Nuclear Affirmative

Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

Camara, Kamel, Poveda, Vale
Index
Index....................................................................................... ....................1
1AC....................................................................... ......................................5
1AC....................................................................... ......................................6
1AC....................................................................... ......................................7
1AC....................................................................... ......................................8
1AC....................................................................... ......................................9
1AC........................................................................................................... .10
1AC........................................................................................................... .11
1AC........................................................................................................... .12
1AC........................................................................................................... .13
1AC........................................................................................................... .14
1AC........................................................................................................... .15
1AC........................................................................................................... .16
1AC........................................................................................................... .17
1AC........................................................................................................... .18
1AC........................................................................................................... .19
Inherency Ext: No Incentives............................................... ........................20
Inherency Ext..................................................................... ........................21
Inherency Ext: No Market........................................................... .................22
Inherency Ext: Public Opinion....................................................... ...............23
Inherency Ext..................................................................... ........................24
Prolif Ext: US Solves............................................... ....................................25
Prolif Ext......................................................................................... ...........26
Grid Ext: Impacts........................................................................ ................27
Grid Ext: .................................................................................................... 28
Grid Ext......................................................... ............................................29
Climate Ext: Nuclear Solves................................................................ .........30
Climate Ext.................................................... ............................................31
Climate Ext.................................................... ............................................32
Climate Ext.................................................... ............................................33
1
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Climate Ext.................................................... ............................................34

Climate Ext.................................................... ............................................35
Climate Ext.................................................... ............................................36
Solvency Ext: Remove Regulations..............................................................37
Solvency Ext: Energy Needs...................................... ..................................38
Solvency Ext: Efficiency.......................................... ....................................44
Solvency Ext: LWRs.............................................................................. .......49
Solvency Ext: LWRs.............................................................................. .......50
Solvency Ext............................................................................................... 51
Solvency Ext: Spillover....................................................................... ........51
Solvency Ext: Spillover............................................................................. ...53
Solvency Ext: NRC Licenses..................................................... ....................54
A2: Unsafe............................................................. ....................................58
A2: Unsafe............................................................. ....................................59
A2: Unsafe............................................................. ....................................60
A2: Unsafe............................................................. ....................................61
A2: Unsafe............................................................. ....................................62
A2: No Test Model........................................................................... ............63
A2: Renewables Better........................................................................... .....64
A2: No International Modeling................................................ .....................65
2
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: No International Modeling................................................ .....................66

A2: Limited to Structural Power............................................................. ......67
A2: Terrorism................................................. ............................................68
A2: Terrorism................................................. ............................................69
A2: Proliferation Increase.......................................................................... ..72
A2: High Cost.......................................................... ...................................73
2AC AT: T-Alt Energy.......................................... .........................................74
Neg - Inherency ................................................................. ........................75
Neg - Inherency ................................................................. ........................76
Neg - Inherency ................................................................. ........................77
Neg - Solvency: Climate........................................... ...................................78
Neg – Solvency: Cause Worker Shortage/Time..............................................79
Neg – Solvency: Time........................................................ ..........................80
Neg – Solvency: Time........................................................ ..........................81
Neg – Solvency: Inefficient............................................ ..............................82
Neg - Solvency ............................................ ..............................................83
Neg – Solvency: Storage shortage............................................................ ....84
Neg - Solvency................................................. ..........................................85
Neg - Solvency ............................................ ..............................................86
Neg - Solvency: Foreign Design.............................. .....................................87
Neg - Solvency: Water Shortage................................ ..................................88
Neg – Solvency: Zero-Sum Alt Energy................................................. ..........89
Neg - Solvency: Destroys Environment............................................... ..........90
Neg - Solvency: Dangerous........................................................................ ..91
Neg – Solvency: Radiation ........................................ ..................................92
Neg - Solvency ............................................ ..............................................93
Neg - Solvency ............................................ ..............................................94
Neg - Solvency ............................................ ..............................................95
Neg – Solvency: Hurts Reform....................... ..............................................96
Neg – Solvency: Cost......................................................................... ..........97
Neg - Solvency ............................................ ..............................................98
Neg - Solvency ............................................ ..............................................99
3
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg Solvency: Prolif........................................................................ ..........100
4
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Contention I: Inherency
Nuclear energy is the alternative to fossil fuels but current incentives don’t work
Jack Spencer is a Research Fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the
Heritage Foundation. 11/15/07. “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy
Mistakes” http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm
Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels.
It can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset
America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their
dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However, the
commercial nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embrace nuclear power
fully, despite significant regulatory relief and economic incentives. This reluctance is not due to any inherent
flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead, investors are reacting to the historic role that
federal, state, and local governments have played both in encouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise.
Investors doubt that federal, state, and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in
the long term. They have already lost billions of dollars because of bad public policy
It’s time to invest in nuclear power to eliminate the dependence on oil
Peter Montague of Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, Celsias, Why Is Uncle Sam So Committed to Nuclear,
10/4/07, http://www.celsias.com/article/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear/
So perhaps Uncle Sam considers it worth investing a few hundred billion dollars of taxpayer funds to keep this all-purpose
Swiss army knife of U.S. foreign policy available in our back pocket. In the past five years, we've already devoted
$800 billion to splendid little wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least partly to secure U.S. oil
supplies. Uncle Sam's desperate attempts to revive nuclear power can perhaps best be understood
as part of that ongoing effort at oil recovery.
5
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Future nuclear capabilities will not be built without proper federal incentive
Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com, 11/19/07, Blogging Stocks, ‘GE wants incentives to help
nuclear energy’, http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/11/19/ge-ge-wants-incentives-to-help-nuclear-
energy/
The US government hopes that a large number of nuclear plants will be built in the US over the
next 20 years to cut the country's need for oil. But GE (NYSE: GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt says they will
not be built without incentives from the Feds.
According to the FT, "Immelt said only five to 10 US nuclear power projects were likely to go ahead
unless there was a carbon-pricing framework to create incentives for utilities to build more." That
may be true, but GE should be quiet about championing aid for building those facilities. GE and Hitachi
(NYSE: HIT) have a joint venture to build nuclear plants, and the parties would not want to be seen as
sell-serving.
6
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Contention II: Proliferation
Industrial and developing nations surpass the US in nuclear energy
Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Research Assistant and Research Fellow Institute for Economic Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 7/2/08, The Heritage Foundation, “Nuclear Energy: What we can
learn from other countries” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyandenvironment/wm1977.cfm
France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence
after the oil shock of the 1970s. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear
power and is a net exporter of electricity.[1] Germany, alternatively, decided to phase out nuclear energy for
political reasons and now imports some of this energy.[2] Japan is another country that has looked to nuclear power
as a clean, safe and reliable form of energy. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the
country's electricity; however, Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017.[3]
Finland, ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption, has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy
solutions. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on
foreign energy sources, Finland has begun constructing a modern 1,600-megawatt reactor, which
will likely be a model used throughout the United States. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from
nuclear power, and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially. Presently, the U.K. has 19 reactors
that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. Because the U.K. is already a net importer of energy and all but one of
its coal-fired and nuclear plants are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2023, building new reactors is a must for the U.K. if it
is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies. The British government, while providing long-term politically stable
support for nuclear power, has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry. The U.S., on the other hand,
continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry. As a
result, the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward, while the U.S.
model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry.
7
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
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,
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.
8
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Proliferation leads to the very real threat of nuclear terrorism
Mohamed El Baradei, IAEA Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, “Nuclear Proliferation
and the Potential Threat of Nuclear Terrorism” 2004
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2004/ebsp2004n013.html
Today, our focus is on nuclear proliferation and the potential threat of nuclear terrorism in Asia and the
Pacific — and I am pleased at the opportunity to share with you my perspectives on the challenges we face, and how the IAEA
is working to strengthen nuclear security and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. But I would emphasize at the
outset that, while much of our work must begin locally and regionally, we must not forget to think globally, because
ultimately the existence of a nuclear threat anywhere is a threat everywhere, and as a global
community, we will win or lose this battle together.
The threat of nuclear terrorism is real and current. Some experts share the view of the Director General of
the United Kingdom Security Service, who said in August 2003: "It will only be a matter of time before a
crude version of a [chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear] attack is launched at a major Western
city." To date, the IAEA’s own database on illicit trafficking has recorded, since 1993, approximately 630 confirmed
incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive material. Sixty incidents were reported in 2003, and it
is clear that the total for this year will be even higher.
Nuclear terrorism means extinction
Sid-Ahmed Mohamed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/04,

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm | SWON
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate
the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in
on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions
between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up
the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But
the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one
will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another,
this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will
all be losers.
9
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Contention III: GRID
Blackouts are the cause of an overloaded and old power grid.
CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), 4/27/07. “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid”

Http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html
On August 14, 2003, fifty million people in the Northeastern United States and Canada suddenly found
themselves without electricity, some for more than twenty-four hours. In addition to eight lives, the largest
blackout in U.S. history cost an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion. Contrary to initial fears, the outage was
not the result of a terrorist attack or some other form of sabotage. Rather, untrimmed trees in Ohio set off a chain
reaction that cast 9,300 square miles into darkness. Sadly, this was no isolated incident. In July 2006, a
nine-day power outage in Queens, New York affected one hundred thousand people. The apparent
cause of that disruption was deterioration of the thirty- to sixty-year-old cables servicing the area.
The same month, a violent thunderstorm in St. Louis, Missouri knocked out power leaving some seven
hundred thousand people to brave a weeklong heat wave without electricity. Current stresses on the U.S.
energy grid presents cause for concern. With an aging infrastructure and growing energy
consumption, major outages may become an increasing phenomenon.
10
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Blackouts push us closer to economic ruin and collapse
Jim Jelter, Market Watch Energy Division Officer, Market Watch, 6/11/08 “The Urgent need to update
the grid” http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/its-alive-need-upgrade-
us/story.aspx?guid=%7B10F3E997-694B-447E-AF2C-58BB3211B525%7D&dist=msr_2
Electricity demand is growing at about 1% a year, according to the U.S. Energy Department, and is likely to
hold that pace despite a sluggish economy. That's because of demographic growth -- more people -- and the
explosion in the numbers and types of electronic devices now considered essential. Meeting that demand focuses inevitably on
power generation. But power is useless without the vast transmission networks that carry it to end-users. Those networks draw
on 100-year-old technology and high-voltage lines, most of which were installed in the 1950s and '60s. Those weaknesses are
now being addressed. The Edison Electric Institute reported transmission investments by publicly-traded utilities jumped last
year to $7.8 billion from $2 billion in 1997. Over 240 miles of much-needed high-voltage lines have been added in the Western
states alone in just the past year. That doesn't mean the grid is anywhere close to where it needs to be, however. Power
transmission into Southern California remains a concern, for example, since the region still relies heavily on
energy generated at plants as far away as Washington and Wyoming. Cost is another concern. Soaring fuel prices at
coal and natural gas-fired power plants are pushing electricity prices sharply higher. This is a huge
catalyst in the development of "smarter" power grids that give regional operators a quicker, clearer
view of conditions on the system and the ability to remotely reach out to better manage the flow of
power. But the system also faces financial challenges that are every bit as tough to solve as the technological challenges.
Maintenance of the transmission system is still primarily the responsibility of regional power companies. Operational
standards, set for years by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, first became mandatory and enforceable a year
ago. But it's still in the utilities' own interest to make sure everything is up and running. They can't make money if the lines are
down. But the cost of upgrading the transmission system is high. Ultimately the cost is borne by ratepayers -- the
industry's term for the businesses and homeowners who pay the bills. State utility commissions and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees interstate power and gas commerce, are often reluctant to raise rates --
a guaranteed political hot potato -- which slows the flow of funding to transmission projects. Streamlining the regulatory
process is therefore essential to ensuring utilities a reasonable rate of recovery on their investments while assuring the public
they are not being preyed upon by unbridled monopolies. Privatization could be one way around the stalemate. There have
been several proposals aimed at putting transmission lines in private hands. Some states have already "unbundled" the grid,
allowing companies to own and operate transmission lines much like transport companies with no stake in power generation or
sales to end-users. But privatization still doesn't solve thorny regulatory issues. It merely adds another layer. Meanwhile, some
of the. Most innovative thinking on transmission grids is coming from entrepreneurs well outside the traditional utility industry.
Efforts to reduce the nation's carbon footprint and meet
growing energy demand has turned this into one of the hottest fields for venture capitalists,
attracting billions of dollars. Expectations are high that their combined efforts will spawn the next
generation of grid upgrades. Fitting all the pieces together, the technology, capital and regulatory
regime, is a daunting task. Progress is clearly being made. Much more is needed. Failure to keep
pace with domestic requirements would leave the country in the lurch, with an economy leaning on
a creaky electrical infrastructure. Excelling at the task would give the country a much-needed
competitive boost in the global arena.
11
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Economic collapse means extinction.
T.E. Bearden, LTC U.S. Army (Retired), 2000 [“The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It
Quickly,” http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse,
the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point
where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost
certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon
Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate
China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate
responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the
conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress
conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of
preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never
discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive
strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation
to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site
within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and
perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
12
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
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.
Card Continues
13
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Card Continued
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.
14
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Contention IV: Climate Change
<Insert from warming Generic>
Light Water Reactors solves for greenhouse gases
J. Stephen Herring et al, Philip E. MacDonald, Kevan D. Weaver and Craig Kullberg, National
Engineering and Environmental Lab, 5/9/2000, Nuclear Energy and Design, Advanced Nuclear Energy
Products, “Low cost, proliferation resistant, uranium–thorium dioxide fuels for light water reactors”
Trends in the world's population and energy use during the past century show dramatic and relatively parallel increases in both.
These trends are expected to continue in the near future (at least next 20 years), and the total world energy
consumption in 2020 will be about 60% higher than it is today, led by growing demand in Asia (DOE-EIA,
2000). The demand for electricity is expected to increase more rapidly than the demand for other
forms of energy throughout the world and nearly double by 2020. Coal will be used to generate much of that
electricity in the developing countries. In the industrialized world, there are also dramatic structural changes underway in the
electric power industry to enhance competition in the generation segment of the business. This, along with ample natural gas
supplies and relatively low gas prices, has made natural gas the preferred fuel for many power producers in the United States
and elsewhere. These developments (increasing energy demand and the use of natural gas and coal) are expected to increase the
amount of carbon emitted to the atmosphere from the world's electrical power plants by about 70% over the next 20 years
(DOE-EIA, 2000). Nuclear energy is the only fully developed technology able to supply large amounts
of electricity without generation of greenhouse gases, and therefore, should be a key element in the
strategy to control greenhouse gas emissions. However, several problems cloud the future of nuclear power in the
United States and need to be addressed for nuclear power to be a preferred electric power generation option. President Clinton's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST, 1997) was recently asked to look at these issues and concluded
that: Fission's future expandability is in doubt in the United States and many other regions of the world because of concerns
about high costs, reactor-accident risks, radioactive-waste management, and potential links to the spread of nuclear weapons.
We believe that the potential benefits of an expanded contribution from fission in helping address the carbon dioxide challenge
warrant …, [finding] …, out whether and how improved technology could alleviate the concerns that cloud this energy option's
future. Our objective is to develop a fuel for the existing light water reactors (LWRs) that, costs less
per MW day; allows longer refueling cycles and higher sustainable plant capacity factors; is very
resistant to nuclear weapon-material proliferation; results in a more stable and insoluble waste
form; and, generates less high-level waste.
15
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Nuclear Power will reduce CO2 emissions and substitute for fossil fuels, creating energy security.
International Energy Agency “The World Energy Outlook 2006 Maps Out a Cleaner, Cleverer and More
Competitive Energy Future” http://www.iea.org/textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?press_rel_id=187
Strong policy action is needed to move the world onto a more sustainable energy path. An Alternative Policy
Scenario demonstrates that the energy future can be substantially improved if governments around the world implement the
policies and measures they are currently considering. In this scenario, global energy demand is reduced by 10% in 2030 –
equivalent to China’s entire energy consumption today. Global carbon-dioxide emissions are reduced by 16% – equivalent to
current emissions in the United States and Canada combined – in the same time-frame. In the OECD countries, oil
imports and CO2 emissions peak by 2015 and then begin to fall. Improved efficiency of energy use
contributes most to the energy savings. Increased use of nuclear power and renewables also help reduce fossil-
fuel demand and emissions. Just a dozen specific policies in key countries account for 40% of the reduction in global
CO2 emissions. The shifts in energy trends described in this scenario would serve all three of the
principal goals of energy policy: greater security, more environmental protection and improved
economic efficiency.
16
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Contention V: Solvency
Small federal loans have had impact with need of large-scale federal support
Reinhardt Krause And Sean Higgins, Business Writers, Investor's Business Daily, 6/20/07,
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080620/feature.html?.v=1
With $18.5 billion up for grabs, the Energy Department's loan guarantee program is expected to
restart building nuclear plants in the U.S. after a three-decade hiatus. However, the nuclear
industry's resurgence could be short-lived. The $18.5 billion may be enough to partially fund only
three or four nuclear plants, analysts say. About a dozen proposals are expected to vie for the
financing. The DOE will begin the review process later this summer. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission expects up to 21 applications by year-end to build 32 reactors. The presidential election may
be key to nuclear's revival. Democrat Barack Obama isn't likely to support extending loan guarantees. Republican John
McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. With banks short of capital, the availability of low-interest rate government
credit is vital to large-scale projects like nuclear plants. They take 4-5 years to build -- though the approval
process can be far longer -- and cost billions of dollars each. Costs vary depending on how much
electricity the power plants generate. "The range seems to be between $6 billion or $7 billion to $10
billion to build one plant," said Robert Hornick, a senior director at credit rater Fitch. "So you can
see how the federal loan guarantee program, with $18.5 billion, doesn't get you too far."
Nuclear attracts other countries
Peter Montague of Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, Celsias, Why Is Uncle Sam So Committed to
Nuclear Power, Oct. 4, 2007, http://www.celsias.com/article/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-
nuclear/
So clearly there are more important uses for nuclear power than just making electricity. Arguably, nuclear reactors
have
become essential tools of U.S. foreign policy -- being offered, withheld, and bargained over. They
have a special appeal around the world because they have become double-edged symbols of
modernity, like shiny toy guns that can be loaded with real bullets. Because of this special
characteristic, they have enormous appeal and can provide enormous bargaining power.
17
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
Absence from the nuclear arena puts America in a unique position for nuclear markets
John F. Kotek, Manager of Nuclear Programs, Washington Policy & Analysis, Inc., and Executive
Director, American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, 7/20/06,
Because the U.S. has been on the sidelines and its lead in nuclear design, manufacturing, supply and
service has been severely eroded, we are free to move beyond existing technologies. Certainly, U.S.
companies can and should compete in the market for providing large-scale reactors based on
existing technology. But the U.S. is in a unique position to also capture the markets for tomorrow’s
nuclear technologies.
The proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, could provide just the boost our industry needs in order to develop
and market new, advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear energy technologies. For example, one exciting technological
opportunity is in right-sized, exportable reactors that can be manufactured in the U.S. and exported
to the developing world.
This is not far fetched. Advanced manufacturing borrowed from other industries where the U.S. still
holds global leadership will allow the shift from large systems that rely on economies of scale but
which must be built on site. Factory production, with its inherent efficiencies, could make nuclear
power economic for smaller applications in developing regions. This would feed into a distributed
generation approach which fits countries lacking a mature grid and other infrastructure. And by
engaging with international partners to establish a guaranteed fuel supply and return system, we
can dramatically reduce proliferation risk by eliminating the need for small countries to establish
enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.
18
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
1AC
NRC licenses control the plants that can be built
US NRC, June 2008, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission “New Nuclear Plant Designs” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.pdf
The NRC has long sought standardization of nuclear power plant designs, and the enhanced safety
and licensing reform that standardization could make possible. The Commission expects advanced reactors to
be safer and use simplified, passive or other innovative means to accomplish their safety functions. The NRC's regulation
(Part 52 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations) provides a predictable licensing process including
certification of new nuclear plant designs. This process reflects decades of experience and research
involving reactor design and operation. The design certification process provides for early public participation and
resolution of safety issues prior to an application to construct a nuclear power plant. Pre-Application Review Process. The
NRC's "Statement of Policy for Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants," dated July 8, 1986, encourages early
discussions, before a license application is submitted, between NRC and reactor designers to provide licensing guidance. In
June 1988, the NRC issued NUREG- 1226, "Development and Utilization of the NRC Policy Statement on the Regulation of
Advanced Nuclear Power Plants." This document provides guidance on the implementation of the policy and describes the
approach used by NRC in its review of advanced reactor design concepts. In general, the NRC conducts pre-
application reviews of advanced reactor designs to indentify: major safety issues that could require
Commission policy guidance to the staff, major technical issues that could be resolved under
existing NRC regulations on policy, and research needed to resolve identified issues. Design Certification
Review Process The review process for new reactor designs involves certifying standard reactor
designs, independent of a specific site, through a rulemaking (Subpart B of Part 52). This rulemaking can
certify a reactor design for 15 years. Design certification applicants must provide the technical information necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the safety standards set forth in applicable NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 73, and 100).
Applicants must also provide information to close out unresolved and generic safety issues, as well as issues that arose after the
Three Mile Island accident. The application must include a detailed analysis of the design's vulnerability to certain accidents or
events, and inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria to verify the key design features. The NRC is considering a new
rule that would require design certification applicants to assess their plant’s level of built-in protection for avoiding or
mitigating the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact, reducing the need for human intervention to protect public health
and safety.
19
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Inherency Ext: No Incentives

Lack of incentives will leave the U.S. reactor fleet in serious disrepair.
Charles D. Ferguson. Fellow for science and technology at the council on Foreign Relations and Sharon Squassoni is a senior
associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. June 2007 “Why Nuclear Energy Isn’t the Great Green Hope”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3896
Today, nuclear energy produces 16 percent of the world’s electricity, compared with coal, which produces 39
percent and hydropower, which produces 19 percent. In the United States, the good news is that the nuclear industry has
maintained its 20 percent share of the electricity market by increasing the power rating of many of its 104 nuclear power
reactors while decreasing the time required for shutdown for refueling and maintenance. But during the past 30 years,
reactor construction stagnated in the United States because of large uncertainties in capital costs as
well as red tape and legal challenges in obtaining a license to operate a reactor. Although legislative
changes in 1992 and more recently in 2005 have tried to streamline the licensing process and create
incentives to entice investors, the industry has not had an order for a new nuclear power plant since
1978, and that order was subsequently canceled. The last completed U.S. reactor was Watts Bar 1, which was
ordered in 1970 and began operations in 1996. Although many U.S. reactors have received operating-license renewals for an
additional 20 years of life, by 2030 the reactor fleet will be in serious disrepair if no further reactors are
built. The United States hopes to build upward of 30 reactors in the next couple of decades. However, because the
incentives in the 2005 legislation are limited, only a handful of new reactors will probably be built,
but not many more than that.
20
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Inherency Ext
Investors, not the government, are support the nuclear market but tight regulations work against them.
Jack Spencer is a Research Fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
11/15/07. “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm
Private investors have a key role to play in reestablishing America's nuclear industry. The industry
is no longer owned or supported by the government, although the Energy Policy Act of 2005 does provide some
incentives to utilities. In general, private investors provide the capital and take the risks necessary to
develop the nuclear industry. The government's role should be to ensure safety and allow the
industry--just like any other--to compete and flourish in open markets. The heavy regulatory burden imposed on
the nuclear industry creates enduring uncertainties about the future of nuclear power in the United
States. While a strong public commitment does provide some near-term certainty, it still is accompanied by regulatory and
investment uncertainty. This does little for the long-term planning inherent in nuclear energy, which results in higher risk
assessments for America's energy companies.
A major national conversion to nuclear power is bound by legal challenges
Charles Ferguson and Sharon Squassoni, 6/7/08, Writers, “Why Nuclear Power isn’t the Great Green
Hope”, Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3896
But during the past 30 years, reactor construction stagnated in the United States because of large
uncertainties in capital costs as well as red tape and legal challenges in obtaining a license to
operate a reactor. Although legislative changes in 1992 and more recently in 2005 have tried to streamline the licensing
process and create incentives to entice investors, the industry has not had an order for a new nuclear power
plant since 1978, and that order was subsequently canceled. The last completed U.S. reactor was Watts Bar 1, which
was ordered in 1970 and began operations in 1996. Although many U.S. reactors have received operating-license renewals for
an additional 20 years of life, by 2030 the reactor fleet will be in serious disrepair if no further reactors are
built. The United States hopes to build upward of 30 reactors in the next couple of decades.
However, because the incentives in the 2005 legislation are limited, only a handful of new reactors
will probably be built, but not many more than that
21
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Inherency Ext: No Market

Federal and State governments have killed the previously flourishing nuclear market.
Jack Spencer is a Research Fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
11/15/07. “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm
The United States once led the world in commercial nuclear technology. Indeed, the world's leading nuclear
companies continue to rely on American technologies. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, federal, state, and local
governments nearly regulated the U.S. commercial nuclear industry out of existence. U.S.
companies responded by reallocating their assets, consolidating or selling their commercial nuclear
capabilities to foreign companies in pro-nuclear countries.
22
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Inherency Ext: Public Opinion

The unreasonable rejection of nuclear power is a threat to the sustainment of civilization
James Lovelock, World leader in the development of environmental consciousness, 4/25/04, ‘Talks with
Gwyneth Cravens, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-is-nuclear-energy-our-best-hope
We need nuclear power, says James Lovelock, the man who inspired the Greens. “We reject nuclear energy with the
same unreasoning arguments that our ancestors would have used to reject geothermal energy, the effort to harness the heat of
the Earth. Compared with the imaginary dangers of nuclear power, the threat from the intensifying
greenhouse effect seems all too real. I wholly support the Green wish to see all energy eventually come from
renewable sources but I do not think that we have the time to wait until this happens. Nuclear power is unpopular but
it is safer than power from fossil fuel. The worst that could happen, if Chernobyls become endemic, is that
we live a little less long in a mildly radioactive world. To me this is preferable to the loss of our hard-
won civilization in a greenhouse catastrophe. “Nuclear electricity is now a well-tried and soundly
engineered practice that is both safe and economic; given the will it could be applied quickly. It is
risky if improperly used but, even taking the Chernobyl disaster into account, it is, according to a recent Swiss study, by far the
safest of the power industries. Disinformation about its dangers sustains a climate of fearful ignorance and
has artificially inflated the difficulties of disposing of nuclear waste and the cost of nuclear power. If
permitted, I would happily store high-level waste on my own land and use the heat from it to warm my home. There seems no
sensible reason why nuclear waste should not be disposed of in the deep subducting regions of the ocean where tectonic forces
draw all deposits down into the magma. “What stands against the use of nuclear power are not sensible
scientific or economic arguments but a widespread, but unjustified, public fear... The Greens, have so
frightened their supporters that a change of mind would be almost impossible.“The accident at Chernobyl is almost always
presented as if it were the greatest industrial disaster of the 20th century. Even the BBC, in a recent programme, stated that
thousands had died there. Such exaggeration suspends rational thought and is an unnerving triumph of
fiction over science. In fact, 45 died at Chernobyl, according to the UN report on the disaster, and many of them were the
firemen and helicopter crews who tried to extinguish the fire. It was an awful event and should never have happened, but it was
far less lethal than the smog of 1952, when 5,000 Londoners died from poisoning by coal smoke.”
23
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Inherency Ext
The small minorities of nuclear energy opponents prevent new plants from being built and threaten
nuclear expertise
Ann Stouffer Bisconti, Ph.D Statistics, 9/1/06, Energy Concerns Drive Record Public Favorability for
Nuclear Energy, http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/safenuclear.html
Two national surveys find favorable public attitudes toward nuclear energy at a record high. One
survey of the U.S. public at large found that 65 percent favor the use of nuclear energy. The other survey of
only college graduates who are registered to vote found that nearly three-quarters favor the use of nuclear energy as one of
America’s options to generate electricity. The surveys were conducted April 16-20, 2004, for the Nuclear Energy Institute by
Bisconti Research, Inc.
Opposition to nuclear energy comes from a small but vocal minority of the American public.
Opponents of nuclear energy threaten lawsuits and political action against electric power
companies. For this reason, electric power companies in the United States have not ordered a new
nuclear power plant in 25 years. If the American people fail to communicate their support for
nuclear energy to their legislators, the opponents of nuclear energy will continue to stop new power
plants from being built. If the opponents of nuclear energy continue to block the construction of
nuclear power plants, there will be no future for nuclear engineers in America. Universities will stop
offering nuclear engineering courses and the United States will fall behind the technology. America
is at risk of losing its nuclear engineering expertise
24
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Prolif Ext: US Solves

US leadership in nuclear energy is key to nonproliferation.
ANS (American Nuclear Society), 3/13/2000. American Nuclear Society Resolution - Generation IV Nuclear Power Plant.
http://www.ans.org/pi/media/releases/sd/954309600-resolution.html
In a speech1 at the June 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society, William Magwood, Director of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology at the Department of Energy, coined the term "Generation IV" nuclear energy
plants. These were defined as plants that were smaller, modular, cost-competitive, proliferation-
resistant, and with improved safety levels over current nuclear plants. Since that time, the Department of
Energy has followed up this initiative on an international level to engage international cooperation for its development. As a
result of the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), a relatively low-funded but high-interest program of the Department
of Energy, numerous proposals for such plants have been developed. While the Department of Energy is
proceeding down the path of developing a Generation IV plant, the present schedules appear to be
far too distant (15 years or more), and the role of the Department of Energy is unclear in terms of supporting
development, demonstration, and deployment. The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, in its
second report on research, demonstration, development, and deployment of energy technologies,2 recommended a U.S. role not
only in R&D, but also in development and deployment of energy technologies. While nuclear energy did not have a
demonstration and deployment initiative due to concerns about non-proliferation, Generation IV
plants address this concern, and thus an important government role is also legitimate for nuclear
energy demonstration and deployment. The early timing of this initiative is particularly important for two reasons:
U.S. leadership in nuclear energy technology. At the present time, new nuclear development is taking place outside the United
States. The ability of the United States to affect future technologies is becoming less likely since the
U.S. has no new nuclear technology initiative under way that would set the new Generation IV
standard. This loss of leadership can become, if it has not already become, an impediment to U.S. foreign
policy, particularly as it affects non-proliferation policy.
25
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Prolif Ext
A lack of nuclear programs discourages students from studying nuclear engineering ending research and
development in universities.
ANS (American Nuclear Society), 3/13/2000. American Nuclear Society Resolution - Generation IV Nuclear Power Plant.
http://www.ans.org/pi/media/releases/sd/954309600-resolution.html
U.S. university infrastructure. At the present time, universities
in the United States are having
considerable difficulty recruiting qualified U.S. nuclear engineering students. This is la rgely due to
the perception that there is no future for nuclear energy since no new nuclear plants are being built,
and the future does not appear to be one in which a career in the nuclear field is viewed as an exciting or challenging one. The
outcome of this perception is that some universities have shut down their research and training reactors,
some have discontinued their nuclear engineering programs, and others have merged their nuclear
engineering programs into other departments. Since the United States is likely to depend on
nuclear energy through the use of existing plants for at least 25 years, there is a real question as to
the source of new people to support these plants. Also, if a new generation of nuclear plants is to be developed,
who will do the development work? Both of these problems call for action now to set in motion the
development, design, and construction of a Generation IV Reactor Research Facility to restore U.S.
leadership in nuclear energy.
26
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Grid Ext: Impacts

More blackouts, whether by terrorist attack or by overload, collapse the economy.
Shaun Waterman, UPI Homeland and National Security Editor for the Information Clearing House, 9/4/03. “Terror Attack On Grid
Would Collapse U.S.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4622.htm
Government scientific advisers and officials painted a grim picture Thursday of the consequences of a
terror attack on the nation's power grid, saying that any outage that lasted longer than a couple of
days would reduce urban centers to chaos and collapse the economy. "With power out beyond a day
or two, both food and water supplies would soon fail. Transportation systems would be at a standstill ... natural gas pressure
would decline and some would lose gas altogether -- not good in the winter time ... Communications would be spotty or non-
existent.
27
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Grid Ext:
Nuclear Power Stations can develop with other energy sources to keep Energy Security
Department of Trade and Industry, May 2007, Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39197.pdf
The Government is committed to the fullest public consultation on its proposals before a decision is taken on whether it would
be in the public interest for energy companies to have the option of investing in new nuclear power stations. Such a decision
would mean nuclear power stations could be developed alongside renewables and other low-carbon
technologies, as part of the electricity sector’s contribution to tackling the challenges of climate
change and energy security. This is an important decision that will have implications for society for
decades to come, and on which some people will have strong views. Therefore we are keen to gather responses
from a range of perspectives to allow us to assess the factors before reaching a firm conclusion. This
consultation takes account of the ruling of the High Court in February and the Government’s commitment in 200314 to the
fullest public consultation and the publication of a further White Paper setting out confirmed proposals for new nuclear power
stations.
The USFG’s opposition to nuclear energy hurts the market.
The history of civilian nuclear energy in the United States reveals the dangers of overt government
promotion of or opposition to any particular technology or industry. When public opinion and
government policy shifted against nuclear power, the industry was ill-prepared to survive, investors
lost billions, and ratepayers suffered. The role and potential of nuclear power in the United States
are too important to allow it to fall victim to the same mistakes again. Investors must be assured
that nuclear power will be allowed to stand or fall on its own merits. While federal, state, and local
governments will have a role to play, especially in building confidence with investors, the best long-term subsidy that
they could give the industry is the freedom to succeed.
28
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Grid Ext
US leadership in nuclear energy tech is vital to stabilizing the US and world economies.
Robert N. Shock, Associate Director for Energy Programs, 1997. “The Vital Role of Nuclear Power”
https://www.llnl.gov/str/Com797.html
It seems clear, then, that nuclear power will be with us globally for the foreseeable future. However, an
important question remains: What role will the U.S. play in the nuclear world of the future? Will American know-how be used
to influence the course of nuclear energy developments, or will we be relegated to bystanders to other nations' technical
developments and marketing efforts? The answers are not simple and are not independent of related concerns about nuclear
weapons proliferation, global climate change, dependence upon foreign sources of energy, and even jobs (through the export of
U.S. technology). Yet the answers will most likely affect our quality of life and the stability of the economically developing
world. A vital U.S. nuclear energy systems and materials R&D program, involving both the federal
government and the private sector, should be welcomed, not feared, by the general public. Such a
program can help assure adequate mid-to-long-term supplies of energy for this nation, but more
importantly, for the developing world. Adequate and safe energy supplies can provide the
increases in the standard of living to meet peoples' expectations that, if not met, historically have led
to social and military upheaval. Adequate supplies of nuclear-power-generated electricity will help
minimize air pollution and capture new foreign markets for U.S. industry. Perhaps most important,
strong American technical leadership and influence in the global nuclear arena can pay tremendous
dividends in global safety, security, and environmental quality.
29
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Climate Ext: Nuclear Solves

Nuclear energy must be an option for the US. Without it we cannot solve carbon emissions.
Professor John Deutch, Co-Chair and Eric S. Bekjord et al. Director of the Office of Nuclear regulatory at MIT. 2003. “The Future
of Nuclear Power: an Interdisciplinary MIT Study”. http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
"The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of
power. Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020,"
said Deutch. "In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-
fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear
power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-
term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions."
Nuclear Power Plays essential role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of GreenPeace, Co-Chair Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, 4/1/2000, Policy
Brief,
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Nuclear_Energy_Plays_Essential_Role_in_Reducing_Greenhouse_Gas_Emi
ssions_0408.pdf
Nuclear power plants generate electricity for one in five homes and businesses in the United States without
emitting any greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy generates more than 70 percent of all
carbon-free electricity in America and is an essential part of a technology-based solution for reducing
greenhouse gases.
Nuclear energy is the only option available today that can provide large-scale electricity production
24/7 economically and without emitting greenhouse gases. Even if carbon dioxide emissions are
evaluated on a total life-cycle basis, those from nuclear energy are comparable to most other non-
emitting sources, such as solar, wind and hydropower.
30
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Climate Ext
The use of nuclear plants prevents millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions
Brief,
ssions_0408.pdf
In the United States, electric utilities are expanding the use of nuclear energy along with energy
efficiency and conservation programs and an expanded portfolio of low-emission sources of electricity, including wind and
solar energy.
Nuclear power plants already play a powerful role in preventing greenhouse gases in the electricity
sector. By using nuclear energy rather than fossil fuel-based plants, electric utilities prevented 681
million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2006. For per-spective, the volume of greenhouse
gas emis-sions prevented at nuclear power plants is equivalent to taking 96 percent of all passen-ger
cars off America’s roadways.
Nuclear Energy carbon emissions are comparable to those of renewable resources
Brief,
ssions_0408.pdf
Although nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases when generating electricity, certain
processes used to build and fuel the plants do. This is true for all energy facilities.
However, even when greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed for the entire life-cycle of a nuclear
power plant—from uranium mining to electricity production to used fuel management —nuclear
energy has a low carbon footprint that is comparable to geothermal, hydropower and wind energy.
Energy Agency found that nuclear power’s life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are com-parable to renewable energy sources
and far lower than fossil fuels used for electricity generation.
31
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Climate Ext
Nuclear Power’s intrinsic compatibility to hydrogen production would directly solve for global warming
and energy independence
C. W. Forsberg and K. L. Peddicord, Writers “Hydrogen production as a major nuclear energy

application,” Nuclear News, 9/01, p. 41.
The central energy-related issues for industrial societies today are (1) climatic change and (2) security of energy supplies from
the Mideast, Russia, and other locations. How hydrogen is made determines if these issues are successfully addressed. Most
hydrogen today is made by steam reforming of natural gas. Research is under way to store hydrogen onboard
vehicles or convert gasoline to hydrogen onboard the vehicles. Alternatively, nuclear energy can be
used to make hydrogen. Significant R&D programs in Japan and expanding programs in the United States and
Europe are developing the technology to use nuclear energy to produce hydrogen. Such a strategy
would use nuclear energy to directly solve the central environmental and national security issues of our times—
global warming and energy independence. Existing hydrogen plants are built on hydrogen pipeline systems that
connect merchant hydrogen plants, refineries, and other hydrogen customers.
Looking to the future, however, the intrinsic characteristics of nuclear power would be compatible with
hydrogen production. The newest plants being built to convert natural gas to hydrogen will produce 200 million ft3/d. If
a high-temperature reactor were coupled to a 50 percent efficient heat-to-hydrogen thermochemical cycle, this would be
equivalent to a 1600-MWt nuclear power plant.
32
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Climate Ext
Nuclear energy is the best large scale, long term, safe energy source that can effectively prevent
disastrous climate change
Brief,
ssions_0408.pdf
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as
did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest
coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and
the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the
energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of
U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible
for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce
these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so
safely.
33
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Climate Ext
Enormous potential exists for a recycling of nuclear that far surpasses the scope of oil without its harms
U.S. electricity demand is projected to increase up to 40 percent by 2030, and other countries are projecting similar
increases.[4] The rapid industrial development of both China and India is already placing great pressure on global energy
supplies. And because energy sources, especially fossil fuels, are global commodities, growing demand in one
part of the world affects the global economy. As a result, higher prices and tightened supply have some
nations, such as China, experiencing power shortages.[5] While the U.S. has, for the most part, been able to keep the
lights on, with the price of gas breaking the $4 barrier and natural gas prices increasing, every American
knows full well the pain of increasing global energy demand.
Nuclear energy can help meet this growing demand. Most directly, nuclear energy can be used to
generate electricity. If that demand were not met by nuclear power, then it would likely be met with
natural gas. This would put additional pressure on natural gas reserves, driving up the price for
electricity as well as all the other goods that use natural gas in their production.
Although natural uranium is a finite resource like gas, oil, or coal, it can be recycled and reused. The French,
Japanese, and British all recycle their used nuclear fuel. The French, for example, remove the uranium and
plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using that method, America can recycle its 58,000 tons of used fuel
stored across the nation to power every U.S. household for 12 years.
34
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Climate Ext
Nuclear Plants create little CO2
Nuclear power, unlike fossil fuelled power generation is carbon-free at the point of generation and is low
carbon overall. Some carbon dioxide emissions arise at other points in the lifecycle, for example during the mining of
uranium, fuel preparation, and construction and decommissioning of the power station, but this is true to some extent for all
electricity generating technologies and different technologies produce different quantities of emissions. To provide an accurate
picture of the potential contribution that nuclear power stations could make to tackling climate change, a full-lifecycle analysis
must be made. In other words, the emissions from every phase must be measured. There are a number of assumptions that
need to be made in undertaking such an analysis. For example, the type of electricity used for the preparation of nuclear fuel:
if it were from coal-fired power stations, emissions would be significantly higher than if nuclear or renewable sources were
used in the fuel preparation process. As a result of these variables, there is a fairly wide range of estimates in the studies that
have looked at lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power. Research by the Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), and the
International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA)15 found that nuclear power emits low amounts of
carbon dioxide across the whole lifecycle, between 7g/kWh and 22g/kWh. This is similar to the
carbon dioxide emissions from wind power and much less than fossil fuelled plant16. Emissions from
gas and coal-fired power stations are estimated to be over 380g/kWh and 830g/kWh, respectively17.
35
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Climate Ext
Carbon emissions of nuclear power are minimal
The Government believes that, based on the significant evidence available, the
lifecycle carbon emissions from
nuclear power stations are about the same as wind generated electricity with significantly lower
carbon emissions than fossil fuel fired generation. As an illustration, if our existing nuclear power
stations were all replaced with fossil fuel fired power stations, our emissions would be between 8
and 16MtC (million tonnes of carbon) a year higher as a result (depending on the mix of gas and coal-fired
power stations). This would be equivalent to about 30-60% of the total carbon savings we project to achieve under our central
scenario from all the measures we are bringing forward in the Energy White Paper. Therefore, the Government believes that
new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to tackling climate change. We
recognise that nuclear power alone cannot tackle climate change, but these figures show that it could make an important
contribution as part of a balanced energy policy.
Nuclear Power will reduce CO2
International Energy Agency 2006 “The World Energy Outlook 2006 Maps Out a Cleaner, Cleverer and More Competitive
Energy Future” http://www.iea.org/textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=187
Strong policy action is needed to move the world onto a more sustainable energy path. An Alternative Policy
Scenario demonstrates that the energy future can be substantially improved if governments around the world implement the
policies and measures they are currently considering. In this scenario, global energy demand is reduced by 10% in 2030 –
equivalent to China’s entire energy consumption today. Global carbon-dioxide emissions are reduced by 16% – equivalent to
current emissions in the United States and Canada combined – in the same time-frame. In the OECD countries, oil
imports and CO2 emissions peak by 2015 and then begin to fall. Improved efficiency of energy use
contributes most to the energy savings. Increased use of nuclear power and renewables also help reduce fossil-
fuel demand and emissions. Just a dozen specific policies in key countries account for 40% of the reduction in global
CO2 emissions. The shifts in energy trends described in this scenario would serve all three of the
principal goals of energy policy: greater security, more environmental protection and improved
economic efficiency.
36
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Solvency Ext: Remove Regulations

The US must remove regulatory impediments for nuclear power to meet its growing energy needs
Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Research Assistant and Research Fellow Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage
Foundation, 7/2/08, The Heritage Foundation, “Nuclear Energy: What we can learn from other countries”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyandenvironment/wm1977.cfm
With the U.S. entertaining the idea of building new nuclear plants, the country can learn a great
deal from other nations further along in the process. Electricity demand is skyrocketing in many parts of the
world; purported human-induced climate change has the entire globe in a panic. Nuclear energy has become a focal
point for countries trying to meet these needs, and some believe that it can provide an economic
boost at the same time. It creates opportunities to electrify portions of the economy that today rely
almost entirely on fossil-fuels, like transportation.
Other countries seem to understand the potential benefits of nuclear power and have either
commenced constructing, or have developed projections for, new nuclear plants. The time has come
for the U.S. to stop squabbling, remove regulatory impediments, and allow nuclear energy to
continue helping this country to meet its growing energy demands.
37
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Solvency Ext: Energy Needs

Nuclear Power fills in for carbon energy sources
Growing concern about climate change has put pressure on the electricity supply industry to adopt
technologies that do not add to the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power is one
option, alongside renewable energy technologies such as wind power and solar energy, combined heat and power and
distributed generation, and burning fossil fuels but with the carbon dioxide captured and stored underground. 2.2 Nuclear is
a low carbon energy source68. This would potentially help us to tackle climate change. There are no
carbon emissions from modern nuclear power stations at the point of electricity generation, unlike
coal, gas and oil which emit large quantities of carbon as they generate power. Like all electricity generating technologies,
carbon is given off over the total lifecycle of the facilities. For example, making steel and concrete for power stations of all
types: coal, gas, nuclear or wind releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Uranium supplies can fill energy needs
Nuclear fuel supply is a stable and mature industry81. Based on the levels of global nuclear generation in 2004,
the known available reserves of uranium that can be mined for less than $130/kg (approximately the uranium price in 200682)
would last for the next 85 years83. Moreover, the IEA have concluded that world uranium resources are
more than adequate to supply the expected global expansion of nuclear power. It is currently mined
in 19 different countries and resources of economic interest have been identified in at least 25 other
countries. The largest reserves are in Australia and Canada84. Therefore including new nuclear power as an
option for private sector investment would spread the supply risks that could be associated with a
particular fuel or region of the world, thus making the electricity system less vulnerable to supply
interruptions. The availability of fuel is discussed in more detail in chapter ten.
38
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

Nuclear Plants are needed to fill in for fossil fuels
NEA, 6-3-08, “Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future”
http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html
The gap between production and requirements was made up by secondary sources drawn from government and commercial
inventories (such as the dismantling of over 12 000 nuclear warheads and the re-enrichment of uranium tails). Most secondary
resources are now in decline and the gap will increasingly need to be closed by new production. Given the long lead time
typically required to bring new resources into production, uranium supply shortfalls could develop
if production facilities are not implemented in a timely manner. World nuclear energy capacity is
expected to grow from 372 GWe in 2007 to between 509 GWe (+38%) and 663 GWe (+80%) by 2030. To fuel
this expansion, annual uranium requirements are anticipated to rise to between 94 000 tonnes and 122
000 tonnes, based on the type of reactors in use today. The currently identified resources are adequate to meet this
expansion. Deployment of advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies could increase the long-term
availability of nuclear energy from a century to thousands of years. Uranium 2007: Resources, Production
and Demand, jointly prepared by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), is based on official information from 40 countries and one country report prepared by the IAEA Secretariat. The 2007
edition includes statistics on uranium resources, exploration
39
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

More Nuclear Energy is needed to meet future estimates
Luis E. Echávarri, Director-General OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2007 “What role for nuclear energy?” Newsdesk
Communications Ltd, http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2007/echavarri-g8.html
Today, nuclear energy is a significant component of world electricity supply. Four hundred and thirty
reactors are connected to the grids in some 30 countries providing around 16% of the electricity consumed
worldwide and almost one-quarter in OECD countries. Globally, the technical, environmental and economic
performance of nuclear power plants in operation is very satisfactory. Improvements in safety and
reliability of current-generation nuclear systems are demonstrated by fewer unplanned shut-downs, lower collective dose to
workers and reduced probability of severe accidents. Around 60% of the nuclear power plants in operation are less than 25
years old and will continue to operate for several decades. This means that nuclear power plants will remain part of
the energy supply landscape for many years. The role of nuclear energy in the longer term has to be examined in the
overall context of supply/demand balance at the world level. The need for more energy is recognised broadly by
analysts and policy makers. According to the reference scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world
demand for primary energy will increase by 50% between now and 2030 and its electricity
consumption will nearly double.1 Governments are considering, and could take, policy measures to slow down
demand growth but significant increases are inevitable, in particular in developing countries. Security of energy supply is a
burning issue for OECD countries and is vital for developing countries where lack of energy may mean economic stagnation,
continued poverty and shorter life expectancy. Against this backdrop, the challenge for energy policy makers is not to select
between fossil, nuclear and renewable sources, or between supply measures and energy conservation, but to make sure that all
sources and all energy-saving means are used effectively taking into account their environmental, social and economic
characteristics.
40
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

Nuclear power can fill in for fossil fuels and provide 85 years of energy at current efficiency
Policy makers responsible for driving national decisions should face the challenge of making the right trade-offs between risks
and benefits of alternatives taking into account their specific situations, goals and priorities. Security of energy supply
and global climate change are key concerns for civil society and accordingly are driving factors in
policy decisions. Consequently, the role of nuclear energy in future supply mixes will depend largely on
its ability to address both concerns in a cost-effective manner. In terms of economics, the volatility and
escalation of fossil fuel prices contribute to enhancing the attractiveness of nuclear electricity. With
their very low running costs, nuclear power plants become the cheapest generation source once their
capital costs are amortised. Furthermore, in terms of capital investments, the designs of new plants being built
today benefit from decades of industrial experience which contributed to cost reductions. In most
countries relying on the nuclear option, the costs of generating nuclear electricity, which internalise safety, radiation protection
and waste management and disposal, are competitive with alternatives. According to the study published in 2005 by the
OECD,2 based on data provided by 21 countries on some 130 power plants, the average lifetime costs of generating electricity,
levelised at 10% discount rate, for plants to be commissioned by 2010-2015 range between 30 and 50 US$/MWh for nuclear,
35 and 60 for coal and 40 and 63 for gas, with gas prices at around 4 US$/GJ. The technology based on nuclear fission,
allowing retrieval of energy from uranium, contributes to diversity and security of supply, adding a new resource to fossil and
renewable energies. Uranium, the natural resource used for fuelling nuclear power plants, is an abundant commodity
with no significant use other than energy. Uranium resources which have been identified - around
4.75 million tonnes - are sufficient to fuel the reactor fleet in operation today for some 85 years. Total
conventional resources of uranium - some 14.8 million tonnes - represent 270 years of current annual consumption.3
41
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

Nuclear Energy can substitute for fossil fuels
The present use of nuclear energy is confined nearly exclusively to electricity generation. By maintaining or increasing
its share in total electricity supply, nuclear energy could help alleviate the tensions on the natural
gas market and the risk of global climate change. The rate of construction of nuclear power plants in the early
1980s demonstrates that doubling the world installed nuclear capacity within 30 years is technically feasible, provided
adequate policies are implemented by governments wishing to rely on the nuclear option. Besides its contribution to electricity
supply, which could be increased significantly in many countries, nuclear energy has the potential to broaden its
market to non-electricity applications. Nuclear reactors produce heat which can be used directly for
process or district heating, to desalinate water or to produce hydrogen by different means, from electrolysis
to chemical decomposition of water. It offers opportunities for the nuclear option to play a major role in policies to address
security of supply and global climate change issues. However, in spite of the recognised advantages of the nuclear option and
of renewed interest of government and industry policy makers in nuclear energy, decisions to build new nuclear power plants
remain scarce, except in countries with a long tradition of reliance on nuclear energy. The reluctance of investors to embark on
capital-intensive projects with long amortisation times is not unique to nuclear energy, but it raises specific concerns requiring
government involvement to be addressed. Nuclear energy projects raise financial, regulatory and socio-political risks.
Government leadership, which is essential in energy policy making, is particularly important for alleviating the risks specific to
nuclear energy. Stable national regulatory and policy frameworks are a prerequisite to attract investors in nuclear projects. The
role of international co-operation is also important to facilitate technology adaptation and transfer, and security of fuel cycle
service supply in the respect of non-proliferation criteria. The issue of radioactive waste management and disposal illustrates
the social dimension of nuclear risks. Experts agree that the safe disposal of all types of radioactive waste in a manner that
protects present and future generations and the environment is technically feasible at acceptable costs. However, the
implementation of repositories has proven to be challenged by civil society concerns at the local and national levels. Progress
being made in several countries, such as Finland, towards the construction of a repository for high-level waste is a key
contribution to the future development of nuclear energy. Technology progress is essential, together with policy measures, for
ensuring that the future role of nuclear energy will correspond to the needs of society. Several decades of industrial experience
with commercial nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities are already providing today the base for designing and
implementing advanced systems responding to the requirements of the 21st century. Evolutionary nuclear power plants under
construction in several countries integrate significant, enhanced safety features and improvements leading to higher availability
factors, lower uranium consumption and reduced waste streams, and decreased costs. For the longer term, national and
international R&D programmes devoted to the development of a fourth generation of nuclear systems are aiming at achieving
even more ambitious goals in terms of safety, economics, resource management, proliferation resistance and physical
protection.5 Those systems, which are expected to be available on the market by 2020-2030, will be ready on time to replace
obsolete nuclear units and face increased electricity demand. Addressing simultaneously security of energy
supply, global climate change threat and socio-economic goals of the 21st century is a major
challenge for policy makers worldwide. Without effectively combining technology and policy measures, reaching the
objective of sustainable development will not be possible. Nuclear energy is one option among others which can
play a significant role in secure, carbon-free and competitive supply of energy on a large scale.
Governments interested in the nuclear option should ensure that the policy frameworks in place in their respective countries are
adequate for the timely implementation of nuclear systems.
42
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

Nuclear Power addresses the long term energy needs
In a balanced energy mix, nuclear power stations can make some specific contributions to the
security of the UK’s energy supplies (as discussed in chapter three). Their cost profile - with large upfront capital costs,
but relatively low ongoing fuel and operating costs - mean that nuclear power is relatively insensitive
to fluctuations in uranium fuel prices. This cost profile, and the technical characteristics of the
technology mean that nuclear power stations are highly suitable for providing baseload electricity
generation. They are less suited to providing the short run flexibility required to meet changes in peak demand.
Uranium amounts provide for years of Nuclear Power
NEA, 6-3-08, “Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future”
http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html
There is enough uranium known to exist to fuel the world's fleet of nuclear reactors at current
consumption rates for at least a century, according to the latest edition of the world reference on uranium published
today. Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand, also known as the Red Book, estimates the
identified amount of conventional uranium resources which can be mined for less than USD 130/kg* to
be about 5.5 million tonnes, up from the 4.7 million tonnes reported in 2005. Undiscovered resources, i.e. uranium
deposits that can be expected to be found based on the geological characteristics of already discovered resources, have also
risen to 10.5 million tonnes. This is an increase of 0.5 million tonnes compared to the previous edition of the report. The
increases are due to both new discoveries and re-evaluations of known resources, encouraged by higher prices. Based on the
2006 nuclear electricity generation rate and current technology, the identified resource base will remain sufficient for 100
years. However, total world uranium resources are dynamic and related to commodity prices. The uranium industry has
reacted to recent increases in the price of uranium by launching major new investments in
exploration, which can be expected to lead to further additions to the uranium resource base.
Worldwide exploration expenditures in 2006 totalled over USD 774 million, an increase of over 250% compared to 2004.
Expenditures in 2007, for which data are not yet final, are expected to match those in 2006. At the end of 2006, world uranium
production (39 603 tonnes) provided about 60% of world reactor requirements (66 500 tonnes) for the 435 commercial nuclear
reactors in operation.
43
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Solvency Ext: Efficiency

New Nuclear Reactors will be even more efficient
In its analysis for the 2006 Energy Review, the Government assumed that carbon emissions from nuclear power were
approximately 3gC/KWh, which is equivalent to 10gCO2/KWh. Under this assumption, our analysis gives annual lifecycle
carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations of 87,000 tonnes per GWh (25,000 tonnes of
carbon)72. We considered it reasonable to make a prudent judgement, above the OECD Energy Agency and roughly halfway
between the extremes highlighted in the studies identified by the Uranium Information Centre. This is because the high end
estimates assume that coal fired power stations provide most of the electricity used during the
lifecycle, and the low-estimates assume low carbon forms of generation predominate. However, in the UK, we expect, even
with the anticipated growth in renewables, that gas-fired generation will continue to play an important role in the future energy
mix alongside new more efficient coal power stations. We can expect carbon emissions from nuclear power to
fall further as new reactor technologies lead to more efficient power stations with fewer
components, with the ability to extract more energy from their fuel73. Carbon emissions will also
decline as we switch to generating technologies that produce less carbon, so that the electricity used
in fuel enrichment and construction of power stations, for example, is itself generated in a way that
produces less carbon.
44
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

Nuclear Power is cheaper and more efficient than coal and gas
International Energy Agency 2006 “The World Energy Outlook 2006 Maps Out a Cleaner, Cleverer and More Competitive
Energy Future” http://www.iea.org/textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=187
The energy picture has changed appreciably since the 2004 Outlook, the last major update of the IEA’s global energy
projection. The realities of the energy market have become harsher and the relative competitive
position of fuels has changed. Oil and gas prices this year have been between three and four times higher than in 2002
and this is reflected in a new oil price assumption for the projections. But world economic growth has remained robust, as the
recessionary effects of higher energy prices have been more than offset by other factors. Coal is now cheaper than natural gas
for electricity generation, while nuclear power may, in some cases, be cheaper than both coal and gas –
even where there is no penalty for emitting CO2. Coal has led the recent surge in global energy demand and is on
a stronger growth path than in previous WEOs. China and India are the predominant sources of global energy demand growth.
“WEO 2006 identifies under-investment in new energy supply as a real risk”, said Mr. Mandil. To quench the world’s thirst for
energy, the Reference Scenario projections call a cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure of over $20 trillion in
real terms over 2005-2030 – substantially more than was previously estimated. Roughly half of all the energy investment
needed worldwide is in developing countries. It is far from certain that all this investment will actually occur. There has been
an apparent surge in oil and gas investment in recent years, but it is, to a large extent, illusory. Drilling, material and personnel
costs in the industry have soared, so that in real terms investment in 2005 was barely higher than that in 2000. The Outlook
demonstrates that nuclear power could make a major contribution to reducing dependence on imported
gas and curbing CO2 emissions in a cost-effective way. But this will happen only if the governments
of countries where nuclear power is accepted play a stronger role in facilitating private investment,
especially in liberalised markets. “Nuclear power remains a potentially attractive option for
enhancing the security of electricity supply and mitigating carbon-dioxide emissions – but financing the
upfront investment cost may remain a challenge”, Mr. Mandil underlined.
45
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

Funding Nuclear Power will make more efficient Nuclear Reactors
Furthermore, in the medium and long term, technology progress is expected to enhance the efficiency of
nuclear energy systems, increasing the amount of energy retrieved per tonne of uranium and
thereby easing the pressure on demand. The nuclear power plants now in operation already achieve
higher burn-ups than reactors of previous generations, and even better use of uranium will be
obtained with evolutionary advanced water reactors under construction. In the longer term, advanced fast neutron
systems under development will offer more drastic improvements through recycling of fissile materials
and breeding, multiplying the lifetime of conventional uranium resources by 30 or more. The role of
technology progress in enhancing the efficiency of uranium use is a means to reinforce security of
supply and is also very important because efficient use of natural uranium resources reduces
environmental impacts from uranium mining and waste management and disposal. Reductions of
waste volumes and radiotoxicity by more than one order of magnitude are expected to be obtained
with the development of fourth-generation nuclear systems with closed fuel cycles that will respond better to the
environmental and social goals of sustainable development. Global climate change, like security of energy supply, is very high
on the agenda of civil society and government policy makers. The energy sector, a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, has a key role to play in alleviating the risk of global warming. Very stringent policy measures are
needed to curb the GHG emissions of the energy sector. There is no unique solution to the problem but a combination of energy
conservation measures, carbon-free energy sources and carbon capture and sequestration methods will be required to address
the issue adequately. Nuclear energy is a nearly carbon-free source, with only minute secondary emissions of
carbon dioxide resulting from some fuel cycle steps and processes included in the life cycle of nuclear facilities. Per kWh of
electricity generated, the nuclear energy chain emits 2.5 to 5.7 grammes of carbon equivalent as
compared to 100 to 350 for fossil fuel chains and 2.5 to 75 for various renewable energy chains.4 Therefore,
substituting nuclear power plants for fossil-fuelled units can significantly reduce the carbon intensity
of the electricity sector
46
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

New Reactors have long cycles and are more efficient
G. Ivan Maldonado, Member, IEEE, AUGUST 2005 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 52, NO. 4,
“Optimizing LWR Cost of Margin One Fuel Pin at a Time”
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/23/32144/01495796.pdf?tp=&arnumber=1495796&isnumber=32144
RECENT advancements in the area of nuclear fuel management optimization have been considerable
and widespread. Therefore, it is not surprising that the design of today’s nuclear fuel reloads can be a highly
automated process that is often accompanied by sophisticated optimization software and graphical user interfaces to assist
core designers. Most typically, among other objectives, optimization software seeks to maximize the energy
efficiency of a fuel cycle while satisfying a variety of safety, operational, and regulatory constraints.
Concurrently, the general trend of the nuclear industry continues to be one of pursuing higher
generating capacity (i.e., power up-rates) alongside cycle length extensions. Therefore, as these increasingly
invaluable software tools and ambitious performance goals are pursued in unison, more aggressive core designs
ultimately emerge that effectively minimize the margins to limits and, in some cases, may turn out less
forgiving or accommodating to changes in underlying key assumptions.
47
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

New LWR Plants will be very efficient
Geoffrey Rothwell and, Stanford University, Bob van der Zwaan, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, September 2002,
Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, “Is Light Water Reactor Technology Sustainable?”
http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/02-11.pdf
“Yet, at current rates of use of about 70 thousand tons per year in world nuclear reactors, known resources of 4.3 million tons
(NEA 1997) amount to only 60 years of supply. If 11 million tons of additional speculative (undiscovered) resources are
included, some 220 years of resource can be identified.” There are several options to extend the availability of LWR
nuclear fuel resources. First, efficiency could be increased at the current stock of LWR plants through
improvements in productivity, thermal efficiency, and higher burnup of uranium. Second, additional
uranium could be retrieved from less uranium-rich resources (e.g., sea water) at higher extraction costs.
Third, other nuclear fuels could be used, including thorium (see Chung 1997) and plutonium. LWR
Sustainability Rothwell and van der Zwaan 11 Yet for longer-term sustainability (e.g., for several centuries) the
nuclear energy industry must develop advanced nuclear technologies, see IEA (1998, p. 15-16): “The key
to long-term energy supply from nuclear power is not uranium ore reserves, or even reserves of
fertile materials like thorium. Rather it is new, as yet non-commercial, nuclear technology that
could allow nuclear power to be sustained over a very long period. Today the first step appears to be
the use of breeder reactors. Thermal reactors use only 2% of the energy available from natural uranium.”
New Nuclear Plants are required to meet our energy needs and solve global warming
Greenwire, 06/22/2007, “7. NUCLEAR POWER: Bush calls for U.S. to build 30 new plants by 2010”
http://www.eenews.net/gw/sample/print/7
President Bush called on utilities
to begin building as many as 30 new nuclear plants by 2010 in order
to keep pace with the country's soaring electricity demand and combat global warming. "It's time for
the country to start building nuclear power plants again," Bush told an audience of about 250 at the recently restarted Browns
Ferry nuclear plant in Huntsville, Ala., operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Bush predicted the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission would get 20 applications from utilities to build up to 30 new reactors. No
new licenses have been filed at the NRC since 1973 (Reuters/PlanetArk, June 22). "If you're interested in cleaning
up the air, then you ought to be an advocate for nuclear power," Bush said. He also noted the need for the United States to
invest money in technologies to recycle nuclear waste (Faulk/Dean, Birmingham News, June 22). But nuclear power critics
pointed out the irony in Bush choosing to announce his support for it at Browns Ferry. In the mid-1970s, the plant was the site
of the second-most-severe nuclear accident in U.S. history. "The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant has a dubious history and can
hardly be held up as a model for the industry," said Michele Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizen's energy program.
"Instead of representing the future of nuclear power, it stands as the premier example of why we stopped ordering new reactors
in the first place" (Henry J. Pulizzi, Wall Street Journal online, June 21). -- KB
48
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Solvency Ext: LWRs

Light Water Reactors cost, less and prevent proliferation
J. Stephen Herring et al, Philip E. MacDonald, Kevan D. Weaver and Craig Kullberg, Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, 5-9-2000, Nuclear Energy and Design, Advanced Nuclear Energy Products, “Low cost, proliferation
resistant, uranium–thorium dioxide fuels for light water reactors”
Trends in the world's population and energy use during the past century show dramatic and relatively parallel increases in both.
These trends are expected to continue in the near future (at least next 20 years), and the total world energy
consumption in 2020 will be about 60% higher than it is today, led by growing demand in Asia (DOE-EIA,
2000). The demand for electricity is expected to increase more rapidly than the demand for other
forms of energy throughout the world and nearly double by 2020. Coal will be used to generate much of that
electricity in the developing countries. In the industrialized world, there are also dramatic structural changes underway in the
electric power industry to enhance competition in the generation segment of the business. This, along with ample natural gas
supplies and relatively low gas prices, has made natural gas the preferred fuel for many power producers in the United States
and elsewhere. These developments (increasing energy demand and the use of natural gas and coal) are expected to increase the
amount of carbon emitted to the atmosphere from the world's electrical power plants by about 70% over the next 20 years (
DOE-EIA, 2000). Nuclear energy is the only fully developed technology able to supply large amounts of
electricity without generation of greenhouse gases, and therefore, should be a key element in the
strategy to control greenhouse gas emissions. However, several problems cloud the future of nuclear power in the
United States and need to be addressed for nuclear power to be a preferred electric power generation option. President Clinton's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST, 1997) was recently asked to look at these issues and concluded
that: Fission's future expandability is in doubt in the United States and many other regions of the world because of concerns
about high costs, reactor-accident risks, radioactive-waste management, and potential links to the spread of nuclear weapons.
We believe that the potential benefits of an expanded contribution from fission in helping address the carbon dioxide challenge
warrant …, [finding] …, out whether and how improved technology could alleviate the concerns that cloud this energy option's
future. Our objective is to develop a fuel for the existing light water reactors (LWRs) that, costs less
per MW day; allows longer refueling cycles and higher sustainable plant capacity factors; is very
resistant to nuclear weapon-material proliferation; results in a more stable and insoluble waste
form; and, generates less high-level waste. Urania–thoria cores offer a real promise of unproved
performance over all-uranium LWR cores,
49
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Solvency Ext: LWRs

Funding Nuclear Power allows for more advanced LWRs to be developed
U.S Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, 2007 “Building New Nuclear Plants”
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/BuildingNewNuclearPlants.pdf
New baseload nuclear generating capacity is required to support the National Energy Policy
objectives of enhancing U.S. energy supply diversity and energy security. The Nuclear Power 2010 (NP
2010) program addresses issues aff ecting near-term nuclear plant deployment. The Department of Energy is actively
engaged with industry to address issues affecting future expansion of nuclear generation. The NP 2010
program, initiated in 2002, is a cost-shared government-industry effort to: Demonstrate untested regulatory
processes, Identify sites for new nuclear power plants, Develop and bring to market advanced,
standardized nuclear plant technologies, and Evaluate the business case for building new nuclear
power plants. Accomplishing these program objectives paves the way for an industry decision to
build advanced, light-water reactor nuclear plants in the United States that would begin operation
by the middle of the next decade.
New designs of nuclear plants would be safer, and cheaper
Russ Britt, CBS.MarketWatch.com, March 31, 2004, Market Watch “Utilities eyeing nuclear plant license First reactor in three
decades to test designs, permitting” http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B52B8A5DC-9994-4284-8FE2-
BD31BDF67CA4%7D&siteid=mktw
The last time federal regulators granted a license to build a new nuclear power plant was in 1973. The Three Mile Island, Pa.,
nuclear accident in 1979 choked off interest in building new facilities because of public concerns and heavy costs. Kray said
advanced nuclear plant designs call for simpler construction that she described as "more evolutionary
than revolutionary." They use "passively safe" technology that relies on forces of nature to help the
plant operate. For example, the 103 nuclear plants around the country rely on mechanical pumps to shoot cooling water
into nuclear cores and prevent Three Mile Island-like meltdowns. New plants would use "gravity feed," or simply storing water
above the core and then letting it flow down. That requires less equipment to build and maintain, Kray said. Costliness has kept
many power companies from pursuing new nuclear plants, as many now are going for $1 billion apiece. Some estimate that is
20 percent to 25 percent more than what it costs to build comparable plant producing other types of power. New designs
could keep a lid on nuclear costs, though, Kray said. "Part of this is to identify better what these challenges are," Kray
said. "We see the contribution that nuclear power is adding to the fuel mix." She added nuclear power
provides a cleaner alternative to many other energy sources and cuts down on global warming.
50
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Solvency Ext
New Light Water Reactors protect against nuclear proliferation
Alex Galperin et al., Professor, Faculty of Engineering Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel, Paul
Reichert, Senior Nuclear Consulting Engineer, Raytheon Engineers and Constructors, Alvin Radkowsky, Professor, Department of
Interdisciplinary Studies, Tel-Aviv University, 1997 Science & Global Security, Volume 6, Issue 3, pages 265 – 290 “Thorium fuel
for light water reactors—reducing proliferation potential of nuclear power fuel cycle”
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788805643~db=all
The proliferation potential of the light water reactor fuel cycle may be significantly reduced by
utilization of thorium as a fertile component of the nuclear fuel. The main challenge of thorium utilization is to
design a core and a fuel cycle, which would be proliferation-resistant and economically feasible. This challenge is met by the
Radkowsky Thorium Reactor (RTR) concept presented in this paper. So far the concept has been applied to a Russian design of
a 1,000 MWe pressurized water reactor, known as a WER-1000, and designated as WERT. The following are the main results
of the preliminary reference design: The amount of plutonium contained in the RTR spent fuel stockpile is
reduced by 80 percent in comparison with a WER of a current design. The isotopic composition of the RTR-
Pu greatly increases the probability of preini-tiation and yield degradation of a nuclear explosion. An extremely large Pu-238
content causes correspondingly large heat emission, which would complicate the design of an explosive device based on RTR-
Pu. The economic incentive to reprocess and reuse the fissile component of the RTR spent fuel is
decreased. The once-through cycle is economically optimal for the RTR core and cycle. To summarize all the items above:
the replacement of a standard (uranium-based) fuel for nuclear reactors of current generation by
the RTR fuel will provide a strong barrier for nuclear weapon proliferation. This barrier, in combination
with existing safeguard measures and procedures is adequate to unambiguously disassociate civilian nuclear power from
military nuclear power. The RTR concept is applied to existing power plants to assure its economic feasibility. Reductions in
waste disposal requirements, as well as in natural uranium and fabrication expenses, as compared to a standard WER fuel,
provide approximately 20 percent reduction in fuel cycle cost.
Improving nuclear plant refueling cycles saves the U.S. $1 billion a year
J. Stephen Herring et al, Philip E. MacDonald, Kevan D. Weaver and Craig Kullberg, Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, 5-9-2000, Nuclear Energy and Design, Advanced Nuclear Energy Products, “Low cost, proliferation
resistant, uranium–thorium dioxide fuels for light water reactors”
An important objective of our study is to reduce plant-operating costs and the price of electricity produced by nuclear power
plants. Most (80%) of the US plants are currently operating with 18-month or shorter refueling cycles.
Only about 12 plants are operating with 24-month cycles, primarily with mostly two-cycle fuel to stay within the current
burnup limits. With improved fuel, many of the US plants could move to 24–36-month refueling cycles (the refueling cycles at
some plants will be limited by the need to inspect or repair other equipment such as steam generators). An improvement
to 24-month cycles is worth about 2.5% in plant capacity and an improvement to 36-month cycles
would increase plant capacity factors by about 5%. Having the same plants generate 5% more
electricity would save U.S. utilities and thus ratepayers about $1 billion per year (at a production cost of
2 cents per kW-h)1 and help make nuclear energy more competitive. Because most worker exposure and low
level waste generation at commercial nuclear plants occurs during refueling, longer refueling cycles will also reduce
worker exposures to radiation and the amount of low-level waste generated.
Solvency Ext: Spillover

NRC actions on nuclear plants creates global action
51
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
US NRC May 06, 2008 “International Safeguards” http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/rad-nat-security.html

In addition to its domestic responsibilities for radiation protection and nuclear security, the NRC conducts
international safeguards activities to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to nonproliferation of
nuclear materials. In so doing, the NRC strengthens the capability of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) to verify a State's commitments regarding the peaceful use of nuclear materials,
and to prevent the spread of nuclear explosives capability. In addition, the NRC helps to strengthen the
IAEA safeguards program through participation in interagency groups, as well as activities that
directly support the IAEA.
52
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Solvency Ext: Spillover

Many countries adopt Western energy policies
Helge Jörgens, Environmental Policy Research Unit, Free University Berlin, Germany 22 January 2001 Environmental Politics
“The Diffusion of Environmental Policy Innovations - Findings from an International Workshop”,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714000541
Recent comparative studies have revealed striking parallels in the development of national capacities for
environmental protection across all OECD countries, often beyond the borders of the Western
industrialised world (Jänicke & Weidner 1997a,1997b). Since the early 1950s almost all Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Central 7 and Eastern European (CEE) countries have progressively
adopted similar legislation in the areas of water and air protection as well as waste management
(Weale 1992; Jänicke & Weidner 1997, 1997b; Kern, Jörgens & Jänicke 2001; see Figure 1). Additionally, new government
bodies for environmental protection have been set up by all industrialized countries beginning in the late 1960s (Jörgens 1996).
However, this more or less parallel development of national environmental policies is not restricted to
the initial establishment of specific institutions and legislation in this comparatively new policy area.
A more recent shift in the prevailing policy pattern is the move from a sectorally fragmented and largely legally based
regulatory approach to an integrated environmental policy characterised by ‘softer’ and/or more flexible instruments such as
voluntary agreements,ecolabels or ecological tax reforms (see Figure 2).Generally, a global convergence of
governance patterns in environmental policy can be observed. In contrast to the widespread assumption that
policy convergence takes place at the level of the lowest common denominator, empirical data shows that global
development in the field of environmental protection has, to an important extent, been guided by
the developmental status reached in ‘frontrunner’ countries
53
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Solvency Ext: NRC Licenses

The NRC must approve nuclear power plants
US NRC, May 06, 2008 “Radiation Protection” http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation.html

Although radiation is naturally present in our environment, it can have either beneficial or harmful effects, depending on its use
and control. For that reason, Congress charged the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with
protecting people and the environment from unnecessary exposure to radiation as a result of
civilian uses of nuclear materials. Toward that end, the NRC requires nuclear power plants; research
reactors; and other medical, industrial, and academic licensees to use and store radioactive materials in a way
that eliminates unnecessary exposure and protects radiation workers and the public.
NRC gives licenses only to plants that follow the regulations on nuclear energy
US NRC February 13, 2007 “Reactor License Renewal Overview”

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/overview.html
The Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations limit commercial power reactor licenses to an initial 40
years but also permit such licenses to be renewed. This original 40-year term for reactor licenses was based on economic and
antitrust considerations -- not on limitations of nuclear technology. Due to this selected period, however, some structures and
components may have been engineered on the basis of an expected 40-year service life. The NRC has established a
timely license renewal process and clear requirements, codified in 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 54, that are
needed to assure safe plant operation for extended plant life. The timely renewal of licenses for an additional 20 years, where
appropriate to renew them, may be important to ensuring an adequate energy supply for the United States during the first half
of the 21st century. Nuclear power comprises approximately 20 percent of all the electric power produced in the United States.
The first operating license will expire in the year 2009; approximately 10 percent will expire by the
end of 2010; and more than 40 percent will expire by 2015. The decision to seek license renewal is strictly
voluntary and nuclear power plant owners (i.e., licensees) must decide whether they are likely to satisfy NRC requirements and
whether license renewal is a cost-effective venture.
54
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

Nuclear Power Plants must be approved by the NRC
U.S Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, 2007 “Building New Nuclear Plants”
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/BuildingNewNuclearPlants.pdf
Regulatory Issues and Licensing — To enable deployment of the
new Generation III+ nuclear power plants
in the United States in the relatively near-term, it is essential to complete first-of-a-kind Genera-tion
III+ reactor design activities and to demonstrate the untested Federal regulatory and licensing
processes for the siting, construction, and operation of new nuclear plants. One process, the Early Site
Permit(ESP), is a licensing process toapprove sites for new nuclearplants prior to a power company’s commitment to build.
The other process, the combined Construction and Operating License(COL), is a ‘one-step’ licensing process by which the
NRC approves and issues a license to build and operate a new nuclear power plant. Cooperative Projects
— In 2002,the Department initiated cooperative projects with industry to obtain the NRC’s approval of three sites for
construction of new nuclear power plants under the NRC’s ESP process. In 2003, three ESP applicationswere submitted by
power companies to the NRC for review, which were approved in FY 2007 and early FY 2008.In 2005, the Department, in
cooperation with industry teams, initiated two New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects to demonstrate the
licensing process to build and operate new nuclear power plants and complete the certification and first-of-a-kind designs for
Generation III+ reactor technologies. These industry consortia developed and submitted to the NRC in early FY 2008 COL
applications for two commercial nuclear plant sites for the Westinghouse Advanced Passive Pressurized Water Reactor (AP-
1000)and the General Electric (GE)Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) technologies. The two industry
consortia involve power companies currently operating more than two-thirds of the existing U.S. commercial nuclear power
plants
The NRC has strict new licensing processes
Nuclear Energy Institute, March 2008 “Licensing New Nuclear Power Plants”
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/licensingnewnuclearpowerplants/
The vast majority of today’s 104 U.S. nuclear power plants were licensed during the 1960s and 1970s. Commercial nuclear
energy was new, and the regulatory process evolved along with the new industry. Plants were issued a construction permit
based on a preliminary design. Safety issues were not fully resolved until the plant was essentially complete—a process flaw
that had substantial financial implications. This flaw also meant that the public did not have access to the details of the design
until construction was nearly complete. To address this process flaw, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
1989 established a new licensing process: 10 CFR Part 52. Congress affirmed and strengthened the new licensing
process as part of the 1992 Energy Policy Act. The new approach to licensing nuclear power plants moves the
licensing and safety issues to the front of three processes: approval of standard designs, early site
permits, and combined construction permits and operating licenses. In addition, it provides greater
opportunity for the public to be involved in the process. To ensure a company builds a new plant according to
its license, the NRC introduced a process that determines which kinds of inspections, tests, analyses
and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) it will use to ensure the plant is built according to the design
approved in the licensing proceedings. New Licensing Process. The new NRC licensing process provides
for design certification, early site approval and combined licensing for construction and operation.
Design Certification. Design certification allows plant designers to secure advance NRC approval of standard plant designs.
Later, these plant designs can be ordered, licensed for a particular site and built. Following an exhaustive NRC safety review,
agency approval of standard designs is formalized via a specific design certification rulemaking. This process allows the public
to review and comment on the designs up front—before any construction begins. NRC design certification fully resolves safety
issues associated with the design. The NRC approves the design for 15 years.
55
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

The NRC approval important for new plants
U.S. Department of Energy, July 16, 2008 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy “NRC Expects Applications for 34
Nuclear Power Plants by 2010” http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11876
Electric utilities in the United States are endeavoring to lower their pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions by building
renewable energy facilities with zero or low emissions, but that same motivation is also leading utilities to investigate the use
of nuclear power. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently reviewing applications for
15 new nuclear reactors at nine sites in eight states: Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina (two sites), Texas, and Virginia. By the end of this year, the NRC expects to receive applications for 12 more reactors
at nine sites in eight states, including two more sites in Texas, as well as sites in seven new states: Florida, Idaho, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania. In 2009, the NRC expects applications for four more reactors at two sites,
located in Florida and Texas, and in 2010, the commission expects applications for three more nuclear reactors at three sites. It
lists Utah as the location for one of those facilities, but the details on the other two facilities have not been announced yet.
Altogether, the NRC is expecting applications for 34 new nuclear power plants located at 23 sites in at
least 16 states. The applications are for "combined" licenses, which allow for both building and operating the
power plants. The review process is also quite long, with the NRC expecting to hold hearings for most
of the current applications starting in 2010, leading to the first new licenses possibly being issued in
2011. All of the applications also depend on the NRC issuing design certifications for the new
reactor designs that the energy companies intend to employ. See the NRC's New Reactors Web page and its fact sheet on
the licensing process.
56
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>

The NRC’s new licensing allows for safe, cheap and efficient designs
PR Newswire, 31-MAR-04 Exelon Corp.; Entergy Corp.; Constellation Energy Group Inc.; Westinghouse Electric Corp. “PRESS
RELEASE ON NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS” http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuc-press-release.html
WASHINGTON - Five leading energy companies and two nuclear reactor vendors plan to form a
consortium that will work with the U.S. Department of Energy to demonstrate and test a new
licensing process for obtaining a Combined Construction and Operating License for advanced nuclear power reactors. The
companies have signed a memorandum of understanding expressing their intent to form the consortium. Neither the planned
consortium nor its members are making a commitment to build a new nuclear unit at this time. The consortium will prepare a
proposal in response to a DOE solicitation last November asking energy companies to demonstrate the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's new COL process. The companies are Constellation Generation Group, a subsidiary of Constellation
Energy, Baltimore; EDF International North America, Washington, a subsidiary of the large French utility; Entergy Nuclear,
Jackson, Miss.; Exelon Generation, Philadelphia; Southern Company, Atlanta; and two nuclear reactor vendors, Westinghouse
Electric Co., Pittsburgh, and GE Energy's nuclear operations, Wilmington, N.C. Each energy company is expected to contribute
to the consortium about $1 million a year in cash plus in-kind and administrative services, totaling about $7 million over seven
years each. The consortium plans to submit its proposal as part of DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 program, a joint
government/industry cost-sharing initiative designed to conduct regulatory demonstrations and advanced reactor development
activities. Demonstrating that the NRC's new licensing process can result in a COL reduces some
business uncertainty for companies interested in building new nuclear plants. The new COL
licensing process was established by the NRC in 1992 to streamline obtaining a new license and to
add some certainty but has never been tested. ''Advanced nuclear plants offer a promising potential
- passive safety designs, stable fuel prices, lower production costs than other fuels used to generate
electricity and a very low environmental impact,'' said Gary J. Taylor, president, CEO and chief nuclear officer of
Entergy Nuclear.
57
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Unsafe
Light water reactors are safe and prevent meltdowns.
Martin Sevior, Asscoiate Professor at the School of Physics, Melbourne University. “The Oil Drum: Is Nuclear Power a Viable
Option for Our Energy Needs?” http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2323
So light water reactors are inherently stable to first order. Of course things can and do go wrong over the course
of time. These are normally corrected by routine adjustments of the reactor parameters. However the worst thing that
can happen is for a massive loss of core coolant via a catastrophic accident. If this happens the
nuclear reaction will stop but the fuel itself will continue to generate heat from the radioactive
decay of fission products. Without the cooling water, the fuel elements will eventually melt. Should
this occur, the fuel is contained within the extremely strong shell of the containment vessel. The
melt-down will destroy the economic value of the reactor, however the public remains protected. To
prevent meltdowns, current second generation reactors employ multiple backup cooling circuits driven by active components
like pumps and valves. These are active safety systems and modern reactors are projected to have 1 major core
damage incident per 100,000 years of reactor operation.
LWR radiation is much smaller than most other radioactive emissions
Of the total annual radiation to which the public is exposed, about 50% originates from radon,
about 25% from terrestrial sources, about 15% from cosmic sources, and the remaining 10% from
manufactured sources. Of the manufactured sources, most exposure comes from medical sources,
and only about 0.5% from nuclear power (NEA 2000). Indeed, public and employee exposure at nearly
all facilities (located in OECD countries) is below radioactive emissions in areas with high radon gas, for
example, in some locations in Brazil and India. It seems reasonable to conclude that LWR emissions will remain
below naturally occurring ones. Ongoing radioactive emissions and occupational employee exposure at NPPs, and
those within all fuel cycle facilities (e.g., at uranium mines and mills, at conversion and enrichment plants, during fuel
fabrication and transportation, and with spent fuel handling and disposal) have been declining, such that levels of the annual
collective dose per reactor in 1999 are less than half what they were in 1987 (NEA 2000). Today, the dose commitment
from the entire nuclear power industry is around 300 times lower than that resulting from the
natural background, and there is a trend of decreasing radioactive emissions per kWh (NEA 2000).
Further progress is LWR Sustainability Rothwell and van der Zwaan 15 expected with improvements in operating procedures
and fuel-cycle developments, so we conclude that LWR technology does not impose a significant health and
safety risk to its workers or the public.
58
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Unsafe
Nuclear waste remains safer than waste from other means of producing electricity
Pierre Trudeau, Former Prime Minister of Canada, 1991, Energy for a Habitable World, Crane Russak,
New York, http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm
Another drawback that is often associated with the use of nuclear energy is that of nuclear waste. There is a huge
misunderstanding that the waste created by nuclear energy is more "dangerous" than that of other
means of producing electricity. The truth of the matter is that radioactive waste from nuclear
energy may be dangerous for thousands of years, while wastes resulting from the burning of coal,
remains dangerous forever. The reason for this is because the toxicity of these stable elements does not decrease over
time as does the toxicity of radioactive materials.
Other interesting facts concerning nuclear waste include the reduction in emissions of SO2 and NOx in countries using
nuclear power is revealing. "In France, for example, during the period from 1980 to 1986, SO2 and NOX emissions
in the electric power sector were reduced by 71 percent and 60 percent, respectively, making a
major contribution to reductions of 56 percent and 9 percent, respectively, in total SO2 and NOX emissions in
France" (Trudeou p.160). These tremendous reductions were made possible by a fourfold increase in
nuclear electricity generation.
59
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Unsafe
The threat of nuclear states and rare nuclear meltdown is not enough to warrant its rejection
Brief,
ssions_0408.pdf
And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the
hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-
nothing mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for
humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring
roles in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's
survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three
Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country. What
nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The
concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from
escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or
death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident
in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away
from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then. Nuclear fuel can be
diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the most serious issue associated with nuclear energy and the most difficult to
address, as the example of Iran shows. But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is not
an argument to ban its use.
60
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Unsafe
There is no nuclear waste problem
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.
61
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Unsafe
The radiation emitted by nuclear plants is insignificant and completely safe
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.
62
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: No Test Model

Reprocessing minimizes nuclear waste and would increase the capcity of Yucca Mountain 100 times –
France proves.
Peter Fairley, Independent Journalist, author and editor. 2007. “Nuclear Wasteland” http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/4891
Lately, nuclear advocates, particularly in the United States, say they’ve found a better solution, or at least a path to one. It’s
based on the recycling and reuse of spent nuclear fuel, known as fuel reprocessing in the industry’s jargon. Reprocessing
breaks down fuel chemically, recovering fissionable material for use in new fuels. Thus, there is less
highly radioactive material that needs to be sealed in caskets, buried deep underground, or
otherwise permanently isolated from humankind. “If we do reprocessing and recycle, we can
increase the capacity of Yucca Mountain 100-fold,” says Phillip Finck, a nuclear engineer at Argonne National
Laboratory, in Illinois. Suddenly, instead of being crammed full on its opening day, Yucca Mountain would be able to handle
everything the industry could throw at it until 2050 or beyond, staving off searches for additional Yucca Mountains. As it
happens, there’s an ideal test case with which to evaluate that enticing proposition: France, which
never backed away from nuclear energy and which has long relied on reprocessing as the linchpin of its power reactor fuel
system. The French experience clearly does show that reprocessing need not be the dangerous mess
that other countries, including the United States, have made of it [see photo, “Blue Glow of Success”]. The U.S.
military used reprocessing for several decades to separate plutonium from spent fuels, providing fissionable material for
bombs. The result was widespread contamination—which has been in some cases irremediable—in the central Washington
desert and the South Carolina coastal plain. France, in contrast, now reprocesses well over 1000 metric tons of
spent fuel every year without incident at the La Hague chemical complex, at the head of Normandy’s wind-
blasted Cotentin peninsula. La Hague receives all the spent fuel rods from France’s 59 reactors. The sprawling facility,
operated by the state-controlled nuclear giant Areva, has racked up a good, if not unblemished, environmental
record.
63
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Renewables Better

Nuclear Power is reliable in a way that wind or solar energies could not replace
Brief,
ssions_0408.pdf
Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and
unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric.
Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big
baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by
elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.
64
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: No International Modeling

The ability to recycle new fuel makes nuclear energy a lucrative global enterprise
Brief,
ssions_0408.pdf
Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth
of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste,
because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now
that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that
energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month,
Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States
will not be far behind.
65
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: No International Modeling

Nuclear Energy provides the US with economic competitiveness
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.
66
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Limited to Structural Power

Nuclear energy is key to emission-free innovation in the transportation industry
Given that nuclear fission does not produce atmospheric emissions, NukeFree's carbon dioxide (CO2) witch-
hunt focuses on other, emissions-producing activities surrounding nuclear power, such as uranium mining and plant
construction. Finding fault with nuclear energy on the basis of these indirect emissions simply holds no
merit. Whether the activists like it or not, the world runs on fossil fuel. Until the nation changes its
energy profile--which can be done with nuclear energy--almost any activity, even building
windmills, will result in CO2 emissions.
The United States has not built a new commercial nuclear reactor in over 30 years, but the 104
plants operating today prevented the release of 681.9 million metric tons of CO2 in 2005, which is comparable
to taking 96 percent of cars off the roads.[2] If CO2 is the problem, emissions-free nuclear power
must be part of the solution.
What makes nuclear energy so exciting from an environmental standpoint is not the pollution that
it has prevented in the past, but the potential for enormous savings in the future. Ground transportation is
a favorite target of the environmental community, and the members of this community are correct insofar as America's
transportation choices are a primary source of the nation's dependence on and demand for fossil fuels. Plug-in electric
hybrid cars, which require significant development to achieve subsidy-free market viability, are
looked upon as a potential solution to the problem. Yet if the electricity comes from a fossil-fuel
power plant, the pollution is simply transferred from a mobile energy source to a fixed one, while
the problem is solved if the electricity comes from an emissions-free nuclear plant.
67
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Terrorism
Modern nuclear plants face no real threat from terrorist attack
FACT: Nuclear reactors are designed to withstand the impact of airborne objects like passenger airplanes, and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has increased security at U.S. nuclear power plants and has instituted other safeguards. A successful
terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant could have severe consequences, as would attacks on
schools, chemical plants, or ports. However, fear of a terrorist attack is not a sufficient reason to
deny society access to any of these critical assets.
The United States has 104 commercial nuclear power plants, and there are 446 worldwide. Not one
has fallen victim to a successful terrorist attack. Certainly, history should not beget complacency, especially when
the stakes are so high. However, the NRC has heightened security an 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.
68
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Terrorism
Nuclear reactors are protected from terrorist attack
Brief,
ssions_0408.pdf
Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel
protects the contents from the outside as well as the inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a
reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of
facilities that are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and
numerous political targets.
69
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Terrorism
1. Nuclear Reactor complexes are inherently robust and can withstand terrorist attacks
from air or ground.
CNN, 1/29/07. “Agency: Nuclear plants secure enough if attacked by air”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/29/reactor.security/
Dale Klein, chairman of the NRC, said that nuclear plants are already adequately defended against such attacks. "Nuclear power
plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane,"
he said in a written statement. "The NRC has also taken actions that require nuclear power plant operators to be able to manage
large fires or explosions -- no matter what has caused them."
2. Facilities are safe. Three Mile Island Proves.
Patrick Moors, 2006, Co-founder of Greenpeace, Chair and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit
Strategies Ltd. “The Great Nuclear Debate: Now is the Time”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html?page=5
Nuclear energy is safe. In 1979, a partial reactor core meltdown at Three Mile Island frightened
the country. No one noticed that Three Mile Island was a success; the containment structure
prevented radiation from escaping and there was no injury among the public or workers.
3. In 2007 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided it would not require nuclear
facilities to install “beamhenge shields” because they were already sufficiently safe.
4. Any energy facility is a possible target and would be just as destructive as a nuclear
one. Bombing an oil refinery would be just as effective.
5. Empirically denied: There has never been a terrorist attack on areas that are
unpopulated or nonstrategic in making a political point. Nuclear facilities are isolated
from inhabited areas and are not strategic.
70
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
6. Even if a terrorist attack on a reactor is successful, your extinction impact isn’t true.
One terrorist attack on a reactor will have a limited affect on the U.S. and the world.
The huge accident at Chernobyl did not end in extinction.
7. Chernobyl has even been reinhabited.
The New York Times, 2/4/91, “As Villagers Return Unfazed, Chernobyl Aims for Tourists”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6DC113DF937A35751C0A9679
58260
Here in the forbidden zone so close to the entombed remains of the deadly Chernobyl
nuclear accident, less and less seems to be forbidden. For one thing, hundreds of
peasants have been quietly coming home to unofficially reopen ghost villages, opting
for the risk of poisonous radiation here over another noisome day in the crowded
refugee apartments of Kiev. For another, Government officials have concocted a new
tourist scheme that borders on the necromantic, planning to offer vacation trips
through the contaminated areas of the Chernobyl radiation zone.
71
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: Proliferation Increase

US attempts at nuclear energy are unrelated to fears of nuclear proliferation
This myth relies on creating an illusion of cause and effect. This is why so much anti-nuclear propa-
ganda 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 producing either material requires a sophisticated infrastructure. While
most countries could certainly develop the capabilities needed to produce these materials, the vast
majority clearly have no intention of doing so. For start-up nuclear powers, the preferred method of acquiring
weapons-grade material domestically is to enrich uranium, not to separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Uranium enrich-
ment 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.
72
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
A2: High Cost

Nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuels. 7 countries prove.
World Nuclear Association, The Economics Of Nuclear Power, 1/08, Http://Www.World-

Nuclear.Org/Info/Inf02.Html
A 2005 OECD comparative study showed that nuclear power had increased its competitiveness over
the previous seven years. The principal changes since 1998 were increased nuclear plant capacity factors and rising gas
prices. The study did not factor in any costs for carbon emissions from fossil fuel generators, and focused on over one hundred
plants able to come on line 2010-15, including 13 nuclear plants. Nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$
1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas
plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW.
73
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
2AC AT: T-Alt Energy

W/M: (Nuclear isn’t a fossil fuel)
C/I: <Alternative Energy Includes nuclear power- Ecological Economics 2002, pg.132>
Standards
• Predictability- Definitions for alternative energy are most commonly those which are alternative to fossil fuels
• Ground- We give you all of your nuclear power disads and it doesn’t explode the topic in anyway, its just 1 more aff. We also
divide the ground the way that the literature base is divided. Where the aff gets non fossil fuel energies and the neg gets fossil
fuels good arguments.
• Contextual- Our definition comes from a literature base discussing alternative energies and the earth and ecosystems
• Education- We increase education by talking about how nuclear energy solves and the various effects of it
• Brightline- Our definition clearly defines what is and is not topical
• Anti nuclear hacks exclude nuclear because they don’t want nuclear to be an alternative energy
No Voter
• Reasonability- As long as we are reasonably topical, you shouldn’t vote against us
• Literature checks- Nuclear energy is discussed in most alternative energy literature, meaning there is no abuse
74
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Inherency
Policy issues confronting Congress include federal incentives for commercial nuclear reactors
Mark Holt, Resources, Science, and Industry Division officer, 7/20/06, “CRS Report for Congress:
Nuclear Energy Policy”, http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL33558.pdf
Nuclear energy policy issues facing Congress include the implementation of federal incentives for
new commercial reactors, radioactive waste management policy, research and development
priorities, power plant safety and regulation, and security against terrorist attacks. The Bush
Administration has called for an expansion of nuclear power. For Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear
energy research and development, the Administration requested $632.7 million for FY2007, an 18.1% increase from the
FY2006 appropriation. The request would boost funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) from $79.2 million in
FY2006 to $243.0 million in FY2007. The higher AFCI funding would allow DOE to begin developing a demonstration plant
for separating plutonium and uranium in spent nuclear fuel, as part of the Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). The House-passed version of the FY2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5427, H.Rept.
109-474) would cut the GNEP request in half and reduce the overall nuclear energy request to $572.8 million. But the Senate
Appropriations Committee approved $36 million above the request for GNEP. Significant incentives for new
commercial reactors are included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), signed by the
President on August 8, 2005. These include production tax credits, loan guarantees, insurance
against regulatory delays, and extension of the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system
75
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Inherency
Incentives from the 2005 Energy Policy Act will likely lead to new nuclear reactors
Mark Holt, Resources, Science, and Industry Division officer, 7/20/06, “CRS Report for Congress:
Nuclear Energy Policy”, http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL33558.pdf
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States raised concern about nuclear power plant
security. The new Energy Policy Act includes several reactor security provisions, including
requirements to revise the security threats that nuclear plant guard forces must be able to defeat,
regular force-on-force security exercises at nuclear power plants, and the fingerprinting of nuclear
facility workers.
Disposal of highly radioactive waste has been one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear power. The Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425), as amended in 1987, requires DOE to conduct a detailed physical characterization of
Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent underground repository for high-level waste. The opening of the Yucca Mountain
repository is now scheduled for 2017.
Whether progress on nuclear waste disposal and other congressional action will revive the U.S.
nuclear power industry’s growth will depend primarily on economic considerations. Several utilities
have announced that they will seek licenses for up to 20 new reactors. Although no commitments
have been made to build the reactors, nuclear industry officials have predicted that the incentives in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will lead to the first new U.S. reactor orders since 1978.
76
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Inherency
Policymakers are evaluating nuclear energy while weighing approaches to reducing gas emissions
Brief,
ssions_0408.pdf
Given the dual challenges of meeting growing electricity supply and preventing and mitigat-ing greenhouse gases,
policymakers and energy industry leaders are evaluating an expanded role for nuclear energy. U.S.
policymakers are weighing different leg-islative and other approaches for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. While many predict that meaningful climate change policy may take several years to
finalize, the role that nuclear energy can play in carbon reduction programs is clear. Cambridge
Energy Research Associates (CERA) in a February report, “Crossing the Divide: The Future of Clean Energy,” said
that carbon policies could fundamentally change the competitive landscape of the global energy
business. Conventional emission-free tech-nologies—nuclear energy and hydropower—will account for
most of the clean energy im-pact globally and almost half of the gross clean power additions by 2030,
CERA reported in its analysis.
Nuclear power tax incentives cleared House Committee
Brad Carlson, Idaho Business Review Officer, 2/25/08, “House committee prints nuclear power tax
incentive bills”, http://www.idahobusiness.net/archive.htm/2008/02/25/House-committee-prints-nuclear-
power-tax-incentive-bills
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted to print proposals brought by Tim Solomon,
executive director of the Regional Development Alliance in Idaho Falls.
The first proposal would exempt processing materials used for the production of energy from sales
and use tax. The second proposal would cap net the taxable property value at $400 million for
projects that involve an investment of $1 billion or more within seven years.
Eastern Idaho has an opportunity to attract French nuclear services company Areva, but the energy production-
exemption proposal would create opportunity for greater investment statewide, Solomon told committee
members.
77
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency: Climate

Nuclear energy cannot serve as a solution for climate change or energy crunches. It’s too late.
The truth is, it’s doubtful that nuclear energy, which produces its own unpleasant waste, can really be a major
solution to climate change—or even the coming energy crunch, for that matter. Because worldwide
electricity demand is predicted to grow by 85 percent by 2030, nuclear power would have to almost
double its capacity just to maintain its current share of the energy mix. Even the most optimistic
projections of nuclear power expansion do not foresee a much larger share for nuclear energy
globally.Nor will nuclear energy be a quick fix. If, as the scientists tell us, the deadline for turning around the level
of greenhouse gases is truly a decade from now, then a nuclear renaissance will take too long to have a
significant effect. Typically, U.S. nuclear plants have required around 10 to 12 years from start to finish. The industry
predicts that future plants can be built in as little as four years, but the proof is in the actual construction.
78
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Cause Worker Shortage/Time

Nuclear reactors take too long to build and create shortages in skilled workers.
Assuming the best estimates, a quick ramp-up of nuclear capacity
will run into industrial bottlenecks;
only a few companies in the world can now make reactor-quality steel, concrete, and other vital
components. A rush to build could also create shortages in the skilled workers and qualified
engineers needed to run plants safely. Not to mention that building nuclear plants at the rapid pace
required would likely drive up capital costs, which are already higher than other electricity options,
even given significant government subsidies.
79
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Time

Nuclear Plants take years to build
New nuclear power stations have long lead times. This time is necessary to secure the relevant
regulatory and development consents which must be obtained before construction can begin, and there
is also a long construction period compared to other generating technologies. Our conservative assumption is that for
the first new nuclear plant the pre-construction period would last around 8 years (to secure the necessary consents) and the
construction period would last around 5 years. For subsequent plants this is assumed to be 5 and 5 years; respectively.
New nuclear power stations are therefore unlikely to make a significant contribution to the need for
new capacity before 2020. Even with our expectations that the share of renewables will grow, it is likely that fossil fuel
generation will meet some of this need. However, beyond that date there are still significant amounts of new
capacity needed; for example, in 2023 one third or 3GW of our nuclear capacity will still be operational, based on
published lifetimes. Given the likely increase in fossil fuel generation before this date, it is important that much of
this capacity is replaced with low carbon technologies. New nuclear power stations could make an
important contribution, as outlined in this consultation document, to meeting our needs for low carbon
electricity generation and energy security in this period and beyond to 2050. Because of the lead-times,
without clarity now we will foreclose the opportunity for nuclear power.
Nuclear Plants take years to be approved and built
In addition, even though nuclear is a mature and proven technology, and new designs are less subject
to technical failure138, there are still regulatory issues that would need to be addressed before new
nuclear power stations could be deployed, notably in relation to: the requirement to secure consents from
the nuclear regulators to ensure that the safety, security and health risks can be adequately
managed. These processes can be lengthy and unpredictable; the designs of nuclear power stations
that might be built. Although the most likely designs are evolutions of existing powerstations, they are relatively new
technologies without significant experience of construction.
80
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Time

LWR take a long time to begin use
G. Ivan Maldonado, Member, IEEE, AUGUST 2005 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 52, NO. 4,
“Optimizing LWR Cost of Margin One Fuel Pin at a Time”
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/23/32144/01495796.pdf?tp=&arnumber=1495796&isnumber=32144
Approximately one year before a single fuel pellet is pressed and fresh fuel assemblies manufactured, design calculations
are performed to effectively guarantee the performance of a light water reactor (LWR) core for an
upcoming fuel cycle. Energy requirements must be fulfilled in conjunction with all other reactivity,
thermal, and operational limits. Furthermore, several months prior to a reactor startup, the proposed core must
be licensed by the regulating authority. Therefore, all built-in design conservatisms (i.e., target margins)
established a priori must satisfy all safety, operational, and regulatory constraints, a posteriori. The
magnitude of target margins directly impacts cycle energy efficiency, which is why this design
cushion is often referred to as the “cost of margin” because it ultimately affects the cost per
generated kilowatt-hour by a LWR. This article illustrates the modern role of nuclear fuel management optimization
in the LWR core reload design process, highlighting some of the history and recent advancements in the field, particularly, in
the area of pin-by-pin optimization. Also, important limitations are highlighted to help define the new level of sophistication
which the field must conquer for designers to ultimately be able to optimize
81
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Inefficient

Light Water Reactors are inefficient and not economical
Robin Cowan, Assistant Professor of Economics, New York University, September 1990, The Journal of Economic History, Vol.
50, No. 3, pp. 541-567, “Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in” http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2122817.pdf
The history of nuclear power generation can be seen as a competition among several technologies to capture the market. This
competition, which began immediately following World War II, was eventually won by the light water technology. At a 1982
conference on nuclear power experience a U.S. delegate claimed: "In retrospect, choosing the LWR [light water reactor] was a
wise decision. Not only is the LWR used almost exclusively in the USA today, but this type, based
largely on technology developed in the USA, is being used for about 80 percent of all the reactors
built or under construction in the world today.''" While an appropriate decision at the time, it now seems that
light water may have been an unfortunate choice. One of the interesting features of this history is the belief held
by many that light water is not the best technology, either economically or technically. The evidence in
support of this belief, while not incontrovertible, is strong enough to support the contention that light water is not the superior
technology. This suggests that other technologies should still be present in the market. Light water, however, has taken virtually
the entire market.
82
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency
Light Water Reactors are not sustainable or profitable
However, this level of total capacity and incremental additions might not sustain the global LWR
industry. On the other hand, global capacity must be large enough to sustain the LWR fuel and LWR
services industries. Incremental capacity must be large enough to sustain the LWR (Nuclear Steam Supply System,
NSSS) manufacturing capability. Recent consolidations and joint ventures between LWR manufacturers in
the US, Europe, and Japan indicate that LWR industry is not profitable at current levels of industry
activity. On the other hand, there are still at least six established or emerging industrial groups competing to provide LWR
capacity: American-British PWR, French-German PWR, American-Japanese BWR, Russian WWER, Korean-American PWR,
and Chinese-French PWR. Could six groups divide a global market of 8 GW per year? Given current over capacity in the
LWR industry and the strong scale economies in LWR production, competition is likely to reduce profit margins and hence the
number of competitors. Competitors with strong government support (and financing) and adequate domestic demand to pay
the costs of industry maintenance are more likely to gain market share. Therefore, further consolidations are probable. While
future research must determine the minimum efficient size for LWR manufacturers, we can conclude that the industry is
not economically viable unless the cost of new LWR capacity is more competitive with other
electricity generating technologies.
83
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Storage shortage

There are many unresolved problems regarding the availability and security of waste storage
John Neurohr, Depeuty Press Sectratary, American Progress, 6/8/08, 10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear
Energy, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/nuclear_energy.html
There is currently nowhere to store the radioactive nuclear waste that is a byproduct of nuclear
energy generation. In the unlikely event that Yucca Mountain is opened to nuclear waste, the repository will not be large
enough to store even current waste. Proponents of nuclear power note that nuclear waste can be
reprocessed, although this would not actually reduce the waste problem, and would add 1.5 to 3
cents to the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
84
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency
Nuclear faces prohibitively high—and escalating—capital costs.
Nuclear power plant construction costs—mainly materi als, labor, and engineering—rose by 185 percent
between 2000 and 2007. More recently, costs have been increasing even faster: In mid-March, Progress
Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100 MW nuclear plants it intends to build in Florida would cost $14
billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.”
Jim Harding, former direc tor of power planning and forecasting for Seattle City Light, estimates
that nuclear plants
constructed today would provide electricity at between 12 and 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. To put
this cost into perspective, the average U.S. electricity price in 2006 was 8.9 cents per kWh, and well-
placed wind turbines can produce electricity for less than 5 cents per kWh.
In August, 2007, the Tulsa World reported that American Electric Power Co. CEO Michael Morris was not planning to
build any new nuclear power plants. He was quoted as saying, “I’m not convinced we’ll see a new nuclear station
before probably the 2020 timeline,” citing “realis tic” costs of about $4,000 per kilowatt. Since then, The prices
utili ties are quoting for nuclear have soared 50 percent to 100 percent.
85
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency
Nuclear faces concerns about uranium supplies and importation issues.
In 2007, the United States imported 47 million pounds, or 92 percent, of its uranium. Increased
nuclear capacity would either make us more dependent on foreign uranium, or have us risk
repeating the environmental debacle of the uranium boom that accompanied the buildout of the
U.S. nuclear arsenal and the first wave of nuclear power plant construction.
86
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency: Foreign Design

Plants probably won’t be designed by American companies.
Because no new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in over 30 years, foreign
companies have more experience building such plants. The New York Times reported that, while
considering constructing a new nuclear reactor, the American utility Constellation partnered with
the French-German company, Areva, to build a model plant in Finland. The United States must produce
more electricity to keep up with increasing demand, but relying on foreign companies to build
nuclear plants means fewer jobs for Americans in the energy sector
87
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency: Water Shortage

Nuclear reactors require water use amid shortages.
Large areas of the United States already face water shortages, and the effects of global warming are expected to
exacerbate this problem. “Elec tricity generation accounts for nearly half of all water withdrawals in the
nation,” and nuclear power stations require more water than fossil fuel use does. The only
alternative to the water usage associated with nuclear energy is less efficient (and more expensive)
dry cooling systems.
88
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Zero-Sum Alt Energy

Nuclear subsidies take money away from more effective alternative energy subsidies.
Subsidies for nuclear reactors wouldn’t subsidize nuclear technology—they would subsidize the
nuclear industry. Congress should fund research of clean, alternative energy technologies that promise to rival fossil fuels
in cost—without subsidies. Congress should also provide tax credits that would make such technologies cheaper by
encouraging production and moving them down the experience curve.
Such support would encourage a growing American industry and create American jobs. By squandering our limited
resources on subsidies for the nuclear power industry, the United States is missing an extraordinary
opportunity.
89
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency: Destroys Environment

Uranium Mining destroys the environment
In most respects, conventional mining of uranium is the same as mining of any other metalliferous ore or coal for power
stations. There are two main types of mining: Open pit mining is used where deposits are close to the
surface. In 2005, 30% of uranium production came from open-pit mines. Underground mining is used to recover
deeper deposits, typically more than 120 metres deep. In 2005, underground mines accounted for 38% of uranium
production290. 9.24 The remainder of uranium is produced through in-situ leaching (21% – see below) and from by-products
(11%). 9.25 Uranium mining can have a significant effect on the environment. On average, every tonne
of uranium mined creates 3.5 tonnes of waste291. Open- pit mines require large holes to get at the
ore. Underground mines usually have relatively small surface disturbance and have to remove much less material than an
open pit to get at the ore. However, underground mines need ventilation systems to protect workers from
the natural radon gas which is emitted from uranium ore which can have an effect on health.
Nuclear Plants harm marine organisms
All thermal power stations, whether coal, gas or nuclear, use substantial volumes of water for cooling. However, because of
their lower thermal efficiency most currently operating nuclear power stations need more cooling
water287. Some new designs of nuclear power station have a higher thermal efficiency which may lead to lower cooling
water needs. 9.19 Without careful management, water intake can have a negative impact on the local aquatic
environment, potentially because of the number of organisms killed when the water is screened to
remove debris and through the use of biocides to keep the condenser clean. This issue is common to all
energy generation that uses once-through cooling. Measures to deter fish from the inlet and to return fish to the sea that have
entrained in the cooling water can help to reduce this impact. 9.20 Cooling water can also have an impact on the
marine environment when it is returned from the power station. Large temperature and salinity
differences between the discharged water and ambient water temperatures could lead locally to the
loss of some species and habitats288.
90
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency: Dangerous

Nuclear power plants are extremely dangerous
Generating electricity by nuclear power creates radioactive waste, some of which remains potentially
hazardous for thousands of years. The storage and disposal of this waste is an important part of the nuclear fuel cycle
and needs careful long-term management. Waste is categorised into three types, according to its degree of radioactivity and
whether it generates heat; high level (HLW), intermediate level (ILW), low level (LLW)66. The different classifications define
how the waste is dealt with. For example, LLW is sealed in steel containers and placed in shallow repositories. HLW is stored
in storage ponds or cooled, dry storage facilities. This is discussed further in chapter eight. 1.12 When a nuclear power
station reaches the end of its life, it has to be dismantled (normally referred to as decommissioned). This process
also needs careful management. While many parts of the power station are easily decommissioned, some parts will be
radioactive because they were exposed to high levels of radiation. In the UK, the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA) is responsible for the existing nuclear legacy and is decommissioning 20 civil public sector nuclear sites. This
is discussed further in chapter eight.
91
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Radiation

Nuclear Plants create great amounts of radiation and allow for nuclear weapons
Nuclear generation can have wider negative impacts on society and the environment that are not
addressed in the studies that form the basis for this economic analysis. Two potential negative
effects that we should consider are: the risk of radiation release, either from the plant or from the
resulting waste, following an accident or intentional damage; and the potential transfer of
technology or nuclear material to nuclear weapons production. These are important issues in reaching a
considered view on whether nuclear has a role to play alongside other low-carbon technologies for electricity generation (see
chapter five). However, we do not consider that the most appropriate approach is to monetise these negative externalities as
part of an economic analysis. The extremely low estimated probabilities associated with a major accident108 mean that if an
accident did occur, with significant costs of damage to people and the environment, it would still not
have a material impact in monetised terms on the estimates. A purely economic approach to these issues would
downplay important risks that go beyond pure economic and financial analysis. The Sustainable
Development Commission, in reviewing its policy on nuclear power in 2005, reached the same conclusion109. Similarly, we
cannot sensibly monetise the risk of diversion of nuclear materials to weapons production.
92
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency
Nuclear energy represents an unstable danger to citizenship requiring relationships of exploitation and
power
Chrisitan Joppke, Prof Poli Sci, Ph.D, University of Chicago at Berkeley, ‘Mobilizing Against Nuclear
Energy’1993,http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Dd3S9kCX8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Nucle
ar+energy&ots=LV7Mzwxjwh&sig=EnnjErRrnxjiWUG8378TyqT0dP4#PPA3,M1
This case study compares the origins, courses, and impacts of the anti-nuclear energy movements in West Germany
and the United States. But why study these particular movements? They are significant because the controversy
over nuclear energy heralded the coming of a new line of conflict in Western democracies.⁴
Historically, the master conflict in Western democracies was over the implementation of citizenship
rights (Marshall 1997; Lipset and Rokkan 1967). As ralf Dahrendorf {1988; 37) puts it, “The modern social conflict is
about attacking inequalities which restrict full civic particiapation by social, economic or political
means, and establishing the entitlements which make up a rich and full status of citizenship.” These
earlier citizenship conflicts were based on social and political inequalities between well-defined groups and classes. With the
nuclear energy and ecology conflicts of the 1970s, a new conflict axis with new foms of political
mobilization emerged that cut across conventional group boundaries. If air and water are polluted,
everyone is affected. Environmental pollution and nuclear power risks are collective risks that are
not confined to limited groups and classes. They entail, not hierarchal relationships of exploitation
and power but “disparities between life spheres” (Offe 1969) to which potentially every member of
society is subjected.
Safety concerns still plague nuclear power.
After the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, the United States stopped granting licenses for new
nuclear plants. The crises demonstrated that the nuclear industry is vulnerable to public concern.
While modern reactors are safer than those that failed in the past, another accident anywhere in the
world could turn public opinion against nuclear power as a whole.
93
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency
Plants are allowed to run much longer than they should be, allowing for the chance of disaster from high-
level nuclear waste
Robert Manor, staff writer, Sep 18 2004, Chicago Tribune, “US: New life for old nuclear plants”
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2178
Despite concerns over safety, including uncertainty over how long the reactors will be able to keep running, some licenses
have been renewed through 2040. FORKED RIVER, N.J. -- Obscured by scrub trees and unkempt shrubs not far from
the Atlantic Ocean, the Oyster Creek nuclear plant, which has generated electricity since Richard Nixon became president in
1969, is looking at a prolonged life, as regulators allow utilities to run reactors decades longer than first
anticipated. Driven by demand for cheap power, utilities are seeking to keep existing reactors operating
until as late as 2040 and beyond. Regulators have approved license extensions for aging nuclear plants across the
country, with more to come. Which raises the question, how long can a nuclear plant run safely? "There is nothing
to stop them from operating safely" indefinitely, said Alex Marion, senior director of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who said
utilities routinely replace aging components and upgrade facilities. But critics argue that the older nuclear plants--and at
nearly 35 years Oyster Creek is the country's oldest still in operation--need retirement to avoid the risk of a
catastrophe. Some warn that the plants, which store decades worth of high-level nuclear waste, could
cause a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl."The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been doing a terrible job of ensuring
that these plants are safe," said Anna Aurilio, legislative director for the national office of the Public Interest Research Group.
"We think most of them should be shut down." Originally licensed for 40 years, plants are now winning
20-year extensions from the NRC. The relicensings are justified, the NRC says, because utilities are getting better at
operating the older plants, a sign they are safe for the future "We are continuing to see performance improve," said Christopher
Grimes, deputy director of engineering at the NRC. The NRC has extended the licenses for 26 plants around the country, with
42 more applications pending or expected.
94
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency
Nuclear Plants have huge risks that could devastate areas
Robert Manor, staff writer, Sep 18 2004, Chicago Tribune, “US: New life for old nuclear plants”
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2178
Some problems are generic to all nuclear plants as they age. Cracking and corrosion of vital components is
always a risk, for example. And neutrons issuing from the reactor core can eventually cause the reactor's steel vessel to
become brittle. The vessel is essential to nuclear safety, and its structural integrity must never be
compromised.The nuclear industry says it guards against such problems, and will do so with relicensed plants in the
decades ahead.But two models of nuclear plants, the General Electric Mark 1 and 2, particularly worry some nuclear scientists
because of their design.The vast bulk of the nation's spent nuclear fuel, many thousands of tons of still-radioactive
uranium, is stored near the reactors that consumed it. That's because local opposition has blocked federal plans
to deposit high-level nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Most nuclear plants store their spent fuel
in pools built into the earth. Water in the pools blocks radiation and cools the hot fuel rods after they are removed from
the reactor. The GE plants are different. Their spent fuel is stored in a pool of water located above the reactor, essentially on the
roof. So at 32 plants around the country, the spent fuel pools stand far above the ground. At Oyster Creek, for example, the pool
is 119 feet in the air. The pools, a bit smaller than a typical back yard pool but much deeper, have concrete walls at least a yard
thick, strong enough to resist a heavy blow. They include systems for cooling the water so the fuel cannot boil it away. The
roofed room above the pools is made of heavy construction-grade steel, strong but not nearly as strong as the massive
protective structures that surround reactors. The NRC acknowledges that a large enough plane could pierce the roof or metal
walls above the pool. "These spent fuel pools are basically pre-deployed nuclear weapons," said Deb Katz, executive director
of the Citizens Awareness Network, which opposes relicensing of the GE-designed nuclear plants. The fear is that terrorists or a
natural disaster could drain the water from the pool or prevent it from being cooled. Should that happen, heat from the spent
fuel rods would accumulate. Under some scenarios, nuclear engineers say, the fuel would ignite and send a
plume of radiation high into the atmosphere, contaminating a wide area. "When the temperature gets over
3,000 or 4,000 degrees, the metal tubing that holds the fuel rods catches on fire," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety
engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "You could get a large radioactive cloud escaping from the
plant. The cloud would contain radioactive isotopes of cesium, strontium and other elements ... and could cause harm out to
500 miles." GE maintains its Mark 1 and 2 plants are safe.
95
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Hurts Reform

Nuclear Energy hurts climate reform
Charles Ferguson and Sharon Squassoni, 6/7/08, Fellow for science and technology at the Council on
Foreign Relation and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Why Nuclear
Power isn’t the Great Green Hope”, Foreign Policy,
The truth is, it’s doubtful that nuclear energy, which produces its own unpleasant waste, can really be a major
solution to climate change—or even the coming energy crunch, for that matter. Because worldwide electricity
demand is predicted to grow by 85 percent by 2030, nuclear power would have to almost double its capacity
just to maintain its current share of the energy mix. Even the most optimistic projections of nuclear
power expansion do not foresee a much larger share for nuclear energy globally. Nor will nuclear
energy be a quick fix. If, as the scientists tell us, the deadline for turning around the level of greenhouse gases is truly a
decade from now, then a nuclear renaissance will take too long to have a significant effect. Typically, U.S.
nuclear plants have required around 10 to 12 years from start to finish. The industry predicts that future plants can
be built in as little as four years, but the proof is in the actual construction. Assuming the best
estimates, a quick ramp-up of nuclear capacity will run into industrial bottlenecks; only a few
companies in the world can now make reactor-quality steel, concrete, and other vital components. A
rush to build could also create shortages in the skilled workers and qualified engineers needed to
run plants safely. Not to mention that building nuclear plants at the rapid pace required would
likely drive up capital costs, which are already higher than other electricity options, even given
significant government subsidies.
96
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg – Solvency: Cost

Nuclear is already a mature technology—it will not get cheaper.
The American nuclear industry has benefited from $100 billion in direct and indirect subsidies since 1948, and nuclear power
provides 20 percent of electricity in the United States. The technology behind nuclear power is fully developed,
so nuclear energy is unlikely to get much cheaper. Continued subsidies would be necessary to make
nuclear cost-competitive with other energy sources, but will not lower the overall price of nuclear
power.
Other clean energy technologies are cheaper, cleaner, and faster to build.
Solar power, photovoltaics, advanced biofuels, wind power, and other energy technologies promise
to revolutionize how electricity is generated in the 21st century. Already, wind energy can produce electricity
for less than five cents per kWh, and concentrated solar power can produce energy for 11-12 cents per kWh—even
at night—and these costs are decreasing. Alternatives do not produce nuclear waste, and they do not face
the same extensive safety, regulatory, and construction costs and delays that nuclear does.
97
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency
Plant construction is limited by production bottlenecks.
Japan Steel is the only company in the world “capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel in
a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak,” but it can only produce four per year. Even if Japan Steel increases its
capacity, American power companies would be buying components in a global market at a time when China and India are
increasing their nuclear capacity to meet growing energy needs.
Supply bottlenecks, coupled with soaring commodity prices, have resulted in enormous price
increases for nuclear, which is already capital intensive, even though new reactors have only been
coming online at an average rate of about four to five per year in the past decade. Increased nuclear
plant construction will be constrained by these factors.
98
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg - Solvency
LWR Plants create proliferation
Dr. Victor Gilinsky et al, consultant on energy, Marvin Miller, received a Ph.D in Applied Physics from the Polytechnic Institute
Harmon Hubbard, Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, October 22, 2004 The Nonproliferation Policy
Education Center “A FRESH EXAMINATION OF THE PROLIFERATION DANGERS OF LIGHT WATER REACTORS
http://www.npec-web.org/Essays/20041022-GilinskyEtAl-LWR.pdf
Thirty years later, the danger seems much closer. Iran, in specific, has become a poster child for the problems
spelled out three decades before.3 Its nuclear enrichment program proceeded for years without the
detection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). When it and past plutonium recycling activities
were finally discovered, moreover, Iran claimed it had a right to them and the entire fuel cycle. These activities, they
argued, were all “peaceful”, part and parcel of Iran’s light water power reactor (LWR) program. They
were protected, they insisted, under the NPT. The U.S. and its allies are now trying to deny Iran the ability
to enrich uranium out of fears it might use this capability to make bombs. The problem is that no country
has yet clearly countered Iran’s claim that it has a legal right to pursue all of its nuclear activities. A key reason why is the
peaceful status the U.S. and others have long conferred upon the centerpiece of Iran’s nuclear program -- the light water power
reactor. LWRs, in fact, produce and consume massive quantities of lightly enriched uranium and
plutonium-laden spent fuel, materials that are quite useful to would-be bomb makers if they have reprocessing or
uranium enrichment plants. Yet, for years, it was assumed that these plants and their construction could not be concealed from
international inspectors or national intelligence agencies and that therefore, one could promote peaceful nuclear power with
LWRs without risking the spread of nuclear weapons. Supporters of nuclear power also have insisted that the plutonium
LWRs produce could not be used to make nuclear weapons. This last point was debated throughout the l970s:
Nuclear critics insisted that even “reactor-grade” plutonium could be used to make power with LWRs without risking the
spread of nucl ear weapons. Supporters of nuclear power also have insisted that the plutonium LWRs produce could not be
used to make nuclear weapons. This last point was debated throughout the l970s: Nuclear critics insisted that even “reactor-
grade” plutonium could be used to make workable, if not optimal, nuclear explosives. As for the inability to covertly reprocess
or enrich, though, most nonproliferation analysts were all too willing to downplay or dismiss it. The reason why, in part, was
to avoid the worst. At the time, many nuclear supporters insisted that “advanced” states should have the complete fuel cycle,
including large reprocessing and enrichment plants. Yet, these bulk handling facilities were much more dangerous than having
LWRs alone. Nuclear critics saw promoting LWRs without reprocessing or the further spread of enrichment plants, then, as the
best path. Enrichment and reprocessing, they argued, would be difficult to hide and, therefore, could and should be
discouraged.
99
Nuclear AFF
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Neg Solvency: Prolif

Light Water Reactors increase the risk of proliferation
Do technologies on which the LWR relies (or the LWR itself) facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons? (See WCED
1987b, IEA 1998, and Rogner 1999.) LWR technology's main proliferation risks are (1) its reliance on
uranium enrichment technologies (which can be used to produce weapons-grade uranium) and (2) its production
of fissile materials, such as plutonium, in its SNF (which can be reprocessed to produce weapons-grade plutonium).
While some nuclear technologies reduce the production of weapons-grade plutonium (e.g., by employing the thorium fuel
cycle), the LWR technology does not appear well suited to the production of weapons-grade
plutonium. Most weapons-grade plutonium has been produced in dedicated (non-LWR) reactors. Further, the production of
a plutonium-based weapon is more difficult to construct than one based on highly enriched uranium. Therefore, it is not the
LWR creation of plutonium in its SNF that poses the primary proliferation risk; it is its reliance on uranium enrichment.
Continued improvement in enrichment technologies (through advanced instrumentation and control, robotic manufacturing and
operations, and the development of corrosion-resistant materials) increases the possibility of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Given the lack of intrinsic (technology-inherent) controls over this proliferation risk and given that reliance on extrinsic
(institutional) controls (e.g., through the International Atomic Energy Agency) cannot be assured for 500 years, the LWR fuel
cycle cannot be considered socially sustainable based on this criterion.
100

Nuclear Affirmative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Affirmative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear AFF

DDI 2008 <BQ>

Climate Ext.................................................... ............................................34

A2: No International Modeling................................................ .....................66

Neg Solvency: Prolif........................................................................ ..........100

It’s time to invest in nuclear power to eliminate the dependence on oil

Industrial and developing nations surpass the US in nuclear energy

Nuclear terrorism means extinction

Sid-Ahmed Mohamed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/04,

Blackouts are the cause of an overloaded and old power grid.

CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), 4/27/07. “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid”

<Insert from warming Generic>

Light Water Reactors solves for greenhouse gases

Nuclear attracts other countries

Inherency Ext: No Incentives

A major national conversion to nuclear power is bound by legal challenges

Inherency Ext: No Market

Inherency Ext: Public Opinion

Prolif Ext: US Solves

Grid Ext: Impacts

The USFG’s opposition to nuclear energy hurts the market.

Climate Ext: Nuclear Solves

Nuclear Power Plays essential role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Nuclear Energy carbon emissions are comparable to those of renewable resources

C. W. Forsberg and K. L. Peddicord, Writers “Hydrogen production as a major nuclear energy

Nuclear Power will reduce CO2

Solvency Ext: Remove Regulations

Solvency Ext: Energy Needs

Uranium supplies can fill energy needs

Solvency Ext: Energy Needs

Solvency Ext: Energy Needs

Solvency Ext: Energy Needs

Solvency Ext: Energy Needs

Solvency Ext: Energy Needs

Uranium amounts provide for years of Nuclear Power

Solvency Ext: Efficiency

Solvency Ext: Efficiency

Solvency Ext: Efficiency

Solvency Ext: Efficiency

Solvency Ext: Efficiency

Solvency Ext: LWRs

Solvency Ext: LWRs

New designs of nuclear plants would be safer, and cheaper

Solvency Ext: Spillover

US NRC May 06, 2008 “International Safeguards” http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/rad-nat-security.html

Solvency Ext: Spillover

Solvency Ext: NRC Licenses

US NRC, May 06, 2008 “Radiation Protection” http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation.html

US NRC February 13, 2007 “Reactor License Renewal Overview”

Solvency Ext: NRC Licenses

The NRC has strict new licensing processes

Solvency Ext: NRC Licenses

Solvency Ext: NRC Licenses

LWR radiation is much smaller than most other radioactive emissions

A2: No Test Model

A2: Renewables Better

A2: No International Modeling

A2: No International Modeling

A2: Limited to Structural Power

CNN, 1/29/07. “Agency: Nuclear plants secure enough if attacked by air”

2. Facilities are safe. Three Mile Island Proves.

7. Chernobyl has even been reinhabited.

A2: Proliferation Increase

A2: High Cost