Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Index
Index........................................................................................................................................................................1
Natural Gas: Peak load.........................................................................................................................................3
Natural Gas: Peak load.........................................................................................................................................4
Natural Gas: Peak load.........................................................................................................................................5
Nuclear Replace Base Load Natural Gas.............................................................................................................6
Nuclear Waste Answers.........................................................................................................................................7
Nuclear International Ahead................................................................................................................................8
Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry................................................................................................................9
Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry..............................................................................................................10
Nuclear solves Natural Gas Prices/Chemical....................................................................................................11
Chemical Industry key Economy.......................................................................................................................12
Chemical Industry key Economy.......................................................................................................................13
Chemical Industry key Economy.......................................................................................................................14
Chemical Industry key Innovation.....................................................................................................................15
Chemical Industry key to preventing Cancer...................................................................................................16
Chemical Industry key Hegemony.....................................................................................................................17
Internals – Chemical Industry............................................................................................................................18
Internals – Chemical Industry............................................................................................................................19
Impacts – Chemical Industry key to All Things................................................................................................20
Impacts – Chemical Industry key to National Defense....................................................................................21
Impacts – Chemical Industry key to Economy.................................................................................................22
Impacts – Chemical Industry key to Economy.................................................................................................23
Windpower Nano Tech CP..................................................................................................................................24
AT: Prolif K..........................................................................................................................................................25
AT: Prolif K .........................................................................................................................................................26
AT: Prolif K..........................................................................................................................................................27
1
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
2
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
3
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
4
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Natural gas prices are very volatile because it is currently being used as base load energy. This means it
cannot be used where it is needed- the chemical energy
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
FUTURE” http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/how_it_works/reports/ushousesecuringamericasenergyfuture/
At the same time as natural gas has become the preferred fuel for electricity generation— and prices have reached a new
and more expensive floor—industries that use natural gas as a feedstock or for primary energy have experienced grave
consequences. Many industrial users do not have the option of switching to other sources of fuel when natural gas
prices rise. A 2001 price spike caused some industrial users to shut down production and sell their long-term natural gas
contracts to make a profit, and it is likely that the price spike beginning in August 2005 has had the same effect. According to
the Society of the Plastics Industry, as a direct result of a three-fold increase in natural gas prices the plastics sector lost more
than 150,000 jobs and $14.6 billion in business to other countries from 2000 to 2002. As a result of high prices, America is
no longer the world’s top location for making chemicals; the US is now a net importer of chemicals. Ongoing high prices
have also helped to shutter 21 nitrogen fertilizer production facilities, and production has moved overseas.46 Natural gas
should be exploited for the uses for which it is best suited. Profligate use of natural gas for electricity generation and
other processes that can use other fuels will ultimately lead to the US being less competitive. Natural gas must not be
squandered on baseload and new electricity generation.
5
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Nuclear power should become our base load energy source. The use of reprocessing can create less waste,
and less harmful waste
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
FUTURE” http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/how_it_works/reports/ushousesecuringamericasenergyfuture/
The early release of the Energy Information Administration’s2006 Annual Energy Outlook provides that the percentage of
electricity generated by coal-fired plants will decline slightly by 2020—to 49 from 50 percent—and then increase to 57
percent by 2030. Natural gas will increase to 22 percent by 2020 before falling to 18 percent by 2030 as a result of new coal
plants being constructed. Nuclear generation will fall from today’s level of 20 percent to 15 percent by 2030. This
lopsided ratio will generate higher prices, increase dependency upon LNG imports to supplement domestic natural gas
depletion, and perpetuate the release of more harmful emissions produced by coal plants. Realigning policies to ensure
nuclear power is the primary supplier of baseload electricity is the only sensible path forward. In addition, a revived
nuclear program should revisit the “once through” fuel cycle. Instead, the US should consider recycling nuclear materials
with the goal of achieving an innovative “closed loop” fuel cycle. This will make for more efficient use of nuclear fuel,
less volume of waste, and less harmful nuclear waste that must ultimately be disposed of in a long-term waste facility.
Nuclear energy will allow natural gas to be used for only industries that need it
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
FUTURE” http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/how_it_works/reports/ushousesecuringamericasenergyfuture/
Increased nuclear electricity production has several critical advantages over the status quo. It will, among other things,
free natural gas supplies for critical uses in manufacturing processes, reduce electricity costs to the consumer, be emission-
free, and pave the way for drastically reduced petroleum dependency should next generation nuclear technology be used to
produce hydrogen in sufficient quantities to power a critical mass of emissions-free automobiles. Nuclear technology has
steadily advanced and companies have designed standard reactor models that can be constructed anywhere in the
world, in stark contrast to the existing fleet of aging US nuclear plants that were customized according to each location
and permitting process. The switch to nuclear power as the primary source of baseload electricity will not come without a cost;
it will necessitate tremendous political support and financial investment from private institutions and the federal government
alike. This process will also require time and patience. The federal government has begun to realize this, albeit to a limited
extent.
6
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
7
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
8
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
9
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
10
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
11
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
12
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
13
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
The US produces a substantial amount of the chemical products for the world
American Chemistry Council, 2007 “global” http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_employment.asp?CID=292&DID=747
Though the business of chemistry is worldwide in scope, the bulk of the world’s $2.85 trillion chemical output is accounted
for by only a handful of industrialized nations. The United States alone produced $637 billion, 22 percent of the total
world chemical output in 2006.
14
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
15
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
16
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
17
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Paul Bjacek, staff writer, 11/6/06, ICIS chemical business America, “Lost Manufacturing” pg lexis //EM
LOST MANUFACTURING or "de-industrialization" is occurring in the US and other developed countries as semifinished and
finished goods manufacturing investment shifts to countries with a cost advantage, such as China.US chemical producers, with
a total of over $180 billion in assets on US soil, are painfully aware that the country is seeing downstream industrial
development impeded by high costs. They must respond strategically, using innovation and customer collaboration.ANALYSIS
RESULTSDomestic demand for manufactured goods will outstrip domestic industrial production over the next 10 years and
imports will fill the gap, according to an Accenture Research study for the ACC (American Chemistry Council).According to
the study, which quantifies the impact of lost downstream manufacturing (of 17 selected industries) on the future chemical
industry, domestic production of finished goods (in aggregate) will still increase over the period, but imports will rise
faster.This implies that US manufacturers will lose market share and, therefore, chemical manufacturers will lose the demand
for chemicals associated with manufacturing these products. The total chemical sales opportunity losses represent just
2.4% of the expected $8 trillion total manufacturing industry sales opportunity losses (or cumulative net trade losses by
2015) caused by lost manufacturing. The estimated cumulative opportunity losses (based on trade losses) for the
chemical sector over 10 years consist of $188bn in chemical sales, including $50bn in sales from the top seven
thermoplastic resins $40bn in capital expenditures in chemicals, including $5bn for new thermoplastics capacity $30bn
in chemical research and development expenditures $43bn in US government tax revenue from chemical companies
$3bn in charitable contributions from chemical companies and 157,000 chemical industry-related jobs.The loss of these
chemical industry-related jobs by 2015 is a particularly painful blow to the US economy because nearly 50% of
chemical industry employees are "knowledge workers" with university degrees and training, whose principal tasks
involve the development or application of specialized knowledge in the workplace.The US industrial economy is
interdependent, with chemicals accounting for 5% or more of production costs in at least six other major US industries
- textiles, the business of chemistry, plastics and rubber products, semiconductor & electronic components, paper
products and nonmetallic mineral products. These industries generate nearly $1.2 trillion in total revenue. Declines in
output in any one of these corresponds to declines in chemicals potential demand. However, the volume of chemicals
decline depends on the amount of chemicals used in a downstream industry, as well as the projected change in production of
that same industry. Taking into account both of these factors, chemicals used in the production of plastics and rubber products,
petroleum and coal, food, and textile products will be subject to the largest loss of potential demand. Besides relatively higher
labor and regulatory costs in the US, high energy prices are contributing to the decline of US industrial production. High,
volatile natural gas costs and unreliable supplies affect electricity costs and, in the case of chemicals, raw material costs
as well. Volatility also causes uncertainty in production planning and volume expansion. Energy is the largest input
factor for most base chemicals, so reliable, low cost energy supplies are critical to ensuring chemical industry
competitiveness.
18
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Natural gas is the principal feedstock for the US chemical industry, which is a key job provider and
essential to the US economy
19
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Chemical industry key to US economy, preventing disease spread, ensuring food supply and drinking
water, stopping fires, manufacturing fighter jets, satellites, space shuttles, and nanotech
Senator James Inhofe, expert on national security issues and chairman of Environmental public works committee, 8/2/06, US Fed
News, “Sen. Inhofe Issues Statement On Toxic Substances Control Act, Chemicals Management Program At Epa” pg lexis //EM
The chemical industry is a crucial part of the US economy. The United States is the number one chemical producer in
the world, generating $550 billion a year and putting more than 5 million people to work. More than 96% of all
manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry.
Chemicals are the essential building blocks of products that safely and effectively prevent, treat and cure disease;
ensure the safest and most abundant food supply in the world; purify our drinking water and put out fires. They are the
foundation for life-saving vaccines, child safety seats, bicycle helmets, home insulation, and Kevlar vests. Innovations in
chemistry have helped to increase energy efficiency and to make planes, fighter jets, satellites and space shuttles safer
and more secure. We are also on the cusp of new and exciting chemical advances in the form of nanotechnology. These
tiny chemicals have the potential to cure cancers, clean up pollution, and make cars stronger and lighter than ever
before. To say that chemicals are vital is an understatement.
20
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Joe Kamalick, staff writer, 9/11/06 ICIS chemical business America, “Chemicals remain a tempting target” pg lexis //EM
FIVE YEARS after the September 11 terrorist attacks - a 21st Century Pearl Harbor - the chemical industry has by all accounts
made significant strides in antiterrorism security but remains vulnerable to what some authorities fear will be an inevitable and
perhaps devastating attack. Ever since 9/11, chemical production, storage and transit facilities have been seen as potential
targets for terrorists, targets where highly toxic compounds are stored or used in large volumes and could cause horrific
casualties if ignited or otherwise released into surrounding communities. While the potential for terrorist use of chemical
facilities as weapons of mass destruction is widely acknowledged, the question of how to deal with that risk has divided policy-
makers, Congress and the industry itself. Underlying the debate in government and within industry is this core question: How
can we protect the chemical industry without smothering it? The crucial role that chemical production plays in the US
economy and defense profile was brought into sharp relief by last year's double hurricane strikes along the Gulf Coast.
ASSESSING THE DAMAGE In assessing the damage done by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) assistant secretary Robert Stephan says, "The impact of those storms on the US refining and
petrochemical industries made it clear that those industries represent a key element in our national defense production
machine."There is no evidence that any chemical facility has been the target of a terrorist plot - at least none that US
intelligence officials will admit. Still, the risk seems palpable in the wake of continuing efforts by directed or rogue terrorist
groups to strike at vulnerable targets of opportunity overseas, such as the attacks on the Madrid and London subway systems
and the more recent UK-based plot to blow up US-bound airliners. "My instinct is that chemical facilities are probably on the
short list of vulnerable targets for Al Qaeda," says Lt. Gen.
21
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Business Wire, 5/31/07, “The US Chemical industry is the world’s largest Producer with a balance of trade surplus in excess of
$15 billion” pg lexis //EM
The US Chemical Industry is the world's largest producer by a substantial margin with a balance of trade surplus in
excess of $15 billion. It is a major player contributing 21% in GDP to the US economy. This growth has led many
theorists to conclude that the industry is a "harvester" rather than an "investor" for future growth.
Senator James Inhofe, expert on national security issues and chairman of Environmental public works committee, 4/29/08,
Congressional Documents and Publications, “Inhofe Hearing Statement on EPA Toxic Chemicals Policies” pg lexis //EM
Good morning. Today's hearing is to examine the adequacy of the mechanisms for the evaluation and regulation of chemicals
by the EPA. The subject is important because the chemical industry is a crucial part of the U.S. economy, and we have to be
mindful of what we put at risk if we over-regulate this industry and stifle its 30 year history of innovation. Here are some
statistics. The United States is the number one chemical producer in the world, generating $635 billion a year and
putting more than 5 million people to work. The U.S. chemical industry paid more than $27.8 billion in federal, state,
and local income taxes in 2006. More than 96% of all manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry.
Chemical Compounds, PricewaterhouseCoopers quarterly report on the state of transactions in the global chemicals
industry, highlighted a rise in deal value, which more than doubled from $53 billion in 2006 to $109 billion in 2007. This
increase was driven by a greater number of deals with transaction values over $1 billion, as well as a slight rise in deal
volume which reached 819 deals in 2007. The size of these large deals also increased significantly in 2007 with three deals
that were greater than $10 billion and three that were greater than $5 billion (but less than $10 billion), compared to
2006 when only one deal was greater than $10 billion.
22
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
Ed Zwim, staff writer, 6/11/07, ICIS chemical business America, “Survival of the Fittest” pg lexis //EM
MERGER AND acquisition (M&A) activity is making its impact on the North American chemical industry's distribution
network. The previously fragmented market by which companies distribute the chemicals needed to run the US
economy may soon give way to a more streamlined set of entities, as smaller distributors are swallowed up by larger
ones. In the past 10 years, the number of national distributors has decreased from six or seven to three -
Univar/CHEMCENTRAL, Ashland and Brenntag, says Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the National Association of Chemical
Distributors (NACD), an industry group that he says accounts for 80-90% of industry revenues and has lost 48 members over
the past 14 years, due to M&A activity alone. Not surprisingly, large and small companies involved in distribution are
putting their best feet forward to operate in this changed environment. The larger ones tout the synergistic
opportunities involved in M&A, while small and medium-sized enterprises say they welcome the competition.
EPA, 4/17/07, Environmental Protection Agency Documents and Publications, “Chemical Industry Expands Work with EPA in
Solving Environmental Problems” pg lexis //EM
The chemical industry is an essential contributor to the U.S. economy, with about $555 billion in annual revenues. There
are approximately 13,500 chemical manufacturing facilities in the United States, owned by more than 9,000 companies. The
sector is one of the nation's largest exporters, accounting for 10 cents of every U.S. export dollar.
23
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
24
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
AT: Prolif K
On the Mutimer Link we don’t intervene and force other countries to follow our standards, our evidence
indicates that other organizations and countries model our nonproliferation efforts not that we force
people to sign treaties.
We also solve what Mutimer is saying, because he talks about how we only want to control other
countries when we are the source. However, we stop prolif and the spread at the starting point which
Mutimer claims to be the West [“the image hides the fact that nuclear weapons do not spread, but are spread—and in fact are
spread largely by the western states.”]
Mutimer says prolif discourse prevents the beneficial tech of nuclear power because it groups nuke power
with prolif. This is our point with the prolif advantage that we are modeled as using nuclear energy for
power rather than bombs and prolif.
No Link- We never claim that we are trying to control third world prolif, we just want to be modeled by
any country or organization
Perm: Do Both. Reframing our policy option with the alternative solves for all of Gusterson’s discourse
claims
Hugh Gusterson prof @ MIT Antrhopology Department, 1996, “Nuclear Rites” ix
I am often asked why an anthropologist would study a nuclear weapons laboratory. The risk of being labeled deviant by
colleagues in anthropology and irrelevant by arms control specialists is high, and the difficulties in carryoing out fieldwork are
substantial: nuclear weapons scientists are very busy people who do not suffer fools gladly; because their work is top secret,
most of their daily life is inaccessible to participant observation, traditionally the cultural anthropologist’s principa research
technique and their work is not only virtually impossible to observe but also, for the person lacking several years of training in
physics, virtually impossible to understand. Despite these obstables, I chose to do an ethnographic study of a nuclear weapons
laboratory for three reasons. First, I believe the American public debate on defense policy in general- and on nuclear
weapons policy in particular- has been sorely in need of a cultural perspective. Discussions have hitherto been dominated
by scientists, political scientists, and politicians, who construe defense policy questions as problems that, like those in
mathematics, have one correct answer. I belive that policy problems are rarely like math problems and my own interest is
less in finding the one true answer to the conundrums of nuclear policy than in understanding how people become so
profoundly convinced tha their answer is the only one. It is my belief that if more people looked at defense policy in this
light, our public discussions might be more generous and imaginative.
No Link- Gusterson is talking about using military expansion to control other countries nuclear weapons
Michael Sandlin, 16 November 2004, Reviews- PopMatters “Nuclear Waste” http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/p/people-
of-the-bomb.shtml
Although Gusterson's description of his book as an "ambitiously polyglot offering" is certainly valid, his arguments
often fall into one of two categories: anthropological "fieldwork," or Foucault-influenced studies of the deceptive
language used in building a dominant discourse on American militarism -- and the means by which holes in the "official
story" can be punctured. Gusterson argues that American military dominance is often successfully sold to the public as
self-evident, humanitarian, or arising from providential destiny, not conscious political decisions.
25
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
AT: Prolif K
US attempts at nuclear energy are unrelated to fears of nuclear proliferation
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
This myth relies on creating an illusion of cause and effect. This is why so much anti-nuclear propaganda focuses on
trying to equate nuclear weapons with civilian nuclear power. Once such a spurious relationship is established, anti-nuclear
activists can mix and match causes and effects without regard for the facts. Furthermore, this "argument" is clearly irrelevant
inside the United States. As a matter of policy, the United States already has too many nuclear weapons and is
disassembling them at a historic pace, so arguing that expanding commercial nuclear activity in the United States would
somehow lead to weapons proliferation is disingenuous. The same would hold true for any other state with nuclear weapons.
As for states without nuclear weapons, the problem is more complex than simply arguing that access to peaceful nuclear
power will lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and
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 enrichment is completely separate from nuclear power production. Furthermore,
nothing stops countries from developing a nuclear weapons capability, as demonstrated by North Korea and Iran. If prolifera-
tion is the concern, then proper oversight is the answer, not stifling a distantly related industry.
Plan solves the alt by moving away from the militaristic discourse around proliferation and instead using
nuclear energy as an example for the world; Gusterson’s proliferation discourse is inevitable unless we
make this shift in policy
Michael Sandlin, 16 November 2004, Reviews- PopMatters “Nuclear Waste” http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/p/people-
of-the-bomb.shtml
And today, more than ever, Livermore nuclear scientists are flush with taxpayer dollars. The Bush administration is still
pining for the warped Reagan dream of militarizing space, while "mini-nukes" are being developed to smoke out state-less,
spiderhole-dwelling warlords. Gusterson leaves us with the idea that US nuclear dominance-as-defense has become the
reconstructed "natural" order of the day. The utopian dreams of anti-nuclear critics like Gusterson, Jonathan Schell and
many others, advocate worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons as the only truly fail-safe policy. Although realistically,
unless there's an unexpected Green Party putsch in Washington, this country's dominant discourse on nukes and militarism
will probably be, at best, limited to whether nuclear weapons should function as deterrents or as pre-emptive instruments
of global restructuring. Any heretical dovish discourse calling for peacetime economic conversion of military industries,
or faith-based multi-lateral nuclear abolition, will likely be relegated to chicken-wired "free speech zones" and academic
echo chambers.
26
Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale
AT: Prolif K
The US will allow give technology to China, which helps solve the alternative and begins to move away
from proliferation discourse
Radio Australia, January 7, 2008 “US provides China with nuclear energy technology” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-
news/1949537/posts
American company Westinghouse, however, has been allowed to deliver its newest third-generation nuclear plant to
China. Radio Australia's Adam Connors reports that the need for energy over the coming few decades is reaching a fever pitch
in red-hot economies like China. Energy analyst with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Alan McDonald, told Radio
Australia that China and India will be the most veracious about the most controversial energy source of all. "China and India
have booming economies, booming populations, growing energy demand; they basically need to develop all the energy
sources they can," he said. "Right now, nuclear electricity is only a small percentage - two per cent in China, three per cent of
electricity in India but China plans a five-fold increase by 2020 and India plans an eight-fold increase by 2022." US nuclear
cooperation 'remarkable' Nuclear energy, along with its massive hydroelectric schemes, are the centrepiece of tough
pollution and energy consumption targets in China. China's 11 nuclear plants are a combination of homegrown, French,
Canadian and Russian technologies. For the first time, however, China is developing nuclear energy technology through
agreements with the United States - four new reactors with American firm, Westinghouse. The World Nuclear Association's
Ian Hore-Lacy told Radio Australia the cooperation is remarkable, given US reluctance to help in the past. "It's generally
believed that that's because of technology transfer aspects and they were wanting a high level of technology transfer and the
right to be able to then adapt and sell that technology by way of exports from China," he said. "The Westinghouse deal is
presumed to have come closer to that objective than the others and also of course there is the actual intrinsic virtue of the three
technologies being offered and by some accounts the Westinghouse was the most advanced."
The US would share the nuclear power technology with other countries
Mark Clayton, Staff writer May 30, 2007, The Christian Science Monitor “China, nuclear technology, and a US sale”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0530/p03s01-usfp.html
China has its heart set on buying a cutting-edge US design for a nuclear-power reactor, and the Bush administration has
said it is willing to sell because the transaction will mean jobs for Americans and pave the way for a "nuclear [power]
renaissance in the US."
27