200 KO Nuclear Energy Aff Supplement

Nuclear Power AFF–Supplement
DDI 2008 Kernoff/Olney

Takumi Murayama/J.B. Hardin
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...................................................................................................................................................1
Notes/Strategies......................................................................................................................................................3
1AC–Observation 1: Inherency............................................................................................................................5
1AC–The Plan........................................................................................................................................................6
1AC–Observation 2: Proliferation.......................................................................................................................7
1AC–Observation 3: Global Warming...............................................................................................................12
1AC–Observation 4: Economy...........................................................................................................................15
1AC–Observation 5: US Leadership..................................................................................................................19
1AC–Observation 6: Solvency............................................................................................................................21
2AC Add-on: Reprocessing.................................................................................................................................25
2AC: Inherency....................................................................................................................................................27
1AR: Inherency....................................................................................................................................................28
2AC: T–Nuclear ≠ Renewable............................................................................................................................29
1AR: T–Nuclear ≠ Renewable............................................................................................................................31
2AC: T–Removing Disincentives ≠ Incentives...................................................................................................32
1AR: T–Removing Disincentives ≠ Incentives...................................................................................................33
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Perm...................................................................................................................34
1AR: Alternative Energy CP–Perm...................................................................................................................36
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Proliferation Solvency Deficit..........................................................................37
1AR: Alternative Energy CP–Proliferation Solvency Deficit..........................................................................38
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Global Warming Solvency Deficit...................................................................39
1AR: Alternative Energy CP–Global Warming Solvency Deficit...................................................................42
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Economy Solvency Deficit................................................................................43
1AR: Alternative Energy CP–Economy Solvency Deficit................................................................................44
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Biofuel................................................................................................................45
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Geothermal........................................................................................................47
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Hydroelectric.....................................................................................................48
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Solar...................................................................................................................49
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Waves.................................................................................................................52
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Wind...................................................................................................................54
2AC: Alternative Energy PIK.............................................................................................................................60
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 1
2AC: Blackouts.....................................................................................................................................................63
2AC: Coal DA–Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................64
2AC: Coal DA–Impact Turn...............................................................................................................................65
1AR: Coal DA.......................................................................................................................................................68
2AC: Fiscal Discipline DA...................................................................................................................................69
2AC: International CP........................................................................................................................................71
2AC: Nuclear Energy Expensive........................................................................................................................74
1AR: Nuclear Energy Expensive........................................................................................................................76
2AC: Nuclear Energy Safety...............................................................................................................................77
1AR: Nuclear Energy Safety...............................................................................................................................80
2AC: Oil DA.........................................................................................................................................................81
2AC: Politics–Elections.......................................................................................................................................82
2AC: Politics–Popular.........................................................................................................................................83
2AC: Proliferation...............................................................................................................................................84
1AR: Proliferation...............................................................................................................................................86
2AC: Public Health..............................................................................................................................................87
2AC: Public Perception.......................................................................................................................................88
2AC: Radiation not substantial..........................................................................................................................89
1AR: Radiation not substantial..........................................................................................................................90
2AC: Reprocessing Good....................................................................................................................................91
2AC: States CP.....................................................................................................................................................94
2AC: Terrorism....................................................................................................................................................96
1AR: Terrorism....................................................................................................................................................98
2AC: Too much waste..........................................................................................................................................99
2AC: Yucca Mountain Good.............................................................................................................................100
2AC: Impact Calculus.......................................................................................................................................102
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 2
Notes/Strategies
1. I know you’re all excited for another file by Takumi Murayama \(^o^ )/
This time, though, J.B. Hardin assisted Takumi. He’s pretty cool.
2. Anyway, first up is an updated 1AC, with some new optional advantages

(hopefully) and extra cards. What Takumi is doing is cutting out Econ,
running Leadership, and maybe running Reprocessing as a 2AC add-on.
Basically, you should figure out which advantages to run, since there are
SO MANY PERMUTATIONS of the same 4.
3. Basically, the Reprocessing stuff is there because I found that key card
that said that our private waste management leads to reprocessing. It’s
another way to solve for proliferation, a way to solve for Yucca, and also
a good way of solving for waste management concerns.
4. Most of these blocks that follow have both 2AC and 1AR blocks–but some
don’t have 1AR blocks because frankly, that would take too long. Wave 3
was kind of short.
5. T blocks are not bad. A bit long, maybe.
6. The Alternative Energy CP evidence is basically a bunch of advantages

that are extended, which Alternatives can’t solve. You could probably pull
those if you want generic advantage/impact extensions.
7. Make sure when you DO read these extensions that you actually read that
advantage in the 1AC.
8. There are a few DA blocks, like Coal, that aren’t too bad. On the other
hand, I couldn’t find specific turns for other trade-off DA’s like Natural
Gas.
9. The international CP stuff is unorganized; mostly it’s just solvency deficit

stuff and then some specifics on Britain and France. Remember, the USfg
ALWAYS solves better!
10.Oh, I cut some cool Politics cards. I mean, I guess it’s only no Link, but
still.
11.There are LOTS of on-case blocks to the major “it’s dangerous” things.
12.States CP block we used against Jackie and Junaid. They dropped it.
Which means it works.
13.I like the Terrorism turn. If you ever need comparative evidence on
Terrorism vs. Global Warming, get out the Houghton 03 evidence from
that block.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 3
14.Yucca Good evidence is pretty weak – it’s more “propaganda” evidence. I

mean, basically, Yucca is key no matter how bad it is. That’s Craig 99 and
Spencer 08. Notice that Craig 99 already acknowledges the badness of
Yucca; regardless, he supports it because it’s the ONLY WAY to spur
nuclear R&D.
15.The Impact Calculus cards at the end are basically comparative pieces of
evidence how a) we solve for the MOTIVATIONS behind nuclear
proliferation, and b) global nuclear war from proliferation ONLY MAKES
GLOBAL WARMING WORSE! You could win (-_^)b
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 4
1AC–Observation 1: Inherency
Unfair regulations are preventing nuclear development in the United States
now.
Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Research assistant and research fellow @ the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies, 12-3-07, “Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy”,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2087.cfm, [Crystal Xia]
Investors are not averse to nuclear power. Utility companies with nuclear experience have sought to purchase existing
plants, are upgrading their existing power plants, and are extending their operating licenses so that they can produce
more energy for a longer time. Indeed, nuclear energy is so economically viable that it provides about 20 percent
of America's electricity despite the incredibly high regulatory burden.
However, investors are averse to the regulatory risk associated with building new plants. The regulatory burden
is extreme and potentially unpredictable. In the past, opponents of nuclear power have successfully used the
regulations to raise construction costs by filing legal challenges, not based on any underlying safety issue, but simply
because they oppose nuclear power. The incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are needed not because the
market has rejected nuclear power, but because the market has rejected the excessive regulatory risk and costs
imposed by the government. When making investment decisions, investors must consider the massive costs and
losses caused by past government intervention.[11] Until new plants have been constructed and are in operation,
thereby proving that regulatory obstacles have been mitigated both financially and legally, the burden of proof will
remain on government regulators.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 5
1AC–The Plan
Thus, the plan:
The United States federal government should amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to allow the private sector to
manage used fuel and repeal the 70,000-ton limitation on Yucca Mountain.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 6
1AC–Observation 2: Proliferation
Nuclear power is being implemented globally.
Environmental News Service, “Global Nuclear Concerns: Safety, Power, Proliferation

“,http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2004/2004-08-10-03.asp, 2004
In 2003, two new nuclear power plants were connected to the grid, in China and in South Korea, and Canada restarted two
units that had been shut down. Construction began on one new power plant, in India. Four units in the United Kingdom were
retired, as was one each in Germany and Japan. Asia continues to be the center for nuclear expansion and growth, with 20
of the 31 reactors under construction located in this region. In fact, the IAEA said, 19 of the last 28 reactors to be connected to
the grid are in the Far East and South Asia. In Western Europe, capacity has remained relatively constant despite nuclear phase-
outs in Germany and Sweden, and in Belgium which passed a phaseout law in January 2003). The most advanced planning
for new European nuclear capacity was in Finland, where in 2003 the utility Teollisuuden Voima Oy selected Olkiluoto as
the site for a fifth Finnish reactor, and signed a contract for a 1600 MW(e) European pressurized water reactor. During 2003,
the Russian Federation continued its program to extend licenses at 11 nuclear power plants. The Russian nuclear
regulatory body, Gosatomnadzor, issued a five year extension for the Kola-1 plant.
The expansion of nuclear technology is inevitable – the US must remain

engaged in promoting secure nuclear power to prevent proliferation
Roger Hagengruber, Chair of Nuclear Energy Study Group, “Nuclear Power”,

http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/proliferation-resistance/upload/proliferation.pdf, 2008
Worldwide, thirty new nuclear plants were under construction in March 2005, with 20 new plants in Asia alone.
In addition to China’s plan to greatly expand its nuclear power program, Indonesia, Vietnam and Egypt have all
declared an interest in building their first civilian nuclear power plants. As evidenced by the current situation in Iran,
technological advances and institutional changes are required to avoid proliferation by countries taking
advantage of a global spread of nuclear power. Consequently, whether or not the United States constructs new
nuclear power plants over the next quarter century, it is vital to US national security that the US remain engaged
in the development of proliferation-resistant nuclear-energy technologies and of technologies that can support
new international arrangements to safeguard and coordinate future fuel-cycle deployment.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 7
Nuclear power is key to nonprolif and US leadership.
Jack Spencer, Research Fellow @ The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 10-9-
07, “Congress Must Implement CSC Treaty to Reinvigorate U.S. Nuclear Industry”,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1658.cfm, [Crystal Xia]
Failure to engage in the commercial nuclear market risks undermining U.S. leadership on related issues, such
as nonproliferation. Other nations will simply work amongst themselves to achieve their nuclear objectives.
Countries such as Russia, France, and China will fill the policymaking void left by the United States. The
United States once led the world in commercial nuclear technology but has ceded that capability to countries
such as France, Japan, Great Britain, and Russia over the past three decades. A more competitive American
industry would provide opportunities for the United States to re-emerge as a leader in the global commercial
nuclear market. Furthermore, CSC implementation will signal that the U.S. government is committed to the
expansion of nuclear power. This commitment by the federal government is essential to attracting the massive
private investment required to rebuild the domestic capabilities needed to support America's growing commercial
nuclear activities
The world is inevitably moving towards nuclear power – resolving waste

storage would encourage peaceful use of nuclear technology and combat
proliferation.
Jim Dawson, Science Editor, American Institute of Physics. 05/05. “Nuclear Power Needs Government
Incentives, Says Task Force,” Physics Today, p.28. http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-
ft/vol_58/iss_5/28_1.shtml [Takumi Murayama]
Policymakers in both the administration and Congress must develop "a clear commitment to a national energy policy" that
gives nuclear power a strong role, the report says. "We urge that the president identify this as a critical priority for the
nation and that Congress take the necessary steps to meet this priority." The report doesn't mention the controversy
surrounding the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste storage project in Nevada (see the story on page 32), but it does say the
waste storage problem must be resolved. But the authors make clear that "the absence of a licensed repository is not a valid
reason for postponing additional nuclear construction."
Another critical aspect of encouraging a new generation of power plants is the concern over nuclear proliferation,
especially in the wake of September 11th. The task force's bottom-line conclusion is that the rest of the world is going to
move forward with energy generation from nuclear power regardless of what the US does, and the US would be better off
participating than sitting on the sidelines.
An increase in the use of nuclear power in the US would actually "serve our non-proliferation objectives," the report says,
because "one of the most efficient and certainly the most thorough ways of disposing of that nuclear material is to burn it
as fuel in commercial nuclear reactors."
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 8
The US must lead nuclear growth to meet nonproliferation goals
John F. Kotek, Manager of Nuclear Programs, Washington Policy & Analysis, Inc., and Executive
Director, American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, 7/20/06 [Takumi
Murayama]
Some would say that all we have to do is start ordering plants again and the U.S. will be back. Becoming a nuclear energy
consumer again is good, but that alone doesn’t put us back in the game. It matters whether we are in the nuclear business.
Nations that are engaged in the nuclear energy business: sit at the non-proliferation table; can choose to develop less
proliferation-prone nuclear systems; have the technology to address global climate change; have the keys to combating
global poverty; and hold the catalyst to advances in science and technology. An excellent example of the nonproliferation
benefits of a domestic nuclear industry can be seen in the joint U.S./Russian program to disposition highly enriched uranium
from dismantled nuclear warheads. U.S. companies like BWXT and USEC have played a major role in getting this material
into the nuclear fuel supply and into U.S. reactors, thus rendering it unusable in a nuclear weapon. Without a domestic
nuclear industry, we would be less able to engage in this and other programs that are helping to meet our global
nonproliferation goals. To ensure that the U.S. will influence and manage proliferation risks during the next expansion
of nuclear energy around the world, it is imperative that the U.S. be the promoter, enabler, and the lead supplier of this
growth. The American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness was formed to alert policymakers and the public of the
need to restore U.S. leadership in nuclear energy. The President took a bold step toward restoring this leadership earlier this
year with the announcement of GNEP. We support the President’s vision for GNEP, which if properly implemented and
accompanied by an American-led, transforming technology leap, could restore America’s preeminence in the nuclear
enterprise. If GNEP is structured with an eye toward enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness, American industry could
thrive. The Council has been concerned, however, about our industry’s ability at present to participate fully in GNEP. So the
Council is recruiting leadership from the business world – as well as from U.S. national laboratories and universities – to
respond to the enormous opportunities that a resumption of U.S. nuclear energy leadership could create. U.S. manufacturing,
technology, financial, and other interests should seize the opportunity and rally to ensure that the President’s vision is realized.
And indeed, we are finding an encouraging number of U.S. companies interested in getting into the nuclear business or
growing their nuclear portfolios. By restoring a robust nuclear industry, America can protect its environmental,
economic, and national security interests and it can also reclaim leadership of the global nuclear energy industry, an
industry created through American ingenuity more than fifty years ago.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 9
Nuclear energy solves the motivations behind nuclear war
Canberra Times. 07/19/08. “Nuclear power pluses must be weighed with the risks,” A, p. B08. Lexis.
[Takumi Murayama]
The "vast quantities of high level waste" to which she refers amount to something like one semi-trailer load per power station
per year! Whilst she dismisses nuclear power stations because they will be "at least a decade in the making" (and that may be
somewhere near the truth), the need to have a reliable base load non-carbon energy source extends long beyond that.
But perhaps the greatest flaw in the anti-nuclear platform is the assumption that the peaceful use of nuclear power
automatically leads to weapons proliferation, which in turn leads automatically to nuclear Armageddon.
Serious war requires the initiator to have not only the weapons but also the motivation. Many already have the weapons.
Amongst the most likely causes of motivation are resentment caused by being dispossessed of land (terrorism) or by
serious national shortages of food or energy.
Desperate circumstances breed desperate actions. Excluding nuclear power could actually increase the risk of
catastrophic conflict.
Nuclear power does, admittedly, carry an indeterminate but small risk of an accident that could devastate the lives of tens of
thousands of people.
But by rejecting nuclear power there is an equally indeterminate and small risk that the world loses the climate change
race, and devastates the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Proliferation leads to extinction.
Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis,
Summer 02, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, Survival, p.87-90.
The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles
against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small
arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of
violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels
unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse.
And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread
proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a
substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear
proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With
most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is
today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 10
Even if you don’t buy our Utgoff 02 card, the Global Nuclear War from
proliferation exacerbates Global Warming, which is another way to access our
global warming impact.
[Takumi Murayama]
In the ongoing blather whereby nuclear power is being sold to us as the answer to global warming, Lesley Kemeny gives us
another earbashing (July 18).
He regularly fails to mention the safety issues our descendants will have to deal with or the massive amounts of power required
to build the behemoths he wants us to lovingly adopt.
As the debate "hots up" can we expect the nuclear power spruikers to come up with one darker aspect so far
unmentioned that nuclear radiation leaks and nuclear wars have the potential to reduce the global population so rapidly
that global warming will no longer be an issue.
Perhaps he is afraid that we will see the major flaw in that argument all that radiation emitted and all those bombs going off
might make things a lot warmer a lot quicker than any of our previous efforts to warm this otherwise "cool" planet.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 11
1AC–Observation 3: Global Warming

A nuclear storage facility would revolutionize the domestic industry and global
R&D.
Stratfor, world’s leading online publisher of geopolitical intelligence. 04/16/07. [Takumi Murayama]
The biggest stumbling block to domestic nuclear power is the lack of a nuclear storage facility, Stratfor warned in a
recently published global market brief.
The proposed Yucca Mountain national repository in Nevada remains stalled, while concerns about terrorism have slowed
the Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) promoting the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Meanwhile,
the storage of nuclear waste at nuclear facilities has drawn substantial local opposition.
Stratfor's analysis found that the United States may have to take a second look at nuclear energy "since expected GHG
(Global Greenhouse Gases) regulations and requirements for coal plants to use cleaner technology will make coal-power
energy more expensive." Nevertheless, the report suggests that "merely replacing the existing U.S. fleet of nuclear reactors
could be worth as much money as all of the planned expansions in France, Russia and China combined."
"Such a development would not only revolutionize the U.S. domestic nuclear industry but would also lead to expanded
nuclear technology research and development worldwide," Stratfor asserted. "Also U.S. acceptance of nuclear energy will
likely lead to a quick increase in nuclear operations in other industrialized countries that have been hesitant to pursue
further nuclear activity because of safety concerns."
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 12
The green lobby blocks nuclear energy. We have no time to try any other
energy sources.
James Lovelock, creator of Gaia hypothesis (Earth is self-regulating organism) and member of EFN
(Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy), 5-24-04, The Independent, “Nuclear Power is the Only
Green Solution,” http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-nuclear-power-is-the-
only-green-solution-564446.html
We have stayed in ignorance for many reasons; important among them is the denial of climate change in the US where
governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed. The Green lobbies, which should have
given priority to global warming, seem more concerned about threats to people than with threats to the Earth, not noticing that
we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent upon its well being. It may take a disaster worse than last summer's European
deaths to wake us up. Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green
lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all
energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third
of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail
to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000
unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer. I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the
quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens. But I am a
Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Even if they
were right about its dangers, and they are not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant
threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the
world. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use
nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.
Nuclear Power is the only clean power source that can satisfy global demand
Jennifer Weeks, CQ Researcher. 03/10/06. CQ Researcher “Nuclear Energy.” [Takumi Murayama]

Now that scientific consensus affirms that greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities are warming Earth's climate, the
nuclear industry contends that nuclear power is the best option for meeting rising energy demand without exacerbating
climate problems. Nuclear reactors generate electricity without emitting carbon dioxide and other pollutants — called
greenhouse gases — that hold heat in the atmosphere. Power plants burning coal, oil and natural gas produced 39 percent of
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2003. [12]
But nuclear-power capacity would have to expand dramatically to eliminate enough greenhouse emissions to make a
difference. Nuclear plants generated 789 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2004 — or about 22 percent of the nation's electrical
power. By 2030 the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that nuclear plants will generate only about 871
terawatt-hours — and that's if six new 1,000-megawatt reactors are built and 2,000 megawatts of uprates (capacity increases)
are made at existing plants. But demand will have risen so sharply by then, says the EIA, that nuclear power will end up
providing only about 16 percent of total U.S. power generation — a smaller share than it provides today. [13]
To significantly reduce climate change, according to a 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study, world nuclear
capacity would have to roughly triple by 2050, with the United States adding 200 or more new reactors. [14]Industry
representatives admit that growth on anything approaching this scale would be a serious challenge.
Even so, some prominent environmentalists have called recently for rethinking the issue of nuclear power in view of the
potential threat from climate change. “Renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal and hydro are part of the solution,” wrote
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore in early 2005. “Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power
source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.” [15]
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 13
And, throwing money at other alternative energies has no solvency. Nuclear

energy is the ONLY proven power source that can save us!
Steven Kerekes, senior director of media relations, Nuclear Energy Institute. 11/09/07. Nuclear Power in
Response to Climate Change, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/
nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html [Crystal Xia]
It's increasingly clear that Michael prefers to debate how NOT to respond to climate change. Nuclear energy is a
proven technology. It is by far the largest U.S. source of electricity that doesn’t emit greenhouse gases, and it
provides more than 45 percent of emission-free electricity worldwide, second only to hydroelectric plants. Yet
Michael insists on erecting the straw man of a ten-year U.S. construction window (even as thirty-one new reactors
are being built internationally), as though this problem could be solved in that time frame.
Let me refute you with the same construct, Michael: 1. No matter how many billions of dollars we throw at your preferred
sources of emission-free electricity, they won’t begin to approach in the next ten years the amount of electricity already
generated by nuclear power plants—at which point we’ll start to bring additional emission-free, 1,000-megawatt-plus
reactors on line. 2. Your preferred sources of electricity cannot build the number of facilities needed to make a
meaningful reduction (by themselves) in carbon emissions.
Global Warming will lead to MASS extinction, leaving only 1 large land species,
and will take 100 million years to recover species diversity
Sydney Morning Herald, 6/20/03, Global warming 'threatens Earth with mass extinction.'
[Takumi Murayama]
Global warming over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass extinction in the history of the
planet, scientists have warned. Researchers at Bristol University have discovered that a mere 6 degrees of global warming
was enough to wipe out up to 95 per cent of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250
million years ago. United Nations scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict up to 6 degrees of
warming for the next 100 years if nothing is done about emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, the chief
cause of global warming. The Permian mass extinction is now thought to have been caused by gigantic volcanic eruptions that
triggered a runaway greenhouse effect and nearly put an end to life on Earth. Conditions in what geologists have termed this
"post apocalyptic greenhouse" were so severe that only one large land animal was left alive and it took 100 million years
for species diversity to re-turn to former levels. This dramatic new finding is revealed in a book by Bristol University's head
of earth sciences, Michael Benton, which chronicles the geological efforts leading up to the discovery and its potential
implications. Professor Benton said: "The Permian crisis nearly marked the end of life. It's estimated that fewer than one in 10
species survived. "Geologists are only now coming to appreciate the severity of this global catastrophe and to understand how
and why so many species died out so quickly." Other climate experts say they are appalled that a disaster of such
magnitude could be repeated within this century because of human activities. Global warming author Mark Lynas, who
re-cently travelled around the world witnessing the impact of climate change, said the findings must be a wake up call for
politicians and citizens alike. He said: "This is a global emergency. "We are heading for disaster and yet the world is on fossil
fuel autopilot. There needs to be an immediate phase-out of coal, oil and gas and a phase in of clean energy sources.
People can no longer ignore this looming ca-tastrophe."
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 14
1AC–Observation 4: Economy
US is heading toward recession now.
Associated Press. 04/10/08. “Sober IMF forecast for U.S. and global economies”, Lexis
The United States is headed for a recession, dragging world economic growth down along with it, the International
Monetary Fund concluded in a sobering forecast yesterday that underscored the damage inflicted by the housing and credit
debacles. The IMF's World Economic Outlook served as a reminder of just how swiftly economic fortunes in the United
States and beyond can unravel, affecting people, investors and businesses around the globe. The fund slashed growth
projections for the United States - the epicenter of the woes - and for the world economy. The fragile state of affairs greatly
raises the odds that the global economy could fall into a slump, the IMF said. Financial problems that erupted in August 2007
"spread quickly and unpredictably" and caused "extensive damage," the IMF said.
Nuclear power key to the economy
Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition, grassroots coalition of more than 1,600 members that unites
people across business, environmental, academic, consumer and labor community to support nuclear energy. 07.
“Coalition Statement on Spent Fuel Management.” [Takumi Murayama]
Time has shown that the current fleet of nuclear plants is essential for this nation’s economic growth and development by
providing reliable, affordable energy and a new fleet of nuclear plants will be instrumental to continuing this development as
well as meeting the rising electricity demand and clean air goals before us. A comprehensive used fuel management policy
has a tremendous positive impact on ensuring that the stewardship of used nuclear fuel is aligned with an era in which new
nuclear power plants are being built in the United States and globally.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 15
Congress must provide incentives now to build more nuclear plants. Nuclear
power will revive U.S. leadership and benefit foreign and local markets.
PR Newswire, 6-17-08, “Nuclear Energy’s Resurgence Promises to Spur Job Growth,”

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/06/17/prnewswire200806171059PR_NEWS_USPR
_____NETU094.html [Jiajia Huang]
Each nuclear plant provides 400 to 700 high-paying jobs. -- Depending on construction methods, each new reactor could
require as many as 4,000 workers per project at peak periods. -- According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median
annual salary for nuclear engineers is $82,900 -- approximately $8,000 more than all other engineering disciplines except
petroleum engineering. -- Each of the country's 104 reactors generates an estimated $430 million a year in total output for
the local community, and nearly $40 million per year in total labor income. "Nuclear power provides a clean energy
solution that produces no greenhouse gases and is good for the economy," said Whitman. "A renewed focus on nuclear
energy will translate into tens of thousands of high-paying American jobs needed to build and operate new reactors."
The CASEnergy white paper details the favorable impact of the nuclear industry's resurgence on jobs and the economy -- this
at a time when employment is currently 5.5% and the country needs 25 percent more electricity by 2030, according to
projections by the U.S. Department of Energy.
To realize the economic potential that new reactor projects offer, the nation must invest in the education infrastructure needed
to cultivate the next generation of workers. Close collaboration between energy companies, government and secondary
educational institutions is critical. Although interest among students in nuclear energy careers is growing rapidly, new reactor
construction may be the next catalyst to drive enrollment in college and university programs and create substantial numbers of
new nuclear professionals.
New nuclear plants will also drive the demand for skilled craft labor focused on three areas -- construction, operation and
maintenance. As many as 185,000 new construction workers will be needed in the nuclear energy industry by 2015 for new
positions and to replace approximately 95,000 retiring workers. Joint apprenticeship and training programs in the building and
construction industry are important to ensure that the industry maintains a highly skilled work force.
The CASEnergy Coalition and its more than 1,600 members will work to promote the use of nuclear energy to stimulate our
nation's economy and protect our environment, but it calls on industry, government and educators for support. The need for
energy is a non-partisan issue and the support for nuclear energy is bi-partisan. Those who authored a foreword to the white
paper stated:
(continued on next page)
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 16
"We need to maintain and grow a safe, clean nuclear industry to protect our nation's future energy security and reduce the threat
of global warming. Congress must provide support and incentives to the nuclear industry to help redevelop its workforce,
facilities and capacity, which, in turn, can restore our lead in safe, efficient nuclear manufacturing, while creating tens of
thousands of highly-skilled jobs." -- U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and
Nuclear Safety -- "Nuclear power is growing in the world and our own energy and environmental needs can serve as a
springboard to rebuild American technology and manufacturing capabilities to something approaching the leadership the
nation once enjoyed, contributing to foreign markets as well as supporting our own. A recent nuclear energy roundtable
that Senator Carper and I co-chaired in November with representatives of the government, industry, academia, and labor
leaders including John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO, confirmed my belief that the ongoing resurgence in nuclear power
provides a unique opportunity for the United States to reclaim its leadership role in the advancement of nuclear
technologies and revitalizing nuclear component manufacturing base which should create many high paying jobs for American
workers." -- U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear
Safety -- "Through a renewed commitment to nuclear power, we have a unique opportunity, and a responsibility, to
simultaneously cut greenhouse gases, maintain the affordability of our electricity supply, and give a boost to our ailing
economy. The construction of dozens of new plants on American soil will foster the rebirth of our domestic manufacturing
industry and create tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs. Not only will our environment be better for it, our
national security will also be fortified. Millions of households will be powered by zero-emission nuclear power and our
nation's economy will be powered by nuclear as well." -- U.S. Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI), Ranking Republican on the
House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality -- "In light of what high gas prices are doing not only to our local economy,
but our national and global economy, the time to act with respect to alternative and renewable energy sources is now.
Nuclear energy is a clean and efficient form of power. Its potential is important to our energy policy nationally. It is proven
over the years to be safe and reliable and will play a large role as one of our sources to overcome our dependence on foreign
oil." -- Bill Saffo, Mayor of Wilmington, N.C. -- "We must continue to support the expansion of nuclear energy to maintain
jobs and economic growth in America. A robust economy demands more energy, even as we pursue alternative means such as
conservation and efficiency. Failure to supply those increased energy demands will raise energy costs for manufacturers and
consumers and hurt our global competitiveness." -- John Engler, President and CEO, National Association of Manufacturers --
"As a college student, I chose to study nuclear engineering because I was fascinated by the science and I believed nuclear
science and technology make important contributions to society. Working in the industry more than met those expectations
and I've enjoyed many challenging opportunities to learn and grow. Plus, I know I'm doing my part to make the world a better
place." -- Lisa Stiles, Project Manager, Strategic Staffing and Knowledge Management, Dominion Nuclear. -- "The industry
needs engineers, technicians and other professionals to support, operate and maintain existing nuclear plants. Moreover, well
educated and trained workers are needed for all of the new plants that are being ordered to meet growing energy demand while
cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and to conduct research and development on the next generation of reactors. To cultivate
job creation and seize on the opportunities ahead, we must invest in our educational infrastructure by strengthening existing
educational and training programs while developing new and innovative programs to attract and retain a skilled workforce." --
Gilbert J. Brown, PhD., Professor and Coordinator, Nuclear Engineering Program, University of Massachusetts Lowell -- "The
nuclear industry is experiencing growth in both new plant builds and a multitude of exciting, rewarding and diverse job
opportunities. Today's young professionals in the nuclear industry are excited to be part of an industry that will not only support
long-term career opportunities but also provides the world with clean, safe, and reliable energy and innovative nuclear science
& technology solutions." -- Michael Kurzeja, Vice President, North American Young Generation in Nuclear About the Clean
and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 17
Nuclear Energy is critical to US and world economies through US exports.
Economic Policy Studies, 7-2-08, “Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other Nations”,
Affordable energy is critical to sustaining economic competitiveness in economies with high labor costs, expensive
environmental mandates, and other regulatory expenditures. This is especially true in economies that depend on energy-
intensive activities like manufacturing, such as the Finnish and U.S. economies. Finland concluded that access to vast
quantities of affordable energy should be a top national priority, and nuclear was an obvious choice. These countries and
others searching to expand their nuclear capacity have an opportunity to fuel their respective economies through the
thousands of jobs, both temporary and permanent, that nuclear energy creates. 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.
Economic decline will spawn escalating wars that can go nuclear
Bernardo V. Lopez, journalist for BusinessWorld. 09/10/98. “Global recession phase two: Catastrophic (Private
sector views),” BusinessWorld, p.12. Lexis. [Takumi Murayama]
What would it be like if global recession becomes full bloom? The results will be catastrophic.
Certainly, global recession will spawn wars of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple for dwindling food
stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional conflicts in key flashpoints can
easily erupt such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in some Latin American countries,
splintered insurgency forces may take advantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the countryside.
Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Famine can be triggered in key Third World nations with India, North
Korea, Ethiopia and other African countries as first candidates. Food riots and the breakdown of law and order are
possibilities.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 18
1AC–Observation 5: US Leadership
Nuclear technology research is key to competitiveness and technological
innovation.
07, "The Nuclear Renaissance: Ten Principles to Guide U.S. Policy,"
1. Avoid creating dependency-based vulnerabilities. To the casual observer, nuclear energy is domestically produced.
The plants exist in America, are generally operated by Americans, and generate electricity distributed to Americans.
This is a narrow view, however; it does not respect the significance of the industrial and intellectual base that
produces the people, components, and fuel necessary to build and operate nuclear plants. After three decades of
decline, the domestic industrial base does not have the capacity to produce the components for a single reactor.
This lack of capacity goes beyond items that are easily found on the international market. Essential components, such
as heavy forgings (the enormous pieces of metal out of which components are manufactured) and specialized piping,
are not available domestically and are in limited supply internationally. These industrial bottlenecks could be difficult
to overcome as nuclear plant construction ramps up. Ultimately, there is little difference between relying on foreign
oil or foreign manufacturing if both allow America's ability to produce energy to be disrupted by foreign interests.
This reliance creates opportunities for others to exercise power over the U.S. Minimizing these leverage points
is central to advancing national interests. The Administration and Congress must avoid the potential vulnerabilities
and risks associated with foreign energy dependence. 2. Establish technological leadership across the spectrum of
military, civilian, and commercial nuclear activities. The international influx of investment to the commercial
nuclear sector (public and private) almost guarantees that more advanced nuclear technologies, some of which
could threaten the United States, will become available to unfriendly actors. Preventing this requires that the
U.S. and its allies establish technological superiority across the spectrum of nuclear activities. Close links among
civil, commercial, and military nuclear technologies will assure that those nations with the most advanced
commercial and industrial capabilities are able to develop the most advanced military technologies. Therefore,
it is vitally important that America's nuclear industrial base, along with that of its close allies, both commercial
and military, remain globally preeminent.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 19
Technological innovation key to hegemony
Adam Segal Foreign Affairs, 11/17/04
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster
than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured
the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the
semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead.
Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is
coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and
preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science
and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published
by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-
largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of
software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of
computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such
as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing.
Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting
considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both
a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to
prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than
everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at
fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
Hegemony is key to prevent nuclear proliferation and global nuclear war.
Zalmay Khalilzad, Renowned Theorist on Levinas and Foucault, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND,
Spring 95. “Losing the Moment?” Washington Quarterly. Lexis
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a
return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a
vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have
tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --
democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively
with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-
level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States
and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange.
U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power
system.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 20
1AC–Observation 6: Solvency
Deregulation is empirically proven to boost nuclear research
EnergyBiz, bimonthly business magazine for leaders in the new power industry. 02/06/08. “Running Smarter -
Upgrading Nuclear Operations.” [Takumi Murayama]
Talk about a turnaround. The average capacity factor of nuclear plants around 1990 was a dismal 70 percent, according to
statistics collected by the Nuclear Energy Institute. When the 1992 energy act ushered in the era of deregulation, the only
future for nuclear that Wall Street and the industry could see was decommissioning and sunken costs. Today, the average for
all 104 plants is about 90 percent, with some plants running closer to 95 percent.
Adrian Heymer, NEI's senior director for new plant development, points to similarly impressive improvements in unplanned
outages and productivity, with the number of workers-per-megawatt falling from 1.2 at the end of the 1980s to around 0.7
today. Even in a highly competitive energy environment, nuclear is, at least on an operational basis, not only price competitive
but in some instances the cheapest of all available alternatives. In fact, operating costs per kilowatt-hour in 2006 were 1.68
cents for nuclear versus 2.2 cents for coal, according to NEI.
The real agent of change has been structural. Many nuclear operators have put in place a management structure with
specific lines of responsibility, clearly articulated goals, a standardization of best practices, and a commitment to continuous
improvement. Add the economies of scale and deep pool of skilled and experienced personnel that come from sheer size
and you have the formula for success that's transformed even poorly performing plants into profitable sites.
An amendment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would boost the private sector
and put the US at the forefront of nuclear energy development.
Jack Spencer, research fellow in nuclear energy. 06/23/08. “A Free-Market Approach to Managing Used
Nuclear Fuel,” Heritage. [Takumi Murayama]
The current approach to managing used nuclear fuel is systemically broken. It was developed to support a nuclear industry
that was largely believed to be in decline; that is no longer the case. The federal government promised to take title of the
used fuel and dispose of it; this removed any incentive for the private sector to develop better ways to manage the fuel
that could be more consistent with an emerging nuclear industry. And the federal government has proven incapable of
fulfilling its obligations to dispose of the fuel.
The current system is driven by government programs and politics. There is little connection between used-fuel management
programs and the needs of the nuclear industry. Any successful plan must grow out of the private sector. The time has come
for the federal government to step aside and allow utilities, nuclear technology companies, and consumers to manage used
nuclear fuel. Overhauling the nation's nuclear-waste management regime will not be easy. It will require a significant
amendment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and a long-term commitment by Congress, the Administration, and
industry. But developing such a system would put the United States well on its way to re-establishing itself as a global
leader in nuclear energy.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 21
Federal deregulation on Yucca Mountain will act as an incentive to new plants
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982[1] attempted to establish a comprehensive disposal strategy for high-level nuclear
waste. This strategy has failed. The gov ernment has spent billions of dollars without opening a repository, has yet to receive
any waste, and is amassing billions of dollars of liability. Furthermore, the strategy has removed any incentive to find more
workable alter natives. For those that actually produce waste and would benefit most from its efficient disposal, this strat egy
has created a disincentive for developing sustain able, market-based waste-management strategies.
The strategy codified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act seemed straightforward and economically sound when it was developed
in the early 1980s. It charged the fed eral government with disposing of used nuclear fuel and created a structure through which
users of nuclear energy would pay a set fee for the service--a fee that has never been adjusted, even for inflation. These
payments would go to the Nuclear Waste Fund, which the federal government could access through congressional appro-
priations to pay for disposal activities.
The federal government has accumulated approx imately $27 billion (fees plus interest) in the Nuclear Waste Fund and has
spent about $8 billion to prepare the repository for operations, leaving a balance of around $19 billion. Utility payments into
the fund total about $750 million annually. Yet the repository has never opened, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars.
The taxpayers have fared no better. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act set January 31, 1998, as the deadline for the federal
government to begin receiving used fuel. The government's refusal to take possession of the used fuel has made both the
federal government and the taxpayers liable to the nuclear power plant operators for an increasingly enormous amount that is
projected to reach $7 billion by 2017.[2]
The federal government's inability to fulfill its legal obligations under the 1982 act has often been cited as a significant
obstacle to building additional nuclear power plants. Given nuclear power's poten tial to help solve many of the nation's
energy prob lems, now is the time to break the impasse over managing the nation's used nuclear fuel.
The United States has 58,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste stored at more than 100 sites in 39 states,[3] and its 104
commercial nuclear reactors produce approximately 2,000 tons of used fuel every year. The Yucca Mountain repository's
capac ity is statutorily limited to 70,000 tons of waste (not to mention the problems associated with even opening the
repository). Of this, 63,000 tons will be allocated to commercial waste, and 7,000 tons will be allocated to the Department of
Energy (DOE).
These are arbitrary limitations that Congress set without regard to Yucca's actual capacity. As cur rently defined by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Yucca would reach capacity in about three years unless the law is changed. Thus, even if Yucca
becomes operational, it will not be a permanent solution, and the nation would soon be back at the drawing board.
The repository's actual capacity, however, is much larger than the current limit. Congress should repeal the 70,000-ton
limitation immediately and instead let technology, science, and physical capac ity determine the limit. Recent studies have
found that the Yucca repository could safely hold 120,000 tons of waste. According to the DOE, that should be enough to hold
all of the used fuel produced by cur rently operating reactors.[4] Some believe the capac ity is even greater.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 22
Waste disposal is key to nuclear energy.
Paul P. Craig, University of California, Davis. 11/99. “HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE: The Status of
Yucca Mountain,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 24: 461-486.
[Takumi Murayama]
The nuclear industry has moved vigorously in an effort to force the government to honor its legal obligation to take over
high-level nuclear waste. The industry is motivated by two major considerations. Energy prices have plummeted, making
natural gas-fired electricity generation relatively cheap and undercutting nuclear electricity. Under “rate-of-return” regulation
with returns to shareholders based on capital investment, there was a time when capital-intensive nuclear power plants were
attractive. With deregulation, utilities are seeking to unburden themselves of the “sunk costs” of nuclear plants. Increasingly the
economics of nuclear plants are driven by operating and maintenance (O&M) rather than capital costs. Utilities have economic
incentives to close inefficient plants and to consider shutdown of any plant with the prospect of large upkeep expenses,
such as replacement of failing steam generators or construction of spent-fuel storage facilities.
Utilities have filed several lawsuits seeking to force the government to take ownership of spent nuclear fuel. On July 23, 1996,
a federal appeals court ruled that DOE was required to meet the 1998 deadline. On November 14, 1997, the courts confirmed
that DOE was required to meet the January 1, 1998, deadline, and ruled that utilities must continue to pay into the nuclear
waste fund even if DOE does not accept fuel, and the utilities must seek redress for damages under civil law (36).
Subsequently, several utilities filed suit in civil court.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI; www.nei.org), a nuclear-industry organization, insists that high-level nuclear waste be
removed from reactor sites. However, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), which has built an interim storage
facility at its closed Rancho Seco (CA) reactor, has indicated that it has no objection to the federal government (DOE) taking
ownership of the facility. In 1999, DOE Secretary Bill Richardson proposed that the DOE take ownership of spent fuel at both
operating and closed reactors. Utilities and environmental groups reacted mostly negatively. For now, excepting a few instances
of consolidation, spent fuel is staying put at the reactors where it was produced.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 23
And, Fear of nuclear energy is the creation of flawed logic and

misrepresentations.
Perhaps the greatest myths surrounding nuclear power concern the consequences of past accidents and their association
with current risks. All of these myths depend on a basic construct of flawed logic and misrepresentations that is riddled
with logical and factual errors. First, the consequences of Chernobyl are overblown to invoke general fear of nuclear power.
Next, the Three Mile Island accident is falsely equated with Chernobyl to create the illusion of danger at home. Finally, any
accident, no matter how minor, is portrayed as being ever so close to another nuclear catastrophe to demonstrate the
dangers of new nuclear power. This myth can be dispelled outright simply by revisiting the real consequences of Chernobyl
and Three Mile Island in terms of actual fatalities. Although any loss of life is a tragedy, a more realistic presentation of the
facts would use these accidents to demonstrate the inherent safety of nuclear power. Chernobyl was the result of human
error and poor design. Of the fewer than 50 fatalities,[12] most were rescue workers who unknowingly entered contaminated
areas without being informed of the danger. The World Heath Organization says that up to 4,000 fatalities could ultimately
result from Chernobyl-related cancers, but this has not yet happened. The primary health effect was a spike in thyroid cancer
among children, with 4,000-5,000 children diagnosed with the cancer between 1992 and 2002. Of these, 15 children died, but
99 percent of cases were resolved favorably. No clear evidence indicates any increase in other cancers among the most heavily
affected populations. Of course, this does not mean that cancers could not increase at some future date. Interestingly, the World
Health Organization has also identified a condition called "paralyzing fatalism," which is caused by "persistent myths and mis-
perceptions about the threat of radiation."[13] In other words, the propagation of ignorance by anti-nuclear activists has
caused more harm to the affected populations than has the radioactive fallout from the actual accident. The most serious
accident in U.S. history involved the partial meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island, but no deaths or injuries resulted.
The local population of 2 million people received an average estimated dose of about 1 millirem--insignificant compared to the
100-125 millirems that each person receives annually from naturally occurring background radiation in the area.[14] Other
incidents have occurred since then, and all have been resolved safely. For example, safety inspections revealed a hole
forming in a vessel-head at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio. Although only an inch of steel cladding prevented the hole from
opening, the NRC found that the plant could have operated another 13 months and that the steel cladding could have withstood
pressures 125 percent above normal operations.[15]
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 24
2AC Add-on: Reprocessing

Privatization of nuclear waste management leads to reprocessing efforts by
firms
As prices change and business models emerge, firms that recycle used fuel would likely be established. Multiple factors
would feed into the economics of recycling nuclear fuel. Operators would make decisions based not only on the cost of
placing waste in Yucca, but also on the price of fuel.
If a global nuclear renaissance does unfold, the prices for uranium and fuel services will likely rise. This would place greater
value on the fuel resources that could be recovered from used fuel, thus affecting the overall economics of recycling. Instead
of the federal government deciding what to build, when to build it, and which technology should emerge, the private
sector would make those determinations.
Some nuclear operators may determine that one type of recycling works for them, while others may decide that a
different method is more appropriate. This would create competition and encourage the development of the most
appropriate technologies for the American market.
Yucca Mountain only works in conjunction with recycling
Yet even with an expanded capacity of 120,000 tons, Yucca Mountain could hold only a few more years of America's
nuclear waste if the U.S. signifi cantly increases its nuclear power production. According to one analysis, America's current
operat ing reactors would generate enough used fuel to fill a 70,000-ton Yucca right away and a 120,000-ton Yucca over
their lifetime. If nuclear power produc tion increased by 1.8 percent annually after 2010, a 120,000-ton Yucca would be
full by 2030. At that growth rate, without recycling any used fuel, the U.S. would need nine Yucca Mountains by the turn of the
century.[5]
Given the difficulty of opening one repository, rely ing on future repositories would be extremely risky. With the right mix of
technologies such as storage and recycling, Yucca could last almost indefinitely.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 25
Reprocessing solves for any nuclear waste concerns.
FACT: The nuclear industry solved the nuclear waste problem decades ago. Spent nuclear fuel can be removed from the
reactor, reprocessed to separate unused fuel, and then used again. The remaining waste could then be placed in either
interim or long-term storage, such as in the Yucca Mountain repository. France and other countries carry out some version of
this process safely every day. Furthermore, technology advances could yield greater efficiencies and improve the process.
The argument that there is no solution to the waste problem is simply wrong. "Closing the fuel cycle" by reprocessing or
recycling spent fuel would enable the U.S. to move away, finally, from relying so heavily on the proposed Yucca Mountain
repository for the success of its nuclear program. This would allow for a more reasonable mixed approach to nuclear waste,
which would likely include some combination of Yucca Mountain, interim storage, recycling, and new technologies.
Regrettably, the federal government banned the recycling of spent fuel from commercial U.S. reactors in 1977, and the nation
has practiced a virtual moratorium on the process ever since.[3]
Recycling nuclear waste would extend uranium resources indefinitely and

prevent proliferation
Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller, Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University,
Research Professor at University of Nevada in Las Vegas, 1/2K, “The Need for Nuclear Power”, Foreign
Affairs, Lexis-Nexis, [Crystal Xia]
Ironically, burying spent fuel without extracting its plutonium through reprocessing would actually increase the long-
term risk of nuclear proliferation, since the decay of less-fissile and more-radioactive isotopes in spent fuel after one to three
centuries improves the explosive qualities of the plutonium it contains, making it more attractive for weapons use. Besides
extending the world's uranium resources almost indefinitely, recycling would make it possible to convert plutonium to
useful energy while breaking it down into shorter-lived, nonfissionable, nonthreatening nuclear waste. Hundreds of tons
of weapons-grade plutonium, which cost the nuclear superpowers billions of dollars to produce, have become military surplus
in the past decade. Rather than burying some of this strategically worrisome but energetically valuable material -- as
Washington has proposed -- it should be recycled into nuclear fuel. An international system to recycle and manage such
fuel would prevent covert proliferation. As envisioned by Edward Arthur, Paul Cunningham, and Richard Wagner of the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, such a system would combine internationally monitored retrievable storage, the processing of all
separated plutonium into MOX fuel for power reactors, and, in the longer term, advanced integrated materials-processing
reactors that would receive, control, and process all fuel discharged from reactors throughout the world, generating electricity
and reducing spent fuel to short-lived nuclear waste ready for permanent geological storage.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 26
2AC: Inherency
1. Nuclear energy is the BEST alternative to fossil fuels, but current incentives
fail.
Jack Spencer, Research Fellow @ The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.
11/15/07. “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm [Takumi
Murayama]
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 Amer ica'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.
2. Regulations are what are preventing nuclear energy now–that’s Loris and
Spencer 07.
3. Note that that card also says that the barrier is NOT economic viability;
government regulation is what prevents investors from wanting to invest in
nuclear energy.
4. The biggest hedge to new nuclear R&D is the lack of waste disposal–our plan
is THE KEY step to spur nuclear energy. Extend Stratfor 07.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 27
1AR: Inherency
1. ALL current government incentives are failing. Extend Spencer 07.
2. The only barrier to nuclear energy R&D is regulatory risk. Extend Loris
and Spencer 07.
3. Yucca Mountain would provide the necessary incentive to start

developing. Extend Stratfor 07.
4. Note that our evidence acknowledges of current government incentives;

they explain how these incentives are not enough and not the right type
of incentives.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 28
2AC: T–Nuclear ≠ Renewable

1. We meet – Nuclear is an alternative energy source
Michael Giller, writer for School Library Journal. 07/07. Grom Steam Engines to Nuclear Fusion:
Discovering Energy/From Greek Atoms to Quarks: Discovering Atoms/From Windmills to Hydrogen
Fuel Cells: Discovering Alternative Energy. [Takumi
Murayama]
These titles link discoveries and inventions to earlier and contemporaneous ones, revealing the “chain reactions” that are often
involved in advancements in technology and in knowledge. Ballard defines energy and its sources and traces its development
from steam in the Industrial Revolution to nuclear energy and subatomic particles. Morgan tells the story of the atom,
including its discovery, structure, power, and future in subatomic particles. In the third book, she focuses on alternative
energy sources and includes wind, solar, water, nuclear, geothermal, biopower, and fuel-cell technologies. Archival and full-
color photos and reproductions appear on nearly every page. Solid presentations.
2. We meet – Nuclear is a renewable energy
21st Century Science Tech. Summer 05. “Nuclear Fuel Is Renewable.”

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Renewable.pdf [Takumi
Murayama]
The first thing to know about nuclear waste is that it isn’t “waste” at all, but a renewable resource that can be reprocessed
into new nuclear fuel and valuable isotopes. The chief reason it is called “waste,” is that the anti-technology lobby doesn’t want
the public to know about this renewability. Turning spent fuel into a threatening and insoluble problem, the anti-nuclear faction
figured, would make the spread of nuclear energy impossible. And without nuclear energy, the world would not industrialize,
and the world population would not grow—just what the Malthusians want.
The truth is that when we entered the nuclear age, the great promise of nuclear energy was its renewability, making it an
inexpensive and efficient way to produce electricity. It was assumed that the nations making use of nuclear energy would
reprocess their spent fuel, completing the nuclear fuel cycle by renewing the original enriched uranium fuel for reuse, after it
was burned in a reactor.
When other modern fuel sources—wood, coal, oil, gas— are burned, there is nothing left, except some ashes and air-
borne pollutant by-products, which nuclear energy does not produce. But spent nuclear fuel still has from 95 percent to 99
percent of unused uranium in it, and this can be recycled.
This means that if the United States buries its 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, we would be wasting 66,000 metric tons
of uranium-238, which could be used to make new fuel. In addition, we would be wasting about 1,200 metric tons of fissile
uranium-235 and plutonium-239. Because of the high energy density in the nucleus, this relatively small amount of fuel (it
would fit in one small house) is equivalent in energy to about 20 percent of the U.S. oil reserves.
Ninety-six percent of the spent fuel can be turned into new fuel. The 4 percent of the so-called waste that remains—2,500
metric tons—consists of highly radioactive materials, but these are also usable. There are about 80 tons each of cesium-137 and
strontium-90 that could be separated out for use in medical applications, such as sterilization of medical supplies. Using isotope
separation techniques, and fast-neutron bombardment for transmutation (technologies that the United States pioneered but now
refuses to develop), we could separate out all sorts of isotopes, like americium, which is used in smoke detectors, or isotopes
used in medical testing and treatment.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 29
3. Counter-interpretation – Recent legislation defines nuclear power as alternative

energy
Drew Winter, EJ Magazine, 2007, “Nuclear Renaissance”, http://www.ejmagazine.com/2007b/pdfs/nuclear.pdf

[Takumi Murayama]
The reason for the sudden interest in nuclear power is due largely to a streamlined licensing process and the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
The act, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., grants numerous subsidies to
utilities building nuclear power plants. These plants are listed as an alternative energy source along with wind, solar
and other so-called green options. Subsidies include up to $125 million in annual tax credit, an 80 percent loan on
construction costs and other benefits for reactors using new technology.
4. Prefer our interpretation:
A. Most real world–science publications ALL support nuclear energy as an

alternative energy source. Even the USfg lists nuclear energy as a key
alternative energy source.
B. Limits–we don’t explode the topic, since our interpretation allows for
their cases, plus nuclear energy. We should expect them to know what
the status quo defines as alternative energy.
C. Ground–they get all of their fossil fuel trade-off DA’s and DA’s off of
specific alternative energies. They overlimit the topic by requiring
energy sources that don’t use any resources, which kind of destroys
EVERY energy source; even wind and solar take resources to construct.
They preclude the core literature on the topic.
D. Literature checks–the core literature deals with nuclear power AS

WELL AS other alternatives to coal/oil/natural gas. There is ample
predictability.
E. Education–allows in-depth education about the topic, which nuclear

energy is a large part of.
5. Reasonability GOOD: No ground loss–they still can read whatever they want
in the 1NC.
6. Competing interpretations BAD: They lead to a race to the bottom, turning

education. They can always exclude the aff, and can run T as a timesuck.
7. T is not a voter–it’s a must-win for the aff, and only in-round abuse can
POSSIBLY justify a neg ballot. They can’t prove in-round abuse.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 30
1AR: T–Nuclear ≠ Renewable

1. Extend we meet – Giller 07 and 21st Century Science Tech 05 say that nuclear is a
form of alternative energy AND a form of renewable energy in the status quo.
2. Extend counter-interpretation – Winter 07 says current federal policy

includes nuclear power as alternative energy. Prefer our interpretation
for most real world, limits, ground, lit checks, and education.
3. Extend Reasonability good – we’re reasonably topical! Also extend

counter-interpretations bad – it’s a race to the bottom
4. Extend T is not a voter – no in-round abuse.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 31
2AC: T–Removing Disincentives ≠ Incentives

1. We meet – waste disposal acts as an incentive for nuclear power plant construction
and R&D.
2. We meet – we provide an incentive for private companies to research and

develop nuclear power.
3. Counter-Interpretation: Removing a disincentive is an incentive
New York State Energy Bill, http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A03678

BILL NUMBER: A3678 TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the real property tax law, in relation to providing an exemption
from taxation of energy star-compliant improvements to certain residential premises PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF
BILL : To create an incentive (by removing a disincentive) for energy saving capital improvements to residential real
property.
4. Prefer our interpretation:
A. Most real world–the energy code of New York shows that our definition
is at work in the policymaking process RIGHT NOW.
B. Limits–they over-limit the topic by preventing us from using ANY

CURRENTLY REGULATED ENERGIES, which includes basically
everything. We would always lose, since there are basically no affs we
could run.
C. Ground–the neg gains the ground of specific DA’s and CP’s based on
our removal of dicincentives.
D. Literature checks–there are only a limited number of disincentives we

can remove, and even a smaller number of disincentives that authors
advocate removing.
E. Education–allows in-depth education about current USfg policies, and

research about why the status quo is key, which is what the neg should
be ready to defend.
5. Reasonability GOOD: No ground loss–they still can read whatever they want
in the 1NC.
6. Competing interpretations BAD: They lead to a race to the bottom, turning

education. They can always exclude the aff, and can run T as a timesuck.
7. T is not a voter–it’s a must-win for the aff, and only in-round abuse can
POSSIBLY justify a neg ballot. They can’t prove in-round abuse.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 32
1AR: T–Removing Disincentives ≠ Incentives

1. Extend we meet – waste management is an incentive. Extend Craig 99 and
Spencer 08 from the 1AC.
2. Extend our counter-interpretation – prefer because it’s the most real

world, limits, ground, lit checks, and education
3. Extend Reasonability good – we’re reasonably topical! Also extend

counter-interpretations bad – it’s a race to the bottom
4. Extend T is not a voter – no in-round abuse.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 33
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Perm

A. Do both –
1. There’ll be more alternative energy to trade off with fossil fuels that
cause global warming. Consequently, there’s double solvency. The Perm
solves best.
2. Different forms of alternative energy will attract a wider variety of

consumers, giving even more solvency for the Perm.
3. Renewables can’t solve alone – nuclear technology is key to solve.
Steve Kerekes, senior director of media relations at the Nuclear Energy Institute, 11-9-07, “Nuclear
Power in Response to the Climate Change” http://www.cfr.org/publication
14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html, [Crystal Xia]
I love it! Now Michael’s knock on nuclear energy is that it’s a “mature” technology—meaning not so much that it’s been
around for a while but that it’s actually generated huge amounts of emission-free electricity. Setting aside the fact that the sun
and the wind have been around since, say, the dawn of time, here’s what the Cato Institute—no friend of government
investment in nuclear energy—revealed in a January 2002 “Policy Analysis”: “R&D dollars have not handicapped renewable
energy technologies. Over the past 20 years, those technologies have received (in inflation-adjusted 1996 dollars) $24.2 billion
in federal R&D subsidies, while nuclear energy has received $20.1 billion and fossil fuels only $15.5 billion.” So it’s a
complete myth that Michael’s preferred technologies haven’t gotten the money. They have. In fact, nuclear and renewables
make a nice, emission-free combination. Of course, renewables cannot meet baseload, 24-hour a day, seven-day a week
electricity demand. Nuclear power can. Our industry average capacity factor—which measures actual electricity production
relative to theoretical production non-stop for a full year—has been right around 90 percent for the past seven years. By
comparison, the Department of Energy pegs the average capacity for state-of-the-art wind projects at 36 percent, with older
projects lagging at 30 percent or lower. I agree that it’s prudent to use limited resources wisely. Yet the investment resources for
energy technologies aren’t as limited as Michael thinks. Morgan Stanley Vice Chairman Jeffrey Holzschuh has a presentation
in which he notes that the U.S. utility industry investment needs for the next thirteen years total about $1 trillion. Of that total
infrastructure need, $350 billion, or $23 billion per year, is needed for electric-generating facilities. Of that sum, the capital
required to build an additional 15,000-20,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity over the next fifteen years is about $3.5
billion per year. Meanwhile, over the past five years, the investment capital raised by the U.S. power industry has ranged
between $50 billion and $79 billion annually. In other words, new nuclear plant construction will barely make a dent in the
ability of U.S. capital markets to finance new energy projects. This is not an “either-or” scenario. We need all these
emission-free energy technologies. The fact that nuclear energy has proven its value as a reliable, affordable source of
clean energy is cause for hope.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 34
4. The perm would be the most effective in solving energy problems.
Matt Stalker, External relations at IChemE, 6-19-08, IChemE, “Chemical Engineers warn: No single-
source solution to looming energy shortages,” http://cms.icheme.org/mainwebsite/general-
barafc3d75d.aspx?map=24e5b79a7e504e830fabf5924e6f94f6 [Jiajia Huang]
Government policymakers have been warned today that there is no single solution to the UK’s looming energy crisis.
Andrew Furlong, Director of Policy at IChemE says that a new report published by the UK’s Innovation, Universities, Science
and Skills (IUSS) committee into renewable electricity reaches similar conclusions to those reached by IChemE two years ago:
“There is no single-source solution to our future energy needs and a range of options including nuclear, renewables and
fossil fuels must be deployed,” said Furlong.
With latest estimates suggesting that UK energy bills could rise by £400 this winter, Furlong also advised that a shortage of
properly qualified scientists and engineers could restrict further implementation of new technologies: “The design, operation
and management of these facilities won’t ‘happen by magic’. We need more skilled scientists and engineers. Consequently, the
looming skills shortage is of critical concern.”
Although chemical engineering courses in the UK are enjoying record student intake, many university departments are now at
full capacity. Last year, the CBI said that the UK needs an extra 2.4 million science and technology graduates by 2014 to meet
demand.
“Government and industry investment is essential to support the expansion of existing science and engineering faculties
and new ones being created,” said Furlong.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 35
1AR: Alternative Energy CP–Perm

1. Extend Perm–do both. It solves the best.
2. There is absolutely no chance for solvency for renewables unless we use

nuclear power as well–That’s Kerekes 07.
3. The perm solves best–we need a multi-tiered approach to global warming.

That’s Stalker 08.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 36
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Proliferation Solvency Deficit

1. The negative doesn’t access our proliferation advantage at all. Through the
plan, nuclear energy will be safer, with the US engaged. That’s Hagengruber
08. They have NO WAY to access this extinction scenario.
2. Promoting nuclear growth makes it easier to limit nuclear weaponry in the

future.
07, "The Nuclear Renaissance: Ten Principles to Guide U.S. Policy,"
The prevailing thrust of global nonproliferation policy has been to keep weapons out of the hands of non-weapons states. The
grand bargain of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was that its parties would have access to all nuclear technology so long as
it was not weaponized. This allowed countries like Iran and North Korea to operate within the letter of the treaty while
amassing technology to begin a weapons program. With the growth of nuclear power, the focus should be on the fuel cycle.
Rather than be based on five nuclear weapons states, the nonproliferation regime should be based on a limited number of
nuclear diverse fuel states. Some countries could still pursue nuclear weapons, but by focusing on fuel cycle activities, this
nonproliferation regime would make such nations much easier to identify, because they will have moved beyond the
bounds of international norms much earlier in the process.
3. Resolving nuclear waste problems are the only way to increase nuclear
energy R&D and combat proliferation, since increased nuclear energy
worldwide is the MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DISPOSE OF NUCLEAR SOURCE
MATERIAL. That’s Dawson 05.
4. Failure to do nuclear R&D creates a void for other nations to proliferate.

Extend Spencer 07.
5. Canberra Times 7/19 says that nuclear R&D solves for the MOTIVATIONS
behind nuclear proliferation. Don’t buy any turns they have; they don’t assume
that the very motivations behind nuclear proliferation are solved.
6. Our impact outweighs any of their impacts; it’s EXTINCTION! Extend Utgoff
02; proliferation necessarily leads to global nuclear war and extinction. It
outweighs any of their impacts, since Utgoff makes it a necessary cause/effect
relationship.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 37
1AR: Alternative Energy CP–Proliferation Solvency Deficit

1. Nuclear R&D is the only way to prevent proliferation. Extend Hagengruber
08.
2. We solve proliferation FOREVAR! Extend 2AC Spencer 07.
3. Our plan is the UNIQUE way to solve for proliferation; that’s Dawson 05.
Don’t let them try to access proliferation in ANY OTHER FASHION; Dawson says
that R&D is the ONLY way to access our advantage.
4. Failure to R&D leads to proliferation and extinction – extend Spencer 07 and

Utgoff 02.
5. Prefer our evidence – their evidence does not presume that we solve for the
VERY MOTIVATIONS behind proliferation. Extend Canberra Times 7/19.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 38
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Global Warming Solvency Deficit

1. Nuclear energy solves for global warming better than all alternative
energies. Only an increase in nuclear energy capacity will solve global
warming. That’s Weeks 06. It’s the only alternative source that can replace
fossil fuels and solve because its capacity is enormous and does NOT release
carbon.
2. Other alternative energies have NO CHANCE, no matter how much money

you throw at the problem. That’s both Mariotte 07 and Lovelock 04.
3. Vote aff NOW to solve for the SYSTEMIC IMPACTS of global warming.
Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a more serious threat
than terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke, new evidence of climate change suggests
it could be even more serious, and the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far. Most of us are aware of
some degree of warming; winters are warmer and spring comes earlier. But in the Arctic, warming is more than
twice as great as here in Europe and in summertime, torrents of melt water now plunge from Greenland's
kilometre-high glaciers. The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time, but by then the sea
will have risen seven metres, enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world,
including London, Venice, Calcutta, New York and Tokyo. Even a two metre rise is enough to put most of
southern Florida under water. The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming; in 30
years, its white reflecting ice, the area of the US, may become dark sea that absorbs the warmth of summer sunlight,
and further hastens the end of the Greenland ice. The North Pole, goal of so many explorers, will then be no more
than a point on the ocean surface. Not only the Arctic is changing; climatologists warn a four-degree rise in
temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people, their biodiversity,
and for the world, which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners. The scientists who form the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and
six degrees Celsius by 2100. Their grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat; and
according to Swiss meteorologists, the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20,000 was wholly different from
any previous heat wave. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300,000 to one. It was a
warning of worse to come.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 39
4. The neg has NO WAY to access our Sydney Morning Herald 03 impact of 95%
extinction of species and 100 million years before recovery of biodiversity.
5. We outweigh 100% on magnitude, since it’s the EXTINCTION OF 95% OF

SPECIES; and on timeframe and probability because it’s SYSTEMIC.
6. Nuclear energy is the most clean, practical alternative energy, and could
even help reduce CO2 emissions from transportation.
NCPA, Member of E-Team, 7-27-06, A National Center for Policy Analysis Project, Nuclear Power May Be
Answer To Global Warming, http://eteam.ncpa.org/news/nuclear-power-may-be-answer-to-global-warming
[Jiajia Huang]
DALLAS (July 27, 2006) - As former Vice President Al Gore's global warming movie nears the end of its run in theaters, a
new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) suggests combating climate change requires creative thinking
about the world's energy needs. According to the report, nuclear power holds the most promise as a clean, practical
alternative to fossil fuels that could help satisfy the world economy's growing demand for energy.
"If we buy the theory that human use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) is causing global warming, we must reassess how
we are going to fuel economic growth in the future," said Pete Geddes, executive vice president of the Foundation for Research
on Economics and the Environment (FREE) and co-author of the report. "Nuclear power very well could be the best choice
to reduce the threat arguably posed by fossil fuels."
Sustaining economic growth in developed countries and accelerating growth in the developing world means that energy
demand will increase dramatically in the coming century. The International Energy Agency projects world energy demand will
grow 65 percent by 2020. According to the report, reducing the amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere, while still
meeting the energy demands of an expected population of more than 9 billion people by 2050, requires reconsidering nuclear
power - a safe, practical alternative.
Despite opposition, nuclear power currently produces much of the electric power in developed countries.
Nuclear power provides about 75 percent of the electricity in France and 20 percent in the United States.
With 434 operating reactors worldwide, nuclear power meets the electrical needs of more than a billion people.
China alone is planning to build 30 nuclear reactors over the next five years.
Nuclear power has advantages over fossil fuels. A single, quarter-ounce pellet of uranium generates as much energy as
3.5 barrels of oil, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 1,780 pounds of coal, with none of the CO2 emissions. However,
conventional reactors only utilize approximately 3 percent of the energy contained in nuclear fuel. If the United States joined
France and Japan in recycling used fuel, and recycled the more than 15,000 plutonium pits removed from dismantled U.S.
nuclear weapons, existing and recycled supplies would provide an almost unlimited amount of nuclear fuel.
"Nuclear power could also help reduce CO2 emissions from transportation," noted NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling
Burnett, co-author of the report. "For instance, running new light rail and subway systems on electricity generated by
nuclear plants - rather than coal or gas-fired power plants - would prevent new emissions."
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 40
7. Nuclear energy is the only sane, practical solution. Ignore any alternatives
the neg gives.
Peter Schwartz and Spencer Reiss, 02/05 “Nuclear Now! How clean, green atomic energy can stop global
warming” http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html [Takumi Murayama]
The consequences aren't pretty. Burning coal and other fossil fuels is driving climate change, which is blamed for
everything from western forest fires and Florida hurricanes to melting polar ice sheets and flooded Himalayan hamlets.
On top of that, coal-burning electric power plants have fouled the air with enough heavy metals and other noxious
pollutants to cause 15,000 premature deaths annually in the US alone, according to a Harvard School of Public Health
study. Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor
- right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site. (And, by the way, more than 5,200 Chinese coal miners
perished in accidents last year.) Burning hydrocarbons is a luxury that a planet with 6 billion energy-hungry souls can't afford.
There's only one sane, practical alternative: nuclear power.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 41
1AR: Alternative Energy CP–Global Warming Solvency Deficit

1. Nuclear Energy is our ONLY HOPE! It doesn’t release carbon. Extend Weeks
06.
2. There is NO HOPE for other renewables, no matter how much they spend!
Like the dream of controlled thermonuclear fusion, then, the reality of a world run on pristine energy generated from
renewables continues to recede, despite expensive, highly subsidized research and development. The 1997 U.S. federal
R&D investment per thousand kWh was only 5 cents for nuclear and coal, 58 cents for oil, and 41 cents for gas, but was $
4,769 for wind and $ 17,006 for photovoltaics. This massive public investment in renewables would have been better spent
making coal plants and automobiles cleaner. According to Robert Bradley of Houston's Institute for Energy Research, U.S.
conservation efforts and nonhydroelectric renewables have benefited from a cumulative 20-year taxpayer investment of some $
30 -- $ 40 billion -- "the largest governmental peacetime energy expenditure in U.S. history." And Bradley estimates that "the $
5.8 billion spent by the Department of Energy on wind and solar subsidies" alone could have paid for "replacing
between 5,000 and 10,000 MWe of the nation's dirtiest coal capacity with gas-fired combined-cycle units, which would
have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by between one-third and two-thirds." Replacing coal with nuclear generation
would have reduced overall emissions even more.
3. Extend Mariotte 07 – funding for other renewables cannot solve fast enough.
They CAN’T AVOID our Lovelock 04 and Sydney Morning Herald 03 evidence.
4. Extend our impact calculus – we still outweigh on Magnitude, Timeframe,

and Probability.
5. Nuclear power even solves for transportation emissions – that’s NCPA 06.
6. And, critics are wrong – nuclear energy is the only way to solve the climate
problem.
Steve Kerekes, senior director of media relations at the Nuclear Energy Institute, 11-6-07, “Nuclear Power in
Response to the Climate Change” http://www.cfr.org/publication
14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html, [Crystal Xia]
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. 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 lowest-cost
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.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 42
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Economy Solvency Deficit

1. Only nuke energy can access our economy advantage. That’s CASEnergy
Coalition 07.
2. Nuclear power provides tens of thousands of jobs and only nuke energy
can revive U.S. leadership. That’s PR Newswire 08. This is yet another
extinction scenario. Extend Lopez 98.
3. US Nuclear energy key to world economy through exports. Extend Loris

and Spencer 08.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 43
1AR: Alternative Energy CP–Economy Solvency Deficit

1. Nuclear energy is VITAL to the US economy. Extend CASEnergy Coalition
07 and PR Newswire 08.
2. US Nuclear energy key to world economy through exports. Extend Loris

and Spencer 08.
3. There is NO ESCAPE if we don’t pass the plan! AP 4/10 says we’re heading
toward a recession now; if we don’t try to fix it with the plan, apply our
Lopez 98 evidence that it will lead to global nuclear war and extinction!
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 44
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Biofuel

The environmental problems can’t be cured by Green supported energy, like
biofuels. Nuclear energy is the only sensible source.
(Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy), 3-21-05, Speech by James Lovelock to the International
Conference in Paris, Nuclear Energy for the 21st Century, http://www.jameslovelock.org/page12.html [Jiajia
Huang]
It seems probable that we face huge environmental disturbances as this century evolves. Of course, there are no certainties
about the future, only probabilities; there might be a series of large volcanoes interrupting that sequence, or the United States
might act by putting up space mounted sunshades in heliocentric orbits. Either way by now the almost irreversible temperature
rise might be averted. But to continue with business as usual and expect that something or other will save us is as unwise as it
would be for a heavy smoker to assume that good genes or good luck would save him from its consequences.
I speak to you today as a scientist and as the originator of Gaia Theory, the earth's system science which describes a self
regulating planet which keeps its temperature and its chemical composition always favourable for life. I care deeply about the
natural world, but as a scientist I consider that the earth has now reached a state profoundly dangerous to all of us and to
our civilisation. And this view is shared by scientists around the world. Unfortunately, governments, especially in Europe,
appear to listen less to scientists than they do to Green political parties and to Green lobbies. Now, I am a green myself, so
I know that these greens are well intentioned, but they understand people a lot better than they understand the earth, and
consequently they recommend inappropriate remedies and action.
The outcome is almost as bad as if the medieval plague returned in deadly form and we were earnestly being advised to stop it
with alternative not scientific medicine. Alternative medicine has its place, and when we are healthy it is good to avoid strong
drugs for minor ailments, and many find relief in acupuncture or homeopathy. But, when we are seriously ill, we need
something stronger.
Now that we've made the earth sick it won't be cured by alternative Green remedies like wind turbines or biofuels, and this
is why I recommend the appropriate medicine of nuclear energy as a part of a sensible portfolio of energy sources.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 45
Biomass energy sources are inefficient, dangerous to the environment, and

costly.
Affairs, Lexis-Nexis, [Crystal Xia] (not much about biomass, but also solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal)
RENEWABLE SOURCES of energy -- hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass -- have high capital-investment
costs and significant, if usually unacknowledged, environmental consequences. Hydropower is not even a true renewable,
since dams eventually silt in. Most renewables collect extremely diluted energy, requiring large areas of land and masses
of collectors to concentrate. Manufacturing solar collectors, pouring concrete for fields of windmills, and drowning many
square miles of land behind dams cause damage and pollution. Photovoltaic cells used for solar collection are large
semiconductors; their manufacture produces highly toxic waste metals and solvents that require special technology for
disposal. A 1,000-MWe solar electric plant would generate 6,850 tonnes of hazardous waste from metals-processing alone over
a 30-year lifetime. A comparable solar thermal plant (using mirrors focused on a central tower) would require metals for
construction that would generate 435,000 tonnes of manufacturing waste, of which 16,300 tonnes would be contaminated with
lead and chromium and be considered hazardous. A global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the
world's known iron resources. It would require a century to build and a substantial fraction of annual world iron production to
maintain. The energy necessary to manufacture sufficient solar collectors to cover a half-million square miles of the earth's
surface and to deliver the electricity through long-distance transmission systems would itself add grievously to the global
burden of pollution and greenhouse gas. A global solar-energy system without fossil or nuclear backup would also be
dangerously vulnerable to drops in solar radiation from volcanic events such as the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which caused
widespread crop failure during the "year without a summer" that followed. Wind farms, besides requiring millions of pounds of
concrete and steel to build (and thus creating huge amounts of waste materials), are inefficient, with low (because intermittent)
capacity. They also cause visual and noise pollution and are mighty slayers of birds. Several hundred birds of prey, including
dozens of golden eagles, are killed every year by a single California wind farm; more eagles have been killed by wind turbines
than were lost in the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill. The National Audubon Society has launched a campaign to save the
California condor from a proposed wind farm to be built north of Los Angeles. A wind farm equivalent in output and capacity
to a 1,000-MWe fossil-fuel or nuclear plant would occupy 2,000 square miles of land and, even with substantial subsidies and
ignoring hidden pollution costs, would produce electricity at double or triple the cost of fossil fuels. Although at least one-
quarter of the world's potential for hydropower has already been developed, hydroelectric power -- produced by dams that
submerge large areas of land, displace rural populations, change river ecology, kill fish, and risk catastrophic collapse -- has
understandably lost the backing of environmentalists in recent years. The U.S. Export-Import Bank was responding in part to
environmental lobbying when it denied funding to China's 18,000-MWe Three Gorges project. Meanwhile, geothermal sources
-- which exploit the internal heat of the earth emerging in geyser areas or under volcanoes -- are inherently limited and often
coincide with scenic sites (such as Yellowstone National Park) that conservationists understandably want to preserve.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 46
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Geothermal

Geothermal energy sources are inefficient, dangerous to the environment, and
costly.
Affairs, Lexis-Nexis, [Crystal Xia] (also solar, wind, hydroelectric)
RENEWABLE SOURCES of energy -- hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass -- have high capital-
investment costs and significant, if usually unacknowledged, environmental consequences. Hydropower is not even a true
renewable, since dams eventually silt in. Most renewables collect extremely diluted energy, requiring large areas of land and
masses of collectors to concentrate. Manufacturing solar collectors, pouring concrete for fields of windmills, and drowning
many square miles of land behind dams cause damage and pollution. Photovoltaic cells used for solar collection are large
semiconductors; their manufacture produces highly toxic waste metals and solvents that require special technology for
disposal. A 1,000-MWe solar electric plant would generate 6,850 tonnes of hazardous waste from metals-processing alone over
a 30-year lifetime. A comparable solar thermal plant (using mirrors focused on a central tower) would require metals for
construction that would generate 435,000 tonnes of manufacturing waste, of which 16,300 tonnes would be contaminated with
lead and chromium and be considered hazardous. A global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the
world's known iron resources. It would require a century to build and a substantial fraction of annual world iron production
to maintain. The energy necessary to manufacture sufficient solar collectors to cover a half-million square miles of the earth's
surface and to deliver the electricity through long-distance transmission systems would itself add grievously to the global
burden of pollution and greenhouse gas. A global solar-energy system without fossil or nuclear backup would also be
dangerously vulnerable to drops in solar radiation from volcanic events such as the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which
caused widespread crop failure during the "year without a summer" that followed. Wind farms, besides requiring millions of
pounds of concrete and steel to build (and thus creating huge amounts of waste materials), are inefficient, with low (because
intermittent) capacity. They also cause visual and noise pollution and are mighty slayers of birds. Several hundred birds of
prey, including dozens of golden eagles, are killed every year by a single California wind farm; more eagles have been killed
by wind turbines than were lost in the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill. The National Audubon Society has launched a
campaign to save the California condor from a proposed wind farm to be built north of Los Angeles. A wind farm equivalent
in output and capacity to a 1,000-MWe fossil-fuel or nuclear plant would occupy 2,000 square miles of land and, even
with substantial subsidies and ignoring hidden pollution costs, would produce electricity at double or triple the cost of fossil
fuels. Although at least one-quarter of the world's potential for hydropower has already been developed, hydroelectric power
-- produced by dams that submerge large areas of land, displace rural populations, change river ecology, kill fish, and risk
catastrophic collapse -- has understandably lost the backing of environmentalists in recent years. The U.S. Export-Import
Bank was responding in part to environmental lobbying when it denied funding to China's 18,000-MWe Three Gorges project.
Meanwhile, geothermal sources -- which exploit the internal heat of the earth emerging in geyser areas or under volcanoes --
are inherently limited and often coincide with scenic sites (such as Yellowstone National Park) that conservationists
understandably want to preserve.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 47
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Hydroelectric

Hydroelectric sources of energy are inefficient, dangerous to the environment,
and costly.
investment costs and significant, if usually unacknowledged, environmental consequences. Hydropower is not even
a true renewable, since dams eventually silt in. Most renewables collect extremely diluted energy, requiring large
areas of land and masses of collectors to concentrate. Manufacturing solar collectors, pouring concrete for fields of
windmills, and drowning many square miles of land behind dams cause damage and pollution. Photovoltaic cells
used for solar collection are large semiconductors; their manufacture produces highly toxic waste metals and solvents
that require special technology for disposal. A 1,000-MWe solar electric plant would generate 6,850 tonnes of
hazardous waste from metals-processing alone over a 30-year lifetime. A comparable solar thermal plant (using
mirrors focused on a central tower) would require metals for construction that would generate 435,000 tonnes of
manufacturing waste, of which 16,300 tonnes would be contaminated with lead and chromium and be considered
hazardous. A global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron
resources. It would require a century to build and a substantial fraction of annual world iron production to maintain.
The energy necessary to manufacture sufficient solar collectors to cover a half-million square miles of the earth's
surface and to deliver the electricity through long-distance transmission systems would itself add grievously to the
global burden of pollution and greenhouse gas. A global solar-energy system without fossil or nuclear backup
would also be dangerously vulnerable to drops in solar radiation from volcanic events such as the 1883 eruption
of Krakatoa, which caused widespread crop failure during the "year without a summer" that followed. Wind farms,
besides requiring millions of pounds of concrete and steel to build (and thus creating huge amounts of waste
materials), are inefficient, with low (because intermittent) capacity. They also cause visual and noise pollution
and are mighty slayers of birds. Several hundred birds of prey, including dozens of golden eagles, are killed every
year by a single California wind farm; more eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the disastrous
Exxon Valdez oil spill. The National Audubon Society has launched a campaign to save the California condor from a
proposed wind farm to be built north of Los Angeles. A wind farm equivalent in output and capacity to a 1,000-
MWe fossil-fuel or nuclear plant would occupy 2,000 square miles of land and, even with substantial subsidies
and ignoring hidden pollution costs, would produce electricity at double or triple the cost of fossil fuels. Although
at least one-quarter of the world's potential for hydropower has already been developed, hydroelectric power --
produced by dams that submerge large areas of land, displace rural populations, change river ecology, kill fish, and
risk catastrophic collapse -- has understandably lost the backing of environmentalists in recent years. The U.S.
Export-Import Bank was responding in part to environmental lobbying when it denied funding to China's 18,000-
MWe Three Gorges project. Meanwhile, geothermal sources -- which exploit the internal heat of the earth emerging
in geyser areas or under volcanoes -- are inherently limited and often coincide with scenic sites (such as
Yellowstone National Park) that conservationists understandably want to preserve.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 48
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Solar

Nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than all others – solar energy is worse
than nuclear.
Jack Spencer, research fellow @ the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 10-29-07, “Nuclear
energy deceivers”, Washington Post, http://www.heritage.org/Press/ Commentary/ed103007a.cfm, [Crystal Xia]
They don't seem to realize that things have changed since the old No-Nuke movement packed up its placards. Today,
the nuclear industry's safety, environmental and economic record ranks among the best in the energy (or any
other) industry. In an effort to devalue nuclear power's environmental advantages, Mr. Browne's warriors include the
pollutants and CO2 released during the construction and fueling process in their evaluation, without fully
acknowledging that other energy sources have similar impacts. No apples-to-apples comparisons for this crowd.
For example, 2 million tons of concrete, about double what a nuclear plant requires, must be produced and delivered
to anchor enough windmills to match one nuclear plant's energy production. Just producing this concrete emits the
CO2 equivalent of flying a Boeing 747 from New York to London 450 times. Carbon-free fairies do not magically
drop windmills onto mountaintops. Every windmill or solar panel started as a raw material that was mined,
transported and manufactured using fossil fuel. We live in a fossil-fuel based society. CO2 is released by almost
any activity, whether building a windmill or a nuclear power plant. Ultimately, however, nuclear technology
provides the world an opportunity to make its energy profile less fossil-fuel-centric.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 49
Nuclear energy is safe and reduces CO2 emissions, and is more efficient than
solar power.
C.T. Carley, professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at Mississippi State University, 4-29-08,
Commercial Appeal, “Nuclear power benefits outweigh past fears,”
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/apr/29/guest-column-nuclear-power-benefits-outweigh/
[Jiajia Huang]
If you need someone smart on your policy-making team, who better than Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal
Reserve Bank? On both economics and grand strategy, Greenspan has few equals.
Greenspan was recently asked to speak at an energy conference in Houston attended by oil company executives from around
the world. One of the points he made was that nuclear energy is part of a strategy aimed at reducing our dependence on
imported oil that he would recommend to the next president.
Greenspan's solution to breaking our nation's reliance on foreign oil includes market adoption of electric plug-in vehicles along
with the infrastructure to power them. He was asked how plug-in vehicles should be fueled. His answer: "No question about
it -- nuclear power."
Acknowledging that nuclear power has some political hurdles to clear, Greenspan said that our country must continue to work
toward a successful program for spent-fuel management, but he believes it is a "resolvable problem."
"The French seem have to taken care of it," he said, "... and we can too."
France obtains 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is building more nuclear plants. But instead of storing spent
fuel at nuclear plant sites, as we do in the United States, France makes use of the spent fuel's valuable uranium and plutonium,
recycling those nuclear materials into new reactor fuel that's used to produce more electricity.
Such recycling, which is also called reprocessing, extends uranium supplies and greatly reduces the amount of high-level
radioactive waste that needs to be permanently disposed of in an underground repository.
The United States once recycled spent fuel but President Carter banned the practice in 1977 on the grounds that plutonium
from recycling could be diverted and used to make nuclear weapons. But recycling can be done safely and securely, as
France and Great Britain have demonstrated. There's no good reason not to revive it in the United States.
In his recent book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan writes that nuclear energy is an
"obvious alternative" to coal in electric power generation. Coal-fired power plants in the United States load the
atmosphere each year with more than 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas linked to global
warming. By contrast, nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide and account for about 70 percent of the clean power
generation in the United States.
"Given the steps that have been taken over the years to make nuclear energy safer and the obvious environmental
advantages it offers in reducing carbon dioxide emissions," Greenspan writes in his book, "there is no longer a persuasive
case against increasing nuclear power generation at the expense of coal."
"Nuclear power is a major means to combat global warming, " Greenspan writes. "Its use should be avoided only if it
constitutes a threat to life expectancy that outweighs the gains it can give us. By that criterion, I believe we significantly
under-use nuclear power."
No one disputes that, especially here in the Southeast, we need more base-load electricity to replace aging power
plants and meet the growing demand for power. Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are
relatively benign environmentally, but they can't provide the large amount of electricity required for our daily
needs. This is a reality that those seeking passage of a climate bill are going to have to wake up to. The new
administration should heed Alan Greenspan's advice on nuclear power.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 50
Nuclear energy is the safest source of energy, and is better than solar power,
and is even less radioactive than coal ash.
Peter Geddes, Executive Vice President of FREE, 3-02-05, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, “Nuclear Power: The
Green Alternative,” http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=440 [Jiajia Huang]
The International Energy Agency projects 65 percent growth in world energy demand by 2020. Two questions pop up: How
will we meet this energy demand and what are the environmental consequences of our choices?
When we consider these issues we confront three vexing realities. First, fossil fuels (i.e., oil and coal) are our cheapest, most
available sources of energy. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal, with 25 percent of the world’s reserves, double those of the
next largest source, China.
Second, billions of the earth's poorest are just climbing out of desperate poverty. Affordable energy is essential to their
successful escape… and they know it.
Third, burning fossil fuels causes air pollution and contributes to climate change.
Can we provide affordable and reliable energy for the world’s least fortunate, while simultaneously combating global
warming?
What about renewable energy, like solar? A Bozeman friend grins whenever the energy from his residential solar array causes
his electric meter to spin backward. For him, electricity prices can’t go too high.
Solar has great potential, especially for remote, off-the-grid applications. And passive solar construction ought to be a
standard design feature in the Northern Rockies, where winters are long, cold, and sunny. But high initial costs and long
payback times will limit solar’s widespread adoption for power generation. Wind and tidal power have similarly limited
applications. I’m afraid we confuse hopes with realistic expectations if we believe that wind, solar, or tidal power will
soon meet our base load energy demands.
In contrast, coal is cheap and abundant. In the U.S. it generates 52 percent of our electricity. Its share of our energy portfolio
will surely increase. Changing this future is especially difficult. In addition to its abundance and low price, coal has a powerful
political constituency.
China consumes almost half the world’s coal production, using it to supply 75 percent of its annual energy demand. In
addition to emitting CO2, coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. Coal ash is radioactive. A typical coal-fired power plant
releases about l00 times as much radioactivity as a comparable nuclear plant. Toxic heavy metals such as mercury are
particularly nasty byproducts.
Mercury falls downwind on land and into the oceans. It becomes toxic as methylmercury. It moves up the food chain,
eventually accumulating in the fat cells of fish. As a result, pregnant and nursing mothers who eat large amounts of salmon and
tuna can expose their children to mercury poisoning.
Because of our stack scrubbers, the U.S. produces only 1 percent of non-natural global mercury emissions. China accounts for
25 percent. No serious person believes the Chinese will place the world’s environmental and health concerns above their own
economic interests.
All energy production has environmental impacts. For example, wind farms cause visual and noise pollution and kill
birds. Our choices involve trading off among imperfect alternatives.
Is it time we rethink opposition to nuclear power? James Lovelock, promoter of the Gaia hypothesis, believes so. He
writes: “Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and
the media.… [N]uclear energy… has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute
statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. I entreat my friends… to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear
energy.”
France generates 79 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; Belgium, 60 percent; Sweden, 42 percent; Switzerland, 39
percent; Spain, 37 percent; Japan, 34 percent; the United Kingdom, 21 percent; and the United States, 20 percent. With 434
operating reactors worldwide, nuclear power meets the annual electrical needs of more than a billion people.
If we move forward with nuclear power we’ll need to address many challenges. They include safely disposing of radioactive
waste (a political more than a technical problem), the high cost of nuclear power (currently it can’t compete with coal), and
security. As we see with Pakistan and North Korea, proliferation is real.
Of course, nuclear power is not 100 percent safe. Nothing is. But the relevant fact is that nuclear power is safer, and
more environmentally friendly, than any feasible alternative.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 51
Nuclear power has the best safety, environmental, and economic record,
outcompeting solar, and fossil fuel powers.
Jack Spencer, 10-29-07, research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. October
29, 2007, Heritage Foundation, “Nuclear energy deceivers,”
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed103007a.cfm [Jiajia Huang]
On Oct. 23, a group led by singers Jackson Browne, Graham Nash and Bonnie Raitt delivered a petition to the Senate
denouncing nuclear energy. Their spurious arguments are off-key to say the least. They confuse nuclear weapons with
nuclear energy, claim non-existent dangers, and misrepresent nuclear power's economics. Otherwise, it was quite a show.
Mr. Browne and Co. masquerade as environmentalists, pushing what they describe as environmental justice. But their agenda
would deny Americans, especially the poorest Americans, access to one of the cleanest, most secure and economically stable
sources of energy available today.
They don't seem to realize that things have changed since the old No-Nuke movement packed up its placards. Today, the
nuclear industry's safety, environmental and economic record ranks among the best in the energy (or any other) industry.
In an effort to devalue nuclear power's environmental advantages, Mr. Browne's warriors include the pollutants and CO2
released during the construction and fueling process in their evaluation, without fully acknowledging that other energy sources
have similar impacts. No apples-to-apples comparisons for this crowd.
For example, 2 million tons of concrete, about double what a nuclear plant requires, must be produced and delivered to
anchor enough windmills to match one nuclear plant's energy production. Just producing this concrete emits the CO2
equivalent of flying a Boeing 747 from New York to London 450 times.
Carbon-free fairies do not magically drop windmills onto mountaintops. Every windmill or solar panel started as a raw
material that was mined, transported and manufactured using fossil fuel.
We live in a fossil-fuel based society. CO2 is released by almost any activity, whether building a windmill or a nuclear
power plant. Ultimately, however, nuclear technology provides the world an opportunity to make its energy profile less
fossil-fuel-centric.
The new No-Nuke crowd then warns of the ripe targets that nuclear plants provide terrorists. Really? Now Jackson Browne is a
terrorism expert? But his credibility is, we must say, "Running on Empty." Nuclear plants were among the nation's most
protected assets before September 11, 2001, and have had numerous security upgrades since. But none of the world's
443 nuclear power plants have been attacked. Why?
Simply put, they're not easy targets. Nuclear plants are built to withstand airplane impacts, are heavily guarded and are
under constant review. If risks are discovered, the answer is to fix the problem, not shut down the industry.
But what about the disposal of nuclear waste, the No-Nukers ask? Actually, industry solved that problem decades ago.
Spent fuel is removed from the reactor. The reusable portion is recycled by separating it and re-using it; the remainder is
placed in either interim or long-term storage, in remote locations such as Yucca Mountain. Other countries, including France,
safely do this every day. Politicians and bad public policy prevent it from occurring in the U.S.
Waste transportation is another favorite target. The truth is that nuclear waste has been transported on roads and railways
worldwide for years without incident. Indeed, more than 20 million waste packages are transported globally each year, and
more than 20,000 shipments have traveled some 18 million miles since 1971. It's just not a problem.
The No-Nukers argue that nuclear power is bad economics. Back in the 1970s, they successfully drove the costs of
nuclear power up by forcing delays and instigating superfluous regulation. Though affordable, nuclear power is as
expensive as it is today because of that success, not because the technology is uncompetitive.
The situation is much different today. Streamlined regulation, better designs and greater efficiency make the economics of
today's nuclear plants much more predictable. Nuclear energy is among the least expensive energy sources today. Indeed,
numerous studies have shown that new nuclear power is very competitive in a carbon-constrained economy.
The anti-nuke crowd already nearly killed the nuclear industry once, and America is paying for it today with higher
energy prices. This time the stakes are higher and consequences are greater. Sadly, the environment and the poorest
Americans will be hardest hit if they succeed. Nuclear energy is the only realistic and affordable option if we hope to cap
CO2.
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Waves

Nuclear energy is the safest source of energy, and is better than and tidal
power, and even less radioactive than coal ash.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 52
warming?
economic interests.
energy.”
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 53
2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Wind

Nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than all others –wind power is worse
than nuclear.
They don't seem to realize that things have changed since the old No-Nuke movement packed up its placards. Today,
the nuclear industry's safety, environmental and economic record ranks among the best in the energy (or any
other) industry. In an effort to devalue nuclear power's environmental advantages, Mr. Browne's warriors include the
pollutants and CO2 released during the construction and fueling process in their evaluation, without fully
acknowledging that other energy sources have similar impacts. No apples-to-apples comparisons for this crowd.
For example, 2 million tons of concrete, about double what a nuclear plant requires, must be produced and delivered
to anchor enough windmills to match one nuclear plant's energy production. Just producing this concrete emits the
CO2 equivalent of flying a Boeing 747 from New York to London 450 times. Carbon-free fairies do not magically
drop windmills onto mountaintops. Every windmill or solar panel started as a raw material that was mined,
transported and manufactured using fossil fuel. We live in a fossil-fuel based society. CO2 is released by almost
any activity, whether building a windmill or a nuclear power plant. Ultimately, however, nuclear technology
provides the world an opportunity to make its energy profile less fossil-fuel-centric.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 54
Wind energy is inefficient, dangerous to the environment, and costly.
investment costs and significant, if usually unacknowledged, environmental consequences. Hydropower is not even
a true renewable, since dams eventually silt in. Most renewables collect extremely diluted energy, requiring large
areas of land and masses of collectors to concentrate. Manufacturing solar collectors, pouring concrete for fields of
windmills, and drowning many square miles of land behind dams cause damage and pollution. Photovoltaic cells
used for solar collection are large semiconductors; their manufacture produces highly toxic waste metals and solvents
that require special technology for disposal. A 1,000-MWe solar electric plant would generate 6,850 tonnes of
hazardous waste from metals-processing alone over a 30-year lifetime. A comparable solar thermal plant (using
mirrors focused on a central tower) would require metals for construction that would generate 435,000 tonnes of
manufacturing waste, of which 16,300 tonnes would be contaminated with lead and chromium and be considered
hazardous. A global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron
resources. It would require a century to build and a substantial fraction of annual world iron production to maintain.
The energy necessary to manufacture sufficient solar collectors to cover a half-million square miles of the earth's
surface and to deliver the electricity through long-distance transmission systems would itself add grievously to the
global burden of pollution and greenhouse gas. A global solar-energy system without fossil or nuclear backup
would also be dangerously vulnerable to drops in solar radiation from volcanic events such as the 1883 eruption
of Krakatoa, which caused widespread crop failure during the "year without a summer" that followed. Wind farms,
besides requiring millions of pounds of concrete and steel to build (and thus creating huge amounts of waste
materials), are inefficient, with low (because intermittent) capacity. They also cause visual and noise pollution
and are mighty slayers of birds. Several hundred birds of prey, including dozens of golden eagles, are killed every
year by a single California wind farm; more eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the disastrous
Exxon Valdez oil spill. The National Audubon Society has launched a campaign to save the California condor from a
proposed wind farm to be built north of Los Angeles. A wind farm equivalent in output and capacity to a 1,000-
MWe fossil-fuel or nuclear plant would occupy 2,000 square miles of land and, even with substantial subsidies
and ignoring hidden pollution costs, would produce electricity at double or triple the cost of fossil fuels. Although
at least one-quarter of the world's potential for hydropower has already been developed, hydroelectric power --
produced by dams that submerge large areas of land, displace rural populations, change river ecology, kill fish, and
risk catastrophic collapse -- has understandably lost the backing of environmentalists in recent years. The U.S.
Export-Import Bank was responding in part to environmental lobbying when it denied funding to China's 18,000-
MWe Three Gorges project. Meanwhile, geothermal sources -- which exploit the internal heat of the earth emerging
in geyser areas or under volcanoes -- are inherently limited and often coincide with scenic sites (such as
Yellowstone National Park) that conservationists understandably want to preserve.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 55
Nuclear energy is safe and reduces CO2 emissions, and is more efficient than
wind power.
C.T. Carley, professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at Mississippi State University, 4-29-08,
Commercial Appeal, “Nuclear power benefits outweigh past fears,”
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/apr/29/guest-column-nuclear-power-benefits-outweigh/
[Jiajia Huang]
If you need someone smart on your policy-making team, who better than Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal
Reserve Bank? On both economics and grand strategy, Greenspan has few equals.
Greenspan was recently asked to speak at an energy conference in Houston attended by oil company executives from around
the world. One of the points he made was that nuclear energy is part of a strategy aimed at reducing our dependence on
imported oil that he would recommend to the next president.
Greenspan's solution to breaking our nation's reliance on foreign oil includes market adoption of electric plug-in vehicles along
with the infrastructure to power them. He was asked how plug-in vehicles should be fueled. His answer: "No question about
it -- nuclear power."
Acknowledging that nuclear power has some political hurdles to clear, Greenspan said that our country must continue to work
toward a successful program for spent-fuel management, but he believes it is a "resolvable problem."
"The French seem have to taken care of it," he said, "... and we can too."
France obtains 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is building more nuclear plants. But instead of storing spent
fuel at nuclear plant sites, as we do in the United States, France makes use of the spent fuel's valuable uranium and plutonium,
recycling those nuclear materials into new reactor fuel that's used to produce more electricity.
Such recycling, which is also called reprocessing, extends uranium supplies and greatly reduces the amount of high-level
radioactive waste that needs to be permanently disposed of in an underground repository.
The United States once recycled spent fuel but President Carter banned the practice in 1977 on the grounds that plutonium
from recycling could be diverted and used to make nuclear weapons. But recycling can be done safely and securely, as
France and Great Britain have demonstrated. There's no good reason not to revive it in the United States.
In his recent book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan writes that nuclear energy is an
"obvious alternative" to coal in electric power generation. Coal-fired power plants in the United States load the
atmosphere each year with more than 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas linked to global
warming. By contrast, nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide and account for about 70 percent of the clean power
generation in the United States.
"Given the steps that have been taken over the years to make nuclear energy safer and the obvious environmental
advantages it offers in reducing carbon dioxide emissions," Greenspan writes in his book, "there is no longer a persuasive
case against increasing nuclear power generation at the expense of coal."
"Nuclear power is a major means to combat global warming, " Greenspan writes. "Its use should be avoided only if it
constitutes a threat to life expectancy that outweighs the gains it can give us. By that criterion, I believe we significantly
under-use nuclear power."
No one disputes that, especially here in the Southeast, we need more base-load electricity to replace aging power plants and
meet the growing demand for power. Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are relatively benign
environmentally, but they can't provide the large amount of electricity required for our daily needs. This is a reality that
those seeking passage of a climate bill are going to have to wake up to. The new administration should heed Alan Greenspan's
advice on nuclear power.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 56
Nuclear energy is the safest source of energy, and is better than wind power
and even less radioactive than coal ash.
warming?
economic interests.
energy.”
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 57
Nuclear power has the best safety, environmental, and economic record,
outcompeting wind power.
Jack Spencer, 10-29-07, research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. October
29, 2007, Heritage Foundation, “Nuclear energy deceivers,”
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed103007a.cfm [Jiajia Huang]
On Oct. 23, a group led by singers Jackson Browne, Graham Nash and Bonnie Raitt delivered a petition to the Senate
denouncing nuclear energy. Their spurious arguments are off-key to say the least. They confuse nuclear weapons with
nuclear energy, claim non-existent dangers, and misrepresent nuclear power's economics. Otherwise, it was quite a show.
Mr. Browne and Co. masquerade as environmentalists, pushing what they describe as environmental justice. But their agenda
would deny Americans, especially the poorest Americans, access to one of the cleanest, most secure and economically stable
sources of energy available today.
They don't seem to realize that things have changed since the old No-Nuke movement packed up its placards. Today, the
nuclear industry's safety, environmental and economic record ranks among the best in the energy (or any other) industry.
In an effort to devalue nuclear power's environmental advantages, Mr. Browne's warriors include the pollutants and CO2
released during the construction and fueling process in their evaluation, without fully acknowledging that other energy sources
have similar impacts. No apples-to-apples comparisons for this crowd.
For example, 2 million tons of concrete, about double what a nuclear plant requires, must be produced and delivered to
anchor enough windmills to match one nuclear plant's energy production. Just producing this concrete emits the CO2
equivalent of flying a Boeing 747 from New York to London 450 times.
Carbon-free fairies do not magically drop windmills onto mountaintops. Every windmill or solar panel started as a raw
material that was mined, transported and manufactured using fossil fuel.
We live in a fossil-fuel based society. CO2 is released by almost any activity, whether building a windmill or a nuclear
power plant. Ultimately, however, nuclear technology provides the world an opportunity to make its energy profile less
fossil-fuel-centric.
The new No-Nuke crowd then warns of the ripe targets that nuclear plants provide terrorists. Really? Now Jackson Browne is a
terrorism expert? But his credibility is, we must say, "Running on Empty." Nuclear plants were among the nation's most
protected assets before September 11, 2001, and have had numerous security upgrades since. But none of the world's
443 nuclear power plants have been attacked. Why?
Simply put, they're not easy targets. Nuclear plants are built to withstand airplane impacts, are heavily guarded and are
under constant review. If risks are discovered, the answer is to fix the problem, not shut down the industry.
But what about the disposal of nuclear waste, the No-Nukers ask? Actually, industry solved that problem decades ago.
Spent fuel is removed from the reactor. The reusable portion is recycled by separating it and re-using it; the remainder is
placed in either interim or long-term storage, in remote locations such as Yucca Mountain. Other countries, including France,
safely do this every day. Politicians and bad public policy prevent it from occurring in the U.S.
Waste transportation is another favorite target. The truth is that nuclear waste has been transported on roads and railways
worldwide for years without incident. Indeed, more than 20 million waste packages are transported globally each year, and
more than 20,000 shipments have traveled some 18 million miles since 1971. It's just not a problem.
nuclear power up by forcing delays and instigating superfluous regulation. Though affordable, nuclear power is as
expensive as it is today because of that success, not because the technology is uncompetitive.
The situation is much different today. Streamlined regulation, better designs and greater efficiency make the economics of
today's nuclear plants much more predictable. Nuclear energy is among the least expensive energy sources today. Indeed,
numerous studies have shown that new nuclear power is very competitive in a carbon-constrained economy.
The anti-nuke crowd already nearly killed the nuclear industry once, and America is paying for it today with higher
energy prices. This time the stakes are higher and consequences are greater. Sadly, the environment and the poorest
Americans will be hardest hit if they succeed. Nuclear energy is the only realistic and affordable option if we hope to cap
CO2.
The environmental problems can’t be cured by Green supported powers, like
wind. Nuclear energy is the only sensible energy source.
(Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy), 3-21-05, Speech by James Lovelock to the International
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 58
Conference in Paris, Nuclear Energy for the 21st Century, http://www.jameslovelock.org/page12.html [Jiajia
Huang]
It seems probable that we face huge environmental disturbances as this century evolves. Of course, there are no certainties
about the future, only probabilities; there might be a series of large volcanoes interrupting that sequence, or the United States
might act by putting up space mounted sunshades in heliocentric orbits. Either way by now the almost irreversible temperature
rise might be averted. But to continue with business as usual and expect that something or other will save us is as unwise as it
would be for a heavy smoker to assume that good genes or good luck would save him from its consequences.
I speak to you today as a scientist and as the originator of Gaia Theory, the earth's system science which describes a self
regulating planet which keeps its temperature and its chemical composition always favourable for life. I care deeply about the
natural world, but as a scientist I consider that the earth has now reached a state profoundly dangerous to all of us and to
our civilisation. And this view is shared by scientists around the world. Unfortunately, governments, especially in Europe,
appear to listen less to scientists than they do to Green political parties and to Green lobbies. Now, I am a green myself,
so I know that these greens are well intentioned, but they understand people a lot better than they understand the earth,
and consequently they recommend inappropriate remedies and action.
The outcome is almost as bad as if the medieval plague returned in deadly form and we were earnestly being advised to stop it
with alternative not scientific medicine. Alternative medicine has its place, and when we are healthy it is good to avoid strong
drugs for minor ailments, and many find relief in acupuncture or homeopathy. But, when we are seriously ill, we need
something stronger.
Now that we've made the earth sick it won't be cured by alternative Green remedies like wind turbines or biofuels, and
this is why I recommend the appropriate medicine of nuclear energy as a part of a sensible portfolio of energy sources.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 59
2AC: Alternative Energy PIK

ALLOW US TO WEIGH THE IMPACTS OF THE AFF AGAINST THE CASE
1. Gateway issues allow contradiction – they can run off-case arguments

that directly contradict because they are "on multiple levels" or because
of this “negation theory”, making it impossible to answer without turning
ourselves
2. Infinitely regressive – there can be an infinite number of representations

we'd have to get through that the neg could run
3. No significance – meta-debate doesn't exist, we're going to run this same

aff next round anyway, no matter which way you vote
4. Err aff on theory – there is a huge imbalance with the neg block already
1. PERM – Do the plan and all parts of the alternative that don’t explicitly
reject the affirmative.
2. PERM – Do the alternative – they PIK out of “alternative energy,” which is

not in our plan, making the alternative EXACTLY THE SAME as out plan!
3. PERM – Do the plan – again, it’s the same as the alternative.
4. TURN—Capitalism inevitably coopts every resistant movement against it.

Counterculture is merely another masked proponent for consumption.
Thomas Frank, PhD history U Chicago, U Virginia, Wall Street Journal columnist, cultural critic and author,
97 "Why Johnny Can't Dissent," Baffler Magazine [JWu]
Consumerism is no longer about "conformity" but about "difference." Advertising teaches us not in the ways of
puritanical self-denial (a bizarre notion on the face of it), but in orgiastic, never-ending self-fulfillment. It counsels not
rigid adherence to the tastes of the herd but vigilant and constantly updated individualism. We consume not to fit in,
but to prove, on the surface at least, that we are rock `n' roll rebels, each one of us as rule-breaking and hierarchy-
defying as our heroes of the 60s, who now pitch cars, shoes, and beer. This imperative of endless difference is today the
genius at the heart of American capitalism, an eternal fleeing from "sameness" that satiates our thirst for the New with
such achievements of civilization as the infinite brands of identical cola, the myriad colors and irrepressible variety of
the cigarette rack at 7-Eleven.
As existential rebellion has become a more or less official style of Information Age capitalism, so has the countercultural
notion of a static, repressive Establishment grown hopelessly obsolete. However the basic impulses of the countercultural
idea may have disturbed a nation lost in Cold War darkness, they are today in fundamental agreement with the basic tenets
of Information Age business theory. So close are they, in fact, that it has become difficult to understand the
countercultural idea as anything more than the self-justifying ideology of the new bourgeoisie that has arisen since the
1960s, the cultural means by which this group has proven itself ever so much better skilled than its slow-moving, security-
minded forebears at adapting to the accelerated, always-changing consumerism of today. The anointed cultural opponents
of capitalism are now capitalism's ideologues.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 60
5. NO LINK – your links assume “alternative energy” that the alternative lifestyle people
used back then. Your first link card even assumes that “large scale alternatives” were the
government and the alternative lifestyle people didn’t touch them.
6. NO LINK – from environmental capitalism to their capitalism impact.
7. The counterculture's battle against Establishment repressiveness allows for

capitalism's continued survival
Thomas Frank, PhD history U Chicago, U Virginia, Wall Street Journal columnist, cultural critic and author,
97 "Why Johnny Can't Dissent," Baffler Magazine [JWu]
The two come together in perfect synchronization in a figure like Camille Paglia, whose ravings are grounded in
the absolutely noncontroversial ideas of the golden sixties. According to Paglia, American business is still exactly
what it was believed to have been in that beloved decade, that is, "puritanical and desensualized." Its great
opponents are, of course, liberated figures like "the beatniks," Bob Dylan, and the Beatles. Culture is, quite
simply, a binary battle between the repressive Apollonian order of capitalism and the Dionysian impulses of
the counterculture. Rebellion makes no sense without repression; we must remain forever convinced of
capitalism's fundamental hostility to pleasure in order to consume capitalism's rebel products as avidly as we
do. It comes as little surprise when, after criticizing the "Apollonian capitalist machine" (in her book, Vamps &
Tramps), Paglia applauds American mass culture (in Utne Reader), the preeminent product of that "capitalist
machine," as a "third great eruption" of a Dionysian "paganism." For her, as for most other designated dissidents,
there is no contradiction between replaying the standard critique of capitalist conformity and repressiveness
and then endorsing its rebel products--for Paglia the car culture and Madonna--as the obvious solution: the
Culture Trust offers both Establishment and Resistance in one convenient package. The only question that
remains is why Paglia has not yet landed an endorsement contract from a soda pop or automobile manufacturer.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 61
8. Corporate interests will co-opt change—past movements prove
Leigh Glover, PhD, Assistant Professor and CEEP Policy Fellow; 2006, "From love-ins to logos: charting the
demise of renewable energy as a social movement", pp249-270.
http://ceep.udel.edu/energy/publications/2006_es_love-ins_to_logos.pdf [JWu]
In that collection of generalizations about renewable energy as a social solution were concerns about: an increasing
interdependency in society, its growing complexity and the need for greater social management, its vulnerability to failures, the
need for increased security of centralized systems, rising social and economic risks of these big systems, the alienation of
people from decisions that shape their lives, and the inefficiency and precariousness of large systems. Oddly, while the smaller
and easier environmental concerns have tended to be swept up in state-sponsored ecological modernization, the social
concerns of these nascent energy system critics withered. A possible exception to this generalization is the decline of nuclear
energy in the developed world; despite an enormous effort by state powers to arrest decline, the industry barely made it out of
the 1970s. This decline, however, was hardly motivated by the wider social implications of the industry; rather, the technology
proved to be too dangerous and its energy outputs too expensive despite the staggering levels of public sector subsidy and
vigorous efforts to convince the public of the industry’s safety.16
That the use of renewable energy is increasing should not blind us to the fact that we are no closer to an alternative energy
future than when the concept was promulgated almost three decades ago. Because the prospect of a vibrant and expanding
nuclear energy industry was so appalling to environmentalists that the dilapidated condition of this completely state-subsidized
industry has thrown the character of the fossil fuel component of the conventional energy system into lighter relief. And
perhaps because some radical parts of the counter culture became transfused into wider social practice it is reasonable to
consider that society took from these reformers those lessons that were most amenable and practical, and left the rest behind.
Or it might be that vested interests allowed a degree of social and economic reforms in order to subvert more fundamental
disruptions to political and economic elites (Byrne and Rich, 1983). And it may be that the transformation to an alternative
energy system was a vision only suited to those who considered a revolution necessary.
Many explanations are possible, but one cannot escape the rude fact that no major changes to the conventional energy
system occurred through these years of challenge. Deregulation? Privatization? System benefits charges? Renewable
portfolio standards? These changes are minor, even inconsequential, administrative measures that the interests of the
corporate energy system have accommodated. So far, reformers have managed to eke out such small concessions for
renewable energy, and little else.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 62
2AC: Blackouts
Only nuclear power can solve for blackouts and shortages
Eric P. Loewen, PhD Nuclear Engineering, Director on Board of American Nuclear Society, 5/01 “Nuclear
Power Can Help Solve Energy Crisis”
The United States must increase its capacity to generate energy, in order to prevent the shortages in California from
cascading across the nation. Nuclear power should be a significant part of the solution. The energy crisis witnessed in
California has exposed a national energy problem that has been more than 20 years in the making. Energy consumption in the
United States is now stressing the limits of energy production. Witness the increasing numbers of rolling brown-outs and black-
outs on both the East and West coasts during the hot summer months of the past several years. This nation’s political and
business leaders have acceded to the will of the very vocal environmental minority. The Three Es—Environment, Economy
and Energy—are out of balance. Even though the U.S. electricity consumption growth rate has slowed to 2-3 percent a year as
compared to the pre-1970s growth rate of 7 percent, energy generation stations still need to be added. Electrical generation
plant construction originally slowed because of so-called NIMBY (not in my back yard) activism. In their efforts to protect the
environment, many groups, for many valid reasons, have opposed the basic, reliable, base-load generators: nuclear, coal, oil
and hydroelectric dams. They support only “renewable” energy sources—defined as wind, solar [photovoltaic], low-head [run-
of-the-river] hydro, geo-thermal and biomass. These generators can, and should, contribute to the energy mix. But the
renewables are too small to constitute adequate, reliable and economical energy sources to sustain U.S. industry. By
successfully lobbying for federal and state-level regulations and restrictions, activists have imposed overly stringent air-
emission constraints on fossil-fuel generation facilities, as well as severely slowed exploration for new oil and natural gas
reserves and limited coal mining. Thus, expansion of both power generators and fuel reserves for their operation have slowed.
This is counter to the steady increase in the demand for electricity. These activists have created a regulatory atmosphere in
which their versions of the renewables are the only politically correct new power sources. But those renewables alone cannot
meet U.S. power demands. Base load power—constant source, reliable power—is essential for the nation’s electrical grid.
Base load electricity currently is supplied by generators using coal (50 percent), nuclear power (20 percent), hydro (9
percent) and oil (3 percent). Of the remaining electricity on the grid, 18 percent is provided by natural gas (16 percent) and the
renewables (2 percent). The potential power supplies from the renewables are either unreliable (insufficient wind, cloudy
day, sunless night), or have an insufficient capacity, or occupy an unacceptably extensive beautiful land area (large-scale
hydro). Further, hydroelectric power is under siege by environmentalists, who want to remove existing dams and prevent the
construction of new dams, in order to save specific fish species. The less environmentally damaging and easy to turn on-off
natural gas-fired power plants were originally designed and installed to supplement the grid to meet peak power requirements.
Now, any economic benefit of natural gas electrical generation that provides 16 percent of U.S. electrical power has been
erased in the last nine months by the escalating fuel costs. For example, in 1999, electricity generated by natural gas fired
plants cost 3.52 cents per kilowatt-hour. Today, it is up to 17 cents. These power plants also are competing with other utilities
that provide natural gas for household and business uses and for production of anhydrous ammonia fertilizers in the agricultural
industry. Even as new natural gas fired generating plants are planned, their construction again is resisted by the small, but vocal
groups for environmental, esthetic and zoning and land-use reasons. Fuel cells must be mentioned here. The fuel cell is an
excellent compact electricity generator, and it emits no greenhouse gases. Fuel cells are not a source of energy. Fuel cells
require hydrogen, and hydrogen is not a readily available gas. Hydrogen can be split from water or natural gas, but
technologies currently available to do that consume large amounts of energy from other sources. The Generation IV initiative
is a process, not a plant design. Its intent is to gain international cooperation to identify, assess and develop sustainable
nuclear energy technologies.
Technologies that can be licensed, constructed and operated in a manner that will provide a competitively priced supply
of energy while satisfactorily addressing nuclear safety, waste, proliferation resistance and public perception concerns
of the countries in which they are deployed.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 63
2AC: Coal DA–Uniqueness

1. The coal industry is already declining.
Seth Dunn and Michael Renner, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2K, Sectoral Economic Costs
and Benefits of GHG Mitigation, http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/images/Sect_Proc_complete.pdf#page=80 [Liz
Lusk]
One obstacle to implementing climate policy has been the opposition of labor unions concerned about potential
membership losses. The AFL-CIO Executive Council, for example, issued a statement in February 1999 reaffirming its
position to the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that it “could have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy and American workers.”
But even in the absence of climate policy, the number of jobs in many of these industries is already declining, often even
as output continues to rise. Avoiding or postponing an environmental policy will do little to save these jobs; workers may be
better served by participating constructively in climate mitigation debates.
The coal sector is a case in point, although similar stories could be told about oil refining, utilities, and energy-intensive
industries such as primary metals and steel. Around the world, the coal industry’s shrinking profits and growing deficits are
leading to cost-cutting practices that translate into lower prices but also fewer jobs. This trend could well continue:
world coal consumption has fallen 5.3 percent since 1997, and is now at its lowest point since 1987. (See Figure 3.)
Like other sunset industries, the coal sector is increasingly characterized by bigger and fewer companies, larger
equipment, and less labor-intensive operations. Worldwide, it is estimated that only about 10 million jobs remain,
accounting for just one third of 1 percent of the global work force. In the United States, coal production increased 35 percent
between 1980 and 1998, but coal mining employment declined 63 percent, from 242,000 to 90,000 workers. (See Figure 4.)
2. New coal plants are being denied by environmentally conscious state

governments.
Jerald Schnoor, Editor of Environmental Science & Technology, 1-1-08, No New Coal [Liz Lusk]
The tide of opinion seems to be turning at the state level. Texas, Florida, and Minnesota have all denied permits for new
coal-fired power plants in recent months. Most surprisingly, the conservative state of Kansas and the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment rejected plans to build two 700 MW coal-fired power plants on the basis of the threat to
public health and the environment. Inspired by the 2007 Supreme Court verdict that CO2 is a pollutant that can be
regulated under the Clean Air Act, Kansas is now the vanguard of coal deniers. Amazingly, the Supreme Court’s decision
is having a large impact even before the U.S. EPA promulgates its rules on how to regulate CO2.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 64
2AC: Coal DA–Impact Turn

1. Coal contributes greatly to the dangerous acceleration of global warming.
Brett Clark, doctorate student at University of Oregon, 04, Organization Environment [Liz Lusk]
Historically, the burning of coal decreased the vulnerabilities of human beings to the forces of nature and freed industry from
geographic constraints. At the same time, the ecological consequences associated with several hundred years of burning
coal are immense. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming. In the United States, petroleum
contributes 43% of energy-related CO2, and coal is the source of 36%. The increasing concentration of CO2 and of other
minor greenhouse gases has warmed the earth 0.6 °C during the last 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change now expects an increase in temperature of 1.5 to 6.0 °C during this century (Athanasiou & Baer, 2002; Foster,
2002b, p. 21). An increase of “4° C would create an earth that was warmer than at any time in the last 40 million years,”
potentially threatening the survival of human civilization (Foster, 2002b, p. 64). Researchers primarily focus, justifiably, on
petroleum’s contribution to global warming, but it should not be at the expense of understanding the role coal plays in this
emerging history.
2. The environmental effects of mining and burning coal are terrible.
David Hawkings, Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, 9-5-07, Testimony before
House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment [Liz Lusk]
Coal is a carbon-intensive fuel, containing double the amount of carbon per unit of energy compared to natural gas and
about 50 percent more than petroleum. When coal is converted to liquid fuels, two streams of CO2 are produced: one at the
liquid-coal production plant and the second from the exhausts of the vehicles that burn the fuel. . . . [E]ven if the CO2 from the
synfuel production plant is captured, there is no prospect that liquid fuel made with coal as the sole feedstock can achieve the
significant reductions in fossil carbon content that we need to protect the climate. . . .
EPA's analysis finds that without carbon capture life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-to-liquid fuels would be more
than twice as high as from conventional diesel fuel (118 percent higher). Assuming carbon capture and storage, EPA finds that
life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-to-liquid fuels would be 3.7 percent higher than from conventional diesel fuel. .
..
In the West, as in the East, surface-mining activities cause severe environmental damage as huge machines strip, rip apart
and scrape aside vegetation, soils [and] wildlife habitat and drastically reshape existing land forms and the affected
area's ecology to reach the subsurface coal. Strip mining results in industrialization of once quiet open space along with
displacement of wildlife, increased soil erosion, loss of recreational opportunities, degradation of wilderness values and
destruction of scenic beauty. . . .
3. Extend Sydney Morning Herald 03; Global Warming leads to MASS

EXTINCTION, which outweighs any negative impacts.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 65
4. And, Global Warming is the greatest threat to civilization; it’s happening

now. Evaluate systemic impacts first.
only-green-solution-564446.html [Jiajia Huang]
Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a more serious threat
than terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke, new evidence of climate change suggests
it could be even more serious, and the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far. Most of us are aware of
some degree of warming; winters are warmer and spring comes earlier. But in the Arctic, warming is more than
twice as great as here in Europe and in summertime, torrents of melt water now plunge from Greenland's
kilometre-high glaciers. The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time, but by then the sea
will have risen seven metres, enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world,
including London, Venice, Calcutta, New York and Tokyo. Even a two metre rise is enough to put most of
southern Florida under water. The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming; in 30
years, its white reflecting ice, the area of the US, may become dark sea that absorbs the warmth of summer sunlight,
and further hastens the end of the Greenland ice. The North Pole, goal of so many explorers, will then be no more
than a point on the ocean surface. Not only the Arctic is changing; climatologists warn a four-degree rise in
temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people, their biodiversity,
and for the world, which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners. The scientists who form the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and
six degrees Celsius by 2100. Their grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat; and
according to Swiss meteorologists, the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20,000 was wholly different from
any previous heat wave. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300,000 to one. It was a
warning of worse to come.
5. Also, our plan solves the MOTIVATIONS for Global Nuclear War, solving back
their impacts. Cross-apply Canberra Times 07/19.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 66
6. Coal is actually more prone to proliferation than nuclear power
AMONG SOURCES of electric-power generation, coal is the worst environmental offender. (Petroleum, today's dominant
source of energy, sustains transportation, putting it in a separate category.) Recent studies by the Harvard School of Public
Health indicate that pollutants from coal-burning cause about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the United States alone.
Used to generate about a quarter of the world's primary energy, coal-burning releases amounts of toxic waste too immense to
contain safely. Such waste is either dispersed directly into the air or is solidified and dumped. Some is even mixed into
construction materials. Besides emitting noxious chemicals in the form of gases or toxic particles -- sulfur and nitrogen
oxides (components of acid rain and smog), arsenic, mercury, cadmium, selenium, lead, boron, chromium, copper, fluorine,
molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, zinc, carbon monoxide and dioxide, and other greenhouse gases -- coal-fired power plants
are also the world's major source of radioactive releases into the environment. Uranium and thorium, mildly radioactive
elements ubiquitous in the earth's crust, are both released when coal is burned. Radioactive radon gas, produced when uranium
in the earth's crust decays and normally confined underground, is released when coal is mined. A 1,000-megawatt-electric
(MWe) coal-fired power plant releases about 100 times as much radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear
plant. Worldwide releases of uranium and thorium from coal-burning total about 37,300 tonnes (metric tons) annually, with
about 7,300 tonnes coming from the United States. Since uranium and thorium are potent nuclear fuels, burning coal also
wastes more potential energy than it produces. Nuclear proliferation is another overlooked potential consequence of
coal-burning. The uranium released by a single 1,000-MWe coal plant in a year includes about 74 pounds of uranium-235
-- enough for at least two atomic bombs. This uranium would have to be enriched before it could be used, which would be
complicated and expensive. But plutonium could also be bred from coal-derived uranium. Moreover, "because electric
utilities are not high-profile facilities," writes physicist Alex Gabbard of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "collection and
processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals . . . can proceed without attracting outside attention, concern or intervention.
Any country with coal-fired plants could collect combustion byproducts and amass sufficient nuclear weapons materials
to build up a very powerful arsenal." In the early 1950s, when richer ores were believed to be in short supply, the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission actually investigated using coal as a source of uranium production for nuclear weapons; burning
the coal, the AEC concluded, would concentrate the mineral, which could then be extracted from the ash.Such a scenario may
seem far-fetched. But it emphasizes the political disadvantages under which nuclear power labors.
7. Proliferation leads to extinction – cross-apply Utgoff 02.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 67
1AR: Coal DA
Global Warming –
1. Extend Clark 04 and Hawkings 07 – Getting rid of coal is a good thing

because it helps stop global warming and other environmental effects.
2. Extend Lovelock 04 – Global warming is happening now. We win

probability.
3. Extend Sydney Morning Herald 03 – Global warming causes mass

extinction. We win magnitude.
4. Coal plants used in the status quo release 100 times more radioactive
material than an equivalent nuclear reactor, are the cause of global
warming, and cause 15,000 premature deaths annually in the US alone.
Peter Schwartz, “Nuclear Now!”, Wired Magazine, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html,

2005
The consequences aren't pretty. Burning coal and other fossil fuels is driving climate change, which is blamed for
everything from western forest fires and Florida hurricanes to melting polar ice sheets and flooded Himalayan
hamlets. On top of that, coal-burning electric power plants have fouled the air with enough heavy metals and other
noxious pollutants to cause 15,000 premature deaths annually in the US alone, according to a Harvard School of
Public Health study. Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an
equivalent nuclear reactor - right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site. (And, by the way,
more than 5,200 Chinese coal miners perished in accidents last year.)
Economy –
1. Extend CASEnergy Coalition 07 and PR Newswire 08 – nuclear power key

to economy.
2. Extend Dunn & Renner 00 – their economy impact is inevitable.
Nuclear War –
1. Extend Spencer 07 – nuclear energy key to non prolif.
2. Extend Canberra Times 7/19 – nuclear energy solves for the MOTIVATIONS
behind nuke war, turning the DA.
3. Extend Rhodes and Beller 00 – coal is more prone to proliferation than

nuclear, causing their impacts as per Utgoff 02.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 68
2AC: Fiscal Discipline DA

1. No Fiscal Discipline—Mortage Giant Bailouts
Sharon Schmickle, Writer for MinnPost, 7/14/2008, “Mortgage giants in crisis -- yet the public seems locked in 'whatever'
mode”, http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/07/14/2554/mortgage_giants_in_crisis_--
_yet_the_public_seems_locked_in_whatever_mode, BB
Even the toughest critics are saying the government had no choice at this point but to rescue Fannie and Freddie. The fallout
from their failure would have been catastrophic. The anti-serenity piece for this picture is in the background. The
government already is in debt to the tune of nearly $10 trillion, a level that would have been seen as a crisis in itself when
President Bush's father occupied the Oval Office in the early 1990s. Now the White House plans to ask Congress to raise the
debt ceiling for the Fannie-Freddie bailout. It is so '90s, but I'll ask anyway: Where are the deficit hawks? If they had
squawked as loudly during this decade, we would not be suffering such a profound sense of insecurity over the government's
ability to handle the Fannie-Freddie debacle. The deficit-spending issue surfaced last week at a town-hall meeting the
presumed GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, staged in Denver. "We must also get government's fiscal house in order,"
McCain said. "American workers and families pay their bills and balance their budgets, and I will demand the same of the
government. A government that spends wisely and balances its budget is a catalyst for economic growth and the creation of
good and secure jobs."
2. NO LINK – plan doesn’t spend any money. We change the laws and
deregulate. Companies are responsible for investment.
3. Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue

Steve Chapman, Writer for the Chicago Tribune, 7/10/08, “Obama, McCain and the coming fiscal disaster”, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0710chapmanjul10,0,7110404.column BB
Federal budget policy is a dry subject with far too many numbers and charts, which makes it uninviting to most
Americans. But the theme of the current budget story is one that could have come from a blockbuster summer
movie: We are doomed. There is a fiscal asteroid on course to pulverize us, and no one is coming to the rescue. The
problem is simple and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than
$400 billion. Given the weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 69
4. The United States Economy is really resilient

William B. Bonvillian is Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Issues in Science
and Technology, fall 2004-Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness
In the 1980s, when the United States faced significant competitive challenges from Japan and Germany, U.S. industry, labor, and
government worked out a series of competitiveness policies and approaches that helped pave the way for the nation’s revitalized
economic leadership in the 1990s. In the mid-1980s President Reagan appointed Hewlett Packard president John Young to head a
bipartisan competitiveness commission, which recommended a practical policy approach designed to defuse ideological
squabbling. Although many of its recommendations were enacted slowly or not at all, the commission created a new focus on
public-private partnerships, on R&D investments (especially in IT), and on successful competition in trade rather than
protectionism. This became the generally accepted response and provided the building blocks for the 1990s boom. The Young
Commission was followed by Congress’s Competitiveness Policy Council through 1997. These efforts were successful in
redefining the economic debate in part because they built on the experiences, well-remembered at the time, of industry and
government collaboration that was so successful in World War II and in responding to Sputnik. Those are much more distant
memories in this new century, but we should revisit the Young Commission model. The private sector Council on
Competitiveness, originally led by Young, has assembled a group of leading industry, labor, and academic leaders to prepare a
National Innovation Initiative, which could provide a blueprint for action. Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to
establish a new bipartisan competitiveness commission that would have the prestige and leverage to stimulate government action.
The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a highly talented workforce,
powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of entrepreneurs and many dynamic
companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing economy, but it gives the country the wherewithal to
adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are visible everywhere. Strong economic growth is vital to the
U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to fashion a new competitiveness
agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of the new century. Once that agenda has been
crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 70
2AC: International CP
1. Extend Hagengruber 08, Spencer 07, Dawson 05 – US nuclear development
key to non-proliferation. We have to lead the global movement towards
nuclear if we want to stop proliferation from it.
2. Extend PR Newswire 08, Loris & Spencer 08 – US nuclear development key to

global economies. Nuclear energy plants create many jobs in and out of the
country, not to mention exports, which help international economies.
3. Extend two Spencer 08 cards, Craig 99 – our specific plan is the only way we
can spur nuclear R&D. International agents have NO jurisdiction over the US’s
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which is what is needed to start more R&D
on nuclear to solve Global Warming.
4. Extend Stratfor 07 – US key to global nuclear development. If the US doesn’t

deregulate Yucca and thereby increase nuclear R&D, many other countries will
never commit to “unsafe” nuclear power. While foreign nuclear energy is
unsafe now, our plan spurs international nuclear R&D, making nuclear energy
the safest and cleanest energy option available to solve Global Warming.
5. Britain nuclear power plants are unsuccessful, costing twice the budget and
are built too slowly.
Hannah Goff, BBC News education reporter, 5-16-05, BBC News, “Is Britain’s Future Really Nuclear?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4549313.stm [Jiajia Huang]
Britain's 14 nuclear power stations are coming to the end of their lifetimes, with half due to be decommissioned between
now and 2010. By 2023 all but one will have shut.
This means nuclear power's contribution to Britain's electricity supply will be cut by two-thirds from its present 21% level to
7% by 2020.
Green group Friends of the Earth says that, even if you solved the problem of what to do with radioactive nuclear waste and
could guarantee against Chernobyl-type accidents, there simply isn't enough time for a revival.
It points to the fact that the last nuclear power station to be built in the UK, Sizewell B, took 15 years to go from proposal
to electricity production and cost more than twice its original budget.
"These facts swiftly brought to an end plans to build nine reactors of the same design," FOE climate campaigner Bryony
Worthington says.
"In fact, we have never built a nuclear power reactor in this country on time or to budget or that has succeeded in
achieving the levels of performance that were expected."
The group also claims the doubling of Britain's nuclear capacity - which ultimately means something like 28 new power
stations - would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8%.
And it provides no solution to the global warming gases produced by cars, lorries and domestic heating.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 71
6. French nuclear plants are unsafe, unhealthy, and bad for the environment.
Greg Keller, AP Business Writer. 07/19/08. “Repeated incidents raise questions about French nuclear safety,”
Energy Central. http://pro.energycentral.com/professional/news/power/ news_article.cfm?id=10708479
[Takumi Murayama]
First, an overflowing tub at a French nuclear plant spilled uranium into the groundwater. Then a burst pipe leaked
uranium at another nuclear site, raising an alert on Friday.
The two accidents within two weeks, both at sites run by French nuclear giant Areva, have raised questions about safety
and control measures in one of the world's most nuclear-dependent nations, and given fodder to anti-nuclear activists.
Environmentalists said the incidents are a wake-up call, raising doubts about an industry in which France has staked out
a leading role internationally.
France has 59 reactors churning out nearly 80 percent of its electricity, and the French state owns Areva, which exports its
nuclear technologies around the world.
French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo insisted that the incidents were minor, but he nonetheless ordered an overhaul
of the country's nuclear supervision and information processes, as well as checks of the groundwater around all nuclear plants
in France.
Areva Chief Executive Anne Lauvergeon traveled to one of the plants Friday to meet with employees and local officials.
Former French Environment Minister Corinne Lepage, who opposes nuclear energy, said the "repeated incidents ... shine a
light on the nuclear industry's failures, mainly due to under-investment in safety, the protection of human health and
the environment."
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 72
7. And, any risk of solving the systemic impacts of Global Warming should be
evaluated first over the negative’s impacts.
Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a more serious threat than
terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke, new evidence of climate change suggests it could be
even more serious, and the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far. Most of us are aware of some degree of
warming; winters are warmer and spring comes earlier. But in the Arctic, warming is more than twice as great as here in
Europe and in summertime, torrents of melt water now plunge from Greenland's kilometre-high glaciers. The complete
dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time, but by then the sea will have risen seven metres, enough to make
uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world, including London, Venice, Calcutta, New York and Tokyo.
Even a two metre rise is enough to put most of southern Florida under water. The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even
more vulnerable to warming; in 30 years, its white reflecting ice, the area of the US, may become dark sea that absorbs the
warmth of summer sunlight, and further hastens the end of the Greenland ice. The North Pole, goal of so many explorers, will
then be no more than a point on the ocean surface. Not only the Arctic is changing; climatologists warn a four-degree rise in
temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people, their biodiversity, and for the
world, which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners. The scientists who form the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100. Their
grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat; and according to Swiss meteorologists, the Europe-wide
hot spell that killed over 20,000 was wholly different from any previous heat wave. The odds against it being a mere
deviation from the norm were 300,000 to one. It was a warning of worse to come.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 73
2AC: Nuclear Energy Expensive

1. Nuclear power plants are initially more expensive because of safety
requirements; they’re actually 10 times cheaper in the long run.
The production cost of nuclear electricity generated from existing U.S. plants is already fully competitive with
electricity from fossil fuels, although new nuclear power is somewhat more expensive. But this higher price tag is
deceptive. Large nuclear power plants require larger capital investments than comparable coal or gas plants
only because nuclear utilities are required to build and maintain costly systems to keep their radioactivity
from the environment. If fossil-fuel plants were similarly required to sequester the pollutants they generate, they
would cost significantly more than nuclear power plants do. The European Union and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) have determined that "for equivalent amounts of energy generation, coal and oil plants, . . .
owing to their large emissions and huge fuel and transport requirements, have the highest externality costs as well as
equivalent lives lost. The external costs are some ten times higher than for a nuclear power plant and can be a
significant fraction of generation costs." In equivalent lives lost per gigawatt generated (that is, loss of life
expectancy from exposure to pollutants), coal kills 37 people annually; oil, 32; gas, 2; nuclear, 1. Compared to
nuclear power, in other words, fossil fuels (and renewables) have enjoyed a free ride with respect to protection of
the environment and public health and safety.
2. Anti-nuclear power environmentalists are wrong and damage an important

energy source.
nuclear power up by forcing delays and instigating superfluous regulation. Though affordable, nuclear power is as expensive
as it is today because of that success, not because the technology is uncompetitive. The situation is much different today.
Streamlined regulation, better designs and greater efficiency make the economics of today's nuclear plants much more
predictable. Nuclear energy is among the least expensive energy sources today. Indeed, numerous studies have shown that
new nuclear power is very competitive in a carbon-constrained economy. The anti-nuke crowd already nearly killed the
nuclear industry once, and America is paying for it today with higher energy prices. This time the stakes are higher and
consequences are greater. Sadly, the environment and the poorest Americans will be hardest hit if they succeed. Nuclear
energy is the only realistic and affordable option if we hope to cap CO2. The old rock stars of the world may be able to
afford higher electricity prices. But the single mothers of the world cannot. It's time for a Browne-out.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 74
3. Nuclear energy is safer, more efficient, and cheaper.
In America and around the globe, nuclear safety and efficiency have improved significantly since 1990. In 1998, unit
capacity factor (the fraction of a power plant's capacity that it actually generates) for operating reactors reached record
levels. The average U.S. capacity factor in 1998 was 80 percent for about 100 reactors, compared to 58 percent in 1980 and 66
percent in 1990. Despite a reduction in the number of power plants, the U.S. nuclear industry generated nine percent more
nuclear electricity in 1999 than in 1998. Average production costs for nuclear energy are now just 1.9 cents per kilowatt-
hour (kWh), while electricity produced from gas costs 3.4 cents per kWh. Meanwhile, radiation exposure to workers and
waste produced per unit of energy have hit new lows. Because major, complex technologies take more than half a century to
spread around the world, natural gas will share the lead in power generation with nuclear power over the next hundred years.
Which of the two will command the greater share remains to be determined. But both are cleaner and more secure than the
fuels they have begun to replace, and their ascendance should be endorsed. Even environmentalists should welcome the
transition and reconsider their infatuation with renewable energy sources.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 75
1AR: Nuclear Energy Expensive

1. Extend Rhodes and Beller 00 – nuclear energy is WAY cheaper in the long
run. Prefer our evidence because it looks also to the future; it’s not
shortsighted like the neg’s cards.
2. Despite high capital and start-up costs, nuclear energy is becoming cheaper
and more efficient.
Lionel Beehner, senior writer at the Council for Foreign Relations, 4-25-06, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and
Foreign Policy”, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl _nuclear_power_ and_foreign_policy.html,
[Crystal Xia]
Nuclear power has enormously high capital and start-up costs, in addition to the added costs of decommissioning plants
and disposing of nuclear waste, say economists. They often point to the British government's repeated bailout of British
Energy. Also, nuclear power's cost competitiveness depends on the global price of oil and gas, which fluctuates
unpredictably. And for countries with ample supplies of coal, including the United States and China, it is far cheaper—but
less environmentally friendly—to run coal-run plants than nuclear-power stations, experts say. But some nuclear
advocates say advances in technology will make the cost of nuclear power, already down to less than two cents per kilowatt
hour, more competitive with coal in the future. Carbon taxes, emissions-trading schemes, and government subsidies—
which in America could reach $6 billion, if Bush's latest energy bill passes—may also enhance nuclear energy's
competitiveness.
3. Extend Spencer 07 – Nuclear energy is the only cheap and easy option to
deal with CO2 emissions. Also, it was the anti-nuclear lobby that made nuclear
energy expensive in the first place.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 76
2AC: Nuclear Energy Safety

1. Extend Loris & Spencer 07 – fear is driven by flawed logic and
representations.
2. Extend Lovelock 04 – we have no time, and nuclear is the only option. Fear is
irrational.
3. Anti-nuclear activists spread propaganda to instill fear of nuclear power.
Ed Hiserodt, engineer and expert in power generation technology, 4-30-07, “Myths about Nuclear Energy”,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/3481, [CXia]
The great nightmare associated with nuclear energy is the “meltdown.” Anti-nuclear activists love to point to a
scenario in which a reactor would lose its coolant allowing the fuel rods to melt through the reactor vessel, through
several feet of high-strength concrete, and through hundreds of feet of earth till reaching an aquifer whereupon a
steam explosion would ensue. Consequently, they eagerly seized upon the accident at Three Mile Island as the
embodiment of all their fears — or at least of the fears they wanted the public to have. The problem was that
Three Mile Island was a demonstration of the safety of nuclear plants. Beginning at 4:00 a.m. on March 28,
1979, a series of mishaps resulted in the partial meltdown of the reactor core. By 7:45 a.m. that morning, according to
the Smithsonian Institute, “a molten mass of metal and fuel — some twenty tons in all — is spilling into the bottom
of the reactor vessel.” Yet that reactor containment vessel worked as designed and by 9:00 a.m. the danger was past:
“The reactor vessel holds firm, and the molten uranium, immersed in water, now gradually begins to cool,” the
Smithsonian Institute says in its timeline of events at the damaged reactor. Perhaps the final word on Three Mile
Island comes from Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. In October 2006, Moore wrote in Popular Mechanics:
“At the time, no one noticed Three Mile Island was a success story; the concrete containment structure
prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. There was no injury or death among the public or
nuclear workers.”
It is common to mention Chernobyl and Three Mile Island at the same time in debate over nuclear safety, but the two events
are substantially different. Chernobyl was the feared “worst case scenario” envisioned by critics of nuclear energy. Whereas at
Three Mile Island the nuclear chain reaction was stopped in the first 10 seconds of the event, at Chernobyl the chain reaction
continued well into the accident. Although there is almost nothing flammable in a U.S. power reactor, Chernobyl’s was
constructed from graphite, a form of carbon that is difficult to ignite, but burns with a very hot flame once ignited. Not only
that, but Chernobyl did not even have a containment structure for the reactor, unlike American plants that are built
with containment buildings designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. Because there was no containment vessel
enclosing Chernobyl’s poorly designed RBMK-type reactors, when the plant exploded, chunks of radioactive material were
ejected from the annihilated plant and exposed to the environment.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 77
4. Critics hide behind the guise of “environmentalism” in order to promote big

government.
But leading critics, those who often have set the terms of the debate, have, unfortunately, been wrong in their
assessments of the risks. Three Mile Island proved the effectiveness of the safety measures designed into every
Western power plant — and technological advances make modern designs safer than Three Mile Island. This has
been known to leading critics of nuclear energy. But they oppose nuclear power not because it is unsafe, but
because it is too useful. Cloaked in the garb of “environmentalism,” they use the anti-nuke movement to
promote big government and harass productive capitalistic enterprises. Among these is Paul Ehrlich, who is
known for his outrageous (and wrong) doomsday predictions. In the May-June 1975 issue of the Federation of
American Scientists’ Public Interest Report, Ehrlich wrote: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the
moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Amory Lovins, another critic and one-time British
representative of Friends of the Earth, agrees. “If you ask me,” Lovins said in an interview with Playboy magazine in
1977, “It’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what
we would do with it.” Ehrlich, Lovins, and almost all of the “green” leadership rightly recognize that nuclear
energy would lead to prosperity. From their standpoint, that is the problem. Again quoting Ehrlich: “We’ve already
had too much economic growth in the U.S. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.”
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 78
5. And, According to a Greenpeace co-founder, nuclear power is safe and

practical
Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Chair CASEnergy Coalition, co-founde/former leader, Greenpeace, 6-08, Nuclear Power
International, “Nuclear Power—Energy Creating Jobs,”
http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/332480/140/ARTCL/none/none/1/Nuclear-
Power%E2%80%94Energy-Creating-Jobs/ [Jiajia Huang]
As one of the founders of Greenpeace, I was once opposed to nuclear energy. In the early years, we were so focused on the
threat of nuclear war; we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons as if all things nuclear
were evil. We were wrong.
The possible consequences of climate change and certainty of high energy prices don’t allow us the luxury of emotion. We
must be practical. If we truly want to provide safe and affordable energy that doesn’t emit greenhouse gases (GHG) and
still helps us meet a rising demand, it would be irresponsible not to consider nuclear energy for our global energy mix.
In the United States, electricity demand is forecast to increase 25 percent by 2030. Demand in other nations is growing at
an even faster rate and some two billion people in the world still lack access to electricity for essential services.
Consumption may increase five-fold. Conservation and efficiency may make it possible to reduce demand growth with
technologies like smart metering and energy efficient appliances, but they won’t eliminate overall demand growth. If we
want to satisfy this growing demand without increasing air pollution and GHGs, nuclear energy is the only baseload, “always
on” technology available.
As a lifelong activist, I am particularly concerned about the impact that our actions have on our planet and our health. I came
around to nuclear power because it generates electricity we can rely on, while preventing the emission of pollutants like
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter that lead to the formation of acid rain, smog and severe health effects.
As the International Panel on Climate Change points outs, nuclear energy’s clean air benefits are also capable of reducing
greenhouse gases.
The nuclear industry grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s as France, Japan and the United States built scores of reactors.
France now has 59 nuclear reactors and derives more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. But in the United
States, lagging electricity demand, challenging politics, public misperception and project mismanagement have stalled new
plants for nearly 30 years.
Today, safe and efficient industry performance and growing concern over climate change has brought nuclear energy back into
public favor. Nuclear plants are generating electricity at record levels. In 2007, U.S. reactors produced 807 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity1 or 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, while operating at nearly 92 percent capacity.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 79
1AR: Nuclear Energy Safety

1. Extend Loris & Spencer 07 and Lovelock 04 – We have no time to try
anything else than nuclear power, and fear of it is irrational.
2. NCPA proves that the risks of nuclear power are hypothetical, even if you
don’t believe Loris, Spencer, or Lovelock.
Richard Walker, Staff writer for NCPA, 4/6/05, Nuclear Power Today, “NCPA Says Nuclear Power Safer than
Commonly Thought, http://www.allbusiness.com/utilities/electric-power-generation/382476-1.html [Jiajia
Huang]
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) recently announced that an analysis conducted by scholars from its E-
Team project suggests that nuclear energy is safer than commonly thought.
According to NCPA, the public is primarily concerned that radiation will escape due to equipment failure or human
error, that spent nuclear fuel poses a threat to human health and that nuclear material could be used in a terrorist
assault.
NCPA said the researchers concluded in their analysis that the risk from each of these concerns is "quite small."
"The benefits of nuclear energy are real, while the risks are mostly hypothetical," said NCPA E-Team adjunct scholar
Larry Foulke.
3. Extend our two Hiserodt 07 cards – Environmentalist Propaganda instill fear.
4. Extend Moore 08 – Nuclear power is both safe and 100% practical.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 80
2AC: Oil DA
1. No link–Nuclear, wind, and solar power plants do not affect the oil industry.
Jerry Taylor, senior fellow @ the Cato Institute, 6-14-07, “Alternative Energy in the Dock”,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/taylor-poweringamerica.pdf, [Crystal Xia]
It’s important to note, however, that these alleged “national security externalities” are exclusively related to oil – not to coal,
natural gas, or any other sort of fossil fuel because we don’t import those energy sources by any appreciable amount.
Accordingly, subsidizing wind, solar, and nuclear power will do little to improve national security because those energy
sources do not compete with crude oil and would not displace crude oil. Until plug-in cars are both available and
economically attractive to consumers, building 100 new wind, solar, and nuclear power plants won’t reduce oil
consumption by very much at all.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 81
2AC: Politics–Elections
No link-Both McCain and Obama support nuclear energy. McCain won’t steal the issue.
Richard Simon, writer for the Los Angeles Times, 04/09/07, “Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear
Plants”, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/ [Takumi Murayama]
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates -
support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more
nuclear plants.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 82
2AC: Politics–Popular
Nuclear energy is popular among Americans.
MSNBC, June 25, 2008, “Poll Reveals Surprising Support for Nuclear Power”,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25371194/ [Takumi Murayama]
Now a new poll shows about 67 percent of Americans are in support of building more nuclear power plants to expand the
nation's energy portfolio. The nation's nuclear regulatory agency is reviewing about 36 new applications for plants here in the
U.S. right now. "There are almost the same number, nearly three dozen nuclear power stations actually under construction
around the world, outside the U.S. So it's clear that people are tumbling toward the idea that nuclear is a way to make huge
quantities of reliable affordable energy, and in particular, power that has no greenhouse gas emissions," said Brad Peck
with Energy Northwest, the public power co-op who runs the northwest's only nuclear power station. But Peck said he doesn't
expect anything to pop up here anytime soon. Numbers also show more than 70 percent of Americans in favor of new plants at
already existing sites.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 83
2AC: Proliferation
1. Spent fuel would not contribute to terrorism or proliferation and would
improve nuclear energy.
Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller, Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, Research Professor at
University of Nevada in Las Vegas, 1/2K, “The Need for Nuclear Power”, Foreign Affairs, Lexis-Nexis, [Crystal Xia]
MOST OF THE URANIUM used in nuclear reactors is inert, a nonfissile product unavailable for use in weapons. Operating
reactors, however, breed fissile plutonium that could be used in bombs, and therefore the commercialization of nuclear power
has raised concerns about the spread of weapons. In 1977, President Carter deferred indefinitely the recycling of "spent"
nuclear fuel, citing proliferation risks. This decision effectively ended nuclear recycling in the United States, even
though such recycling reduces the volume and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste and could extend nuclear fuel supplies for
thousands of years. Other nations assessed the risks differently and the majority did not follow the U.S. example. France
and the United Kingdom currently reprocess spent fuel; Russia is stockpiling fuel and separated plutonium for jump-
starting future fast-reactor fuel cycles; Japan has begun using recycled uranium and plutonium mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in its
reactors and recently approved the construction of a new nuclear power plant to use 100-percent MOX fuel by 2007. Although
power-reactor plutonium theoretically can be used to make nuclear explosives, spent fuel is refractory, highly
radioactive, and beyond the capacity of terrorists to process. Weapons made from reactor-grade plutonium would be hot,
unstable, and of uncertain yield. India has extracted weapons plutonium from a Canadian heavy-water reactor and bars
inspection of some dual-purpose reactors it has built. But no plutonium has ever been diverted from British or French
reprocessing facilities or fuel shipments for weapons production; IAEA inspections are effective in preventing such
diversions. The risk of proliferation, the IAEA has concluded, "is not zero and would not become zero even if nuclear
power ceased to exist. It is a continually strengthened nonproliferation regime that will remain the cornerstone of efforts to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons."
2. Extend Hagengruber 08, Spencer 07, Dawson 05, and Kotek 06 – nuclear
energy R&D is necessary to prevent proliferation.
3. Nuclear energy doesn’t increase the ability for any country to get the bomb
– determined nations will find their own ways.
Scott D. Sagan, Professor of political science and Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Harvard, 9-
06, “How the Keep the Bomb From Iran”, Foreign Affairs, Lexis-Nexis, [Crystal Xia]
A U.S. official in the executive branch anonymously told The New York Times in March 2006, "The reality is that
most of us think the Iranians are probably going to get a weapon, or the technology to make one, sooner or later."
Such proliferation fatalists argue that over the long term, it may be impossible to stop Iran -- or other states for
that matter -- from getting the bomb. Given the spread of nuclear technology and know-how, and the right of
parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium and separate plutonium, the argument goes,
any foreign government determined to acquire nuclear weapons will eventually do so. Moreover, the 1981
Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq may have delayed Iraq's progress, but similar air strikes are
unlikely to disable Iran's capacities, since its uranium-enrichment facilities can be hidden underground or widely
dispersed. Imposing economic sanctions through the un Security Council is clearly a preferable option. But as
Washington learned with India and Pakistan in the 1980s and 1990s, sanctions only increase the costs of going
nuclear; they do not reduce the ability of a determined government to get the bomb.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 84
4. Extend Canberra Times 7/19 – we solve for the very MOTIVATIONS behind
nuclear proliferation!
5. Nuclear power will not result in proliferation.
This myth relies on creating an illusion of cause and effect. This is why so much anti-nuclear propaganda focuses
on trying to equate nuclear weapons with civilian nuclear power. Once such a spurious relationship is
established, anti-nuclear activists can mix and match causes and effects without regard for the facts.
Furthermore, this "argument" is clearly irrelevant inside the United States. As a matter of policy, the United States
already has too many nuclear weapons and is disassembling them at a historic pace, so arguing that expanding
commercial nuclear activity in the United States would somehow lead to weapons proliferation is disingenuous. The
same would hold true for any other state with nuclear weapons.
As for states without nuclear weapons, the problem is more complex than simply arguing that access to peaceful nuclear power
will lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and pro-
ducing either material requires a sophisticated infrastructure. While most countries could certainly develop the
capabilities needed to produce these materials, the vast majority clearly have no intention of doing so. For start-up nuclear
powers, the preferred method of acquiring weapons-grade material domestically is to enrich uranium, not to separate plutonium
from spent nuclear fuel. Uranium enrichment is completely separate from nuclear power production. Furthermore, nothing
stops countries from developing a nuclear weapons capability, as demonstrated by North Korea and Iran. If proliferation is the
concern, then proper oversight is the answer, not stifling a distantly related industry.
6. Extend Rhodes & Beller 00 – Reprocessing solves for nuclear proliferation.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 85
1AR: Proliferation
1.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 86
2AC: Public Health

1. Nuclear power would create an improvement in public health – only problem
is perception.
The high-level waste is intensely radioactive, of course (the low-level waste can be less radioactive than coal ash, which is
used to make concrete and gypsum -- both of which are incorporated into building materials). But thanks to its small volume
and the fact that it is not released into the environment, this high-level waste can be meticulously sequestered behind
multiple barriers. Waste from coal, dispersed across the landscape in smoke or buried near the surface, remains toxic forever.
Radioactive nuclear waste decays steadily, losing 99 percent of its toxicity after 600 years -- well within the range of
human experience with custody and maintenance, as evidence by structures such as the Roman Pantheon and Notre Dame
Cathedral. Nuclear waste disposal is a political problem in the United States because of wide-spread fear
disproportionate to the reality of risk. But it is not an engineering problem, as advanced projects in France, Sweden,
and Japan demonstrate. The World Health Organization has estimated that indoor and outdoor air pollution cause some three
million deaths per year. Substituting small, properly contained volumes of nuclear waste for vast, dispersed amounts of
toxic wastes from fossil fuels would produce so obvious an improvement in public health that it is astonishing that
physicians have not already demanded such a conversion.
2. Reprocessing is essential for medical radioactive isotopes.
21st Century Science Tech. Summer 05. “Nuclear Fuel Is Renewable.”

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Renewable.pdf [Takumi
Murayama]
Ninety-six percent of the spent fuel can be turned into new fuel. The 4 percent of the so-called waste that remains—2,500
metric tons—consists of highly radioactive materials, but these are also usable. There are about 80 tons each of cesium-137
and strontium-90 that could be separated out for use in medical applications, such as sterilization of medical supplies.
Using isotope separation techniques, and fast-neutron bombardment for transmutation (technologies that the United States
pioneered but now refuses to develop), we could separate out all sorts of isotopes, like americium, which is used in smoke
detectors, or isotopes used in medical testing and treatment.
Right now, the United States must import 90 percent of its medical isotopes, used in 40,000 medical procedures daily.
These nuclear isotopes could be “mined” from the so-called waste. Instead, the United States supplies other countries with
highly enriched uranium, so that those countries can process it and sell the medical isotopes back to us!
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 87
2AC: Public Perception

1. Extend Loris & Spencer 07 – public fear of nuclear power caused by media
propaganda.
2. We solve–Public perception of nuclear energy relies on waste disposal
[Takumi Murayama]
High-level nuclear waste can usefully be placed in the context of the evolution of the U.S. nuclear program. This evolution can
be divided into three periods: the weapons period before the first prototype commercial reactor at Shippingport (1957), the “go-
go days” of reactor orders starting in the 1960s and ending in the 1970s, and the present period dominated by shutdowns and
some license renewals. These eras of waxing and waning enthusiasm for nuclear power are related to U.S. policy for
dealing with high-level nuclear waste.
In the early days of reactor enthusiasm, the waste problem was largely ignored. Alvin Weinberg, one of the “grand old men” of
the nuclear era, expressed his regret about this failure (see 34, page 183): “…[D]uring my years at ORNL [Oak Ridge National
Laboratory] I paid too little attention to the waste problem. Designing and building reactors, not nuclear waste, was what
turned me on…[A]s I think about what I would do differently had I to do it over again, it would be to elevate waste disposal to
the very top of ORNL's agenda…I have no doubt that, if wastes had been viewed…as the highest priority on the research
agenda, we could by this time [1994] have demonstrated a working high-level depository that was perceived by the
public to be safe.” The failure of the nuclear industry to pay attention to “closing the fuel cycle” in the days before the
problem attracted widespread public attention may be costing the industry heavily today and could prove fatal to
nuclear technology. (During the go-go days, there was great interest in “closing the fuel cycle” through reprocessing, which
would have reduced high-level waste substantially. Ultimately, the United States decided to stop all work in this area. The
primary reason was the “weapons connection.” Economics was a secondary reason that became increasingly important as the
price of uranium dropped and as reactors lost their economic edge.) It is also possible, of course, that technical mistakes would
have been made or that even excellent efforts in the early days would not have succeeded.
3. The government must act NOW to save public perception.
Ferenc L. Toth and Hans-Holger Rogner. Department of Nuclear Energy @ International Atomic Energy
Agency. 9-8-05, “Oil and nuclear power: Past, present and future”. Science Direct. [Crystal Xia]
In an environmentally conscious future, nuclear power fares best against coal and, depending on the degree of
environmental regulation, also against gas. Policies protecting global climate will certainly affect oil production and use as
well but primarily with regard to oil substitutes in end-use markets, and, depending on the future techno-economic performance
of renewables, also in the non-grid electricity markets. Nuclear generated electricity may indirectly challenge some oil use
in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. However, electricity–no matter how generated–is expected to
expand its market share because of its intrinsic features to improve productivity, cleanliness, and convenience. Policies
enforcing an internalization of the externalities associated with the production and use of energy services will eventually
improve the competitiveness of clean technologies such as nuclear power. In the global warming context, the key questions
are how fast the world society decides to reduce CO2 emissions, how high will be the costs of other mitigation options,
and how the public acceptance of nuclear energy will change in some countries. Depending on the resolution of these
questions and the concerns summarized above, the outcome could entail a new boost to nuclear energy or could lead
towards the beginning of the end for this energy source.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 88
2AC: Radiation not substantial

Nuclear power plants do not release a sufficient amount of radiation to make a
difference.
FACT: Nuclear power plants do emit some radiation, but the amounts are environmentally insignificant and
pose no threat. This myth relies on taking facts completely out of context. By exploiting public fears of anything
radioactive and not educating the public about the true nature of radiation and radiation exposure, anti-nuclear
activists can easily portray any radioactive emissions as a reason to stop nuclear power. However, when radiation is
put into the proper context, the safety of nuclear power plants is clear. Nuclear power plants do emit some
radiation, but the amounts are environmentally insignificant and pose no threat. These emissions fall well below the
legal safety limit sanctioned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Indeed, less than 1 percent of the
public's exposure to radiation comes from nuclear power plants. The average American is exposed to 360
millirem of radiation a year.[4] About 83 percent (300 millirem) of this annual radiation dose comes from natural
sources, such as cosmic rays, uranium in the Earth's crust, and radon gas in the atmosphere. Most of the rest comes
from medical procedures such as X-rays, and about 3 percent (11 millirem) comes from consumer products.[5] The
Department of Energy reports that living near a nuclear power plant exposes a person to 1 millirem of radiation
a year.[6] By comparison, an airline passenger who flies from New York to Los Angeles receives 2.5 millirem.[7]
As Chart 1 illustrates, radiation exposure is an unavoidable reality of everyday life, and radiation exposure
from living near a nuclear power plant is insignificant.
Nuclear power is way safer than coal, and radiation issues are empirically
denied
David Lonsdale, group editorial manager of Australian Provincial Newspapers. 07/19/08. “Nuclear power
pluses must be weighed with the risks,” A, p. B08. Lexis. [Takumi Murayama]
Ulrich Beck tells us nuclear power is just too risky ("Wrong to compare risk with disaster", July 18, p15). But he is
constrained in doing so by the fact that 442 facilities have now proven, in practice, that it is the safest and greenest source
of base-load electricity.
Coal mining averages about 10,000 deaths every year, not counting those from lung diseases. The exhaustive UN inquiry
into Chernobyl, our only nuclear disaster, found fewer than 40 died.
Further, how does Beck account for Canada's naturally-occurring, highly radioactive uranium deposits sitting shallow,
in unexceptional wet rock, for eons with no discernible deleterious surface effects?
Any chance he likes exaggerating the risks to frighten the kiddies?
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 89
1AR: Radiation not substantial

1. Extend Loris and Spencer 07 – radiation emissions by nuclear power plants
are INSIGNIFICANT compared to other, everyday exposures to radiation.
2. The amount of nuclear radiation emitted is less than coal; even the Capitol
emits more!
The fact is, nuclear power plants emit less radiation during normal operation than do coal-fired power plants. In an
article published in 1993 in Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, ORNL physicist Alex Gabbard pointed out “that coal-fired
power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment.” According to
Gabbard, radiation from coal combustion “is 100 times that from nuclear plants.” Yet even at that level, radiation from
coal is completely negligible. Nuclear reactors emit much less radiation than coal-fired power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission limits radiation at the plant boundary to 5 millirems per year. (It seldom gets anywhere near that.) If you were to
stand unclothed at the boundary for 120 years, you would receive as much radiation as a person living on the Colorado plateau
does in one year from natural background radiation. Moreover, the U.S. capitol building has long been known to emit too
much radiation to be licensed as a nuclear power plant. Consider too that unlike coal- or oil-fired plants, nuclear power
plants do not have smokestacks spewing pollutants into the atmosphere. In the case of nuclear plants, the wastes are
contained within the plant itself. Often mistaken for smokestacks, some nuclear power plants, like some coal- or oil-fired
plants, have cooling towers that emit water vapor. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that radiation is all around us
every day. According to the Department of Energy, the average American receives 300 millirems of radiation each year from
natural sources, but that amount is higher in some places. For instance, in Denver, Colorado, because of the proximity of the
Rocky Mountains and because there is less atmosphere overhead to protect from cosmic rays, residents receive almost double
the national average background radiation. I wonder, does the EPA know about this? Perhaps Coloradans should be evacuated!
3. Extend Lonsdale 7/19 and Loris and Spencer 07 from the 1AC – fears of
nuclear radiation are a fear tactic that ENORMOUSLY EXAGGERATE the amount
of radiation emitted by nuclear power plants.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 90
2AC: Reprocessing Good

1. Not reprocessing is more prone to proliferation
Richard Rhodes, author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun, and Denis Beller, nuclear engineer
and Technical Staff Member at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 01/02-00. “The need for nuclear power,”
Foreign Affairs. New York, Vol. 79, Iss. 1; pg. 30, 15 pgs. [Takumi Murayama]
Ironically, burying spent fuel without extracting its plutonium through reprocessing would actually increase the long-
term risk of nuclear proliferation, since the decay ofless-fissile and more-radioactive isotopes in spent fuel after one to
three centuries improves the explosive qualities of the plutonium it contains, making it more attractive for weapons use.
Besides extending the world's uranium resources almost indefinitely, recycling would make it possible to convert plutonium to
useful energy while breaking it down into shorter-lived, nonfissionable, nonthreatening nuclear waste.
Hundreds of tons of weapons-grade plutonium, which cost the nuclear superpowers billions of dollars to produce, have become
military surplus in the past decade. Rather than burying some of this strategically worrisome but energetically valuable
material-as Washington has proposed-it should be recycled into nuclear fuel. An international system to recycle and
manage such fuel would prevent covert proliferation. As envisioned by Edward Arthur, Paul Cunningham, and Richard
Wagner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, such a system would combine internationally monitored retrievable storage,
the processing of all separated plutonium into mox fuel for power reactors, and, in the longer term, advanced integrated
materials processing reactors that would receive, control, and process all fuel discharged from reactors throughout the world,
generating electricity and reducing spent fuel to short-lived nuclear waste ready for permanent geological storage.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 91
2. Reprocessing Key for Kyoto
Rodney C. Ewing, Department of Geological Sciences, Department of Materials Science & Engineering and
Department of Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Sciences, The University of Michigan. 12-05. “The Nuclear
Fuel Cycle versus The Carbon Cycle,” The Canadian Mineralogist, v. 43, no. 6, p. 2099-2116.
[Takumi Murayama]
In 1997, the third Conference of the Parties (COP–3) produced the Kyoto Protocol. Although signed by then Vice-President Al
Gore, it has not been ratified by the Senate of the USA. To enter into force, the Protocol must be ratified by 55 parties
representing at least 55% of the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in 1990. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force
on February 16, 2005, after ratification by Russia. As part of the Protocol, the developed countries must commit themselves
to reducing their collective emissions of six GHG to at least 5% below 1990 levels. The most prominent of these GHG is
CO2, which accounts for nearly 65% of the warming effect (Houghton et al. 2001). The USA presently accounts for
approximately 25% of the global emissions of CO2 with 5% of the world’s population. The Kyoto Protocol would require the
USA to reduce emissions by 7% below 1990 levels, an annual reduction of 1.1 x 109 t CO2, equivalent to removing all the
gasoline-powered vehicles from U.S. roads (Loewen & León 2001). The USA produces nearly 20% of its electricity using
nuclear power, and this is equivalent to avoiding the release of 6 x 108 t CO2, if this electricity had been produced from
carbon-based fuels (Loewen & León 2001).
There is a pressing need to develop a timely strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Thus, a number of analyses are based on a goal
of limiting the increase in CO2 emissions to twice (550 ppm) the pre-industrial levels (275 ppm) by the year 2050 (Fetter 2000,
Sailor et al. 2000). Present levels of CO2 are just over 360 ppm, increasing at an average rate of 1.5 ppm/yr. This adds 3.3
GtC/yr to the atmospheric reservoir, which is 750 GtC (Houghton et al. 2001). Models of CO2 emissions suggest that strategies
for reduction must be initiated in developed countries by 2010 in order to meet the goal of only doubling of the CO2
concentration above the pre-industrial level (Wigley 1997). As previously discussed, of all of the technologies presently
capable of contributing to a major reduction in carbon emissions, nuclear power is one of the most promising, simply
because the technology is already operating on a substantial scale, and in principle, it could be deployed more rapidly on a
global scale. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) maintains that the USA capacity for nuclear power generation can be
increased by 10 GW by 2012 (equivalent to a reduction of 0.022 GtC/yr). The NEI supports a goal of adding 50 GW capacity
(= approximately 50 new NPP) by 2020 (equivalent to a reduction of 0.1 GtC/yr).
Analyses of the prospects of nuclear power have been presented by many, but two of the most detailed are by Fetter (2000) and
Sailor et al.(2000). Authors of these analyses necessarily make many assumptions about future energy needs. Assuming a
stabilization of CO2 concentrations to approximately twice pre-industrial levels by 2050, and projecting a growth in world
population to 9 billion (a 50% increase) and an increase in per capita energy consumption of 50%, the global energy demand in
2050 will be approximately 900 exajoules (1018 joules) per year (EJ/yr) (Sailor et al. 2000). If nuclear power provides one-
third of the projected energy requirement (300 EJ/yr), and the balance is divided equally between conventional fossil fuels and
"decarbonized" fossil fuels, the 300 EJ from nuclear power are roughly equivalent to 3300 GW-years (one GWyr is the average
annual energy output from a single large power plant) of capacity per year (present capacities are about 260 GWyr/yr). With
this scenario, the projected 900 EJ/yr of global energy use would still result in CO2 emissions that would equal 5.5 GtC/yr
(present levels are ~7 GtC/yr) (Sailor et al. 2000). Still, this would mean more than a ten-fold increase in nuclear power
generation capacity, requiring the construction of over 3,000 NPP before 2050 (at present there are 439 operating nuclear
generating units). The impact of this expansion in nuclear-power-generation capacity is difficult to anticipate because it
depends critically on the types of reactors and fuel cycles that are used, as previously discussed. The figures previously cited
from the MIT study (Ansolabehere et al. 2003) and tabulated in Table 1 are based on an increase by a factor of three of nuclear-
power-generation capacity by 2050 (1,000 GW). Still, one must expect that the most immediate deployment of new reactors
will be of the Generation III+ type, not too different from the present water-reactor technology, but with higher burn-up of the
nuclear fuel. Thus, one may use the present technology as a basis for extrapolating the environmental impact and use the
factors of 3 to 10 as the range of what has been considered for the increase in nuclear power production. On this basis, the
annual increase in global spent-fuel production would be between 27,000 and 89,000 metric tonnes of heavy metal (tHM). The
higher number is greater than the presently planned capacity (70,000 tHM equivalent) for the proposed repository at Yucca
Mountain. One approach to reducing the impact of the increased production of nuclear waste is to use reprocessing to minimize
the volumes of waste produced and to utilize the fissile content of the SNF; however, this raises major issues related to the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. A one-GWyr light water reactor produces 200 kg/yr of Pu (enough for 20 nuclear weapons).
If the global nuclear-energy capacity is increased to 3,000 GW, then the annual production of Pu would be over 500,000 kg
(Williams & Feiveson 1990). If one foresees a nuclear industry based on Pu-breeder reactors, the 3,000 GW nuclear system
would produce five million kilograms of plutonium per year (Williams & Feiveson 1990). Alvin Weinberg (2000) has related
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 92
the reduction (avoided increase) in CO2 content in the atmosphere to the amount of U consumed, that is the percentage of U
fissioned in nuclear power plants. A typical LWR without reprocessing has an efficiency (% of U fissioned) of only 0.5%,
whereas a perfect breeder-reactor cycle with reprocessing has an efficiency of 70%. Even if the presently estimated
reserves for uranium (30 x 106 t) are completely utilized (Weinberg 2000), the low-efficiency system now in use, LWR
followed by direct disposal, will lower the CO2 increase by only 38 ppm. Either there will have to be a shift to breeder
reactors and reprocessing, or alternative sources of U must be found. All of these figures are speculative, but they do
emphasize that an increase in the role of nuclear power in reducing carbon emissions must be substantial and go hand-in-hand
with the development of advanced fuel-cycles and waste-management technologies that do not presently exist on an industrial
scale.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 93
2AC: States CP
1. Perm–do both. States should provide
_________________________________________________________________ while we do the plan.
2. Perm solves best – the USfg can deregulate waste management while the
states can spur the nuclear industry using other incentives.
3. No solvency–States have no jurisdiction over federal laws, specifically the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
4. Extend EnergyBiz 08 – USfg deregulation is empirically proven to solve.
5. Extend Hagengruber 08, Spencer 07, Dawson 05 from prolif advantage.

Spencer 07 explicitly mentions that the federal government is the ONLY one
who can solve for the problems of nuclear waste.
6. USfg key–Extend Craig 99 and Spencer 08. Waste management key. The US
must deregulate so the private sector can manage waste. Storing spent-fuel is
way too expensive, and letting the private sector manage its own waste is the
only way we can ever restart nuclear R&D.
7. Turn–States don’t have the jurisdiction to regulate nuclear safety, causing

state-run plants to be unsafe due to unsafe storage of nuclear waste.
Larry Parker and Mark Holt Specialists in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division, “Nuclear
Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors”, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf, 2007
The extent to which the nuclear waste issue could inhibit nuclear power expansion is difficult to assess. NRC has
determined that onsite storage of spent fuel would be safe for at least 30 years after expiration of a reactor’s operating license,
which was estimated to be as long as 70 years. As a result, the Commission concluded that “adequate regulatory authority is
available to require any measures necessary to assure safe storage of the spent fuel until a repository is available.”49
Therefore, NRC does not consider the lack of a permanent repository for spent fuel to be an obstacle to nuclear plant licensing.
However, the Administration was concerned enough about repository delays to include a provision in its recent nuclear
waste bill to require NRC, when considering nuclear power plant license applications, to assume that sufficient waste
disposal capacity will be available in a timely manner.50 Six states — California, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin — have specific laws that link approval for new nuclear power plants to adequate waste disposal
capacity. Kansas forbids cost recovery for “excess” nuclear power capacity if no “technology or means for disposal of high-
level nuclear waste” is available.51 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that state authority over nuclear power plant
construction is limited to economic considerations rather than safety, which is solely under NRC jurisdiction.52 No
nuclear plants have been ordered since the various state restrictions were enacted, so their ability to meet the Supreme
Court’s criteria has yet to be tested.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 94
8. Turn–States mismanage waste, annihilating CP solvency.
David H. Leroy, Leroy Law Offices, Michael T. Ryan, Charleston Southern University, and John R. Wiley,
Board on Radioactive Waste Management. 05/25/06. “Improving the regulation and management of low-
activity radioactive waste” http://www.health-physics.com/pt/re/healthphys/pdfhandler.00004032-
200611000-
00006.pdf;jsessionid=Lv0BynQGHppHXt2TJxB6vnQqbnBFkTQRBmFJHVnt6wbRkl8pH91w!14755225
43!181195628!8091!-1 [Takumi Murayama]
Regulations focused on the origin of individual wastes have led to inconsistencies relative to their associated radiological
risks. [Diffuse] NORM and TENORM are not regulated by federal agencies because they do not fall under the AEA. State
regulation of these wastes is inconsistent. Nevertheless, these wastes may have significant concentrations of radioactive
materials compared to some highly regulated waste streams. For example, NORM wastes routinely accepted at a landfill
triggered a radiation monitor intended to ensure that rubble from a decommissioned nuclear reactor meets very strict
limits on its radioactivity (Appendix A).
9. Fierce opposition in restrictive states make any solvency impossible.
E. Michael Blake, writer for Nuclear News. 2006. “Where New Reactors Can (And Can’t Be Built)”
http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/2006-11-2.pdf [Takumi
Murayama]
The accompanying map shows three zones of different interest: states that have taken legal steps to avert (or at least defer) new
reactor development, states that have neither laws against nor apparent interest in new reactors, and states without restrictions
and with declared intent to pursue new reactor licensing. The latter group has just emerged in the past three years, and
while it has grown rapidly, there is no assurance that it will continue to do so. For most expected license applicants, the
exploration of new nuclear capacity has been spurred by a combination of favorable factors, such as high projected demand
growth, federal incentives, concerns about rising prices of and emissions from fossil fuels, and prospects for return on
investment (as through rate recovery in states that have not deregulated electricity). If not enough favorable factors apply in
a certain state, it may not matter what nuclear laws are on the books. If Wisconsin repeals its law tying new reactors to
HLW disposal, its demand growth may still be too modest to encourage new reactor projects. New reactors in upstate New
York could make more nuclear power available in Connecticut, Maine, and New Jersey, so even if the laws in these states
remain in force, there might be no impact on whether nuclear power revives in the United States. Even Illinois would be
unlikely to add much nuclear capacity soon—beyond, say, Clinton-2—either if its law were repealed or the legislature-vote
exception case were used; demand growth is not as vigorous there as it is in the South. Only in California would a change in
the law open a major opportunity for nuclear power, and even then the environmental issues (especially related to cooling
water) would still be contentious. Also, it should not be assumed that the roster of restrictive states will remain static. The
Iowa Democratic Party has as one of its platform planks for the 2006 election a ban on new reactor construction in the state.
Just because nuclear proponents have made headway recently in some areas does not mean that the struggle between
proponents and opponents is over.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 95
2AC: Terrorism
1. Extend Loris & Spencer 07. Nuclear power risks are propaganda created by
anti-nuclear activists.
2. Terrorists are unlikely to attack or succeed at nuclear plants.
Lionel Beehner, senior writer at the Council for Foreign Relations, 4-25-06, “Chernobyl, Nuclear Power, and
Foreign Policy”, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10534/chernobyl _nuclear_power_ and_foreign_policy.html,
[Crystal Xia]
After 9/11, concerns arose over the security of the United States' 103 nuclear plants, particularly Indian Point,
located thirty miles north of New York City. According to a 2004 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an
attack on the plant could kill up to 44,000 people. But some nuclear experts say the threat posed by terrorists may
be exaggerated. "Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would
not explode," wrote Greenpeace's Moore, referring to nuclear plants' six-feet-thick exteriors. Ferguson does not
see nuclear plants as likely targets. "We don't see a lot of serious interest on the part of most terrorist groups
to attack nuclear targets," he says. "They tend to favor softer targets," like office buildings or embassies.
3. Terrorism unlikely – nuclear power plants are among the most secure.
The United States has 104 commercial nuclear power plants, and there are 446 worldwide. Not one has fallen victim to a
successful terrorist attack. Certainly, history should not beget complacency, especially when the stakes are so high. However,
the NRC has heightened security and increased safeguards on site to deal with the threat of terrorism. A deliberate or
accidental airplane crash into a reactor is often cited as a threat, but nuclear reactors are structurally designed to withstand
high-impact airborne threats, such as the impact of a large passenger airplane. Furthermore, the Federal Aviation
Administration has instructed pilots to avoid circling or loitering over nuclear or electrical power plants, warning them that
such actions will make them subject to interrogation by law enforcement personnel.[8] The right response to terrorist threats
to nuclear plants--like threats to anything else--is not to shut them down, but to secure them, defend them, and prepare to
manage the consequences in the unlikely event that an incident occurs. Allowing the fear of terrorism to obstruct the
significant economic and societal gains from nuclear power is both irrational and unwise.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 96
4. Our impact outweighs–Global Warming is systemic AND more dangerous

than Terrorism
John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office and co-chair of the scientific
assessment working group of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, 07/23/03, Guardian, "Comment
& Analysis: Global warming is now a weapon of mass destruction: It kills more people than terrorism, yet
Blair and Bush do nothing" [Takumi Murayama]
If political leaders have one duty above all others, it is to protect the security of their people. Thus it was, according to the
prime minister, to protect Britain's security against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction that this country went to
war in Iraq. And yet our long-term security is threatened by a problem at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or
biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism: human-induced climate change.
As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of
scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I
have no hesitation in describing it as a "weapon of mass destruction".
Like terrorism, this weapon knows no boundaries. It can strike anywhere, in any form - a heatwave in one place, a drought
or a flood or a storm surge in another. Nor is this just a problem for the future. The 1990s were probably the warmest decade in
the last 1,000 years, and 1998 the warmest year. Global warming is already upon us.
5. Prefer our evidence. It postdates theirs and is written by people who have
dedicated their lives to nuclear power research.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 97
1AR: Terrorism
1. Extend Beehner 06 – Terrorism is no longer an issue after heightened
security.
2. Terrorists stealing radioactive material pose no real threat.
Dr. Charles D. Ferguson, physicist, Scientist-in-Residence, Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation
Studies. Tahseen Kazi graduate student, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Judith Perera, writer and
consultant on nuclear energy. 03. “Commercial radioactive sources: surveying the security risks,” Nuclear
Terrorism, Disarmament Forum (UN) no. 2. [Takumi Murayama]
A major finding of this study is that only a small fraction of the millions of commercial radioactive sources used globally,
perhaps several tens of thousands, pose inherently high security risks because of their portability, dispersibility and higher
levels of radioactivity. As a rule, these more dangerous commercial sources are those containing relatively large amounts of
radioactivity (typically more than a few curies—greater than a hundred gigabecquerel—worth of radioactivity) of seven
reactor-produced radioisotopes: americium-241, californium-252, cesium-137, cobalt-60, iridium-192, plutonium-238 and
strontium-90. Some of these isotopes (americium-241, californium-252 and plutonium-238) would only pose internal health
hazards by means of ingestion or inhalation, while the others would present both internal and external health hazards because
the emitted ionizing radiation could penetrate the dead outer layer of human skin.2
To maximize harm to the targeted population, radiological terrorists would tend to seek very highly radioactive sources
(containing tens of thousands or more curies) that pose external and internal health hazards. However, even suicidal terrorists
might not live long enough to deliver an RDD because they might receive lethal acute doses of ionizing radiation from
these sources in the absence of adequate shielding surrounding the radioactive material. But adding heavy protective shielding
could substantially increase the difficulty in transporting an RDD and could dissuade terrorists from employing these types of
sources. In contrast, sources that only present an internal health hazard and that contain very high amounts of radioactivity
could be handled safely without heavy shielding as long as precautions are taken to minimize internal exposure.
While terrorist misuse of radioactive sources with low levels of radioactivity might cause a degree of panic for a brief period,
the high-security risk sources are those that present genuine dangers to the public, in terms of long-term health effects and
major financial loss. For this reason, this study concludes that properly regulating and securing this smaller subset of
sources could contribute significantly to reducing the overall dangers posed by commercial radioactive sources. Public
education, however, is also needed to familiarize the public with the RDD threat and, in particular, to provide, insofar as is
possible, reassurance that some RDDs will have so little radioactivity as to pose little, if any, actual danger to the public.
3. Prefer our evidence – Ferguson is a fully qualified physicist that says that
terrorism is NOT a threat.
4. Extend our Loris & Spencer 07 evidence – fearing nuclear energy is

irrational, and should NOT stop us from using it.
5. And, even if you don’t buy our evidence, extend Houghton 03 – Global
Warming outweighs international terrorism on timeframe, probability, and
magnitude.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 98
2AC: Too much waste

1. The quantity of waste is NOT vast
[Takumi Murayama]
The anti-nuclear tirade by Dr Sue Wareham (Letters, July 15) is the usual cocktail of emotive and irrational
scaremongering that has characterised the anti-nuclear lobby for decades. Her letter must contain at least as many wrong
statements as she accuses Leslie Kemeny of making.
The "vast quantities of high level waste" to which she refers amount to something like one semi-trailer load per power
station per year! Whilst she dismisses nuclear power stations because they will be "at least a decade in the making" (and that
may be somewhere near the truth), the need to have a reliable base load non-carbon energy source extends long beyond that.
2. Extend Loris & Spencer 07 – Reprocessing solves the waste problem that the
neg is trying to impact.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 99
2AC: Yucca Mountain Good

1. Yucca support is low only because of incomprehensible analyses
[Takumi Murayama]
DOE's use of performance assessment (PA) methodology in the TSPA-VA is in keeping with the state of the art. PA allows
integration of an enormous amount of data within a framework that is relatively easily understood. The complexity of Yucca
Mountain combined with the unprecedented times over which the system must perform makes the analytical issues
unprecedented as well.
One result of the DOE applying a full-blown PA approach is that the TSPA-VA analysis is difficult to comprehend. The
models and submodels require large numbers of methodological assumptions and parameters. The price DOE has paid for a
complex model is loss of transparency. The many assumptions include some that are conservative and some that are not. The
approach also makes use of experts (via “expert elicitations”) to provide parameters where needed data are not available. The
end result is that even technically expert readers of TSPA-VA may have difficulty developing enough understanding to
decide whether they are confident in the results.
In recognition of the complexity of TSPA-VA and of the importance of establishing credibility, DOE assembled the TSPA Peer
Review Panel (17). This independent panel provided detailed commentary with a mixed message. The panel wrote that “…it is
unlikely that the TSPA-VA, taken as a whole, describes the long-term probable behavior of the proposed repository. In
recognition of its limitations, decisions based on the TSPA-VA should be made cautiously.” It noted the complexity of
analyzing the hot repository and concluded that “…at the present time, an assessment of the future probable behavior of the
proposed repository may be beyond the analytical capabilities of any scientific and engineering team” (17).
Their message was by no means entirely negative. The panel recommended that future work focus on approaches that make use
of “bounding analyses” to constrain behavior as the best approach to achieving licensability. The key idea is that it may be
possible to establish confidence in the performance of systems that cannot be analyzed completely. (An example is that the
post-thermal pulse infiltration cannot exceed the undisturbed infiltration in any given climate regime.) Bounding analyses are
designed to be conservative, and, consequently, they run the risk of pushing designs to the point where they are not feasible.
There is a trade-off between conservatism and practicability.
Defense-in-depth offers another approach to establishing confidence. Defense-in-depth arguments seek to decouple systems
into distinguishable technically defensible components. For a sufficiently tightly coupled system, this may not be possible.
Lower temperature designs offer one approach to analyzability and to defense-in-depth. The NWTRB has suggested “…that a
repository design based on lower waste package surface temperatures could significantly reduce uncertainty, enhance
licensability, and simplify the analytical bases required for site recommendation.” Such a design might also simplify preclosure
performance confirmation. The present design relies heavily on engineered barriers and especially the passivated alloy C-22.
Discussion as to the degree that defense-in-depth exists with the present design is ongoing.
For Yucca Mountain to obtain societal approval will require establishing confidence with independent scientists,
regulators, the public, and Congress. This suggests the use of multiple methodologies designed for multiple audiences.
2. Extend Loris & Spencer 07 – Fear of nuclear power is illogical.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 100

3. Opening Yucca Mountain is key to creating more nuclear plants.
Jack Spencer and Garrett Murch, research fellow @ Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and
Deputy Director of House Relations, “Road to Clean Air Runs Through Yucca Mountain”,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Comment ary/ed060908c.cfm, [Crystal Xia]
Delaying Yucca has unintended consequences for Nevada and the nation. Opposition to Yucca has made building nuclear
plants much more difficult. By hamstringing America's energy options, obstructionist politicians are forcing fossil fuel
plant construction when utilities might have chosen to build emissions-free nuclear. But the past is past. Opening Yucca now
would lead to a cleaner future. Nuclear power, which provides about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, has off-set millions
of tons of CO2 and pollutants that would have been fossil-fuel power plants. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, had
America's reactors not been operating, approximately 48 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 19 million tons of nitrogen oxides and
8.7 trillion tons of carbon dioxide would have been emitted since 1995. In other words, by obstructing Yucca and, thus,
nuclear power, these politicians, well-intentioned though they may be, are causing the very pollution they claim to deplore.
This should outrage America. Yet the Yucca opposition continues to succeed in blurring the contradictory aims of its energy
and environmental agendas.
4. Extend Spencer 08 – Yucca deregulation is key.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 101

2AC: Impact Calculus

The negative’s scenario for nuke war is wrong–nuclear energy solves
[Takumi Murayama]
But perhaps the greatest flaw in the anti-nuclear platform is the assumption that the peaceful use of nuclear power
automatically leads to weapons proliferation, which in turn leads automatically to nuclear Armageddon.
Serious war requires the initiator to have not only the weapons but also the motivation. Many already have the weapons.
Amongst the most likely causes of motivation are resentment caused by being dispossessed of land (terrorism) or by
serious national shortages of food or energy.
Desperate circumstances breed desperate actions. Excluding nuclear power could actually increase the risk of
catastrophic conflict.
Global Nuclear War exacerbates Global Warming
[Takumi Murayama]
In the ongoing blather whereby nuclear power is being sold to us as the answer to global warming, Lesley Kemeny gives us
another earbashing (July 18).
He regularly fails to mention the safety issues our descendants will have to deal with or the massive amounts of power required
to build the behemoths he wants us to lovingly adopt.
As the debate "hots up" can we expect the nuclear power spruikers to come up with one darker aspect so far
unmentioned that nuclear radiation leaks and nuclear wars have the potential to reduce the global population so rapidly
that global warming will no longer be an issue.
Perhaps he is afraid that we will see the major flaw in that argument all that radiation emitted and all those bombs going off
might make things a lot warmer a lot quicker than any of our previous efforts to warm this otherwise "cool" planet.
( `_)乂(_' ) DUEL！ 102

200 KO Nuclear Energy Aff Supplement

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

200 KO Nuclear Energy Aff Supplement

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nuclear Power AFF–Supplement

DDI 2008 Kernoff/Olney

2. Anyway, first up is an updated 1AC, with some new optional advantages

5. T blocks are not bad. A bit long, maybe.

6. The Alternative Energy CP evidence is basically a bunch of advantages

9. The international CP stuff is unorganized; mostly it’s just solvency deficit

14.Yucca Good evidence is pretty weak – it’s more “propaganda” evidence. I

Environmental News Service, “Global Nuclear Concerns: Safety, Power, Proliferation

The expansion of nuclear technology is inevitable – the US must remain

Roger Hagengruber, Chair of Nuclear Energy Study Group, “Nuclear Power”,

Nuclear power is key to nonprolif and US leadership.

The world is inevitably moving towards nuclear power – resolving waste

The US must lead nuclear growth to meet nonproliferation goals

Nuclear energy solves the motivations behind nuclear war

Proliferation leads to extinction.

1AC–Observation 3: Global Warming

Jennifer Weeks, CQ Researcher. 03/10/06. CQ Researcher “Nuclear Energy.” [Takumi Murayama]

And, throwing money at other alternative energies has no solvency. Nuclear

Nuclear power key to the economy

PR Newswire, 6-17-08, “Nuclear Energy’s Resurgence Promises to Spur Job Growth,”

(continued on next page)

Nuclear Energy is critical to US and world economies through US exports.

Economic decline will spawn escalating wars that can go nuclear

Technological innovation key to hegemony

Adam Segal Foreign Affairs, 11/17/04

Hegemony is key to prevent nuclear proliferation and global nuclear war.

Federal deregulation on Yucca Mountain will act as an incentive to new plants

Waste disposal is key to nuclear energy.

And, Fear of nuclear energy is the creation of flawed logic and

2AC Add-on: Reprocessing

Yucca Mountain only works in conjunction with recycling

Reprocessing solves for any nuclear waste concerns.

Recycling nuclear waste would extend uranium resources indefinitely and

3. Yucca Mountain would provide the necessary incentive to start

4. Note that our evidence acknowledges of current government incentives;

2AC: T–Nuclear ≠ Renewable

2. We meet – Nuclear is a renewable energy

21st Century Science Tech. Summer 05. “Nuclear Fuel Is Renewable.”

3. Counter-interpretation – Recent legislation defines nuclear power as alternative

Drew Winter, EJ Magazine, 2007, “Nuclear Renaissance”, http://www.ejmagazine.com/2007b/pdfs/nuclear.pdf

4. Prefer our interpretation:

A. Most real world–science publications ALL support nuclear energy as an

D. Literature checks–the core literature deals with nuclear power AS

E. Education–allows in-depth education about the topic, which nuclear

6. Competing interpretations BAD: They lead to a race to the bottom, turning

1AR: T–Nuclear ≠ Renewable

2. Extend counter-interpretation – Winter 07 says current federal policy

3. Extend Reasonability good – we’re reasonably topical! Also extend

4. Extend T is not a voter – no in-round abuse.

2AC: T–Removing Disincentives ≠ Incentives

2. We meet – we provide an incentive for private companies to research and

3. Counter-Interpretation: Removing a disincentive is an incentive

New York State Energy Bill, http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A03678

4. Prefer our interpretation:

B. Limits–they over-limit the topic by preventing us from using ANY

D. Literature checks–there are only a limited number of disincentives we

E. Education–allows in-depth education about current USfg policies, and

6. Competing interpretations BAD: They lead to a race to the bottom, turning

1AR: T–Removing Disincentives ≠ Incentives

2. Extend our counter-interpretation – prefer because it’s the most real

3. Extend Reasonability good – we’re reasonably topical! Also extend

4. Extend T is not a voter – no in-round abuse.

2AC: Alternative Energy CP–Perm