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission`s new licensing process. "The NP2010 has been one of Cheney's pet energy projects. Officials in the Energy Department told the vice president has worked on the project with a relatively unknown administration official, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell.

McCain directly tied himself to Bush nuclear policy. Beth Braverman, June 18, 2008, CNNMoney.com contributing writer LC In a speech Wednesday, McCain said he would adopt the Bush administration's policy on nuclear power as his own."If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America,” McCain said during a campaign stop in Missouri.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

204 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – Obama opposes nuclear power to get Nevada’s votes Obama only opposes nuclear power so he can get Nevada’s five electoral votes. Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy Obama, however, brushed aside nuclear power as a policy option in approximately one half of one sentence in his speech, on grounds different from and even worse than any of the foregoing. McCain's "proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain" makes no sense, Obama told the Las Vegas crowd. But did Obama propose some other site for storing nuclear waste or offer some further argument against nuclear power? No, he just dropped the subject. In other words, even as he rightly mocked the risible gimmicks McCain has cobbled together as an ersatz energy policy, Obama's opposition to nuclear energy, in its entirety, is nothing more than a naked pander for Nevada's five electoral votes. For a politician ostensibly committed to environmentalism in general and curbing global warming in particular, omitting nuclear power from his energy programme - let alone doing so on no principle higher than grabbing votes - is irresponsible.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

205 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics links – Reprocessing Recent spending cuts prove the majority of congress is against reprocessing. EnergyWashington Week, July 2, 2008, Newsroom Notes, Lexis VF Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking Republican on the Senate energy committee, has introduced legislation that he and his co-sponsors hope will jump-start nuclear waste recycling in the United States, thereby clearing the way for an expansion of nuclear power, which Domenici says is "the only way for America to meet our increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." The new bill, "Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act (S.3215)-- introduced along with Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL.), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) -- seeks to promote the establishment of privately owned and operated facilities for the storage an recycling of used nuclear fuel. Under the proposal, Congress would establish a new competitive 50-50 cost share program between DOE and private industry to finance up to two spent fuel recycling facilities--from engineering and design work through the development of license applications. Domenici is certain that a nuclear renaissance is underway -- as does the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which issued a report on the issue--and believes S. 3215 will help it along. Co-sponsor Sessions has this to say about the bill: "Nuclear recycling will help us permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel while simultaneously increasing the amount of nuclear material available to generate base load power. In the past, the issue of waste disposal has provided an argument to object to expanding nuclear power, and I'm hopeful this legislation will jump-start recycling in America -- leading to more clean, reliable nuclear power here at home. It is time the United States caught up with other nations that have demonstrated that recycling can be conducted in a safe and cost-efficient way." Nuclear renaissance or not, Domenici and his co-sponsors can expect an uphill struggle. Just two days ago, the House Appropriations Committee approved legislation to fund DOE for fiscal year 2009 that includes eliminating spending on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Bush administration's signature nuclear power initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, as we reported.

Reprocessing issues will become election issues Business Week, July 7, 2008, NUCLEAR'S TANGLED ECONOMICS; John McCain says new plants can help solve the energy crisis and address climate change. It's not that simple, Lexis, VF The trouble is, separating out plutonium in the spent fuel for reuse is costly and dangerous, argue critics like Princeton University physicist Frank N. von Hippel. And in any case, worries over separated plutonium being diverted to make bombs led the U.S. to ban reprocessing 31 years ago. The upcoming election will pull many of these issues into the limelight. The nuclear industry's call for still more government support will find a more sympathetic ear in McCain than in Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The presumptive Democratic nominee agrees nuclear energy could help combat global warming, but he says there are better alternatives. Indeed, many Democrats and renewable power advocates are upset that the playing field is tilted so far in favor of nukes.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

206 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics – McCain supports nuclear power McCain is a strong proponent of nuclear energy. Winning the election leads the US to nuclear energy PR Newswire, June 25, 2008, Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada, Lexis VF McCain Promised To Build 45 New Nuclear Reactors By 2030. At a campaign event in Missouri, McCain championed nuclear power as pivotal to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. McCain said, "So, if I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America." [Speech, johnmccain.com, 6/18/08] McCain's Proposal For 45 New Nuclear Reactors Is Almost A 50 Percent Increase Over Current Number Of Reactors In United States. According to the Wall Street Journal, "...the U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors, which generate 20% of the nation's electricity." [Wall Street Journal, 6/19/2008]

McCain Supports Nuclear Energy Elisabeth Bumiller, Nytimes media group, 6-20-08, International Herald Tribune, McCain sets target of 45 new nuclear reactors, lexis, bc Senator John McCain wants 45 nuclear reactors built in the United States by 2030, a course he called ''as difficult as it is necessary.'' In his third consecutive day of campaign speeches about energy and gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, or $1.06 a liter, McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told the crowd at a meeting at Missouri State University on Wednesday that he saw nuclear power as a clean, safe alternative to traditional sources of energy that emit greenhouse gases. He said his ultimate goal was 100 new nuclear plants. McCain has long promoted nuclear reactors, but this was the first time that he specified the number of plants he envisioned. There are currently 104 nuclear reactors in the United States, supplying about 20 percent of the electricity consumed in the country. No new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States since the 1970s.

McCain will ensure the use of nuclear power when elected. Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy In keeping with the frenetic, rhetorical ping-pong that has marked virtually every moment of this young general election, Barack Obama gave a big energy policy speech in Las Vegas last month to counter the big energy speech John McCain gave just prior to it. Obama proposed a substantial federal investment in alternative energy sources, including wind power, solar power and biofuels, and he promised to hike fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks (though he didn't say by how much). He has already proposed a capand-trade scheme with auctions for emissions permits, which are key to making any such scheme work. (John McCain's version of cap-and-trade does not include auctions.) Nuclear power, however, does not figure into Obama's proposed alternatives to reliance on petroleum. On the contrary, he used the Las Vegas setting to hammer home, literally, his objection to McCain's proposal for the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants - a touchy subject in Nevada, given that the only site the US department of energy has designated for the storage of nuclear waste in the continental US (under the Clinton administration, incidentally) is the repository at Yucca Mountain, about 130 km from metropolitan Las Vegas. Now, to be clear, Obama's energy programme on the whole is a sound and long-overdue, if not terribly ambitious, adjustment in the US approach to fuelling its economy. McCain's programme, by contrast, is a counterproductive, incoherent mash. But on the specific issue of nuclear power, McCain is exactly right, and Obama is badly wrong.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

207 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

McCain supports nuclear power, reprocessing, Yucca, and an international repository. Sean Whaley, May 29, 2008, Las Vegas Review Journal http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do Stumping at a town hall meeting in front of about 600 supporters, McCain prefaced his pro-Yucca Mountain comments by telling the audience that he must sometimes "tell people what they don't want to hear." "I support Yucca Mountain once it goes through all of the process that it needs to go through," he said, to some applause. "But I also support reprocessing" nuclear waste. The country needs to do both, McCain said. The Arizona senator said the Carter administration in the 1970s stopped the reprocessing of nuclear waste in the United States, even though it is done elsewhere in the world. McCain also reiterated comments from Tuesday that he would push for an international facility where nuclear waste from around the world could be stored, "if it's possible to do that and reach some international agreements where we can do that."On Tuesday, McCain told a crowd in Denver that such a facility could eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain. He did not repeat the comment in Reno. He did not elaborate on the idea and did not speak to the media after the hourlong event at the Boys and Girls Club of Truckee Meadows. McCain voted for Yucca Mountain as the site of a high-level nuclear waste repository in 2002, when the Senate overrode Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the site. The vote was 60-39. McCain, who said he would battle to win Nevada in November, said the country must end its reliance on foreign oil by exploiting the country's natural resources but also by expanding the use of alternative energy sources, including solar and nuclear power."The U.S. Navy has sailed ships around the world for more than 50 years with nuclear power plants," he said. He disagreed with one questioner at the meeting who said oil exploration should be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. One key to encouraging further oil exploration around the country would be to offer states such as California a larger share of revenue for favorable energy policies, McCain said. But states retain the right to determine what happens off their shorelines, he said. The real answer to the nation's oil dependence is "batteries that will take a car 100 miles before they have to plug it in. It's with hybrids. It's with nuclear. It's with wind. It's with solar."Solar is a particularly attractive technology in Nevada and Arizona, McCain said.

McCain supports nuclear power. Beth Braverman, June 18, 2008, CNNMoney.com contributing writer LC McCain called nuclear energy "clean, safe and efficient" and said he supports the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. The nation currently has 104 nuclear reactors, but has not built a new one in more than 30 years, since before the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. He acknowledged that such an endeavor would face many hurdles. "We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," McCain said. "We will need to solve the complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding." McCain said he would commit $2 billion per year to clean-coal research and development, so the country could further access its "oldest and most abundant" resource.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

208 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

McCain supports nuclear power. David Corn 3/4/08 “McCain’s Nuclear Waste” Washington Dispatch http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-nuclear-waste.html Ten months later, the bill was defeated by a relatively close margin, 55 to 43. (Then-Senator John Edwards, who missed the vote, had indicated he supported the bill.) Environmental advocates in Washington considered this a decent start considering that six years earlier the Senate had voted unanimously for a nonbinding resolution that signaled opposition to the Kyoto global warming treaty. With this bill, McCain established himself as the undisputed Republican leader on climate change. Convinced that global warming had already led to more droughts and wildfires in his home state of Arizona, McCain vowed to keep fighting for the measure. But within a year and a half, McCain would lose ground and set back the effort to reduce emissions because of a profound political miscalculation, his own stubbornness, and, most of all, his deep attachment to nuclear power. About a year after their bill was defeated, McCain and Lieberman began drafting a new version. It was close to the original, but with one significant addition: billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry. McCain had long been an advocate of nuclear power. "He feels strongly that nuclear power will be one of the keys to reducing emissions," says Heather Wicke, who was his environmental legislative aide at the time. But environmentalists who had worked with McCain and Lieberman on the first bill were stunned. In one meeting, lobbyists for environmental groups attempted to persuade McCain not to attach nuclear subsidies to the legislation, arguing that doing so would weaken support for the bill. "He shook his finger at us and scolded us," says one participant at the meeting, who recalls McCain saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." Wicke, now the director of policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council, notes that McCain had already made up his mind and that the session was "testy." In meetings with McCain's staff, environmental lobbyists argued the obvious points, according to Karen Wayland, legislative director of the Natural Resources Defense Council: what to do with nuclear waste, the need to prevent nuclear proliferation, the problem with security at nuclear facilities. They noted that legislation restricting greenhouse emissions in and of itself would create a competitive advantage for nuclear energy companies. They made no headway, so the enviros appealed to Lieberman and his staff. "Lieberman didn't seem to care for this provision," one of the green lobbyists remembers, "but he needed McCain, and McCain was pushing hard" for the nuclear subsidies. Part of McCain's motivation was political. According to Wicke, he and his aides figured that these subsidies could attract several pro-nuclear Republicans, and they had their eyes on Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Liddy Dole of North Carolina. Wicke was concerned at the time that the nuclear subsidies would cost the measure support and that a bill loaded with money for the nuclear energy industry would contradict McCain's high-profile opposition to subsidies—which was partly responsible for his reputation as a fiscal conservative and a maverick. In June 2003, McCain had joined 47 other senators to vote for an amendment stripping an energy bill of up to $16 billion in subsidies for the nuclear power industry. (The amendment lost by a two-vote margin.)

SDI 2008 WHAM!

209 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics – Obama supports nuclear power Obama has concerns but doesn’t oppose nuclear power. ELGIE HOLSTEIN, ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADVISOR,OBAMA CAMPAIGN. 5/23/08. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/080523_energy.pdf Senator Obama is not an opponent of nuclear energy, does not believe we should be closing down the 104 operating commercial nuclear power plants that we have. He remains concerned, however, about the safety, that is to say, the infrastructure security element, the transportation questions, which of course relate to some degree not just to technology and process, but also to public acceptance. And he is also concerned obviously about the long-term waste considerations, has been particularly active and concerned on an international level about materials protection control and accounting, where we see the division between – in the United States between our commercial and military uses of nuclear energy being very distinctly separate. Those distinctions are considerably less clear in the international realm, particularly those nations that are seeking to develop enrichment technology. So I would say that although he hasn’t articulated a particular role of nuclear power, he has certainly not been an opponent of it, but does have these concerns.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

210 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics – Obama opposes Yucca Yucca Mountain Needs To Open Now—Waiting Adds Billions To Cost Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bc Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois), this year's Democratic candidate for president, and his former opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York), also oppose opening Yucca Mountain . Yucca Mountain will actually be a fuel reprocessing facility set up as a federally-owned entity -- much like Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bonneville Power Administration. The entity would handle all elements related to the back end of the nuclear cycle, as is done in Europe , and could lead the administration's efforts to rekindle nuclear fuel reprocessing under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. As such it has drawn considerable fire from environmentalists. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review process is expected to take about three years, federal officials said, and the earliest it could open would be 2020. Last month, the Department of Energy awarded contracts to Areva Federal Services and NAC International for shipping canisters to get the waste to Yucca Mountain . Both contracts are for a term of up to five years, and could total as much as $13.8 million, if the DOE exercises all options.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

211 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics – McCain supports Yucca McCain will use Yucca Mountain as a storage facility PR Newswire, June 25, 2008, Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada, Lexis VF McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996. [2002 Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2002; The Arizona Republic, 7/10/2002; 2000 Senate Vote #88, 5/2/2000; 1998 Senate Vote #148, 6/2/1998; 1997 Senate Vote #42, 4/15/1997; 1996 Senate Vote #259, 7/31/1996; 1996 Senate Vote #256, 7/31/1996] McCain: "I Am For Yucca Mountain." The Las Vegas Sun reported that in 2007 McCain told the Deseret News, "I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America." [Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, NV), 5/28/08]

SDI 2008 WHAM!

212 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics – Turns the case – global warming Pushing nuclear power could kill other bills that will solve global warming. Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change, lexis, bc Many Democrats are wary of risking the support of some environmental groups over nuclear power. Majority leader Reid, a longtime opponent of a nuclear-waste dump in his state, charged that DOE filed the application with only about 35 percent of the work done to justify it. "Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be," he said on Tuesday. Republicans say they are holding out for a wide-ranging debate over the global-warming bill, including many amendments. Democratic leaders worry that some amendments, including those over nuclear power, could undermine support for the bill. Commenting on the diverse coalition of lawmakers now supporting the bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California said: "They need a certain amount to stay on it. I need a certain amount not to get off it. We're looking for that sweet spot." Asked to clarify her position in nuclear power, Senator Boxer said on Wednesday, "Already in the bill there's a whole funding stream for these low-carbon, noncarbon energy sources and that's sufficient. I don't think you need more." As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Boxer is leading the floor debate on the global warming bill, known as the LiebermanWarner Climate Security Act of 2008 after cosponsors Sens.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

213 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Politics – Turns the case – Bipartisan support is necessary for sustained nuclear power Bipartisan support necessary for sustained nuclear power. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact, nna http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm But doing so will require long-term, sustained, bipartisan support for nuclear energy. Without this support, the billions of dollars of private capital needed to expand America's nuclear capacity will simply not be invested. Without this investment, even the rosiest Lieberman–Warner economic projections lose what little credibility they had at the outset.

Investors fear the governments lack of commitment to nuclear power. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2007, The Heritage Foundation, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes, nna http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. It can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However, the commercial nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embrace nuclear power fully, despite significant regulatory relief and economic incentives. This reluctance is not due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead, investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both in encouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise. Investors doubt that federal, state, and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in the long term. They have already lost billions of dollars because of bad public policy. The United States once led the world in commercial nuclear technology. Indeed, the world's leading nuclear companies continue to rely on American technologies. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, federal, state, and local governments nearly regulated the U.S. commercial nuclear industry out of existence. U.S. companies responded by reallocating their assets, consolidating or selling their commercial nuclear capabilities to foreign companies in pro-nuclear countries. This paper reviews how overregulation largely destroyed the nuclear industry and why it remains an obstacle to investment in the industry. This dynamic must be understood and mitigated before the true economics of nuclear power can be harnessed for the benefit of the American people.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

214 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Spending links Nuclear energy would cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Jerry Taylor and Navin Nayar, Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, 6-21-03, Cato.org, “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134, CM The Senate energy bill provides $1.1 billion and whatever sums necessary thereafter to build and operate a gas-cooled nuclear reactor that would attempt to generate both hydrogen and electricity at the Idaho National Laboratory. If the proposed reactor ever becomes operational (which is not guaranteed) the sale of electricity from this DOE-subsidized project would inappropriately distort commercial electricity markets. The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the cost of building 8,400 Megawatts of new nuclear power, the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -- well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for the risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources." But that's not all. The bill also authorizes the federal government to enter into power purchase agreements wherein the federal government would buy back power from the newly built plants -- potentially at above market rates. Waste fund is used to control the federal deficit. Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program, lexis, bc GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide. It aims to reduce proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Even though the waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury, it has been used in appropriations processes over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

215 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

England proves nuclear power would be very expensive. Daniel Martin and David Derbyshire, 1-11-08, Daily Mail, Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills, lexis, bc A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be in place within a decade, the Government promised yesterday. MPs were told that the technology was 'tried and tested, safe and secure'. John Hutton said nuclear power would also mean Britain would not have to rely on oil and gas supplies from unstable regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Business Secretary said he had invited energy firms to build new reactors and the first could be in place 'well before' 2020. Critics said the move would see household electricity bills rise by up to £250 a year, partly because of the cost of dealing with waste. They said plants would be built only with taxpayer subsidies. However, EDF, a French nuclear power giant, said yesterday it would submit plans to build four reactors by 2017. Westinghouse, a British nuclear firm, also expressed an interest. Mr Hutton said: 'Giving the go-ahead that nuclear power should play a role in providing the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest. 'Set against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear power stations is compelling. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this important part of our energy policy. 'I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power stations. 'With a third of our generating capacity coming offline within the next 20 years and increasing reliance on imported energy it is clear we need investment in a range of new energy infrastructure.' Mr Hutton indicated that existing nuclear sites, which are set to be decommissioned within two decades, were the most likely locations for new reactors. A review of the options will be published this year. A report for ministers has already identified Hinkley Point, Sizewell, Dungeness and Bradwell, all sites of existing plants, as suitable. No lower or upper limit has been set on the number of new reactors. Mr Hutton promised legislation to protect taxpayers from the cost of decommissioning nuclear waste. The Treasury would be able to intervene if nuclear companies did not set aside funds to pay their share. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has said the cost will be £72billion over 20 years - up from an estimate two years ago of £56billion. Greenpeace say that on top of this, there is the £21billion cost of constructing new waste dumps, and the £30billion cost of building new nuclear power stations. The total £123billion - comes to £246 a year for each of the country's 25million households. The actual increase in energy bills will depend on how much of the total cost is passed on to consumers. Robin Oakley, of Greenpeace, said: 'Gordon Brown's fascination with nuclear power is hugely misguided and painfully imprudent. 'Nuclear power won't tackle climate change, it won't tackle the looming energy gap, it won't tackle our dependence on oil and gas, but it will clobber every household for hundreds of pounds every year.' The Conservatives backed the Government's move, despite previously saying nuclear power should be considered only 'as a last resort'. Alan Duncan, the party's energy spokesman, said: 'Carbon emissions are changing our climate, we are paying $100 for oil, and we are facing a clear and massive energy shortfall. 'It is our duty to set aside political scrapping so as to make sure we do what's right for our country.' He demanded there be no subsidy from Government however. The Liberal Democrats are opposed to nuclear power, as are a number of Labour backbenchers led by former environment minister, Michael Meacher. Steve Webb, the LibDems' environment spokesman, said: 'This is a flawed decision based on a sham consultation - we all know that ministers made their minds up long ago. John Hutton was not able to give a cast iron guarantee that taxpayers will not have to subsidise the costs of nuclear in the future.'

SDI 2008 WHAM!

216 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Terrorism - links Nuclear power plants are terrorist targets. Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08, Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change, lexis, bc Edwards also took his comment a step further during the January 15 debate in Las Vegas by opposing the construction of new nuclear reactors in the US because he doesn't think there is a safe way to dispose of the waste. "I think they're dangerous, they're great terrorist targets, and they're extraordinarily expensive," he said of nuclear power plants.

NRC creates reports claiming there is a low risk of terrorism for dry storage casks but those reports are highly flawed. Elaine Hiruo, 7-16-08, Nuclear Fuel, Impact of terrorist attack on Yucca must be fully assessed, Loux says, lexis, bc The antinuclear San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace had challenged NRC's decision to license the Diablo Canyon independent spent fuel storage installation, or Isfsi, claiming that a terrorist attack would have "devastating" effects. NRC concluded in late May in a draft SEA on spent fuel dry storage at Diablo Canyon that security requirements combined with design requirements for dry storage casks would provide adequate protection against successful terrorist attacks on an Isfsi at a nuclear power plant (NF, 4 June, 14). Agency staff said that the construction and operation of an Isfsi at Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s Diablo Canyon plant would not have a significant impact on the environment. Loux maintained in his letter, which responded to NRC's May 31 Federal Register notice on the availability of the draft SEA and finding of no significant impact, that while Nevada concurs that "it is difficult to precisely quantify the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon ? or another NRC licensed facility ? the risk of an attack that results in the release of radioactive material and subsequent human and environmental contamination is not zero." Loux added that "a fully adequate assessment of the environmental impact of a terrorist attack on an Isfsi can be accomplished with reasonable effort," but that in the case of Diablo Canyon, "NRC staff seems to have devoted insufficient effort and produced an analysis that is incomplete, unsupported, and unnecessarily opaque to outside scrutiny."

Nuclear Reactors and cooling ponds are easy targets for terrorists. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) He points to the nuclear cooling pond at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Huchanan, some 35 miles north of Manhattan. On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists could just as easily have flown their hijacked planes into the cooling pond as into the World Trade Center. "If either of those planes had run into the cooling pond near the reactor, it would have been a disaster the dimensions of which are hard to imagine," Moore says. "People talked about it after 9/11. There were lots of calls in the New York state government to shut down the power station at Indian Point because they thought that if there were a terrorist attack of the sort of what I just described that millions of people would have had to evacuate throughout not only New York, but into Connecticut and Massachusetts, too." This danger exists everywhere there's a nuclear power plant, Moore says. And if the government does open a national waste site, the risk of catastrophic accidents or terrorist attacks extends to our highways, railways and urban centers. Plans for Yucca Mountain originally included transporting high-level nuclear waste through Denver, with discussions at the time including various disaster scenarios should a truck wreck or explode in the city's infamous Mouse Trap, the intersection of 1-25 and I-70.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

217 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

National academy admits Facilities are not prepared for all scenarios. William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the site slated for a permanent geologic repository, has not received approval to store this waste. Even if the license application is approved within the next few years, the Department of Energy does not anticipate starting to store waste there until 2017, and, more realistically, not before 2020. Meanwhile, spent fuel is accumulating in pools at nuclear power plants, increasing the risk of radioactive release from sabotage or attack at these facilities. A recent U.S. National Academy of Sciences study has concluded that “successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible.” Zirconium cladding provides a protective barrier around the spent fuel, but the cladding could catch fire under some attack scenarios. According to the National Academy study, “If an attack leads to a propagating zirconium cladding fire, it could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive materials.”

Dry casks increase terrorism risk. New York Times ’08 (2 Jul, journalist, New York Times, “Nuclear Agency Weighs Attack Threat at Plants”, AB, Proquest The commission’s ruling could be important because the spent fuel storage system proposed for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, near Avila Beach, Calif., is being adopted at scores of other reactor sites around the country because of the Energy Department’s failure to establish a national burial site for used fuel. At issue was whether storage casks that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company wants to build at the Diablo Canyon plant could be hit with incendiary missiles, piercing the steel and concrete shell and lighting the metal cladding of the fuel. If that happened, plant opponents contend, the fire could turn radioactive cesium into a gas, which would float widely with the wind and then resolidify.

Studies saying dry casks are safe don’t account for the most obvious issues. New York Times ’08 (2 Jul, journalist, New York Times, “Nuclear Agency Weighs Attack Threat at Plants”, AB, Proquest But the lawyer for the mothers’ group, Diane Curran, said that the commission staff had provided a list of the background documents it relied on, and that these did not cover the threat described by her group’s technical consultants. “The most obvious thing wasn’t even on the table, not even remotely,” Ms. Curran said. In calculating the threat of accident, the commission takes into account the probability of the event, and its consequences, but the commission has long argued that it is impossible to calculate the probability of a terrorist attack and thus it does not need to take that threat into account when approving installations like the cask storage. But the mothers’ group sued and demanded an analysis of that risk, and in June 2006 won a favorable ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. The commission staff then performed an environmental assessment, which is an abbreviated version of an environmental impact statement, and concluded that there would be no significant impact from the threat of terrorism against the casks. The details of how the staff reached that conclusion were evidently murky even to one of the four commissioners who heard the case on Tuesday. The commissioner, Gregory B. Jaczko, asked how the staff could assume that the risk was low if it could not assign a numerical value to the likelihood of an attack. “Well, you have to use your judgment,” Ms. Clark said. For accidents, she said, “we’re very comfortable, and we understand how to deal with probability, how to evaluate it in quantitative terms.” But the threat of terrorism “is going to take us outside of that familiar space,” she continued. Still, she asserted, “the staff’s judgment, based on their experience,” indicated that this was not a threat to the environment. The casks, she said, were “robust.” Mr. Jaczko responded, “So we’re down to the staff’s belief that this probably isn’t going to happen?” The chairman of the commission, Dale E. Klein, tried through questions to make the case that even if an attack were successful, people would be exposed to doses of radiation that were quite small. The mothers’ group was advised by Gordon D. Thompson, a physicist, who said that the chimneylike design of the casks, intended to keep the fuel from overheating, could help fan a fire. Ms. Clark argued that Mr. Thompson had not seen the intelligence reports on the capabilities of terrorists, but Ms. Curran said equipment to do the job was available to “subnational groups.” “It is clear that weapons are available that can penetrate a cask and start a fire,” Ms. Curran said. “U.S. Army-shaped charges are more than capable of penetrating concrete and armor plating.”

SDI 2008 WHAM!

218 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Terrorism – Impacts Nuclear Power increases the risk of terrorism, proliferation, and creates terrorist targets Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) Pursuing nuclear power also perpetuates the myth that increasing atomic energy, and thus increasing uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing, will increase neither terrorism nor proliferation of nuclear weapons. This myth has been rejected by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. More nuclear plants means more weapons materials, which means more targets, which means a higher risk of terrorism and proliferation. The government admits that Al Qaeda already has targeted U.S. reactors, none of which can withstand attack by a large airplane. Such an attack, warns the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, could cause fatalities as far away as 500 miles and destruction 10 times worse than that caused by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986. U.S. lashout will kill hundreds of millions Easterbrook – Fellow at the Brookings Institute – 2001 (Greg, CNN, “America's New War: Nuclear Threats,” 11-12001, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html) EASTERBROOK: Well, what held through the Cold War, when the United States and Russia had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, what held each side back was the fact that fundamentally they were rational. They knew that if they struck, they would be struck in turn. Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate. But I think, if I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, to people of the United States and Western Europe, because if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington, say, in the current environment or anything like it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries. And that -- it is very much in the interest the Muslim peoples of the world that atomic weapons be kept out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, in addition to being in our interests.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

219 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Terrorism – source indicts NRC studies are incomplete, unsupported and aren’t subject to outside scrutiny. Elaine Hiruo, 7-16-08, Nuclear Fuel, Impact of terrorist attack on Yucca must be fully assessed, Loux says, lexis, bc Loux maintained in his letter, which responded to NRC's May 31 Federal Register notice on the availability of the draft SEA and finding of no significant impact, that while Nevada concurs that "it is difficult to precisely quantify the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon ? or another NRC licensed facility ? the risk of an attack that results in the release of radioactive material and subsequent human and environmental contamination is not zero." Loux added that "a fully adequate assessment of the environmental impact of a terrorist attack on an Isfsi can be accomplished with reasonable effort," but that in the case of Diablo Canyon, "NRC staff seems to have devoted insufficient effort and produced an analysis that is incomplete, unsupported, and unnecessarily opaque to outside scrutiny."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

220 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Yucca Mountain - Uniqueness Yucca won’t be built in the status quo. Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program, lexis, bc Berkley's communications director, David Cherry, said DOE seems to want "the efficiency of a private undertaking paired with the power of the federal government to fund and license activities relating to nuclear waste disposal, including the ability to overcome powerful opposition based on health, safety and cost issues." Jon Summers, communications director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, said DOE's "radiation road show" to gain support for an alternative plan to advance Yucca Mountain is futile. "You can't privatize something that's not going to be built in the first place," he said. "The dump is not [going to be built]." Summers said DOE can promote the idea to Republican lawmakers, but "Republicans are in the minority, and not even all of them support Yucca Mountain anymore," he said. "The support for Yucca Mountain has softened on Capitol Hill and among the nuclear industry itself." The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would need to pass legislation for DOE to restructure its nuclear waste program, said David Marks, a spokesman for panel chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. The committee has not seen any DOE proposal or presentation to that end, Marks said. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman John Keeley said industry would support the idea of a governmentchartered corporation "conceptually," but added that "the devil is in the details." Keeley said NEI would be concerned if the Nuclear Waste Fund were to be used to recycle spent fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, for example.

Yucca Mountain Too Expensive and is constantly being delayed. Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08, Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change, lexis, bc Leading Democratic candidates in the presidential race ? Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina ? each vowed to kill the Yucca Mountain Project last week during the Democratic debate days before the Nevada caucus. Edwards also took his comment a step further during the January 15 debate in Las Vegas by opposing the construction of new nuclear reactors in the US because he doesn't think there is a safe way to dispose of the waste. "I think they're dangerous, they're great terrorist targets, and they're extraordinarily expensive," he said of nuclear power plants. The Yucca Mountain Project is bogged down in uncertainty roughly 21 years after former President Ronald Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which established the DOE repository program, into law and nearly a decade after the department was supposed to begin disposing of utility spent fuel. Under standard contracts DOE signed with nuclear utilities in 1983, the DOE repository was to have begun disposal operations by January 30, 1998. Instead, the department is wrestling with a 21% budget shortfall that threatens to delay the program further. Meanwhile, the country's inventory of utility spent fuel tops 56,000 metric tons and grows at a rate of roughly 2,000 mt a year, according to industry estimates. Unless Congress lifts the current 70,000 mt cap on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository, the existing US fleet of power reactors will have generated enough spent fuel by 2010 to fill the facility, Sproat said. Any spent fuel generated over the 70,000 mt limit would have to be disposed of in a second repository, and many believe that efforts to site and build a second facility won't be easier. DOE and industry officials have maintained that technically the Yucca Mountain site could accommodate at least twice the amount of spent fuel permitted under the existing cap. DOE's ability to submit a repository license application by the department's self-imposed June deadline will remain up in the air until senior managers report in six to eight weeks on the impact of its fiscal 2008 budget cut, according to Sproat. But he reiterated he is "cautiously optimistic" an application can be sent to NRC sometime this calendar year (NW, 17 Jan., 3). Sproat also told industry officials that the department won't meet its previous goal of having a repository ready to operate in 2017, which the department has described as the "best achievable" date for repository operations. That date, which many program observers called overly optimistic, could be met only if the program received adequate funding, wasn't delayed by lawsuits, and was licensed by NRC in three years. Meanwhile, there are quiet informal discussions under way at DOE, which Sproat described as hallway talk, about what kind of changes should be made to the program to help ensure its success. Options aren't limited to shifting the program to a government corporation, he said.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

221 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Yucca isn’t inevitable – Nevada will block it. Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain. The federal government applied for a license Tuesday to build a long-planned dump for the nation's radioactive waste in Nevada, but state officials vowed a renewed effort to block it, saying Washington has "lost track of reality." After a quarter-century of scientific dispute and legal wrangling, the Energy Department officially launched what could be one of the most complex and costly engineering efforts in history. The Yucca Mountain repository, located 16 miles from the California border, would eventually store 70,000 metric tons of waste that has been accumulating since the first reactors went online. And the amount of waste will grow at an increasing rate in future decades: In the last year, utilities have launched a nuclear power renaissance, announcing plans for 15 new commercial reactors.

Yucca won’t be approved as a waste depository. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) However, the federal government has been trying to create a long-term plan for the safe storage of nuclear waste that would require these containers of spent fuel rods to be transported to a central location. In 1987, Congress chose Yucca Mountain to be that site. Located in Nevada about 100 miles from the nearest population center, the facility was supposed to house up to 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in tunnels bored into the volcanic rock 1,000 feet below the mountain's summit. At the time some officials even engaged in a discussion about how best to warn future inhabitants of the region-whoever happens to be living in Nevada 100,000 years from now-that the site contained deadly radioactive material. Hut that was the government getting ahead of itself. The selection of this particular site had more to do with politics than science, critics say. In the end, concerns over the safety of transporting nuclear waste long distances through urban centers, along highways and railways, together with possible seismic activity at the site and lack of scientific agreement over the impact of groundwater on the containment of the radioactive waste, brought any plans to use Yucca Mountain to a standstill.

Reid will stop Yucca. Samantha Williams, UNLV January 29, 2008, “Debate over Yucca continues” (DS) Lexis University Wire The controversial Yucca Mountain Project took a giant leap forward June 3, when the United States Department of Energy submitted its licensing application for approval to begin construction on the proposed nuclear waste repository. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has 90 days to review the application to determine if it is complete. If accepted, the NRC will have three to four years to determine if construction can begin. Yucca Mountain, which has come under fire since 1978 when talks of the project first began, is again creating a buzz among Nevadans who are adamant in halting its production. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Enhanced Coverage Linking Harry Reid, -Search using: * Biographies Plus News * News, Most Recent 60 Days a longtime opponent of the project, said the application "is shoddy at best." "I'll say it as clear as day: Yucca Mountain will never happen," Reid said. "For more than two decades, I've fought the terrible idea to store all of the nation's dangerous nuclear waste in Nevada tooth and nail, and we have been successful in fending it off at nearly every turn." Yucca Mountain is located about 90 miles from the Las Vegas metropolitan area, and due to various delays, there is currently no official date set for its opening. Despite decades of research on the project, the current application from the DOE has not addressed some of the most important concerns associated with the facility, according to Reid. "The DOE application is as flawed as everything else the government has proposed about the dump," he said.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

222 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Yucca Mountain – Links Yucca Mountain is the only option for a permanent repository. Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bc The only site earmarked by Congress, the Yucca Mountain Repository, ensconced in the Nevada desert about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has already cost $27 billion since the Nuclear Waste Fund was set up in 1983. And it's likely to cost billions more as vociferous debate over the project drags on.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

223 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Yucca Mountain – Reprocessing links Yucca Mountain would spur reprocessing. Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bc Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois), this year's Democratic candidate for president, and his former opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York), also oppose opening Yucca Mountain . Yucca Mountain will actually be a fuel reprocessing facility set up as a federally-owned entity -- much like Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bonneville Power Administration. The entity would handle all elements related to the back end of the nuclear cycle, as is done in Europe , and could lead the administration's efforts to rekindle nuclear fuel reprocessing under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. As such it has drawn considerable fire from environmentalists. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review process is expected to take about three years, federal officials said, and the earliest it could open would be 2020. Last month, the Department of Energy awarded contracts to Areva Federal Services and NAC International for shipping canisters to get the waste to Yucca Mountain . Both contracts are for a term of up to five years, and could total as much as $13.8 million, if the DOE exercises all options.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

224 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Yucca Mountain – Internal links The Aff’s Safety Evidence Is Flawed – Yucca is definitely unsafe. Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc A sharp cut in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget has left it short of resources, Chairman Dale E. Klein said. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is years behind schedule in issuing a health standard for radioactive leakage from the dump. A previous standard was ruled illegal by a federal appeals court. The issues that remain undecided could set off a frenetic pace of legal and regulatory scrambling in the closing days of the Bush administration. Nevada officials said the administration was rushing forward with an incomplete application out of the belief that it would be more difficult to stop once it was in motion. "They are just trying to get this on the plate while they still have a pal in the White House," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview. "All they want to do is get it out of their hands and give it to the next administration." The dump has become one of the biggest geographic disputes in modern U.S. history, pitting Nevada against a nuclear power industry centered in the East. California's two senators, as well as others in the West, have supported Nevada's opposition to the dump. Edward "Ward" Sproat, director of the Energy Department's office of civilian radioactive waste, disputed the idea of a geographic divide, saying the dump would relieve 39 states of stored nuclear waste. "I don't see it as an East versus West issue," Sproat said. "I see it as a national issue." The design of the dump will provide for safe storage of the waste and represents 20 years of work by the nation's leading scientists, engineers and technical experts, including eight of the national laboratories and the U.S. Geological Survey, Bodman said. The Energy Department has long argued against critics who want to leave the waste in place until technology improves. It would be irresponsible to not deal with the problem, the department has said. The delays in building the dump have complicated the problem. Sproat said the Energy Department would have to ask Congress to expand the capacity of the Yucca Mountain site because all of its 70,000 metric tons of capacity will be reached in the next 24 months. The nation has been trying to resolve the issue since the late 1970s. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In his first term, President Bush, with congressional approval, selected Yucca Mountain as the designated site for what is mostly spent fuel from commercial reactors but also military nuclear waste. Since then, Nevada has waged an effective legal, political and technical fight against it, drawing on the state's growing fiscal and political clout. "The whole legal and regulatory process is corrupt," said Marta Adams, senior deputy attorney general in Nevada. "It would be very hard for Nevada to get a fair shake." Only last year, Nevada blocked a federal effort to get access to 8 million gallons of state water to drill test holes at the site. Nevada officials have a carefully laid out a plan to stop the project, said Robert Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. He said the state would immediately file to have the Energy Department's application thrown out, and if that fails, lodge more than 600 separate disputes or "contentions." The notion that the dump would be safe is implausible, said Victor Galinsky, a former NRC commissioner and now a Nevada consultant. The plan hinges on the use of titanium and palladium drip shields to protect waste canisters buried underground from water flowing through Yucca Mountain's porous rock. The Energy Department plans to install about 11,000 drip shields, each weighing five tons, using robots 100 to 300 years in the future when the repository would be sealed. "It is pie in the sky," Galinsky said. "These people have lost track of reality."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

225 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Yucca Mountain Impacts - Volcanoes Yucca Mountain could become a nuclear volcano putting millions at risk. Mason ’02 (Betsy, New Scientist, Aug. 24, p. 10, twm) IF A volcano ever erupted beneath the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada it could cause a devastating explosion that sent high-level nuclear waste spewing into the atmosphere. Yucca Mountain lies about 145 kilometres north-west of Las Vegas, within an active volcanic field. An eruption at the site is considered extremely unlikely, but it is possible. There are six craters within 20 kilometres of the site, including Lathrop Wells volcano, which formed by eruptions just 80,000 years ago. A study in 2000 estimated that there was a 1 in 1000 chance of an eruption at the site during the 10,000 years it will take for the radioactivity of the waste stored there to dissipate. And a recent report suggests that a more active cluster of volcanoes 100 kilometres to the north could be an even bigger threat . Now Andrew Woods of the BP Institute at the University of Cambridge and his colleagues have found that if an eruption occurred beneath the site, a rising sheet of magma could burst into the proposed storage tunnels 200 to 300 metres below the surface. The pressure in the hollow tunnels would be much lower than in the surrounding rock, so once the magma broke through it would gush into the tunnels at tens or hundreds of metres per second. The heat would be enough to deform and rupture the 7-centimetre-thick walls of the waste canisters in just 20 minutes, the researchers say. Worse, if the storage tunnels were open to the main access tunnel, this could act as an easy escape route for the magma to reach the surface, sending nuclear waste several miles skyward in an explosive eruption. According to Woods's model, even if the tunnels were blocked, the magma could still build up enough pressure to break through to the surface.

Yucca Mountain is in the midst of an active volcanic field. Mason ’02 (Betsy, New Scientist, Aug. 24, p. 10, twm) Yucca Mountain lies about 145 kilometres north-west of Las Vegas, within an active volcanic field. An eruption at the site is considered extremely unlikely, but it is possible. There are six craters within 20 kilometres of the site, including Lathrop Wells volcano, which formed by eruptions just 80,000 years ago. A study in 2000 estimated that there was a 1 in 1000 chance of an eruption at the site during the 10,000 years it will take for the radioactivity of the waste stored there to dissipate.

Radioactive waste cannot be stored and risks future generations-Yucca Mountain fails Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) Another problem is that high-level radioactive waste must be secured "in perpetuity," as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences puts it. Yet the D.O.E. has already admitted that if nuclear waste is stored at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, as has been proposed, future generations could not meet existing radiation standards. As a result, the current U.S. administration's proposal is to allow future releases of radioactive wastes, stored at Yucca Mountain, provided they annually cause no more than one person-out of every 70 persons exposed to them-to contract fatal cancer. These cancer risks are high partly because Yucca Mountain is so geologically unstable. Nuclear waste facilities could be breached by volcanic or seismic activity. Within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain, more than 600 seismic events, of magnitude greater than two on the Richter scale, have occurred since 1976. In 1992, only 12 miles from the site, an earthquake (5.6 on the Richter scale) damaged D.O.E. buildings. Within 31 miles of the site, eight volcanic eruptions have occurred in the last million years. These facts suggest that Alvin Weinberg was right. Four decades ago, the then director of the government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory warned that nuclear waste required society to make a Faustian bargain with the devil. In exchange for current military and energy benefits from atomic power, this generation must sell the safety of future generations.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

226 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Yucca Mountain Impacts – Groundwater contamination Yucca will result in groundwater contamination. Samantha Williams, UNLV January 29, 2008, “Debate over Yucca continues” (DS) Lexis University Wire Because the site is relatively close to Las Vegas' major groundwater supply in an area known for earthquakes and volcanic activity, Reid said the application should, but does not prove the safeness of the water storage containers, partly because they have not yet been designed. He added that the DOE knows the containers will eventually corrode, allowing radiation to contaminate Nevada's drinking water supply. The application's lack of an emergency response plan is another issue, he said.

Claims that Yucca is safe are ridiculous. Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc The notion that the dump would be safe is implausible, said Victor Galinsky, a former NRC commissioner and now a Nevada consultant. The plan hinges on the use of titanium and palladium drip shields to protect waste canisters buried underground from water flowing through Yucca Mountain's porous rock. The Energy Department plans to install about 11,000 drip shields, each weighing five tons, using robots 100 to 300 years in the future when the repository would be sealed. "It is pie in the sky," Galinsky said. "These people have lost track of reality."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

227 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Yucca Mountain Impacts – Transportation Transportation risks accidents and terrorism. Samantha Williams, UNLV January 29, 2008, “Debate over Yucca continues” (DS) Lexis University Wire David Hassenzahl, chair and associate professor of the Department of Environmental Studies at UNLV, is an expert on the topic and said the most pressing concern with Yucca Mountain is that transportation of the waste would be too dangerous. "The biggest risk is most likely the large, heavy trucks and trains moving across the country," he said. "We can reasonably expect a number of accidents if we ship it across country, [but] we won't have these accidents if we don't ship it." Reid agrees, saying that shipping 77,000 tons of nuclear waste across the country is an "invitation for trouble," and that these "rolling dirty bombs" could serve as a target for terrorists. Many opponents argue that there's no rush to bury the waste, but that because the government is legally bound to collect it, politicians are prematurely pushing for completion of the project. UNLV Environmental Studies Professor Helen Neill, has done extensive research on the Nevada Test Site and said that through her work on the subject, she has found that Nevadans are hesitant in accepting the Yucca Mountain plan based on past experiences. "There is a healthy dose of skepticism out there," she said. "This skepticism is based on history. [It's] a recognition that we do already have contamination out there."

Accidents from transporting nuclear waste would result in deaths, contaminated land, and trillions of dollars of damage Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) Yet the D.O.E. predicts harm even in this generation. The department says that if 70,000 tons of the existing U.S. waste were shipped to Yucca Mountain, the transfer would require 24 years of dozens of daily rail or truck shipments. Assuming low accident rates and discounting the possibility of terrorist attacks on these lethal shipments, the D.O.E. says this radioactive-waste transport likely would lead to 50 to 310 shipment accidents. According to the D.O.E., each of these accidents could contaminate 42 square miles, and each could require a 462-day cleanup that would cost $620 million, not counting medical expenses. Can hundreds of thousands of mostly unguarded shipments of lethal materials be kept safe? The states do not think so, and they have banned Yucca Mountain transport within their borders. A better alternative is onsite storage at reactors, where the material can be secured from terrorist attack in "hardened" bunkers.

Transportation of nuclear waste creates national security risks. Susan Milligan, Globe Staff, 11-14-07, The Boston Globe, For candidates roving US, energy stance is fraught with risks - Region to region, priorities conflict, lexis, bc GOP candidates have been largely silent on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but Democrats have overwhelmingly been critical of the idea. Edwards, a Democratic former US senator from North Carolina, voted in 2000 and again in 2002 to advance the plan to put a national nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain, which is in rural Nevada. But last month, Edwards - who is hoping his prolabor credentials will result in a strong showing in Nevada, where unions are politically powerful - said he is now against the idea. Edwards said he had become convinced that the Yucca Mountain facility could contaminate the ground water. Further, he said, transportation of nuclear waste to Nevada presents a national security threat during "a time of terrorism." Richardson, now governor of New Mexico, also was content to let Yucca Mountain advance as a nuclear waste site when he was energy secretary.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

228 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Reprocessing – proliferation impacts Reject nuclear reprocessing – fuel can still be used for an A-Bomb Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP The Element from Hell Grasping my reasons for rejecting nuclear fuel reprocessing requires nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and a dollop of common sense. Power reactors generate heat— which makes steam to turn electricity-generating turbines—by maintaining a nuclear chain reaction that splits (or “fissions”) atoms. Most of the time the fuel is uranium, artificially enriched so that 4 to 5 percent is the chain-reacting isotope uranium 235; virtually all the rest is uranium 238. At an enrichment of only 5 percent, stolen reactor fuel cannot be used to construct an illicit atom bomb.

Nuclear reprocessing increases the proliferation risk Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP In the reactor, some of the uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and becomes plutonium 239, which is also chainreacting and can in principle be partially “burned” if it is extracted and properly prepared. This approach has various drawbacks, however. One is that extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth. Another is that recycling the plutonium reduces the waste problem only minimally. Most important, the separated plutonium can readily serve to make nuclear bombs if it gets into the wrong hands; as a result, much effort has to be expended to keep it secure until it is once more a part of spent fuel.

Reprocessing leads to terrorism and nukes – India proves…un-separated plutonium is better. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP But that was before the security risks of plutonium production went from theoretical to real. In 1974 India, one of the countries that the U.S. assisted in acquiring reprocessing capabilities, used its first separated plutonium to build a nuclear weapon. At about this time, the late Theodore B. Taylor, a former U.S. nuclear weapons designer, was raising an alarm about the possibility that the planned separation and recycling of thousands of tons of plutonium every year would allow terrorists to steal enough of this material to make one or more nuclear bombs. Separated plutonium, being only weakly radioactive, is easily carried off—whereas the plutonium in spent fuel is mixed with fission products that emit lethal gamma rays. Because of its great radioactivity, spent fuel can be transported only inside casks weighing tens of tons, and its plutonium can only be recovered with great difficulty, typically behind thick shielding using sophisticated, remotely operated equipment. So unseparated plutonium in spent fuel poses a far smaller risk of ending up in the wrong hands. Having been awakened by India to the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation through reprocessing, the Ford administration (and later the Carter administration) reexamined the AEC’s position and concluded that reprocessing was both unnecessary and uneconomic. The U.S. government therefore abandoned its plans to reprocess the spent fuel from civilian reactors and urged France and Germany to cancel contracts under which they were exporting reprocessing technology to Pakistan, South Korea and Brazil.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

229 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Reprocessing fuel highly susceptible to theft – impact terrorism Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Reprocessing spent fuel and then storing the separated plutonium and radioactive waste indefinitely at the reprocessing plant is not a disposal strategy. Rather it is a strategy for disaster, because it makes the separated plutonium much more vulnerable to theft. In a 1998 report the U.K.’s Royal Society (the equivalent of the NAS), commenting on the growing stockpile of civilian plutonium in that country, warned that “the chance that the stocks of plutonium might, at some stage, be accessed for illicit weapons production is of extreme concern.” In 2007 a second Royal Society report reiterated that “the status quo of continuing to stockpile a very dangerous material is not an acceptable long-term option.”

SDI 2008 WHAM!

230 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Reprocessing – doesn’t solve the waste problem Nuclear reprocessing only creates a small amount of waste reduction. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP In the reactor, some of the uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and becomes plutonium 239, which is also chainreacting and can in principle be partially “burned” if it is extracted and properly prepared. This approach has various drawbacks, however. One is that extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth. Another is that recycling the plutonium reduces the waste problem only minimally. Most important, the separated plutonium can readily serve to make nuclear bombs if it gets into the wrong hands; as a result, much effort has to be expended to keep it secure until it is once more a part of spent fuel.

Reprocessing pointless – only moves the problem elsewhere. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP These drawbacks become strikingly clear when one examines the experiences of the nations that have embarked on reprocessing programs. In France, the world leader in reprocessing technology, the separated plutonium (chemically combined with oxygen to form plutonium dioxide) is mixed with uranium 238 (also as an oxide) to make a “mixed oxide,” or MOX, fuel. After being used to generate more power, the spent MOX fuel still contains about 70 percent as much plutonium as when it was manufactured; however, the addition of highly radioactive fission products created inside a reactor makes this plutonium difficult to access and make into a bomb. The used MOX fuel is shipped back to the reprocessing facility for indefinite storage. Thus, France is, in effect, using reprocessing to move its problem with spent fuel from the reactor sites to the reprocessing plant. Japan is following France’s example. The U.K. and Russia simply store their separated civilian plutonium—about 120 tons between them as of the end of 2005, enough to make 15,000 atom bombs.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

231 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Reprocessing ineffective and will not work – other countries prove. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Until recently, France, Russia and the U.K. earned money by reprocessing the spent fuel of other nations, such as Japan and Germany, where domestic antinuclear activists demanded that the government either show it had a solution for dealing with spent fuel or shut down its reactors. Authorities in these nations found that sending their spent fuel abroad for reprocessing was a convenient, if costly, way to deal with their nuclear wastes—at least temporarily. With such contracts in hand, France and the U.K. were easily able to finance new plants for carrying out reprocessing. Those agreements specified, however, that the separated plutonium and any highly radioactive waste would later go back to the country of origin. Russia has recently adopted a similar policy. Hence, governments that send spent fuel abroad need eventually to arrange storage sites for the returning radioactive waste. That reality took a while to sink in, but it has now convinced almost all nations that bought foreign reprocessing services that they might as well store their spent fuel and save the reprocessing fee of about $1 million per ton (10 times the cost of dry storage casks). So France, Russia and the U.K. have lost virtually all their foreign customers. One result is that the U.K. plans to shut down its reprocessing plants within the next few years, a move that comes with a $92-billion price tag for cleaning up the site of these facilities. In 2000 France considered the option of ending reprocessing in 2010 and concluded that doing so would reduce the cost of nuclear electricity. Making such a change, though, might also engender acrimonious debates about nuclear waste—the last thing the French nuclear establishment wants in a country that has seen relatively little antinuclear activism. Japan is even more politically locked into reprocessing: its nuclear utilities, unlike those of the U.S., have been unable to obtain permission to expand their on-site storage. Russia today has just a single reprocessing plant, with the ability to handle the spent fuel from only 15 percent of that country’s nuclear reactors. The Soviets had intended to expand their reprocessing capabilities but abandoned those plans when their economy collapsed in the 1980s.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

232 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Reprocessing – costs too much Nuclear reprocessing is expensive. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP In the reactor, some of the uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and becomes plutonium 239, which is also chain-reacting and can in principle be partially “burned” if it is extracted and properly prepared. This approach has various drawbacks, however. One is that extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth. Another is that recycling the plutonium reduces the waste problem only minimally. Most important, the separated plutonium can readily serve to make nuclear bombs if it gets into the wrong hands; as a result, much effort has to be expended to keep it secure until it is once more a part of spent fuel.

Nuclear reprocessing will fail and cost billions (and then some) Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP During the cold war, the U.S. operated reprocessing plants in Washington State and South Carolina to recover plutonium for nuclear weapons. More than half of the approximately 100 tons of plutonium that was separated in those efforts has been declared to be in excess of our national needs, and the DOE currently projects that disposing of it will cost more than $15 billion. The people who were working at the sites where this reprocessing took place are now primarily occupied with cleaning up the resulting mess, which is expected to cost around $100 billion. In addition to those military operations, a small commercial reprocessing facility operated in upstate New York from 1966 to 1972. It separated 1.5 tons of plutonium before going bankrupt and becoming a joint federal-state cleanup venture, one projected to require about $5 billion of taxpayers’ money.

Previous attempts for recycling fuel have been put down – too expensive. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP The proposal to recycle U.S. spent fuel in this way is not new. Indeed, in the mid-1990s the DOE asked the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to carry out a study of this approach to reducing the amount of long-lived radioactive waste. The resulting massive report, Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separation and Transmutation, was very negative. The NAS panel concluded that recycling the transuranics in the first 62,000 tons of spent fuel (the amount that otherwise would have been stored in Yucca Mountain) would require “no less than $50 billion and easily could be over $100 billion”—in other words, it could well cost something like $500 for every person in the U.S. These numbers would have to be doubled to deal with the entire amount of spent fuel that existing U.S. reactors are expected to discharge during their lifetimes.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

233 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Nuclear Waste Nuclear energy creates radioactive waste. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) The notion that nuclear energy is clean energy is misleading. Although nuclear power plants don't spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they generate toxic, radioactive waste-waste that is deadly for thousands of centuries.

Even the safest nuclear plants produce highly radioactive waste. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) Although proponents of a "nuclear renaissance" say nuclear power is safer than before, pointing to France's success at generating about 70 percent of its energy from nuclear reactors, there are still unresolved problems relating to the radioactive waste that nuclear power plants generate. Even the safest nuclear power plant produces spent fuel rods that are so toxic they must be stored in water for some 10 years before they can be placed into concrete containers for dry storage. Even brief exposure is deadly.

Nuclear power and its byproducts are detrimental to the environment. Beth Braverman, June 18, 2008, CNNMoney.com contributing writer LC The NRC says it expects to receive as many as 21 applications to build 32 new reactors before the end of 2008, with most, if not all, expected to go online in 2015.Jon Block, nuclear energy and climate change project manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said one of the problems with constructing new nuclear facilities is how to dispose of nuclear waste."In over 50 years of operating experience, the nuclear industry still has not managed to solve the problems of safety, security, and disposal of highly dangerous radioactive waste," said. "Until that happens, we're much better off investing in safer, cleaner energy sources such as renewable wind, geothermal, tidal, and solar projects."

No safe disposal for waste – we should purse solar. St. Petersburg Times, National, pg. 12A, May 21, 2008 LC By 2009 the average residential customer could be paying $9 a month to begin construction. How many years are we going to pay in advance and what guarantee do we have that it will not be increased as the years roll by? And that's not to mention the fact that we don't have a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. Give us a choice. We live in Florida, the Sunshine State. Solar power is readily available. It won't break the bank and our investment would immediately pay off in the form of energy as soon as the system is installed - clean energy that will not degrade the environment.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

234 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Meltdowns Chernobyl and Three mile island prove meltdown risk is real-costing lives and money Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) But it isn't sympathy for Navajo miners and children that soured America's brief flirtation with nuclear energy. The plug was pulled after a series of events-a reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Ala., in 1975, the meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979, and the catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986, which demonstrated vividly how dangerous nuclear power could be. The impact of Chernobyl, the world's worst nuclear accident, is still being felt around the world, particularly in Belarus, which received 70 percent of the fallout from the disaster and saw a sharp increase in childhood cancers, thyroid cancer, leukemia and other radiation-related illnesses as a result. Swedish scientists blame an estimated 849 cases of cancer on radioactive fallout from the disaster. An estimated 6.7 million people were exposed to radiation as a result of the accident, in which human error led to an explosion. Some estimates claim that 4,000 people worldwide will eventually die as a result of Chemobyl, while other estimates go as high as 93,000. The explosion hasn't only proved to be deadly; it's also been very expensive. The United Nations estimates the damage to Belarus' economy at $235 billion. The cleanup effort, which is ongoing-the sarcophagus that houses the still-deadly reactor is in the midst of being replaced at a cost of $800 million-continues to require global financial involvement. The "exclusion zone" around the plant remains one of the most radioactive places in the world.

The DA turns the case if there is another accident it will cause worldwide antinuclear backlash. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB The safety of nuclear plants has certainly improved, thanks to changes adopted in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident. But safety problems persist, because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't adequately enforcing existing safety standards. What's more, countries where nuclear power is likely to expand don't have a strong system for regulating nuclear safety. The important thing to remember about safety is this: The entire nuclear power industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst performers, because an accident anywhere in the world would stoke another antinuclear backlash among the public and investors.

Nuclear Reactors are bad-(lack of investment, waste storage, terrorists, and meltdown) Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) ATOMIC ENERGY IS AMONG THE MOST impractical and risky of available fuel sources. Private financiers are reluctant to invest in it, and both experts and the public have questions about the likelihood of safely storing lethal radioactive wastes for the required million years. Reactors also provide irresistible targets for terrorists seeking to inflict deep and lasting damage on the United States. The government's own data show that U.S. nuclear reactors have more than a one-in-five lifetime probability of core melt, and a nuclear accident could kill 140,000 people, contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania, and destroy our homes and health.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

235 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Nuclear Power is NOT safe- a meltdown could kill 140,000 people. Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest) Proponents of nuclear energy, like Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, and the former Argonne National Laboratory adviser Steve Berry, say that new reactors will be safer than current ones-"meltdown proof." Such safety claims also are myths. Even the 2003 M.I.T. energy study predicted that tripling civilian nuclear reactors would lead to about four core-melt accidents. The government's Sandia National Laboratory calculates that a nuclear accident could cause casualties similar to those at Hiroshima or Nagasaki: 140,000 deaths. If nuclear plants are as safe as their proponents claim, why do utilities need the U.S. Price-Anderson Act, which guarantees utilities protection against 98 percent of nuclearaccident liability and transfers these risks to the public? All U.S. utilities refused to generate atomic power until the government established this liability limit. Why do utilities, but not taxpayers, need this nuclear-liability protection?

SDI 2008 WHAM!

236 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Natural gas - Links Increasing demand will force a switch to natural gas. Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Staff Writers, The Heritage Foundation, July 8, 2008, FrontPage Magazine, Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other Nations, nna http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7048A616-ECFB-49E9-86FC-D2EF8F0226D2 U.S. electricity demand is projected to increase up to 40 percent by 2030, and other countries are projecting similar increases.[4] The rapid industrial development of both China and India is already placing great pressure on global energy supplies. And because energy sources, especially fossil fuels, are global commodities, growing demand in one part of the world affects the global economy. As a result, higher prices and tightened supply have some nations, such as China, experiencing power shortages.[5] While the U.S. has, for the most part, been able to keep the lights on, with the price of gas breaking the $4 barrier and natural gas prices increasing, every American knows full well the pain of increasing global energy demand. Nuclear energy can help meet this growing demand. Most directly, nuclear energy can be used to generate electricity. If that demand were not met by nuclear power, then it would likely be met with natural gas. This would put additional pressure on natural gas reserves, driving up the price for electricity as well as all the other goods that use natural gas in their production. Although natural uranium is a finite resource like gas, oil, or coal, it can be recycled and reused. The French, Japanese, and British all recycle their used nuclear fuel. The French, for example, remove the uranium and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using that method, America can recycle its 58,000 tons of used fuel stored across the nation to power every U.S. household for 12 years. China, India, and Russia are already building new nuclear plants. Even smaller countries, like Vietnam and countries in the Middle East, have begun exploring nuclear power as they too are facing demand shortages and feeling pressure from the industrialized world to reduce CO2 emissions.

Natural gas is preferable to nuclear power now because of cost. Alex Hutchinson, writer, Oct. 2006, “The Next Atomic Age: Can Safe Nuclear Power Work for America?”, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html?page=1, VP Despite concerns about catastrophic accidents and radioactive waste disposal, Gen II plants “are costeffective and working well, and safety continues to improve,” says James Lake, INL’s associate director. Yet, no new reactors have been ordered in the States since the industry’s peak sales year of 1973. Simple economics quashed further growth. A typical 1000-megawatt reactor costs up to $2 billion--2.5 times more than a comparable natural gas plant.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

237 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Russian dependency - Links We need uranium from Russia for nuclear energy. CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2Fpublic ation_list%3Fgroupby%3D3%26id%3D426%26filter%3D2007 KP Surplus highly-enriched uranium (HEU), left over at the end of the Cold War, led the United States and Russia to a 1993 agreement—known as Megatons to Megawatts —to turn their weapons-grade material from warheads into nuclear fuel for use in commercial reactors through 2013. Under the agreement, five hundred tons of Russian HEU, equal to about twenty thousand nuclear warheads, was to be “down blended” in Russia with feedstock uranium or low-enriched uranium into about fifteen thousand tons of nuclear fuel that would be shipped to U.S. utilities through the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a nongovernment entity. As of 2006, about 275 tons of HEU, equal to about thirteen thousand warheads, has been turned into about eight thousand tons of fuel for which the Russian government received more than $5 billion. According to the World Nuclear Association, the military materials supply about 50 percent of U.S. reactor fuel or 13 percent of the world’s total fuel requirements. “The United States is dependent on Russia for a significant portion of [its] nuclear energy. I don’t think a lot of Americans know that,” said Robert E. Ebel a nuclear analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

238 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DA Uranium Mining - Impacts Uranium mining is dangerous – increases cancer. University of Wisconsin ‘8, 2/28, “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: A cure that’s worse than the disease?” http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=2.txt, tk "That would be a tremendous advantage because uranium mining is very dangerous," especially in terms of lung disease, including cancer.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

239 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

CP States States do energy better than the feds James Hoare 12/1/07 “Idaho Governor Lobbying Hard for Nuclear Power” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22365&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Noting the differences between the states and their comparative ability to produce power from alternative sources, "Part of the problem is that federal solutions tend to be one-size-fits-all," Otter noted at an October 1 sustainable development symposium at the University of Idaho. "That's something the states seem to do better than the federal government."

California proves states could increase nuclear power. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger believes that nuclear power has “a great future” and that it is time to “relook at that issue again rather than just looking the other way and living in denial.” The governor made these comments March 14 in Santa Barbara, at the “ECO:nomics” conference sponsored by the Wall Street Journal. His views are making waves in environmental and energy circles. Gov. Schwarzenegger told the Wall Street Journal that it is time for the Golden State to reconsider nuclear power if it ever wants to meet energy demands for the future. He decried “environmental scare tactics that frighten everyone that we’re going to have another blowup and all of those things.” He did not seem to notice that his favorite legislation, AB 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), is predicated on exactly those types of scare tactics. Nevertheless, it is refreshing that he remains open minded about nuclear power— and he is not alone. Last summer, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, tried to qualify a ballot initiative and more recently pushed bills that would again allow nuclear power in the state. DeVore has authored two pieces of legislation, AB 1776 and AB 2788, on nuclear power this year. California currently has two active nuclear power plants: PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric own both power plants jointly. Together, they supply about 12 percent of California’s electricity. They were built before the state placed a ban on new nuclear plants in 1976, pending release of the political hostage of spent fuel disposal. Rather than dispose of spent fuel, however, we could follow the French. Using technology we developed, they recycle the fuel for even more energy. California, after all, is a national leader in recycling. Nuclear power can be slightly more expensive than coal-fired power, but the current energy options allowed in California are far more expensive than either coal or nuclear, and coal has become subject of an effective ban in California as well. With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available rain or shine. Consider also the great irony in this debate. Had we continued to build nuclear power plants over the past 30 years instead of depending increasingly on fossil plants and fickle renewables, we would most likely be meeting our Kyoto Treaty limits for carbon dioxide emissions—or even those limits in AB 32. In order to rebuild the strength of the California economy, we need to follow DeVore’s lead and advance meaningful electricity supply options like nuclear power. Assemblyman DeVore has already seized on the comments by the governor as a positive sign. “I’m delighted to see Gov. Schwar-zenegger now out front on this vital issue. California cannot meet its global greenhouse gas reduction targets nor meet its growing need for clean [and economic] energy without modern nuclear power,” wrote DeVore on his blog, www.chuckdevore.com/blog. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received seven applications for new power plants last year and is expecting a dozen more in other states. It’s time for California to follow their lead and recognize the promise of nuclear power for environmental and economic reasons.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

240 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

CP PIC – Just do dry cask storage Observation One Counterplan Text Plan: The United States Federal Government should advocate and fund dry casks for nuclear waste storage. Observation Two Net benefits The counterplan provides a sufficient incentive to spur the nuclear industry and avoids all our permanent repository and Yucca links and avoids the transportation links to the terrorism disadvantage.

Politics is a net benefit Using the dry-cask storage would allow time to inform the public about waste disposal bypassing the massive political opposition to waste disposal. PAUL SLOVIC, JAMES H. FLYNN, and MARK LAYMAN, Decision Research professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 December 1991, Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste, nna The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has been impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk. Analysis of these perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present since the discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these images to reality and the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation's military weapons facilities has contributed toward creating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or easily. Postponing the permanent repository and employing dry-cask storage of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for difficult social and political issues to be resolved. Observation Three Solvency

Interim dry cask storage will work for many decades. Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB In the meantime, interim storage in deep pools next to nuclear plants is considered sufficiently safe to meet the industry's needs until well into the future. The amount of waste produced is relatively small; all the waste produced so far in the U.S. would only cover a football field about five yards deep. Older, cooler fuel can also be stored for decades in dry casks.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

241 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

CP International repository Only international waste repositories solve high security, global environmental safety, and global border security. World Nuclear Association, September 2006, “International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts”, rks, http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf21.html. Individual waste repositories for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level wastes need to be reliably secure. Achieving high security means: (1) They can make a vital contribution to global environmental safety by ensuring that radioactive substances are permanently removed from the human environment, (2) They can greatly enhance global security in the broader sense by preventing malicious use of fissile and radiological materials. Insofar as these functions are less than fully assured in any of the 40 countries concerned with radioactive wastes, there is a justification for some kind of international collaboration and facilities, possibly on a regional basis. In particular, the second point is arguably best achieved by international collaboration under IAEA auspices. While most countries should be able to find suitably safe sites in stable geological formations, demonstrating this safety so as to create public confidence is best achieved where there is simple geology. Certainly, geological disposal is the only foreseeable way of ensuring adequate safety and security in the long-term management of spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes. While acknowledging each county's responsibility for its own wastes, the limits to the logic on indigenous disposal can be seen from the changing national borders within Europe over the last century. For Slovenia for instance (which has one nuclear power reactor), its capital city Ljubljana has politically lain within seven different states in the last 100 years.

An international repository would give the host nation significant economic benefits. Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks, http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author. A country that is willing to share its repository with other countries can expect signiªcant economic beneªts.2 An international repository, from this perspective, offers the chance for participating countries to lower the management costs of nuclear waste via economies of scale, with the host country beneªting most by receiving payment/ compensation to create a facility in which it can store its own waste. Assuming economics can serve as a motivating force, what ethical issues does this throw up? If, as the NRC Committee suggests “there is widespread acceptance of the fact that all countries are not independent in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and there is wide agreement that close co-operation in waste management technology is to be encouraged,” then why, it argues, is it not possible to instigate a similar trade in wastes? After all, if it is a free trade between independent partners, what is the problem? With regards to non-radioactive waste, this question has been answered by the Basel Action Network (BAN) in this way: We believe that free trade considerations should always be subservient to those of environment and human health. We note that unbridled free trade in a world of disproportionate economic levels, sanctions “toxic trade,” with hazardous wastes products and technologies ªnding their way via a global market to the poorer regions of the world. For this reason, we believe that unilateral, regional, and global trade barriers (ie. waste trade bans) are often necessary to protect the environment and health of all, particularly in developing and newly industrializing countries.3

SDI 2008 WHAM!

242 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

CP Australian International Repository Australia is the best international repository – it is favored economically and politically, stable and familiar with high-tech enterprise, and has strong, safe geological barriers World Nuclear Association, September 2006, “International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts”, rks, http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf21.html. The Pangea proposal: A major research program in the 1990s by Pangea Resources has identified Australia, southern Africa, Argentina and western China as having the appropriate geological credentials for a deep geologic repository, with Australia being favoured on economic and political grounds. It would be located where the geology has been stable for several hundred million years, so that there need not be total reliance on a robust engineered barrier system to keep the waste securely isolated for thousands of years. It would be a commercial undertaking and would have dedicated port and rail infrastructure. It would take spent fuel and other wastes from commercial reactors, and possibly also material from weapons disposal programs. Pangea sumed up the situation thus: "By taking a fresh look at the reasons for the difficulties which have faced most national repository programs, and discarding the preconception that each country must develop its own disposal facilities, it is possible to define a class of simple, superior highisolation sites which may provide a multinational basis for solving the nuclear waste disposal problem. "The relatively small volumes of high-level wastes or spent fuel which arise from nuclear power production make shared repositories a feasible proposition. For small countries, the economies of scale which can be achieved make the concept attractive. For all countries, objective consideration of the relative merits of national and multi-national solutions is a prudent part of planning the management of long-lived radioactive wastes." Early in 1999 Pangea Resources released its project proposal to the Australian public, expecting this "to initiate discussions which will enable us to more fully assess the feasibility and strategy of our proposal ... on (its) merits." The initial response from the federal government however was to reiterate Australia's long-standing and bipartisan policy of not importing nuclear wastes and saying that there was no immediate intention of considering such a proposal. Then, after only cursory consideration, the Western Australian parliament passed a Bill to make it illegal to dispose of foreign high-level waste in the state without specific parliamentary approval. Pangea continued its geological investigations in that state while extending its feasibility study to other potential host regions. Objectives: The following were Pangea's objectives, but they are relevant to future proposals: To site a deep geologic disposal facility in a region where the geology and biosphere conditions meet the test of simplicity coupled with robustness. This is required to demonstrate that the performance of the facility from a safety standpoint will meet the highest international standards and international safeguard requirements. In addition to its ideal geological characteristics, the host country should preferably be a first-world, stable democracy, familiar with high-technology enterprises. The basic technology envisaged is a multibarrier system similar to that envisaged in most countries with advanced plans for such high-level waste disposal, and as implemented for intermediate-level wastes. To create a facility for deep geological disposal capable of accepting spent fuel, vitrified high-level waste, long-lived intermediate-level waste, and appropriately conditioned long-lived nuclear materials, such as immobilised plutonium. To the degree necessary, the disposal facility would also have short-term storage capability to allow imported nuclear materials to reach a cool and safe condition for disposal. to provide an economic and environmentally responsible disposal option. to provide a safe and secure transportation service to the repository location. to provide the host country with the opportunity to gain substantial economic benefits and to play an important role in enhancing security and non-proliferation efforts for the benefit of all nations. Pangea's strategy implied that the geological barrier can be the primary safety barrier, in contrast to some other potential repository concepts where the waste form and the engineered barriers are required to be more dominant. There is a side benefit in that less complex and less expensive engineered barriers may be sufficient. Pangea also saw a potential public acceptance benefit, in that reliance on a simple geological barrier might be more readily understood and accepted. The decision to concentrate effort on Australia was the result of adding in to the fundamental safety arguments considerations of a societal and political nature and to a lesser extent economics. The end result is that Pangea focused on extensive contiguous sedimentary basins extending from central Western Australia into northern South Australia.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

243 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

CP Siberian International Repository Siberia is the only practical international nuclear storage facility and can liberate Yucca. Keith Rogers and Steve Tetreault, 5-28-08, National Security Network, “McCain: We may not need Yucca”, rks, http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/876. While Nevada officials were about to rally Tuesday in Las Vegas against plans for licensing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain was in Colorado saying such a facility might not be necessary. "I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials," McCain, R-Ariz., said in a speech on international nuclear security at the University of Denver. "It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain," McCain said, referring to the volcanic-rock ridge 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. At the rally in the Clark County Government Center's amphitheater, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who was aware of McCain's remarks, took the opportunity to note that McCain's voting record in favor of the Yucca Mountain repository speaks for itself. "Everyone here should understand that John McCain is an advocate" for Yucca Mountain, Reid said. "John McCain is on the wrong side of that issue," said Reid, the Senate majority leader who was joined at the rally by former Sen. Richard Bryan, chairman of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects, other state and Clark County officials, environmentalists and Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev. In a call with reporters, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, said the idea of an international repository is only practical at one site: Siberia.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

244 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

K Free Market Environmentalism Government is the root cause of nuclear power. Jerry Taylor and Navin Nayar, Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, 6-21-03, Cato.org, “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134, CM With federal government spending through the roof and projected deficits setting new records every day, it is perhaps surprising that the Bush administration and Congress want to use billions of taxpayer dollars to single-handedly resurrect the moribund nuclear industry. Old habits, however, die hard. The federal government has always maintained a unique public-private partnership with the nuclear industry, wherein the costs of nuclear power are shared by the public but the profits are enjoyed privately. In an attempt to resuscitate this dying industry, the current Senate energy bill proposes unprecedented federal support for nuclear power. Despite extensive and continuous government assistance -including more than $66 billion in research and development alone -- no nuclear power plant has been ordered and built in the U.S. since 1973. After building more than a hundred plants between 1954-1973, orders have been cancelled over the last thirty years, and capacity in the industry has stagnated since 1989. The decline of nuclear power is a result of several factors: the Three Mile Island disaster heightened public safety fears and citizen opposition to the siting of plants in their neighborhoods grew. But nuclear power was ultimately rejected by investors because it simply does not make economic sense. In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government.

Nuclear power would grind to a halt without federal subsidies. Jerry Taylor and Navin Nayar, Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, 6-21-03, Cato.org, “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134, CM In fact, a recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm, commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations -termed "show stoppers" -- without which the industry would grind to a halt. These "show stoppers" include the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear accident -- leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs; federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful interventions from opponents. But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry. Nuclear generated electricity remains about twice as expensive as coal- or gas-fired electricity. Although the marginal costs of nuclear are lower, the capital costs are much higher. In light of this resounding cold shoulder from Wall Street, the federal government is opening the treasury wider than ever before.

Nuclear power proves our bureaucracy link. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is charged with the responsibility for managing the waste, has faced this difficult situation by adopting the position that repository site selection is strictly a scientific problem, requiring a tremendous research effort which it is more than happy to undertake. The money for it is available from the 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour tax on nuclear electricity. Through 1989, $6 billion had already been collected. Managing a large research program is clearly advantageous to the careers of those in charge, and it also delays the pain of making a decision. The longevity of individuals in top government positions is such that they personally will probably never have to make a final decision — for a government bureaucrat that is the ideal situation.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

245 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Energy solutions prove our one size fits all argument. James Hoare 12/1/07 “Idaho Governor Lobbying Hard for Nuclear Power” Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22365&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241 Noting the differences between the states and their comparative ability to produce power from alternative sources, "Part of the problem is that federal solutions tend to be one-size-fits-all," Otter noted at an October 1 sustainable development symposium at the University of Idaho.

Government shouldn’t give incentives to nuclear power Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB And besides, if nuclear power is such a great deal, it should be able to stand on its own, and not require such subsidies from the taxpayer. Government subsidies should sponsor research and development into new or emerging energy technologies where prices are already falling and the subsidies can jump-start demand to help further bring down costs. They're inappropriate for mature industries, like nuclear power, where market forces should be allowed to do their work.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

246 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

DOE considering privatizing nuclear waste recycling Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program, lexis, bc New evidence emerged last week that the Energy Department is considering a plan to transfer its troubled nuclear waste repository program to a government-chartered corporation. Platts obtained a DOE PowerPoint presentation Thursday that shows the waste program being run by an "NGE" (see graphic, p. 16). Sources familiar with the plan said the acronym stands for "non-governmental entity." Under the plan, US nuclear power plants would ship their spent nuclear fuel to the NGE. Utilities would also give the NGE the money that they collect from their customers who use nuclear energy. This money, known as the Nuclear Waste Fund, was established by Congress to pay for the Yucca Mountain spent-fuel repository. The NGE, in turn, would send the utilities' spent nuclear fuel to an entity that the plan dubs a "recycler." The "recycler" is a key component of DOE's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which seeks to boost the use of nuclear energy by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Under the plan, the recycler would send reprocessed fuel back to the nuclear power plants. The "waste from recycling" would be returned to the NGE, the plan says. The NGE would then be responsible for disposing of that waste, according to the plan. Specifically, the NGE would "build and operate waste repositories," the plan says. A chart in the plan shows the NGE directly linked to a picture of DOE's nuclear waste repository project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This process is depicted in a chart in the PowerPoint presentation titled "NGE Operations: Flow of Material and Money." Notably, DOE is not represented anywhere in the plan. The 20-slide PowerPoint presentation is the most solid evidence that has emerged to date that DOE is considering privatizing its Yucca Mountain program. Last week, several high-ranking DOE officials acknowledged that the plan is being considered. Handing over DOE's nuclear waste disposal program to a government-chartered corporation could help circumvent bureaucracy that has delayed the opening of the Yucca Mountain repository, said Edward Sproat, the director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. "It has the potential to do that if it is set up the right way," Sproat said after addressing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission conference in Rockville, Maryland, on Thursday. But Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said he had not agreed to any plan to have private industry manage the Yucca Mountain project. "We have a program for Yucca Mountain," Bodman said. "We expect to apply for a license to operate Yucca Mountain this year. It would be operated presumably by the Department of Energy." Bodman added that there "are all kinds of different plans" regarding nuclear waste, and "different people have different ideas." "The process is that everybody puts their ideas in the hopper and one idea comes out that is the dominant idea," he said. "Right now the idea that holds [weight] is the idea I described," where DOE manages the Yucca Mountain project. The idea of removing the nuclear waste program from DOE's hands has been around for a while. The late Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Edward McGaffigan said last year that he would "go back to the beginning" and transfer management of the program from DOE to a government-chartered corporation. Former Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell told Platts last month that DOE is considering a plan under which a government-chartered corporation like the Tennessee Valley Authority would take over DOE's troubled nuclear waste program. Under the plan, the corporation would assume the responsibility of developing the Yucca Mountain repository. Sell said the new entity would also consider other options for spent nuclear fuel, including reprocessing. He declined to confirm or deny media reports that DOE had actually proposed such a plan to the White House (IE, 3 March, 1). Sproat told reporters that a public-private arrangement would help "funding stability, legal stability and management stability." "I do think providing some sort of organization with a legislative fiat that provides that stability and fixes some of these institutional problems is a good idea," he said. "But it has got to be done right. If it is not done right, we will have accomplished nothing." Sproat said a corporation, to be effective, would need access to the Nuclear Waste Fund, and added that issues involving land withdrawal for the respository and long-term liability would have to be resolved. "If all those things aren't addressed [in] setting the new organization up, you have accomplished nothing," Sproat said. Several industry sources said they expect DOE to go forward with the proposal once it applies to NRC for a license to build and operate the Yucca Mountain repository, and the commission has placed the application on its docket. In his remarks to the NRC conference, Sproat said DOE plans to apply in June, kicking off what could be a three- to six-month review for the commission to determine whether the application is acceptable for consideration. Sproat told the conference that DOE is "socializing" the concept, including informing officials within the administration and lawmakers about what such a move would entail. He said the discussions are designed to determine whether "we reach a critical mass of opinion that says we should do it." "There is certainly interest in the concept in various places on [Capitol Hill]," Sproat told reporters afterward. "How much attention anybody is paying to this at this stage of the game is another issue." The Nevada congressional delegation remains fiercely opposed to putting the repository in the state. "The Bush administration is desperate to show that growing reports of Yucca Mountain's death are premature, but this is clearly a project whose days are numbered," Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat-Nevada, who saw the PowerPoint presentation, said in a statement."Now DOE is looking at a public-private partnership to run Yucca Mountain, but that will not eliminate the danger or change Nevada's opposition to becoming the nation's nuclear garbage dump. We need to stop this $80-billion disaster waiting to happen and keep nuclear waste on site, where it's safe for the next 100 years." Berkley's communications director, David Cherry, said DOE seems to want "the efficiency of a private undertaking paired with the power of the federal government to fund and license activities relating to nuclear waste disposal, including the ability to overcome powerful opposition based on health, safety and cost issues." Jon Summers, communications director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, said DOE's "radiation road show" to gain support for an alternative plan to advance Yucca Mountain is futile. "You can't privatize something that's not going to be built in the first place," he said. "The dump is not [going to be built]." Summers said DOE can promote the idea to Republican lawmakers, but "Republicans are in the minority, and not even all of them support Yucca Mountain anymore," he said. "The support for Yucca Mountain has softened on Capitol Hill and among the nuclear industry itself." The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would need to pass legislation for DOE to restructure its nuclear waste program, said David Marks, a spokesman for panel chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. The committee has not seen any DOE proposal or presentation to that end, Marks said. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman John Keeley said industry would support the idea of a government-chartered corporation "conceptually," but added that "the devil is in the details." Keeley said NEI would be concerned if the Nuclear Waste Fund were to be used to recycle spent fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, for example.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

247 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

K You Jack the Poor Economic realities will increase the number of places willing to host nuclear waste facilities. Brad Glosserman is Director of Research at Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based think tank, and a Contributing Editor to The Japan Times. June 15, 2001. Pac Net. Solving Asia's Nuclear-Waste Dilemma. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0125.pdf For certain parts of the nuclear-energy equation - in particular, the storage problem - financial benefits will tilt the balance in decision-making. Quite simply, communities pressed to find new sources of income will be more inclined to look favorably on the idea of hosting a nuclear facility, especially given the construction costs and the compensation that frequently accompanies such decisions.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

248 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

K Native Americans Uranium mining devastates landscape and leaves radioactive tailings increasing cancer. Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest) That waste begins when uranium ore is mined. Not only does the mining process devastate the landscape like coal mining, it also leaves behind tons of radioactive uranium tailings that present a real health hazard to anyone living nearby. On parts of the Navajo reservation where uranium mining once provided scarce jobs, cancer rates are 17 times higher among Navajo teenagers than the American population at large. Miners, too, suffer from radiation-related cancers and illnesses.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

249 of 249 AFF Nuclear Power 4.0