You are on page 1of 104

K-State Debate

Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar Power Satellites Affirmative

Solar Power Satellites Affirmative................................................................................................................................................................................. ..1


First, the Inherency................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......4
Next, is solvency........................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................6
Advantage One – Resource Wars................................................................................................................................................................................... ..8
Advantage Two – Hegemony..................................................................................................................................................................................... ....11
Advantage Three – Hurricanes................................................................................................................................................................... ...................14
Inherency – Investment Needed..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Inherency – BureaucraticProblems................................................................................................................................................................... .............16
Inherency - SPS................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..........17
Inherency.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .....17
Inherency.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .....17
Inherency – Incentives Needed............................................................................................................................................................................... .......18
Feasibility – Cost Effective but needs funding............................................................................................................................................................... 19
Feasibility - Price.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .19
Feasibility - Affordable............................................................................................................................................................................................. .....20
Feasibility – Cheaper Launch Mechanisms............................................................................................................................................. ......................20
Feasibility - Technology............................................................................................................................................................................... .................21
Feasibility – Can Use New Communication Satellites.............................................................................................................................................. .....22
Feasibility - Technology............................................................................................................................................................................... .................23
Feasibility - Technology............................................................................................................................................................................... .................24
Feasibility – Technology.............................................................................................................................................................................................. ..24
Feasibility - Technology............................................................................................................................................................................... .................25
Feasibility - A2 Requires Large Ground Based........................................................................................................................................................... ...25
Solvency - Tax incentives................................................................................................................................................................................... ...........26
Solvency – F.F. & Nuclear...................................................................................................................................................................................... .......26
Solvency – Energy 4 da whole world....................................................................................................................................................... .....................27
Solvency – SPS funded by USFG............................................................................................................................................................................... ...27
Solvency –Government should do it...................................................................................................................................................................... ........27
Solvency – Already Have the Tech / Money........................................................................................................................................................ ..........28
Solvency – Now Key Time...................................................................................................................................................................................... ......28
Solvency - SPS best renewable energy........................................................................................................................................................... ...............29
Solvency – Improved Recently............................................................................................................................................................................... .......29
Solvency - USFG Should fund................................................................................................................................................................... ...................29
Solvency - NASA................................................................................................................................................................................................. .........30
Solvency - Solar Satellites are Very Efficient............................................................................................................................................. ...................30
Solvency - US don’t need No help................................................................................................................................................................................ .30
Solvency - NRC............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Solvency – Moon Based Solar Power..................................................................................................................................................................... .......31
Solvency – Laser Beams.............................................................................................................................................................................................. ..32
Solvency - Efficient............................................................................................................................................................................................. ..........32
Advantage - Resource Wars - Quick Timeframe..................................................................................................................................................... .......33
Advantage - Resource Wars - Markets Don’t Solve................................................................................................................................................. ......33
Advantage – Resource Wars - Solvency...................................................................................................................................................... ..................34
Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ..........34
Advantage – Resource Wars - Solvency...................................................................................................................................................... ..................35
Alternative – Resource Wars - Solvency..................................................................................................................................................................... ...35
Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ..........35
Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ..........36
Advantage – Resource Wars - Solvency...................................................................................................................................................... ..................36
Advantage – Resource Wars - Solvency...................................................................................................................................................... ..................37
Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ..........37
Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ..........38
Advantage - Economy - Solvency.............................................................................................................................................................. ...................39
Advantage – Economy - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................................. ....39
Advantage - Hegemony - Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................................... .......................40
Advantage - Hegemony - UK Getting SPS............................................................................................................................................................ ........40
Advantage – Hegemony – Japan Getting SPS............................................................................................................................................. ..................40

Page | 1
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Advantage – Hegemony - India and China Racing............................................................................................................................................ ............41
Advantage – Hegemony - China Leads Space Race................................................................................................................................... ...................41
Advantage – Hegemony – China Getting SPS....................................................................................................................................................... ........42
Advantage – Hegemony – China Leads Space Race.................................................................................................................................................. ....42
Advantage – Hegemony – China Leads Space Race.................................................................................................................................................. ....43
Advantage - Hegemony – Solvency............................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Advantage - Hegemony - Solvency................................................................................................................................................................ ...............44
Advantage – Hegemony - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Advantage – Hegemony – Tech Key....................................................................................................................................................... ......................44
Advantage – Hegemony – AT Counterbalancing............................................................................................................................................ ...............45
Advantage – Hegemony – AT Counterbalancing............................................................................................................................................ ...............45
Advantage – Hegemony - Solves Terrorism.............................................................................................................................................. ....................45
Advantage – Hegemony – Indo Pak / Taiwan War Impact...................................................................................................................................... .......46
Advantage – Hegemony – Indo Pak Escalation.............................................................................................................................................. ...............46
Advantage – Hegemony – Taiwan Strait Impact...................................................................................................................................................... ......46
Advantage - Hegemony – China Nuke War Impact......................................................................................................................................... ..............47
Advantage – Hegemony - Impact................................................................................................................................................................. .................48
Advantage - Hegemony - Impact.......................................................................................................................................................................... .........49
Advantage – Space Exploration - Uniqueness............................................................................................................................................... ................50
Advantage - Hegemony – AT Space Treaties....................................................................................................................................................... ..........50
Advantage – Space Exploration - Solvency.......................................................................................................................................................... .........51
Advantage - Space Exploration - Solvency................................................................................................................................................................... .51
Advantage - Space Exploration - Solvency................................................................................................................................................................... .51
Advantage – Space Exploration - Solvency.......................................................................................................................................................... .........52
Advantage – Space Exploration - Solvency.......................................................................................................................................................... .........52
Advantage - Space Exploration - Solvency................................................................................................................................................................... .53
Advantage – Space Exploration - Solvency.......................................................................................................................................................... .........53
Advantage - Space Exploration - Solvency................................................................................................................................................................... .54
Advantage – Space Exploration – Space Sails...................................................................................................................................................... .........54
Advantage - Space Exploration - AT No Tech.......................................................................................................................................... .....................54
Advantage - Space Exploration - Impact...................................................................................................................................................... .................55
Advantages - Space Exploration - Impact................................................................................................................................................................. .....55
Advantage – Space Exploration - Impact..................................................................................................................................................................... ..56
Advantage - Asteroid - Solvency..................................................................................................................................................................... ..............57
Advantage – Global Warming - Solvency.................................................................................................................................................................. ....58
Advantage - Global Warming - Solvency................................................................................................................................................... ...................58
Advantage - Global Warming - Impact.............................................................................................................................................................. ............59
Advantage - Food Prices - Solvency........................................................................................................................................................................ ......60
Advantage – Terrorism - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................ ....................61
Advantage – Hurricanes – Uniqueness.......................................................................................................................................................... ................62
Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ................62
Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ................63
Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ................63
Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ................64
Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ................64
Advantage - Hurricanes - Impact.......................................................................................................................................................................... .........65
Advantage – Space Weapons Good - Solvency............................................................................................................................................................. .66
Space Weapons – No Link...................................................................................................................................................................................... .......67
Advantage - Robots - Solvency.................................................................................................................................................................... .................68
AT States CP - USFG Key.................................................................................................................................................................................. ...........69
AT States CP - USFG Key.................................................................................................................................................................................. ...........69
AT International CP - US Leadership Key.......................................................................................................................................................... ...........70
AT – Terrorism Against SPS.............................................................................................................................................................................. ............71
A2-Your satellites will get hit by enemy forces............................................................................................................................................. ................72
AT Politics - Public Supports SPS............................................................................................................................................................... ..................73
AT Politics - Bi-Partisan Support for SPS.................................................................................................................................................................. ....73
AT Biomass CP....................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................74
Neg - Too expensive.......................................................................................................................................................................................... ............75
Neg – Laser power bad......................................................................................................................................................................................... .........76
Neg – Space Lasers are not safe............................................................................................................................................................... .....................77
Neg - SSP too expensive and dangerous.............................................................................................................................................................. ..........78
Neg - UN CP................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................79

Page | 2
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Neg – Private Actor CP............................................................................................................................................................................ .....................80
Neg - Feasibility............................................................................................................................................................................................... .............82
Neg – AT Space Exploration Advantage............................................................................................................................................................. ...........83
Neg – Space Exploration Advantage....................................................................................................................................................... ......................83
Neg – Hegemony Advantage............................................................................................................................................................................ .............83
Neg – Hegemony Advantage............................................................................................................................................................................ .............84
Neg –Inefficient Energy......................................................................................................................................................................... .......................85
SPS Neg- Not feasible...................................................................................................................................................................................... .............86
Earth Based Solar Power Aff Parts................................................................................................................................................................ ................87
Inherency – Solar Power.............................................................................................................................................................................................. ..87
Inherency - US Solar Plans on Hold................................................................................................................................................................. .............87
Inherency – Solar Power.............................................................................................................................................................................................. ..87
Solvency – Regular Solar Power................................................................................................................................................................. ..................88
A2- Solar Power needs sun all the time......................................................................................................................................................... ................89
Generic Solar – Requires USFG.......................................................................................................................................................................... ..........90
Solar Incentives = Leadership........................................................................................................................................................................................ 91
Solvency – Solar Thermal...................................................................................................................................................................... .......................92
Solar Thermal – Dependency Solvency............................................................................................................................................................... ..........93
Solar Thermal Effective at night........................................................................................................................................................................... .........94
Solar energy prices decreasing...................................................................................................................................................................................... .95
Solar power good for military..................................................................................................................................................................................... ...96
Solvency - CSP............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..97
Solar Power - Feasibility........................................................................................................................................................................... ....................98
Solvency – Solar Thermal...................................................................................................................................................................... .......................99
Solvency – Solar Power.......................................................................................................................................................................................... .....100
Solar Power – Cost Effective............................................................................................................................................................................... ........100
CSP – Fast Timeframe..................................................................................................................................................................................... ............101
Solar Power Solvency – Global Warming............................................................................................................................................................... .....102
A2: Generic Solar Energy bad Environment........................................................................................................................................................... .....103
Solar Power increasing internationally..................................................................................................................................................... ...................104

Page | 3
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

First, the Inherency


Solar powered satellites that can power 100% of the United States energy consumption could have been
built 30 years ago but congresses oil lined pockets prevent the necessary investments
Ledbetter,2008
(Willian, past presidentof NSS works in the aerospace/defense industry) “An energy pioneer looks back “An inspiring conversation with Dr. Peter
Glaser” Glaser, Peter (Ph.D. mechanical engineering and went to work for Arthur D. Little Inc., served on major committees for NASA and the
National Academy of Sciences, president of the International Solar Energy Society) AdAstra SBSP-2008

Ad Astra: In light of the growing demand for dwindling hydrocarbons and the dangerous increases of greenhouse gases, do you think
that the world is now primed to seriously consider space-based power systems? Glaser: No, because people can still get gas for their
cars too easily. Those in the top levels of science and government know what is coming, but the average man on the street will not care
unless it impacts his wallet. That is the biggest problem. Thebasic approach is unchanged from my initialconcept. We could have built
this system 30 years ago. The technology just keeps getting better. The design and implementation is a small problem compared to the
much larger obstacle of getting people to understand the potential benefits. Building such a system could provide cheap and limitless
power for the entire planet, yet instead of trying to find a way to make it work, most people shrug it off as being too expensive or too
difficult. Of course existing energy providers will fight, too. It only makes sense that coal and oil lobbies will continue to find plenty
of reasons for our representatives in Congress to reject limitless energy from the sun.

Page | 4
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Therefore we offer the following plan:

The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the
Untied States by specifying that solar powered satellites are eligible for all pollution credits, carbon
credits, and carbon offsets and setting up a federal loan guarantee program of up to 80% for United
States companies engaged in the business of developing, owning, and operating solar powered satellites.

Page | 5
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Next, is solvency
Making solar based satellites eligible for pollution credits and setting up a loan guarantee program will
ensure the creation of space based solar energy
National Security Space Office, 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf, 10 October, Report to the Director, National Security
Space Office Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP systems are unlikely to become economically competitive, nor produced on the scale that is
needed to help solve global energy and environmental problems unless the systems are manufactured, owned, and operated by private
industry. This finding is consistent with the U.S. National Space Policy that advocates space commercialization. Recommendation:
The SBSP Study Group recommends that consistent with the U.S. Government incentives provided to other carbon-neutral energy
technologies, it is critical for the U.S. Government to provide similar incentives to encourage private U.S. industry to co-invest in the
development of SBSP systems. Specifically, the following incentives should be provided to U.S. industry as soon as possible to
encourage private investment in the development and construction of SBSP systems: Legislation at both the federal and state level that
specifies — and clarifies existing law as specifying — that SBSP is eligible for all pollution credits, carbon credits, and carbon off-sets
that are available to other clean and renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, ground solar, and nuclear. A federal loan guarantee
program of up to 80% should be created for U.S. companies engaged in the business of developing, owning and operating SBSP
systems. This program should either be an extension of, or modeled after, the existing loan guarantee program provided to the nuclear
power industry. The U.S. Government should enact a 30‐year tax holiday on any profits made by U.S. industry in the successful
operation of space‐based solar power systems.

Page | 6
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Also, development would be fast, completely safe, and would expand quicker than an other form of
energy

Hoffert and Potter, 1997


(Hoffert, [professor of physics at New York University. SETH D. POTTER is a research scientist in physics at New York University.]
Martin I. and Potter, Seth D. MIT's Technology Review 100.n7 (Oct 1997): pp30(6) Beam it down: how the new satellites can power
the world”, Proquest, KSU Libraries)

At first, the solar energy relayed from space would be used only to provide the minimal electrical power needed to run the electronics
of the receiving station on the ground - much the way that line current powers conventional telephones. Ultimately, the satellites
would beam down larger amounts of power, which could provide the megawatts of electricity that would contribute substantially to
powering a village or even a city. Scaling up to higher power levels would be straightforward, entailing simply the deployment of a
larger amount of solar-collecting area in space. Power would be transmitted through the infrastructure of transmitters and receivers
that will then be in place for the satellite communications systems. In this regard, microwave transmission has a decided advantage
over conventional cable methods of transmitting power. A microwave system that is 80 percent efficient at sending 1 kilowatt will still
be 80 percent efficient at sending 1 megawatt. This is fundamentally different from an electric utility transmission line, where you
need thicker, and costlier, wires to carry more power. If too much power is put through a cable, it will melt the insulation. Some fear
that a network of solar power satellites could turn the atmosphere into one big microwave oven, cooking whatever wanders into the
beam's path. In reality, the microwave intensities that we propose would be orders of magnitude below the threshold at which objects
begin to heat up. People would be exposed to microwave levels comparable to those from microwave ovens and cellular phones.
While some critics speculate that microwaves pose nonthermal threats to human health, there is no reliable epidemiological evidence
for adverse effects from microwaves at these low levels. Higher levels of microwave radiation would be found at the rectennas on
which the beams are focused, but fences and warning signs could demarcate these areas of possible danger. But according to our
calculations, microwave intensities even at the perimeter of the rectenna would fall within the range now deemed safe by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. A bigger potential problem is that of sharing the limited frequencies in the microwave
spectrum. Motorola has come under fire, for example, because its planned system will employ frequencies in the 1.616-to-1.626-
gigahertz range, which almost overlaps the 1.612-gigahertz frequency that astrophysicists tune to when gathering data about the
cosmos. Radio astronomers worry that interference from a solar power satellite will overwhelm the comparatively weak signals they
are seeking to detect. Motorola promises to limit spillover of its communications beams into the radio astronomers' frequency niche,
but the issue underscores the fact that the microwave spectrum is a limited resource jealously guarded by commercial and nonprofit
users alike. Allocation of the spectrum must be addressed promptly and effectively to avoid preemption of space power technology
before it's born. Whether solar power satellites become a reality will ultimately depend on the willingness of telecommunications and
electric utility companies to enter the space power business. So far, neither industry has shown much interest. But then, they are for
the most part unaware of the commercial possibilities. One has to know that an option exists to choose it. Thirty years ago,
communications satellites were a novelty. Ten years ago, no one had heard of the Internet. What is certain is that the present push for
deregulation has led to a scramble on the part of telecommunications, computer, cable TV, and utilities industries to enter each others'
markets. Some electric power companies want to enter the telecommunications business as a way of capitalizing on the huge
investment in wire and cable that reaches virtually every building in the country. It makes equal sense to propose that communications
companies enter the power business. In practice, consortiums of power and communications companies might develop the proposed
technology together. No single piece of this technology poses a fundamental stumbling block. The physics of photovoltaic cells and
microwave generation are well understood. To move to the next stage, though, will require a demonstration that all the pieces of this
system can work together: the solar panels, the phased-array microwave antennas, the receiving stations that separate the data signals
from the power beams, and the computers that tell the satellites where on the ground to aim the beams. NASA could accelerate this
development tremendously by placing into orbit a prototype of a solar power satellite. The benefits are too large to walk away from. A
network of solar power satellites such as what we propose could supply the earth with 10 to 30 trillion watts of electrical power
enough to satisfy the needs of the human race through the next century. Solar power satellites thus offer a vision in which energy
production moves off the earth's surface, allowing everyone to live on a "greener" planet. Consider the philosophical implications: no
longer need humankind see itself trapped on spaceship earth with limited resources. We could tap the limitless resources of space, with
the planet preserved as a priceless resource of biodiversity.

Page | 7
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage One – Resource Wars


Space’s infinite resources are the key to human kinds greatest threat, exponential growth
National Space Security Office Spring 2008
Space-Based Solar Power Study Group “Solar power from space can help keep the peace on Earth” AdAstra The national Space
Society Magazine

It is rumored that shortly after the end of WWII , Professor Albert Einstein was asked what he now thought the greatest threat to
mankind was. His prompt reply: “Exponential growth.” Like all species in a closed ecosystem, human civilization flourishes in times
of new and plentiful resources and regresses in times of scarce supplies.Today, following more than a century of intense hydrocarbon
use and sixdecades after Einstein’s remark, the humanpopulation exceeds six billion with projectionsof nearly ten billion by 2050.
Conventionalhydrocarbon energy resource peaks are all expected to occur well before mid-century; and rising CO2 levels may be
unleashing an unprecedented global climate crisis. The 21st century is shaping up to be one of potential environment- and resource-
driven conflict, and as the United States’ ultimate guarantor of national security, the Department of Defense (DoD) is keenly aware of
this future scenario. History teaches us that the application of sufficient energy and imagination to almost any problem ultimately
leads to solutions for a better future. Ensuring abundant long-term energy security then becomes a fundamental pursuit of all
societies.Compared to Earth, the resources of space are infinite. In the Age of Exploration, Europe looked beyond the horizons of her
surrounding oceans to solve a growing resource problem for a growing population. A similar timedistance problem separates human
society today from the space resources needed to prevent its collapse and deliver the resources needed to support its ever-increasing
levels of scale and complexity. While space already delivers ubiquitous telecommunication, global positioning, and surveillance
commodities, these intangibles are higher-order services and not true life-sustaining resources. The first true resource delivered from
space may very well be nearly limitless clean energy.

Page | 8
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
And, failure to move away from foreign oil leads to global resource wars that result in extinction

Micheal 2006
(Klare, ''The Coming Resource Wars'' [Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and
the author of Resource Wars and Blood and Oil] http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/the_coming_resource_wars.php )

In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources
are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, “will make
scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer”—and this will “make the emergence of violent conflict more
rather than less likely.” Although not unprecedented, Reid’s prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of
his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. “The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant
contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur,” he declared. “We should see this as a warning sign.” Reid’s
speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain’s equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the
most recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects—rather than political
orientation and ideology—as the most potent source of armed conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising, global
consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is being
set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear in this scenario, but
rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior to Reid’s address, the most significant
expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a California-based consulting firm in October
2003. Entitled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” the report warned that
global climate change is more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and therefore manageable)
rise in average temperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes and
continent-wide “dust bowl” effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects for access to food, water,
habitable land and energy supplies. “Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose
a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today,” the 2003 report noted. “Military confrontation may be
triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or
national honor.” Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to command the attention of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that
ideological and religious differences—notably, the clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other—remain the
main drivers of international conflict. But Reid’s speech at Chatham House suggests that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may
soon dominate the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant human role in altering the planet’s basic
climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe
hurricanes and a number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly,
they conclude that human behavior—most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles—is the most likely cause of these
changes. This assessment may not have yet penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among
scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world. For the most part, public discussion of global climate change has tended to describe its effects as an
environmental problem—as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on. And, of course, climate
change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental
problem fails to do justice to the magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid’s speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the
greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of entire
human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources. “As famine, disease, and
weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change,” the Pentagon report notes, “many countries’ needs will exceed their
carrying capacity”—that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This “will create a sense of
desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression” against countries with a greater stock of vital resources. “Imagine eastern
European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose
population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply.” Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the
planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance—producing endless struggles
between resource “haves” and “have-nots.” It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed
concern over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and the resulting risk
of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. “More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water,” he
observed, and “climate change will worsen this dire situation”—provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters
will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by participating in
peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of
food, oil, and minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people
killing one another with knives, staves and clubs—as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again.
But these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. “In this world of warring states,” the 2003 Pentagon report
predicted, “nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable.” As oil and natural gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear

Page | 9
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
power to meet their energy needs—and this “will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing
capabilities to ensure their national security.”

Page | 10
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage Two – Hegemony


The US only country too dumb to not be getting on the space bandwagon - China is determined to be a
hegemonic power in space and they are currently winning the race
Free Internet Press 7/9/2008
("U.S. Dominance In Space Slips As Other Nations Explore")

In contrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the global competition today is being
driven by national pride, newly earned wealth, a growing cadre of highly educated men and women, and the confidence that
achievements in space will bring substantial soft power as well as military benefits. The planet-wide eagerness to join the space-faring
club is palpable. China has sent men into space twice in the past five years and plans another manned mission in October. More than
any other country besides the United States, experts say, China has decided that space exploration, and its commercial and military
purposes, are as important as the seas once were to the British empire and air power was to the United States. The Chinese space
program began in the 1970s, but it was not until 2003 that astronaut Yang Liwei was blasted into space in a Shenzhou 5 spacecraft,
making China one of only three nations to send men into space. "The Chinese have a carefully thought-out human spaceflight program
that will take them up to parity with the United States and Russia," Griffin said. "They're investing to make China a strategic world
power second to none -- not so much to become a grand military power, but because deals and advantage flow to world leaders."
Meanwhile, other nations are pushing to increase their space budgets. Ministers from the European Space Agency nations will vote in
November on a costly plan to begin a human space program. David Southwood, ESA's director for science, said human space travel
has broad support across the continent, and European astronauts who have flown to the space station on U.S. and Russian spacecraft
are "extremely popular people" in their home nations. "It seems highly unlikely that Europe as a whole will opt out of putting humans
into space," he said. NASA and the U.S. space effort, meanwhile, have been in something of a slump.

Page | 11
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Space Based Solar Power would re-establish US space dominance and leadership

Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment. 10 October 2007.
("Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security" (accessed July 7th, 2008.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-release-01.pdf)

In absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo projects which
established significant workforces and helped the US maintain its technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed it was
“deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when
many other nations are gathering strength.” SBSP would require a substantial technical workforce of high‐paying jobs. It would
require expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims of the American Competitiveness
Initiative.

Page | 12
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
US leadership in space would prevent a space arms race, terrorism, and maintains US hegemony
eliminating any great power conflict

Dolman, 2003
[Everett, “Space Power and US Hegemony: Maintaining a Liberal World order in the 21st Century”, School of Advances Airpower
Studies, http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/D...per%5B1%5D.pdf]

And so it would. Complete domination of space -would give the United States such an advantage on the terrestrial battlefield that no
state could openly challenge it. Traditional war would be effectively over. An idealist vision would be secured by realist means.
Strategic dominance of space would Further force the United States to maintain the industrial and technical capacity to keep it at the
forefront of hegemony for the foreseeable future. Nontraditional war, especially terrorism, would not be over, but it could very well be
mitigated. The current dominant use of space for military matters is in the areas of observation and monitoring. These are the tools of
effective police organizations, and have already been adapted in counter-terrorism plans. The details would be worked out in time, but
the strategy clearly has benefits for the United States and the world. The moral argument has many levels, and stems from both the
high ground and modified sanctuary theses (accepted here) that the weaponization of space is inevitable. The operational level
contradiction is quite simply that it is unconscionable to assign the military services the task of controlling space, and then deny the
best means to do it. To the military, it is the equivalent of sending a soldier into combat without a rifle. At the strategic level it thwarts
the gloomier predictions of the awful result of space weaponization by preempting the process. Most theorists who lament the coming
inevitability of space militarization do so on some variation of the notion that once one state puts weapons into space, other states will
rush to do the same, creating a space-weapons race that has no productive purpose and only a violent end. Other assumptions are
generally along the line that conflict and bloody war must eventually reach the cosmos, and delaying or holding off that eventuality is
the best we can hope for. By seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the United States is unchallenged in space,
both those assumptions are revealed as faulty. The ability to shoot down from space any attempt by another nation to place military
assets in space - or to readily engage and destroy terrestrial ASAT capacity, makes the possibility of large scale space war and or
military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a power that has the
extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state
demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position - in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to
prevent a greater conflagration in the future - the likelihood of either scenario seems remote. To be sure, if the United States were
willing to deploy and use a military space force that maintained effective control of space, and did so in a way that was perceived as
tough, non-arbitrary, and efficient, other states would quickly realize no need to develop space military forces. It would serve to
discourage competing states from fielding opposing systems much in the same fashion that the Global Positioning System (GPS)
succeeded in forestalling the fielding of rival navigation systems. In time, United States control of low-Earth orbit could be viewed as
a global asset and a public good.

Page | 13
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage Three – Hurricanes


The frequency and intensity of hurricanes is increasing exponentially each year
Randerson, 2006
(James [Science Correspondent] “Global warming blamed for increasing force of hurricanes”, The Guardian, Friday March 17, 2006,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/mar/17/science.climatechange)

Global warming is increasing the frequency of the most intense hurricanes, insist scientists who have analysed data from six oceans.
The study comes in answer to critics, mostly scientists involved in hurricane prediction, of previous research. They argued that local
factors such as the difference in wind direction at various altitudes (known as wind shear) would swamp any effect of warmer oceans.
"We were criticised by the seasonal forecasters for not including the other environmental factors," said Kerry Emanuel, at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. To counter this, the authors included wind shear in their calculations. "This puts the argument
to rest," said Judith Curry, a team member based at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in Atlanta. Hurricanes such as Katrina, which
devastated New Orleans last summer, start as clusters of thunderstorms over the tropical oceans. Evaporating water rises and cools,
condensing as clouds, and the change from vapour to droplets releases energy that heats the air and drives it still higher. If enough of
these storms form in close proximity they can create a column of humid air which sucks air in at the base and releases it at the
boundary between the atmosphere and stratosphere. A nudge from the Earth's rotation, known as the Coriolis force, sends this column
spinning. Generally the rising air pillar can only form if the sea surface is at least 26C (78.8F). Heat from the ocean ultimately gives
the storm its power.

Page | 14
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
SPS systems are able to break up dangerous storms and avoid the massive destruction and loss of life
caused by hurricanes

Bernard J. Eastlund and Lyle M. Jenkins Eastlund, 2003.

Vol. 1-451 Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power’ Scientific Enterprises 151 Ravenhead Houston, TX 77034
Ivleieiikins@e.lrthiin k.net 713-946-0819

The application of the Solar Power Satellite for the prevention of tornadoes was proposed by Eastlund [Ref. 13. Although the
constituency for storm modification resides mainly in the tornado belt states, the potential benefits of saving lives and reducing
property damage have broad appeal. The refinement of SSP technologies and operations can be achieved without an immediate
competition with fossil fuel energy. The hndamental concept is disruption of the convective forces in a thunderstorm [Ref. 131. By
selective heating of the cold rain, the process that concentrates energy in tornadoes is disrupted. By interfering with the tornadogenesis
process, it appears that some tornadoes might be eliminated. Subsequently, loss of life and storm destruction are reduced. Such
benefits are attractive to Vol. 1-454 politicians and are not as sensitive to the system economics as is the commercial solar power
satellite. Once the fundamental technology and operations have been demonstrated, the cost and risk of energy production from space
can be realistically assessed. Looking beyond the taming of tornadoes, hurricanes are formed from ensembles of mesocyclones. As the
total available power increases, TSPS could be considered for modifying the features of the mesocylones that allow hurricanes to
reinforce their motion. Potentially, the steering winds could be disrupted to steer the storms away from metropolitan regions. The
ultimate application of a full system might be to steer the jet stream to manipulate the rainfall patterns on the earth’s surface. Even
with the expensive TSPS, it is likely that the intervention cost for a particular storm will not approach the cost for preventing acts of
terrorism with similar casualties [Ref. 131.

Page | 15
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Inherency – Investment Needed


USFG investment necessary, current US aerospace leadership needs to catch up with the rest of the world

National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007


(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st
century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long term research and
RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace
sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold War…Government policies and
investments in long‐term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have bold national aerospace
technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these
opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long term enabling research and
related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters
innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services.

Inherency – BureaucraticProblems
SPS system will not happen in the status quo due to bureaucratic problems

Schirber 2008
(Schirber, Michael Live Science. "How Satellites could Power the Future" http://www.livescience.com/environment/080618-pf-space-
solar.html )

Placing solar panels in space above both night and clouds was first considered 40 years ago. But the estimated cost was, in a word,
astronomical. The idea, however, has seen a resurgence, thanks to rising oil prices and advances in solar technology. A report from
U.S. Defense Department found that space-based solar is technically feasible and economically viable. To help prove the point, the Air
Force Academy recently announced plans for a small demonstration satellite that would beam down a meager, but still significant, 0.1
watts of solar power. "Our vision is to build the world's first-ever space-based solar power system to light a single bulb on Earth and in
so doing light the path for business to follow," said Col. Michael "Coyote" Smith of the Air Force. The type of transmission beam is
still not decided, but the project may benefit from separate research in Japan that has been studying the two most likely technologies:
microwaves and lasers. The sun puts out more than 10 trillion times the energy currently being consumed by the whole world. "We
would only need to tap into a small fraction of that to get all our energy now and in many years to come," said Mark Hopkins, senior
vice president of the National Space Society, which recently formed an alliance with other non-profits to promote space-based solar.
The advantage of going to space is that sunlight is constant up there and three to 13 times stronger than the average down here on
Earth, Smith said. The first suggestion of a solar power satellite was in 1968, but early estimates put the price tag around $1 trillion,
largely because astronauts would have had to construct the facility back then. Now robots can do the job, installing improved-
efficiency solar cells in a modular fashion, for 100 times cheaper than before. "If you decide to go now with today's technology, you're
talking about the same cost as ground-based solar," Hopkins said, which is around 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's still too high,
according to Hopkins, but he thinks costs will continue to come down, especially if development dollars start coming in. The
Pentagon-sponsored report offered a roadmap for how to build a 10-megawatt test satellite over the next 10 years for $10 billion. But
where that money will come from is hard to say. According to Hopkins, NASA sees this as an energy application and the Department
of Energy sees this as a space enterprise. "There are bureaucratic problems finding a home for this project," he said.

Page | 16
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Inherency - SPS
Space based solar power receives no government funding
Smith. August 11th, 2003. (Arthur. President, Long Island Space Society. Space Daily. "The Case For Space Based Solar Power
Development." Accessed July 9th, 2008. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ ssp-03b.html)

The prospects for space-based solar power are at least as bright as for fusion power; these two options were identified as the only
long-term sustainable energy sources in a report published in Science magazine last year (6). While space solar power has received
essentially no government funding for two decades, fusion gets close to $1 billion/year.

Inherency
Interest has grown, but is at a standstill
David, 17 October 2001
(David, Senior Space Writer for space.com, HDG,http://www.space.com/ businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-
1.html)

For the last few years, interest in SSP has grown, not only at NASA, but also in the U.S. Congress and the White House Office of
Management and Budget. For its part, the space agency has scripted a research and technology, as well as investment roadmap. This
SSP stepping stone approach would enhance other space, military, and commercial applications. A special study group of the National
Research Council (NRC) has taken a new look at NASA's current SSP efforts. Their findings are in the NRC report: Laying the
Foundation for Space Solar Power - An Assessment of NASA's Space Solar Power Investment Strategy. Richard Schwartz, dean of the
Schools of Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, chaired the 9-person NRC panel. While not advocating or
discouraging SSP, the advisory team said "it recognizes that significant changes have occurred since 1979 that might make it
worthwhile for the United States to invest in either SSP or its component technologies." The study urges a sharper look at perceived
and/or actual environmental and health risks that SSP might involve. The NRC study group singled out several technological advances
relevant to SSP: Improvements have been seen in efficiency of solar cells and production of lightweight, solar-cell laden panels;
Wireless power transmission tests on Earth is progressing, specifically in Japan and Canada; Robotics, viewed as essential to SSP on-
orbit assembly, has shown substantial improvements in manipulators, machine vision systems, hand-eye coordination, task planning,
and reasoning; and Advanced composites are in wider use, and digital control systems are now state of the art - both developments
useful in building an SSP.

Inherency
Time is now for space solar power to replace oil!
Farrar, 30 May 2008
Lara, CNN, "How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!" accessed 9 July 2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/22/space.solar/.

"The conditions are ripe for something to happen on space solar power," said Charles Miller, a director of the Space Frontier
Foundation, a group promoting public access to space. "The environment is perfect for a new start." Skyrocketing oil prices, a
heightened awareness of climate change and worries about natural resource depletion have recently prompted a renewed interest in
beaming extraterrestrial energy back to Earth, Miller explained to CNN. And so has a 2007 report released by the Pentagon's National
Security Space Office encouraging the U.S. government to spearhead the development of space power systems. "A single kilometer-
wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained
within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today," the report said.

Page | 17
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Inherency – Incentives Needed
SBSP Incentives Are needed to get the program off the ground
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

Incentives would help. These could include loan guarantees, availability of balloon loans (where interest payments are deferred until
the SBSP system is operational), transferable tax credits, subsidies similar to those already in existence for other alternative energy
sources, energy pre‐purchase agreements, and/or tax holidays on the sale of the power.

Page | 18
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Feasibility – Cost Effective but needs funding


Solar Power Satellite’s are cost-effective the only barrier is funding
Hoffert & Potter, October 1997
("Beam It Down: How the New Satellites Can Power the World", Extracted from "Solar Power Satellites: A Space Energy System for
Earth", edited byPeter Glaser .http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/
beam_it_down_how_the_new_satellites_can_power_the_world.shtml )

Launch costs are likely to drop, however, as the demand increases for hoisting large volumes of material into space on a regular basis:
the more frequently a launch system is used, the lower the cost per use. Moreover, NASA is seeking a new generation of reusable
launch vehicles. The agency recently sponsored a competition among aerospace contractors for a space vehicle with the potential for
airline-like operation. The winner was Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, legendary innovators in aircraft design from the U-2 to the
Stealth fighter. Lockheed Martin plans to build and test the $1 billion wedge-shaped reusable X-33 -a one-half size, one-eighth mass
version of a launch vehicle called Venture Star that would replace the space shuttle for ferrying cargo into low orbit. The target launch
cost is $2,200 per kilogram--one-tenth that of a shuttle launch. At that price, space power could become cost-effective if satellites pull
double-duty as communications relays and solar-power sources. A solar power satellite should quickly pay back the energy needed to
put it into orbit. Start with the conservative assumption that solar power satellite technology would produce 0.1 kilowatt of electricity
on the ground per kilogram of mass in orbit. In that case, the energy expenditure of 10 kilowatt-hours per kilogram to lift the satellite
into orbit would be repaid in electricity after only 100 hours--less than five days. One way to keep launch costs down is to use an
inflatable structure as the solar collector. Doing so would maximize the collector's surface area--important to gathering the greatest
amount of solar energy--without imposing a major weight burden on the launch vehicle. Deflated solar collectors could be folded into
a compact space on board the spacecraft; once in orbit, gas from a pressurized container would inflate the structure. Balloons in space
are an old story. In fact, the 1960-vintage satellite known as Echo I was a balloon used to bounce radio waves back to Earth. NASA is
now studying the feasibility of inflatable structures in space for antennae, sunshades, and solar arrays, although not explicitly for solar
power satellite systems. An important experimental milestone was the successful deployment by Space Shuttle Endeavour astronauts
in May 1996 of the Spartan Inflatable Antenna Experiment--a 14-meter antenna inflated by a nitrogen gas canister in orbit. It is not
such a very large step from such an experiment to a solar-collecting satellite that could be assembled in orbit from inflated segments.
Were NASA to make research on inflatable space structures a high priority, the knowledge base to make cost-effective low-mass
power satellites could evolve rapidly.

Feasibility - Price
Your evidence is too old - newer SPS systems will be vastly less expensive and easier to maintain
Sample, 2001
(Ian, "Giant space stacks: Will Earth ever get its power from orbiting towers of solar panels? (Frontiers).(NASA researching space-
based solar power", New Scientist 172.2320 (Dec 8, 2001): p22(1)

With an estimated price tag of around $250 billion, NASA's first designs for orbiting power stations in the late 1970s were hopelessly
expensive. "All serious work on space solar power in the US stopped around 1980," says John Mankins at NASA's Advanced Projects
Office in Washington DC. These early designs envisaged vast metal structures of over 50 square kilometres. Building them would
have required factories in space and teams of astronauts, not to mention dedicated "heavy lift" launch vehicles weighing around
11,000 tonnes to get them into orbit. Now NASA has come up with an alternative that is just one-thirtieth the price of the previous
design. Dubbed the SunTower, it is radically different from other designs, including a recently proposed Japanese project consisting of
solar panels covering 3 square kilometres (New Scientist, 10 February, p 6). In place of vast rigid panels, the SunTower uses pairs of
solar cells less than 10 metres across. These would be strung off a central cable up to 15 kilometres long hanging "vertically", with one
end pointing towards Earth. The flexible backbone will be kept extended by the slight gravity gradient between the top and the bottom.
Electricity produced by each of the solar cells will be fed down the backbone to a grid of transmitters that will beam the energy back
to Earth as 5.8-gigahertz microwaves, which pass easily through the Earth's atmosphere. The transmitters will be arranged in a
"phased array", which allows the beam to be steered by adjusting the phase of the radio waves from each transmitter. Antennas based
at storage facilities on Earth could then collect the radio waves and convert them into electrical power.

Page | 19
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Feasibility - Affordable
Solar Satellites are achievable and affordable.
Shiner July 01,08 ( Linda Shiner. [ Editor, Air & Space Smithsonian magazine. Copyright 2007 by Linda Shiner & Associates All
rights reserved]. " Where the Sun Does Shine Will space solar power ever be practical?"
http://docs.google.com/Edit?id=dd7jdn2z_5cd62ctdf July 7, 2008)

The latest report on a 40-year-old concept—satellites that could gather energy from the sun and supply it to the world as electricity—
makes the technology seem reachable and even, eventually, affordable. Advances in almost all of the required technologies could
dramatically reduce the size and cost of the system. And, maybe more importantly, circumstances on the planet—the cost of energy,
the global impact of producing it, and worry about its supply—have grown even more critical than they were in 1979, when a newly
created U.S. Department of Energy joined NASA to study the idea. This time, government interest goes beyond those two agencies—
the most recent report on the feasibility of sunsats, completed last October, was requested by the Department of Defense, through a
little-known group of policy advisors called the National Security Space Office. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is now
funding research with the goal of demonstrating a solar cell that can convert 50 percent of the sunlight striking it to electricity. Under
the DARPA program, a consortium led by the DuPont corporation and the University of Delaware has achieved 42.8 percent
efficiency by using a “rainbow” technique to separate sunlight into its constituent wavelengths and guide them to photovoltaic
materials sensitive to those ranges of energies.

Feasibility – Cheaper Launch Mechanisms


Cheap methods to launch rockets can be developed with little research and money

Hoffert and Potter, 1997


(Hoffert, Martin I. and Potter, Seth D. MIT's Technology Review 100.n7 (Oct 1997): pp30(6) Beam it down: how the new satellites
can power the world. http://proquest.umi.com/
pqdweb?RQT=305&SQ=issn%280149%2D8711%29%20and%20%28ti%28Something%20new%20under%20the%20sun%2E%29%
20or%20startpage%2826%29%29%20and%20volume%2812%29%20and%20issue%289%29%20and%20pdn%28%3E01%2F01%2F
1990%20AND%20%3C12%2F31%2F1990%29&clientId=48067&cfc=1

One important consideration in planning space power is the expense of putting a satellite into orbit. Right now, it costs a thousand
times more to put an object into space than to fly it across country by commercial airliner, even though the two jobs require roughly
the same amount of energy - about 10 kilowatt-hours per kilogram of payload. Two factors account for the extra cost: the army of
engineers and scientists required for a successful space launch, and the practice of discarding much of the launch vehicle after each
flight. Launch costs are likely to drop, however, as the demand increases for hoisting large volumes of material into space on a regular
basis: the more frequently a launch system is used, the lower the cost per use. Moreover, NASA is seeking a new generation of
reusable launch vehicles. The agency recently sponsored a competition among aerospace contractors for a space vehicle with the
potential for airline-like operation. The winner was Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, legendary innovators in aircraft design from the
U-2 to the Stealth fighter. Lockheed Martin plans to build and test the $1 billion wedge-shaped reusable X-33 a one-half size, one-
eighth mass version of a launch vehicle called Venture Star that would replace the space shuttle for ferrying cargo into low orbit. The
target launch cost is $2,200 per kilogram - one-tenth that of a shuttle launch. At that price, space power could become cost-effective if
satellites pull double-duty as communications relays and solar-power sources. A solar power satellite should quickly pay back the
energy needed to put it into orbit. Start with the conservative assumption that solar power satellite technology would produce 0.1
kilowatt of electricity on the ground per kilogram of mass in orbit. In that case, the energy expenditure of 10 kilowatt-hours per
kilogram to lift the satellite into orbit would be repaid in electricity after only 100 hours - less than five days. One way to keep launch
costs down is to use an inflatable structure as the solar collector. Doing so would maximize the collector's surface area - important to
gathering the greatest amount of solar energy - without imposing a major weight burden on the launch vehicle. Deflated solar
collectors could be folded into a compact space on board the spacecraft; once in orbit, gas from a pressurized container would inflate
the structure. Balloons in space are an old story. In fact, the 1960-vintage satellite known as Echo I was a balloon used to bounce radio
waves back to Earth. NASA is now studying the feasibility of inflatable structures in space for antennae, sunshades, and solar arrays,
although not explicitly for solar power satellite systems. An important experimental mileStone was the successful deployment by
Space Shuttle Endeavour astronauts in May 1996 of the Spartan Inflatable Antenna Experiment - a 14-meter antenna inflated by a
nitrogen gas canister in orbit. It is not such a very large step from such an experiment to a solar-collecting satellite that could be

Page | 20
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
assembled in orbit from inflated segments. Were NASA to make research on inflatable space structures a high priority, the knowledge
base to make cost-effective low-mass power satellites could evolve rapidly.

Feasibility - Technology
Recent reports prove the technological feasibility of solar powered satellites
Leonard 2001
(David, Leonard [Senior Space Writer] Bright Future for Solar Power Satellites
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html)

Two new studies looking at the feasibility of space-based solar power orbiting satellites that would serve as high-tech space dams -
suggest the concept shouldn't be readily dismissed and could generate both Earth-bound and space-based benefits. For the last few
years, interest in SSP has grown, not only at NASA, but also in the U.S. Congress and the White House Office of Management and
Budget. For its part, the space agency has scripted a research and technology, as well as investment roadmap. This SSP stepping stone
approach would enhance other space, military, and commercial applications.A special study group of the National Research Council
(NRC) has taken a new look at NASA's current SSP efforts. Their findings are in the NRC report: Laying the Foundation for Space
Solar Power - An Assessment of NASA's Space Solar Power Investment Strategy. Richard Schwartz, dean of the Schools of
Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, chaired the 9-person NRC panel. While not advocating or discouraging
SSP, the advisory team said "it recognizes that significant changes have occurred since 1979 that might make it worthwhile for the
United States to invest in either SSP or its component technologies." The study urges a sharper look at perceived and/or actual
environmental and health risks that SSP might involve. The NRC study group singled out several technological advances relevant to
SSP: Improvements have been seen in efficiency of solar cells and production of lightweight, solar-cell laden panels; Wireless power
transmission tests on Earth is progressing, specifically in Japan and Canada; Robotics, viewed as essential to SSP on-orbit assembly,
has shown substantial improvements in manipulators, machine vision systems, hand-eye coordination, task planning, and reasoning;
and Advanced composites are in wider use, and digital control systems are now state of the art - both developments useful in building
an SSP. Pentagon backs plan to beam solar power from space

Page | 21
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Feasibility – Can Use New Communication Satellites


The SPS system can be retrofitted on new communication satellites already slated for creation and launch
Hoffert and Potter, 1997
(Hoffert, Martin I. and Potter, Seth D. MIT's Technology Review 100.n7 (Oct 1997): pp30(6) Beam it down: how the new satellites
can power the world. http://proquest.umi.com/
pqdweb?RQT=305&SQ=issn%280149%2D8711%29%20and%20%28ti%28Something%20new%20under%20the%20sun%2E%29%
20or%20startpage%2826%29%29%20and%20volume%2812%29%20and%20issue%289%29%20and%20pdn%28%3E01%2F01%2F
1990%20AND%20%3C12%2F31%2F1990%29&clientId=48067&cfc=1 )

The skies will soon fill with low-orbiting satellites providing communications links to every point on earth. We should press these
fleets into double duty as solar energy collectors that would relay uninterrupted beams of nonpolluting electrical power to earth. In
outer space, the sun always shines brightly. No clouds block the solar rays, and there is no nighttime. Solar collectors mounted on an
orbiting satellite would thus generate power 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. If this power could be relayed to earth, then the
world's energy problems might be solved forever. Solar power satellites (SPS) were originally proposed as a solution to the oil crises
of the 1970s by Czech-American engineer Peter Glaser, then at Arthur D. Little. Glaser imagined 50-square-kilometer arrays of solar
cells deployed on satellites orbiting 36,000 kilometers above fixed points along the equator. A satellite at that "geosynchronous"
altitude takes 24 hours to orbit the earth and thus remains fixed over the same point on earth all the time. The idea was elegant.
Photovoltaic cells on a satellite would convert sunlight into electrical current, which would, in turn, power an onboard microwave
generator. The microwave beam would travel through space and the atmosphere. On the ground, an array of rectifying antennas, or
"rectennas," would collect these microwaves and extract electrical power, either for local use or for distribution through conventional
utility grids. The technology, as originally envisioned, posed daunting technical hurdles. Transferring electrical power efficiently from
a satellite in geosynchronous orbit would require a transmitting antenna on board the satellite about one kilometer in diameter and a
receiving antenna on the ground about 10 kilometers in diameter. A project of this scale boggles the mind; government funding
agencies shied away from investing immense sums in a project whose viability was so unclear. NASA and the Department of Energy,
which had sponsored preliminary design studies, lost interest in the late 1970s. In the last few years, however, the communications
industry has announced satellite projects that suggest the time has come to revisit the solar power satellite idea. By early in the next
century, swarms of communications satellites will be orbiting the earth at low altitude, relaying voice, video, and data to the most
remote spots on earth. These satellites will relay communication signals to earth on beams of microwaves. The transmission of
electrical power with a beam of microwaves was demonstrated as early as 1963, and projecting power and data along the same
microwave beam is well within the state of the art.Why not use the same beam to carry electrical power? The new communications
satellites will orbit at an altitude of only a few hundred miles. Instead of hovering above a spot on the equator, low-orbiting satellites
zip around the globe in as little as 90 minutes, tracing paths that oscillate about the equator, rising and dipping as many as 86 degrees
of latitude. Because they are closer to the earth's surface, the solar collectors on the satellite can be a few hundred meters across rather
than 10 kilometers. And because the microwave beams they generate would spread out much less than those from geosynchronous
satellites, the ground rectennas could be correspondingly smaller and less expensive as well. By piggy-backing onto these fleets of
communications satellites and taking advantage of their microwave transmitters and receivers, ground stations, and control systems
-solar power technology can become economically viable. Low earth orbit poses its own difficulties, though. Because they whip
around the planet so quickly, low-orbiting satellites must possess sophisticated computer-controlled systems for adjusting the aim of
the microwave beam so that it lands at the receiving station. These satellites will have to use sophisticated electronic systems, called
phased arrays, to continuously retarget the outgoing beam.

Page | 22
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Feasibility - Technology
SBSP is possible with current technology
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The SBSP Study Group found that Space‐Based Solar Power is a complex engineering challenge, but requires no fundamental
scientific breakthroughs or new physics to become a reality. Space‐Based Solar Power is a complicated engineering project with
substantial challenges and a complex trade‐space not unlike construction of a large modern aircraft, skyscraper, or hydroelectric dam,
but does not appear to present any fundamental physical barriers or require scientific discoveries to work. While the study group
believes the case for technical feasibility is very strong, this does not automatically imply economic viability and affordability—this
requires even more stringent technical requirements. The SBSP Study Group found that significant progress in the underlying
technologies has been made since previous government examination of this topic, and the direction and pace of progress continues to
be positive and in many cases accelerating. - 20 -Significant relevant advances have occurred in the areas of computational science,
material science, photovoltaics, private and commercial space access, space maneuverability, power management, robotics, and many
others.These advances have included (a) improvements in PV efficiency from about 10% (1970s) to more than 40% (2007); (b)
increases in robotics capabilities from simple tele‐operated manipulators in a few degrees of freedom (1970s) to fully autonomous
robotics with insect‐class intelligence and 30‐100 degrees of freedom (2007); (c) increases in the efficiency of solid state devices from
around 20% (1970s) to as much as 70%‐90% (2007); (d) improvements in materials for structures from simple aluminum (1970s) to
advanced composites including nanotechnology composites (2007); and many other areas.

Page | 23
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Feasibility - Technology
Solar Satellites are technically feasible and only improving
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment. 10 October 2007. "Space‐Based Solar Power As an
Opportunity for Strategic Security" (accessed July 7th, 2008. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-
release-01.pdf)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that Space‐Based Solar Power is a complex engineering challenge, but requires no
fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics to become a reality. Space‐Based Solar Power is a complicated engineering
project with substantial challenges and a complex trade‐space not unlike construction of a large modern aircraft, skyscraper, or
hydroelectric dam, but does not appear to present any fundamental physical barriers or require scientific discoveries to work. While
the study group believes the case for technical feasibility is very strong, this does not automatically imply economic viability and
affordability—this requires even more stringent technical requirements. FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that significant
progress in the underlying technologies has been made since previous government examination of this topic, and the direction and
pace of progress continues to be positive and in many cases accelerating.Significant relevant advances have occurred in the areas of
computational science, material science, photovoltaics, private and commercial space access, space maneuverability, power
management, robotics, and many others.

Feasibility – Technology
Intelligent Modular Systems make SPS more feasible
Mankins, John C. Spring 2008,

(NASA advanced policy guru) Ad Astra SBSP – 2008 Special Report.The magazine of the National Space SocietyPages 1-21

A new remarkable architectural concept called intelligent modular systems makes space solar power development more feasible than 
ever. The concept is a simple one: make very complex large systems by assembling a large number of smaller, intelligent, and modular 
systems. This extremely simple idea finds numerous parallels in nature: beehives, ant colonies, etc. This has only become feasible for 
space systems in the past decade or so. These “aggregate space systems” must involve modular architectures in which new system 
elements may be added, failed units removed and replaced, and configurations changed seamlessly and autonomously from local 
human intervention or ground­based remote control. In other words, future space solar power satelliteswill likely involve the concept 
of ‘intelligent modular systems’—just as modern, groundbased commercial technologies do pervasively in the world around us. Also, 
these systems must involve large numbers of functionallyredundant, not too large systems elements—hence, making possible the 
automated, high­quality and low­cost mass production of the individual system elements that comprise the space solar power satellite. 
The architecture of future solar power satellites must more closely resemble a constellation of Global Positioning System satellites 
than it does the sophisticated, but scarcely­affordable engineering of the International Space Station. One of the most promising of 
future space solar power “systems­level concepts” is that of the “sandwich solar power satellite.” In this case, incoming sunlight is 
redirected by large optical systems onto the back of an integrated platform structure that performs both the function of solar energy 
conversion and power beam generation. The elegance of the concept lies in its local management of power, and the exceedingly short 
distance (perhaps a few centimeters) for transporting electrical energy from solar array to wireless power. This approach has the 
potential to resolve many of the systems­level issues; particularly through extensive modularity that can enable autonomy, ease in­
space assembly, and enable low­cost transportation.

Page | 24
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Feasibility - Technology
SBSP technically feasible low energy prices only thing stopping it
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The first major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design
was proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative
to other lower‐cost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995‐1997 NASA initiated a “Fresh Look” Study to re‐examine the concept
relative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technology
vectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus areas, but for various
reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort.

Feasibility - A2 Requires Large Ground Based


Size and cost of ground receiver SPS can be reduced with variation on the baseline equation

Mankins, John C. Spring 2008,

(NASA advanced policy guru) Ad Astra SBSP – 2008 Special Report.The magazine of the National Space SocietyPages 1-21

Precisely­Controllable Wireless­Power Transmission. The size of the ground receiver is one key driver of the cost and expected 
resistance to market viability of SSP systems. There are a couple ofways that the size and cost of this part of the architecture can now 
be reduced. A simple equation describes the relationship between thesize of the transmitter, the size of the receiver, and the frequency 
atwhich power is transmitted for a given distance between the transmitterand the receiver. Based on this equation, the baseline case 
maybe defined: for a one­kilometer­diameter transmitter in geostationaryEarth orbit, beaming power at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, a 
receiver onEarth must have a diameter of approximately 10 kilometers (neglectingeffects of latitude). From this baseline, a number of 
variations may beconsidered.To reduce the size of the transmitter, it might be useful to increase the transmission frequency. 
Unfortunately, frequency increase is limitedin practical terms for several reasons. Available device efficiencies become lower with 
increasing frequency (affecting system economics).

Page | 25
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency - Tax incentives


Tax incentive policies for SPS will make it economically competitive following suite of other Renewable
price adjustment policies
Mankins, John C. Spring 2008,

(NASA advanced policy guru) Ad Astra SBSP – 2008 Special Report.The magazine of the National Space SocietyPages 1-21

The economic goal of any new energy technology must be to deliver energy at prices that are competitive with existing and expected
new providers. In the case of renewable energy, this goal has allowed for policy-driven “price adjustments” such as tax incentives or
baseline price targets that may be set by government players interested in the development of a specific new technology. Such price
adjustments have been commonplace in the development of renewable energy during the past several decades. In addition, price
adjustments may be introduced for the purpose of achieving some other public good. For example, trading in carbon dioxide (CO2)
“credits” is a form of price adjustment, intended to reduce overall CO2 emissions that are widely believed responsible for global
climate change. In the case of space solar power, what cost goals must be achieved in order for energy from space to compete with
Earth-bound competitors? Historically, manufactured spacecraft have been few in number, highly sophisticated in design and critical
in operations. Examples include global communications satellites (as of 2007, the satellite radio industry in the U.S. was based on only
two competing spacecraft), billion-dollar scientific probes in deep space (NASA’s Cassini spacecraft to Saturn was a one-of-a-kind
engineering marvel, as was the European Huygens probe it dropped on Titan), or a handful of military reconnaissance satellites that
are essential to national security. Each of these space systems is a near-miracle, a uniquely-designed “Swiss watch” that must operate
for years on a single winding. Most space systems developments are also highly expensive, prone to cost overruns during their
implementation, and subject to sometimes lengthy schedule delays. Space solar power need not be impossibly cheap to compete.
However, two high-level goals must be achieved. First, the mass of the system in space cannot be greater than about 3-6 kilograms (7-
19 lbs.) for each kilowatt of energy delivered to the ground. Second, the cost for mass in space cannot be greater than about $3,000/kg
($1360/lb). I.e., the total installed cost of a space solar power system cannot be more than about $10,000 per kilowatt of power
delivered on the ground. Remarkably, these cost goals now appear achievable using the technical approaches described previously.

Solvency – F.F. & Nuclear


SBSP is a viable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease mankind’s reliance on fossil
fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of nuclear materials that will almost certainly unfold if
many more countries in the world transition to nuclear power with enrichment in an effort to meet their energy needs with carbon
neutral sources. To the extent mankind’s electricity is produced by fossil fuel sources, SBSP offers a capability over time to reduce the
rate at which humanity consumes the planet’s finite fossil hydrocarbon resources. While presently hard to store, electricity is easy to
transport, and is highly efficient in conversion to both mechanical and thermal energy. Except for the aviation transportation
infrastructure, virtually all of America’s energy could eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground
transportation, a movement toward plug‐in hybrids would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground transportation to be
powered by SBSP electricity.

Page | 26
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency – Energy 4 da whole world


Solar Satellites have the potential to provide more than enough energy for the entire world.
Michael Schirber, 18 June 2008
("How Satellites Could Power the Future", , special to LiveScience, LiveScience, 7 July 2008.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080618-pf-spacesolar.html )

The sun puts out more than 10 trillion times the energy currently being consumed by the whole world. "We would only need to tap
into a small fraction of that to get all our energy now and in many years to come," said Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the
National Space Society, which recently formed an alliance with other non-profits to promote space-based solar. The advantage of
going to space is that sunlight is constant up there and three to 13 times stronger than the average down here on Earth, Smith said.

Solvency – SPS funded by USFG


Government funding would make solar satellites possible
Linda Shiner. Air & Space Magazine. July 01, 2008. (Air & Space Magazine. "Where the Sun Does Shine." Accessed July 7th, 2008.
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/18692724.html)

If the government could provide seed money, says John Mankins, “there are lots of companies around the world” that could
manufacture the components of a system much smaller and smarter than the behemoth envisioned in the 1970s. Mankins, the president
of the Space Power Association, is one of the world’s leading experts on the concept. Formerly a research-and-technology manager in
NASA’s space exploration office, he ran several space solar power studies between 1995 and 2003 that took stock of current
capabilities and calculated the investment required to get to a working system. Five years later, advances in several technologies,
starting with photovoltaics, have made him hopeful. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is now funding research with
the goal of demonstrating a solar cell that can convert 50 percent of the sunlight striking it to electricity. Under the DARPA program, a
consortium led by the DuPont corporation and the University of Delaware has achieved 42.8 percent efficiency by using a “rainbow”
technique to separate sunlight into its constituent wavelengths and guide them to photovoltaic materials sensitive to those ranges of
energies.

Solvency –Government should do it


The USFG is required for sufficient invements in SPS
Linda Shiner. Air & Space Magazine. July 01, 2008. (Air & Space Magazine. "Where the Sun Does Shine." Accessed July 7th, 2008.
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/18692724.html)

We want to believe. The latest report on a 40-year-old concept—satellites that could gather energy from the sun and supply it to the
world as electricity—makes the technology seem reachable and even, eventually, affordable.Here’s the plan: Construct in Earth orbit,
where the sun never sets, gigantic collectors (a 1979 proposal envisioned arrays six miles by three miles) that would beam solar
energy to similarly huge receivers on Earth, which would convert it to electricity. In other words, hook the sun up to the grid. Here’s
why it stalled the first time: According to a 1981 estimate by the National Research Council, it would have cost $3 trillion. Building
and launching the enormous structures turned out to be so famously expensive that even today, advocates of space solar power
struggle to overcome its reputation for outlandishness. Thirty years later, though, the idea is getting another look, for two reasons.
Advances in almost all of the required technologies could dramatically reduce the size and cost of the system. And, maybe more
importantly, circumstances on the planet—the cost of energy, the global impact of producing it, and worry about its supply—have
grown even more critical than they were in 1979, when a newly created U.S. Department of Energy joined NASA to study the idea.
This time, government interest goes beyond those two agencies—the most recent report on the feasibility of sunsats, completed last
October, was requested by the Department of Defense, through a little-known group of policy advisors called the National Security
Space Office.

Page | 27
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Solvency – Already Have the Tech / Money
We already have the technology for SSP – it will be more cost effective in the long run
Globus, May 17, 2007
(Al [Chairman of the National Space Society Space Settlement Advocacy Committee]. "Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy
for America and the World?" .http://www.space.com/adastra/070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html.7 July 2008, KZ)

The basic idea: build huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using
microwaves. We know we can do it, most satellites are powered by solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been
demonstrated with very high efficiency. We're talking about SSP - solar satellite power. SSP is environmentally friendly in the
extreme. The microwave beams will heat the atmosphere slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP
has no emissions of any kind, and that's not all. Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP.
The satellites can be built from lunar materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth.
SSP is probably the most environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for
everyone, and the sun's energy will last for billions of years. While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate SSP alone, and
SSP is nearly useless to terrorists. The satellites themselves are too far away to attack, the rectennas are simple, solid metal structures,
and there is no radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind. Access to SSP energy cannot be cut by foreign governments, so America will
have no need to maintain an expensive military presence in oil-rich regions. The catch is cost. Compared to ground based energy, SSP
requires enormous up-front expense, although after development of a largely-automated system to build solar power satellites from
lunar To get there, however, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D and infrastructure development - just what America is
good at. And you know something, we're spending that kind of money, not to mention blood, on America's Persian Gulf military
presence today, and gas went over $3/gallon anywaymaterials SSP should be quite inexpensive.. In addition, we may end up spending
even more to deal with global warming, at least in the worst-case scenarios. Expensive as it is, SSP may be the best bargain we've ever
had.

Solvency – Now Key Time


The sun always shines in space, and now the technology and market are poised to usher in the era of
Space Solar Power

Mankins, John C. Spring 2008

(NASA advanced policy guru) Ad Astra SBSP – 2008 Special Report.The magazine of the National Space SocietyPages 1-21

To be economically viable in a particular location on Earth, groundbasedsolar power must overcome three hurdles. First, it must 
bedaytime. Second, the solar array must be able to see the sun. Finally,the sunlight must pass through the bulk of the atmosphere itself. 
Thesky must be clear. Even on a seemingly clear day, high level clouds inthe atmosphere may reduce the amount of sunlight that 
reaches theground. Also various local obstacles such as mountains, buildings ortrees may block incoming sunlight.The longer the path 
traveled, the more sunlight is absorbed or scatteredby the air so that less of it reaches the surface. Altogether, these factorsreduce the 
average energy produced by a conventional ground­basedsolar array by as much as a factor of 75 to 80 percent. And groundsolar arrays 
may be subjected to hours, days, or even weeks of cloudcover—periods when the array produces no energy at all.By comparison, the 
sun shines continuously in space. And in space,sunlight carries about 35 percent more energy than sunlight attenuatedby the air before 
it reaches the Earth’s surface. No weather, nonighttime, no seasonal changes; space is an obvious place to collectenergy for use on 
Earth.The concept of space solar power first emerged in the late 1960s,invented by visionary Peter Glaser and then studied in some 
detail bythe U.S. Department of Energy, and NASA in the mid­to­late 1970s.However, at that time neither the technology nor the 
market wereready for this transformational new energy option. Today, that has allchanged.

Page | 28
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency - SPS best renewable energy


Space-based solar power overcomes other alternative energy shortcomings
Alternative Energy, June 10th, 2008. ("Space Based Solar Power." Accessed July 7th, 2008. http://www.alternative-energy-
news.info/space-based-solar-power/)

American scientist Peter Glaser proposed the idea of using space solar power in 1968. The fast depleting conventional energy
resources renewed the interest for trapping the solar power via satellites. Right now the usual alternative energy methods have their
own shortcomings. Hydro power plants disrupt ecosystems and human habitats. Minimum rain threatens hydro power. Clouds block
the sun and sunlight. Wind can choose not to blow at the desirable speed. Alternative energy plants provide intermittent power supply,
thus forcing us to store energy. All these factors increase the complexities of using alternative fuels. If we are able to harness space
based solar power, we can overcome these shortcomings. Recently rising fuel prices and at the same time fast depleting conventional
energy sources are drawing the interest of NASA and PENTAGON to conduct further studies in the area of space solar power. If a
satellite can be placed at an appropriate height it can remain unaffected by the earth’s shadow and the drifting power plant can beam
solar energy to ground based receivers whole year. A 2007 report released by the Pentagon’s National Security Space Office,
encouraged the U.S. government to spearhead the development of space power systems states: “A single kilometer-wide band of
geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known
recoverable conventional oil reserves on earth today.”

Solvency – Improved Recently


Solar Satellites have greatly improved in recent years to make them more feasible

Leonard David. Senior Space Writer. 17 October 2001. (Space.com. "Bright Future for Solar Power Satellites." Accessed July 7th,
2008. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html)

While not advocating or discouraging SSP, the advisory team said "it recognizes that significant changes have occurred since 1979
that might make it worthwhile for the United States to invest in either SSP or its component technologies." The study urges a sharper
look at perceived and/or actual environmental and health risks that SSP might involve.The NRC study group singled out several
technological advances relevant to SSP: Improvements have been seen in efficiency of solar cells and production of lightweight, solar-
cell laden panels; Wireless power transmission tests on Earth is progressing, specifically in Japan and Canada; Robotics, viewed as
essential to SSP on-orbit assembly, has shown substantial improvements in manipulators, machine vision systems, hand-eye
coordination, task planning, and reasoning; and Advanced composites are in wider use, and digital control systems are now state of the
art - both developments useful in building an SSP.

Solvency - USFG Should fund


The USFG is needed to fund solar powered satellites
Nell Greenfieldboyce. NPR All Things Considered. October 13, 2007. (npr. "Alternative Energy from Space Solar Panels." Accessed
July 7th, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15257968)

As concerns about global warming and dependence on foreign oil have increased, so has the interest in exploring alternative energy
sources. Here's one idea — put solar panels out in space and beam the energy back to Earth. The military likes the idea and a new
report says the government should fund a demonstration project.

Page | 29
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency - NASA
NASA research funding will accelerate development of SPS preserving the planets biodiversity
Hoffert & Potter, October 1997
("Beam It Down: How the New Satellites Can Power the World", Extracted from "Solar Power Satellites: A Space Energy System for
Earth", edited byPeter Glaser .http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/
beam_it_down_how_the_new_satellites_can_power_the_world.shtml )

No single piece of this technology poses a fundamental stumbling block. The physics of photovoltaic cells and microwave generation
are well understood. To move to the next stage, though, will require a demonstration that all the pieces of this system can work
together: the solar panels, the phased-array microwave antennas, the receiving stations that separate the data signals from the power
beams, and the computers that tell the satellites where on the ground to aim the beams. NASA could accelerate this development
tremendously by placing into orbit a prototype of a solar power satellite. The benefits are too large to walk away from. A network of
solar power satellites such as what we propose could supply the earth with 10 to 30 trillion watts of electrical power enough to satisfy
the needs of the human race through the next century. Solar power satellites thus offer a vision in which energy production moves off
the earth's surface, allowing everyone to live on a "greener" planet. Consider the philosophical implications: no longer need
humankind see itself trapped on spaceship earth with limited resources. We could tap the limitless resources of space, with the planet
preserved as a priceless resource of biodiversity.

Solvency - Solar Satellites are Very Efficient


SPS systems are the most efficient form of energy on or off the earth

Globus, 17 May 2007


(Al, writer for space.com "Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy for America and the World?", accessed 7 July 2008.
http://www.space.com/adastra/ 070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html )

The basic idea: build huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using
microwaves. We know we can do it, most satellites are powered by solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been
demonstrated with very high efficiency. We're talking about SSP - solar satellite power. Solar Satellites are a long-term and
environmentally safe option for producing enough energy for everyone for billions of years. "Solar Power From Space: A Better
Strategy for America and the World?",Al Globus, writer for space.com, 17 May 2007, space.com, accessed 7 July 2008.
http://www.space.com/adastra/ 070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave
beams will heat the atmosphere slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any
kind, and that's not all. Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The satellites can be
built from lunar materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably the
most environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for everyone, and the sun's
energy will last for billions of years.

Solvency - US don’t need No help


US can do SSP ALONE!

Globus, 17 May 2007


Al, writer for space.com "Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy for America and the World?", accessed 7 July 2008.
http://www.space.com/adastra/ 070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html

While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate SSP alone, and SSP is nearly useless to terrorists. The satellites themselves
are too far away to attack, the rectennas are simple, solid metal structures, and there is no radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind.
Access to SSP energy cannot be cut by foreign governments, so America will have no need to maintain an expensive military presence
in oil-rich regions.

Page | 30
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Solvency - NRC
The National Research Council says it’s a good idea
David October 17,2008 (Leonard David. [Senior Space Writer]. " Bright Future for Solar Power Satellites"
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html. 09 July 2008.)

For the last few years, interest in SSP has grown, not only at NASA, but also in the U.S. Congress and the White House Office of
Management and Budget. For its part, the space agency has scripted a research and technology, as well as investment roadmap. This
SSP stepping stone approach would enhance other space, military, and commercial applications.A special study group of the National
Research Council (NRC) has taken a new look at NASA's current SSP efforts. Overall, the NRC experts gave NASA's SSP approach a
thumbs-up. The space agency's current work is directed at technical areas "that have important commercial, civil, and military
applications for the nation." A top recommendation is that industry experts, academia, and officials from other government agencies --
such as the Department of Energy, Defense Department, and the National Reconnaissance Organization -- should be engaged in
charting SSP activities, along with NASA. They observe that customers of a future SSP station could be many. Commercial
telecommunications and remote sensing spacecraft, governmental research and defense satellites, space manufacturing facilities, as
well as space travel and tourism industries could draw energy from such a station. There is a potentially large market that might
benefit from this pay for power approach.

Solvency – Moon Based Solar Power


Criswell, 2002
(Criswell, David R. [Physicist David R. Criswell is director of the University of Houston’s Institute for Space Systems Operations in
Houston, Texas] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22fossil+fuels%22+%22solar+power+satellite%22

Prosperity for everyone on Earth by 2050 will require a sustainable source of electricity equivalent to 3 to 5 times the commercial
power currently produced. Because of the low average incomes in developing countries, however, this energy must be provided at
one-tenth the present total cost per kilowatt-hour. Solar-power stations constructed on the moon from common lunar materials could
provide the clean, safe, low-cost commercial electric energy needed on Earth. Currently, commercial energy production on Earth
raises concerns about pollution, safety, reliability of supply, and cost. These concerns grow as the world’s nations begin to expand
existing systems to power a more prosperous world. Such growth could exhaust coal, oil, and natural gas reserves in less than a
century, while the production and burning of these fossil fuels pollute the biosphere. Expanding nuclear fission power would require
breeder reactors, but there is intense political resistance to that idea because of concerns about proliferation, nuclear contamination of
the environment, and cost. Thousands of large commercial fusion reactors are highly unlikely to be built by 2050. Terrestrial
renewable systems (hydroelectric, geothermal, ocean thermal, waves, and tides) cannot dependably provide adequate power. Using
wind power would require capturing one-third of the power of the low-level winds over all the continents. Although energy coming
directly to Earth from the sun is renewable, weather makes the supply variable. Very advanced technologies, such as 30% efficient
solar cells coupled with superconducting power transmission and storage, imply solar arrays that would occupy selected regions
totaling 20% of the area of the United States. Studies funded by the World Energy Council project that terrestrial solar energy will
provide less than 15% of the electric power needed for global prosperity by 2050.\

Page | 31
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency – Laser Beams


Instead of microwaves we can use laser beams which do not cause radiation
Dickinson. 1997.
(Richard M. [BSEE from Auburn University in 1958 and his MSEE from the University of Texas-Austin in 1962. Member of the
Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.] IEEE AES Systems Magazine. "Issues in
Microwave Power Systems Engineering." Accessed July 7th, 2008. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/62/12953/
00587810.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=587810) The concept of using space solar power systems for beaming energy to Earth and
to other spacecraft is getting a fresh look from NASA. This idea, first proposed by Peter Glaser in 1968, was studied extensively
during the next two decades. NASA's recent study reexamining the possibility was followed up by a concept definition study in 1998.)

All the approaches studied to date have used microwaves to transmit the electric power to the Earth's surface. Laser beams, however,
have advantages over microwave beams for power transmission, and some disadvantages as well. * Size. By far, the greatest benefit of
lasers is the smaller size of their transmitting and receiving antennas. The beam diameter needed for carrying a given amount of power
varies roughly with the wavelength of the beam. Because laser wavelengths are about five orders of magnitude shorter than those of
microwaves, power transmitters and receivers can be much smaller -- meters rather than kilometers in diameter for power levels in the
hundreds of megawatts. The diffraction of a power beam also varies with wavelength, so the spreading of a laser beam will be much
less than that of a microwave beam. For distances that may range up to 35,000 km (for a GEO power satellite), this reduces the
receiving antenna's land area requirements (and costs) still further. Using a smaller space-based transmitting antenna also lowers costs.
In space transport, for example, an entire laser system could be orbited in a single launch. Smaller size may also allow systems with
lower total power levels to be economically competitive with much higher power microwave systems, in terms of both installed
capital cost and operating cost. * Interference. Space solar power systems that use microwave power transmission can interfere with
satellite communication systems, which use frequencies in the same multigigahertz range. The filtering and/or frequency restrictions
needed to avoid such interference could be a major barrier to the economics of space-based power systems. Moreover, obtaining
approval from the Federal Communications Commission and the International Telecommunications Union would be extremely
difficult if there were any hint of potential interference with satellite communications. Lasers avoid these problems because of the
great disparity in fundamental frequencies between lasers and satellite communications bands, and because the narrow laser beams are
less likely to have significant sidelobes, which create interference. Also, should national sovereignty become an issue, the much
smaller sidelobes are less likely to spill energy over adjacent international borders.

Solvency - Efficient
SBSP repays for itself energy-wise very quickly
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

Even considering the energy cost of launch, SBSP systems do payback the energy to construct and launch. In fact, SBSP systems have
net energy payback times (<1 year except for very small 0.5 GW plants) well within their multi‐decade operational lifetimes. Payback
times are equivalent and perhaps faster than terrestrial solar thermal power (Zerta et al, 2004). The reason for this is that an equivalent
area in space receives 8‐10 times the energy flux for the annual average, and as much as 30‐40 times the energy flux in a given week
than the same area located on a favorable place on the ground after considering day/ night, summer/winter, and dust/weather cycles.
Prior analyses suggest that the resulting energy payback (time to recover the energy used in deploying a power system) for SBSP is
equivalent to or less than (perhaps as little as •) comparable ground solar baseload power systems (which includes energy storage
capacity for 24/7 usage, and pay back in 1.6‐1.7 years).

Page | 32
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Resource Wars - Quick Timeframe


Resource wars are a couple of years away followed by famine and world war
Gordon, 2005
(Greg,http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4835 ''Worries swelling over oil shortage'' [Greg Gordon, an investigative reporter, has
spent 30 years uncovering waste, fraud, abuse and misconduct in Washington. Since joining McClatchy’s national staff in 2006, he has
helped expose partisanship in the Justice Department and gaps in U.S. homeland security. Earlier,, he spent 13 years with the
Minneapolis Star Tribune, covering the prosecution of al Qaida terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui and writing about asbestos in the
workplace, money and politics, aviation, law enforcement and the environment. He also worked for The Detroit News and United
Press International, where he headed its investigative team and won the 1983 Raymond Clapper award for coverage of an EPA
scandal. In 1990, he and co-author Ronald E. Cohen won Sigma Delta Chi's gold medal for their book "Down to the Wire,"
chronicling UPI's financial collapse. In 2008, he, along with Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor, won a McClatchy ``President’s
Award’’ and Scripps Howard’s Raymond Clapper Memorial Award for Washington reporting for exposing the Bush administration’s
politicization of the Justice Department. This is Gordon's second Clapper Memorial Award] )

The converging events drew attention to what administration officials call a temporary global energy crunch. Bigger worries also are
bubbling to the surface -- fears of a day of reckoning over world oil reserves. Even as China and India are joining the grab for oil,
most experts agree that world production will peak sometime in the next several decades -- more likely in the next couple of years, say
a gaggle of academics. If the falling supply loses out to rising demand before new energy sources are ready, government officials say,
a world that runs on oil could face consequences ranging from recessions to famine and even war.

Advantage - Resource Wars - Markets Don’t Solve


Current energy markets cannot makeup for US oil dependence

Puplava, 2002
(Jim, Powershift oil, money & war [Puplava Financial Services, Inc. President & CEO, Investment Advisor RepresentativePuplava
Securities, Inc. President & CEO, Registered Representative Financial Sense & Financial Sense Newshour Author & Host ]
http://www.financialsense.com/series3/ intro.html )

The modern industrial states are dependent on oil as never before for their prosperity. Cheap and easily obtainable oil is the fluid
which powers industrialized economies. These states are dependent on cheap and plentiful oil for their prosperity. This has led to a
growing dependency on Middle Eastern and now Caspian oil. Meanwhile, as this bondage grows, there are no policies that would free
us from this dependency. Some argue that if left to the marketplace without government interference, the laws of supply and demand
will replace this dependency on oil either through conservation or substitutes. This is a naïve view which permeates much of today’s
discussion on solving our energy and dependency crisis. These arguments ignore an important geological fact called depletion. If the
technology existed to replace Middle Eastern oil by an alternative energy substitute, it would have been done so years ago during the
last energy shock. Even if a new technology was to be discovered to replace oil, it would take years to implement. Where would the
hundreds of billions, if not trillions, come from to finance such a project?

Page | 33
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Resource Wars - Solvency


Solar Satellites solve the addiction to foreign oil
Globus, 2007
(Al, [Al Globus serves on the National Space Society Board of Directors and is a senior research associate for Human Factors
Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center.] Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy
for America and the World?, http://www.space.com/adastra/070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html )

Suppose I told you that we could build an energy source that: unlike oil, does not generate profits used to support Al Qaeda and
dictatorial regimes. unlike nuclear, does not provide cover for rogue nations to hide development of nuclear weapons. unlike
terrestrial solar and wind, is available 24/7 in huge quantities. unlike oil, gas, ethanol and coal, does not emit greenhouse gasses,
warming our planet and causing severe problems. unlike nuclear, does not provide tremendous opportunities for terrorists. unlike
coal and nuclear, does not require ripping up the Earth. unlike oil, does not lead us to send hundreds of thousands of our finest men
and women to war and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a military presence in the Persian Gulf. The basic idea: build
huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know we
can do it, most satellites are powered by solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been demonstrated with very high
efficiency. We're talking about SSP - solar satellite power. SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave beams will
heat the atmosphere slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any kind, and
that's not all. Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The satellites can be built from
lunar materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably the most
environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for everyone, and the sun's energy
will last for billions of years. While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate SSP alone, and SSP is nearly useless to
terrorists. The satellites themselves are too far away to attack, the rectennas are simple, solid metal structures, and there is no
radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind. Access to SSP energy cannot be cut by foreign governments, so America will have no need
to maintain an expensive military presence in oil-rich regions

Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency


If the United States takes the lead we will not be dependent on foreign energy
Jason McManus. The Daily Galaxy. June 2nd, 2008. (The Daily Galaxy. "Beaming Solar Power from Massive Satellites Gains Global
Momentum." Accessed July 7th, 2008. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/how-toharvest.html)

"The conditions are ripe for something to happen on space solar power," said Charles Miller, a director of the Space Frontier
Foundation, a group promoting public access to space told CNN. "The environment is perfect for a new start." Diminishing oil
supplies and soaring prices, a heightened global awareness of climate change and worries about natural resource exhaustion have
recently prompted a renewed interest in beaming solar energy back to Earth. "The country that takes the lead on space solar power will
be the energy-exporting country for the entire planet for the next few hundred years," Miller said.

Page | 34
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Resource Wars - Solvency


Solar power can produce more electricity than all of America's current power plants
Bernadette Del Chiaro. Environment California Research & Policy Center. Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik. Frontier Group. Spring
2008. (Environment America Research & Policy Center. "Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming." Accessed
July 8th, 2008. http://www.environmentamerica.org/ uploads/0f/jZ/0fjZtsJDnQCqGKdr9a7Hjg/On-The-Rise.pdf.)

Concentrating solar power presents a unique opportunity for the United States. Vast solar resources exist on our lands, with the
potential to provide more electricity than can be produced by all of America’s current power plants. Tapping even a small portion of
that potential can help America achieve meaningful reductions in global warming pollution in the near term. An enormous and
untapped energy resource lies, not buried in earth, but out in the open areas of the Southwest deserts.Largely concentrated in Arizona,
southern California, southern Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and southern Utah, these lands hold the potential for nearly 7,000 GW
of CSP power generation—over six times the nation’s current electricity generating capacity.53 This figure is very conservatively
based on lands with high solar capacity that remain after ruling out lands that are incompatible with commercial development, have
slopes greater than 1 percent, or comprise less than 10 contiguous square kilometers.

Alternative – Resource Wars - Solvency


Space based solar power can offset 100% of our energy consumption and can transmit power to distant
places that need it the most
Cho, 2007
(Cho, Dan [Director of Dan serves as the executive director of The Veritas Forum and is working to lead the organization in its next
stage of development. Dan's relationship with Veritas dates back to his freshman year at Harvard when he attended the very first
Forum. He has nearly a decade of college ministry experience as staff with Berkland Baptist Church in Cambridge and has also
worked in the development offices of Harvard and MIT. In addition to earning an A.B. from Harvard College in social anthropology,
Dan has also received master's degrees from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School.]
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-beam-solar-power-fromspace.html )

At the same press conference, over a dozen space advocacy groups announced a new alliance to promote space solar power – the
Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy. These supporters of space-based solar power say the technology has the potential to provide
more energy than fossil fuels, wind and nuclear power combined. The NSSO report says that solar-power-generating satellites could
also solve supply problems in distant places such as Iraq, where fuel is currently trucked along in dangerous convoys and the cost of
electricity for some bases can exceed $1 per kilowatt-hour – about 10 times what it costs in the US. The report also touts the
technology's potential to provide a clean, abundant energy source and reduce global competition for oil.

Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency


Just one fifth of southwestern solar power satisfies 100% of America's needs
Bernadette Del Chiaro. Environment California Research & Policy Center. Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik. Frontier Group. Spring
2008. (Environment America Research & Policy Center. "Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming." Accessed
July 8th, 2008. http://www.environmentamerica.org/ uploads/0f/jZ/0fjZtsJDnQCqGKdr9a7Hjg/On-The-Rise.pdf.) Tapping just one
fifth of the southwestern United States’ solar thermal potential would generate 100 percent of the electricity Americans are predicted
to demand in 2030.56 Indeed, America’s current electricity demand could be satisfied with solar thermal power plants on a 100-mile-
square area of the desert Southwest—an area equal to 9 percent the size of Nevada.

Page | 35
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency


Cheap Energy as calculus no longer applies due to US militaries strategic economic and military risks
due to resource wars and energy scarcity
National Space Security Office Spring 2008
Space-Based Solar Power Study Group “Solar power from space can help keep the peace on Earth” AdAstra The national Space
Society Magazine

So why do we not have SSP satellites in orbittodaywhen the NRC validated the conceptas scientifically sound and on a healthy
pathtoward technical feasibility as recently as fiveyears ago? Over the course of 40 years theanswer has always centered around “the
businesscase” in the face of less-expensive competingconventional terrestrial energy sources.But that calculus is about to change.The
very real risks of climate change, energynationalism and scarcity, unconstrained techstrategicnology explosion, and potential
resourceconflicts weigh heavily on the futurist minds ofthe action officers of the Air Force Future Conceptsand Transformations
Office and NationalSecurity Space Office (NSSO) “Dreamworks.”These officers are charged with visualizing theworld 25-or-more
years from now, and informingand guiding Air Force and space strategydevelopment. For a military that is fundamentallydependent
on high-energy capabilities toprotect its nation and the international commonsfor the good of all humanity, not onlyare the strategic
risks associated with energyscarcity that lie ahead great, but so too are theoperational and tactical vulnerabilities for thefinest war-
fighting and peacekeeping machinehumans have ever known.It was from within this Air Force policy incubator and the NSSO that the
spark to reexamine SSP as a strategic, operational, and tactical energy solution was struck. Beginning in the 1970s through 2001, the
SSP was examined on multiple previous occasions by the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA,but failed to find a champion in
large part because SSP fell between organizational gaps (DOE does energy but not space, and NASA does space, not energy). On the
other hand, because of its unique mission, DoD is the first government agency that will have to deal with the harsh realities of a
coming energy peak. Self-developed, complex modern weapon systems spend two decades in pre-production and another five in
operation— a 70-year life cycle that clearly places any new platforms (and our entire war-fighting doctrine) squarely on the backside
of peak oil, and permanently in a hangar unless DoD can reinvent itself to remain relevant in an energyscarce world. Therefore, DoD
is in a position of greatest need for examining all alternate energy options. On a more tactical level, the very real high cost in dollars
and lives lost to deliver large quantities of fuel and energy supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has informed the military that
energy logistics is a reality that begs for a paradigm change. After concluding that most superficial observersof SSP casually and
wrongly dismiss iteither as science fiction or a complete economicinfeasibility, a small group of motivated action officers from the
Pentagon with science and technology, space, philosophy, operational, and strategy development backgrounds banded together (the
self-anointed “Caballeros”) with several long-time SSP experts on a voluntary mission to educate the un-informed about the amazing
potential of this almost-forgotten energy idea.

Advantage – Resource Wars - Solvency


Space Solar Power will offer abundant sustainable energy for society, the biosphere and space

Mankins, John C. Spring 2008,

(NASA advanced policy guru) Ad Astra SBSP – 2008 Special Report.The magazine of the National Space SocietyPages 1-21

Photographs of the sky over Beijing on a hot summer day—dark with particulates and unburned hydrocarbons dangerous to the young 
and the elderly—illustrate that the air pollution crisis that once plagued Los Angeles is not gone, but has only relocated. Similarly 
 making the  energy to run civilization releases enormous volumes of greenhouse gasse
   s—over two pounds (one kg) of carbon dioxide 
for each kilowatthour (kwh) generated by coal. Global average temperatures and ocean surface temperatures are rising, along with 
insurance premiums for coastal areas—when insurance can be found at all. At the same time, current space missions are narrowly 
constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in space. More ambitious missions will never be realized without new, reliable, and 
less­expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence of new space industries such as space tourism and 
manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much as they do on progress in space transportation. New 

Page | 36
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
energy options are needed: sustainable energy for society, clean energy for the climate, and affordable and abundant energy for use in 
space. Space solar power is an option that can meet all of these needs.

Advantage – Resource Wars - Solvency


Space Solar Power is the inexhaustible solution to the looming energy crisis
Mankins, John C. Spring 2008,

(NASA advanced policy guru) Ad Astra SBSP – 2008 Special Report.The magazine of the National Space SocietyPages 1-21

In an era when new energy options are urgently needed, space solarpower is an inexhaustible solution—and the technologies now exist 
tomake it a reality. The world cannot wait much longer. While the pastcentury has been one of the most remarkable periods in human 
history,it has also been dominated by the use of fossil fuels. Yet, the acceleratingglobal consumption of affordable and available energy 
sources willsoon present fundamental challenges.In less time than has passed since the founding of Jamestown, today’scoal reserves 
will be forever gone. Also, most scientists agree that theuse of fossil fuels is profoundly altering both local environments and 
theclimate of the world itself. Capturing solar power from space­based platformscan solve this crisis. This is energy that is essentially 
carbon­free,endless and can be dispatched to best meet the dynamically changingrequirements of populations separated by thousands 
of miles

Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency


SPS is the only oil dependency answer

Hauswald. 1990.
(C. L. [Qualifications] "Space: Something New under the Sun", Omni, Jun 1990, PG. 26)

The demand for space-based solar power could be extraordinary. By 2050, according to some estimates, 10 billion people will inhabit
the globe - more than 85 percent of them in developing countries. The big question: How can we best supply humanity's growing
energy needs with the least adverse impact on the environment? Dependence on fossil fuels is not the answer because burning coal,
oil, and gas will pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, raising the risk of global climate change. (And of course these resources
will not last forever.) Nuclear fission reactors avoid the greenhouse problem but introduce the so-far intractable problem of disposing
of nuclear waste. Controlled nuclear fusion might someday provide an inexhaustible supply of clean energy - but after forty years of
continuous funding, a practical fusion reactor is still not in sight. That leaves the menu of renewable energy sources. But terrestrial
renewables pose environmental problems because of their relatively large land requirements. Hydropower, the most exploited
renewable thus far, has significantly disrupted ecosystems and human habitats. Solar, biomass, and wind farms would similarly
compete with people, agriculture, and natural ecosystems for land were they the basis of a global energy system. Moreover, ground-
based renewable energy systems, such as terrestrial photovoltaics and biomass fuels, generate fewer than 10 watts of electricity per
square meter, on a continuous basis. To generate enough electricity to meet demand could require developing countries either to divert
land from agricultural use, and thus diminish the supply of food, or to destroy natural ecosystems, a move that could hasten the onset
of global warming. Solar power satellites would require far less land to generate electricity. Each square meter of land devoted to the
task could yield as much as 100 watts of electricity. And the power-receiving rectenna arrays - a fine metallic mesh - would be visually
transparent, so their presence would not interfere with crop growth or cattle grazing. And the flow of power from terrestrial
renewables is intermittent. Clouds blot out the sun; the wind stops blowing; lack of rainfall nullifies a hydro generator. Because these
technologies do not deliver power continuously, they require some means of storing energy, adding to overall cost and complexity. A
network of solar power satellites in low earth orbit could provide power to any spot on earth on a virtually continuous basis because at
least one satellite will always be in "view" of the receiving station. Unfortunately, solar power from space is not yet on the official
menu of twenty-first century energy options. Since the 1970s, NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy have provided only token
funding for the technology. A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences of potential strategies to mitigate global warming
analyzed a wide range of nonfossil energy alternatives - including nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal,
wind, and biomass energy - but did not include space power as an option. Despite the funding desert in the United States, work on

Page | 37
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
solar power satellites has continued elsewhere. In Japan, for example, leaders of the New Earth 21 program at the Ministry of
Technology and Industry (MITI) view space solar power as "an essential part in the proper control of C[O.sub.2] levels." MITI has
sponsored the design of a kite-like orbiter that would travel in low earth orbit above the equator, with transmitting antennae on the
earthward face and solar collectors on spaceward faces. In the United States, commercialization of space power will become a reality
only if it can attract investment capital and succeed as a business. Fortunately, the private sector seems eager to invest in the
communications satellites that could provide the vehicles for a solar power satellite. Motorola, for example, is putting $3.8 billion into
Iridium, a venture comprising 66 communications satellites in low earth orbit. Teledesic Corp. - a joint venture of Microsoft chairman
Bill Gates and cellular phone tycoon Craig McCaw of Mobile Telecommunications Technologies - plans to spend $9 billion to deploy
288 satellites.

Advantage - Resource Wars - Solvency


SBSP will increase USA Security

Ad Astra:The magazine of The National Space Society, Spring 2008


(Volume 20, Number 1 ,HDG,http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf)

SBSP is an anti-war capability.America can use the existing technical expertise in its military to catalyze an energy transformation that
lessens the likelihood of conflict between great powers over energy scarcity, lessens the need to intervene in failed states which cannot
afford required energy, helps the world climb from poverty to prevent the spawn of terrorism, and averts the potential costs and
disaster responses from climate change.

Page | 38
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Economy - Solvency


SBSP Increase US economy
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP appears to have significant growth potential in the long run, and a national investment in
SBSP may return many times its value. Most of America’s spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP,
however, may create new markets and the need for new products that will provide many new, high‐paying technical jobs and net
significant tax revenues. Great powers have historically succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not just to sell to
themselves, but to others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of dollars. The energy market is trillions of dollars, and
there are many billions of people in the developing world that have yet to connect to the various global markets. Such a large export
market could generate substantial new wealth for our nation and our world. Investments to mature SBSP are similarly likely to have
significant economic spin‐offs, each with their own independent revenue stream, and open up or enable other new industries such as
space industrial processes, space tourism, enhanced telecommunications, and use of off‐world resources. Not all of the returns may be
obvious. SBSP is a both infrastructure and a global utility.

Advantage – Economy - Solvency


SBSP boosts economy by privatizing most functions

National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007


(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

Private industry participation: With the exception of specific safety and legal functions, private industry will be used to develop,
produce, construct, field, and operate the infrastructure. Competitive contracting and redundant infrastructure capabilities, needed for
assured space access and national freedom of space operations, will be used to maximize private industry participation by small,
medium, and large companies. SLIC, through competitive contracting, will aim to maximize the growth of American space
operational mastery within American private industry so as to establish the foundation of technical expertise and industrial capability
needed to fully exploit the new spacefaring logistics infrastructure and promote future space enterprises. Private industry will be
encouraged to commercially exploit the newly acquired technical expertise and industrial capabilities to bring new space products and
services to the marketplace to replace and extend the initial spacefaring logistics infrastructure capabilities. D - 8 As part of
operational support contracts for government owned facilities and systems, private industry will be required to ensure that a specified
percentage of the operational personnel are military reserve personnel to enable, should circumstances warrant, operation of the
infrastructure under direct military control. As part of participation in the development and production of the spacefaring logistics
infrastructure systems, private industry will be required to participate in programs that encourage and foster the development of the
future American aerospace workforce.

Page | 39
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Hegemony - Uniqueness


The U.S. military is faltering; we are losing our military supremacy
Leon E. Panetta, a former White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton, July 8, 2007, “An Empire In Decline?” Monterey County Herald
(California), lexis

Nearly six years after Sept. 11, the strength of America's "hard power" to deal with crisis is being called into question. With too few
troops and allies, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the Pentagon's resources to the breaking point and raised the specter
of possible failure in both conflicts. An Army designed to have 17 brigades on active deployment now has 25 in the field. And the
military faces a difficult decision on whether to extend combat duty to 18 months or start bringing forces back home. There is the
emergence of China as a rival embryonic superpower with an economy that some say will soon be bigger than America's. Russia is
becoming a more bellicose and unpredictable power with large gas and oil reserves. Nuclear weapons are spreading among rogue
nations like North Korea and Iran. The Middle East is in turmoil, with the Arab world having dismissed America's democratization
project. Europe and many of our traditional allies question President Bush's leadership and policies. In Latin and Central America,
there is a growing danger that leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela are now critical of Yankee capitalism in our own backyard.

Advantage - Hegemony - UK Getting SPS


SPS tech available and commercial SPS wil generate electricity to UK by 2012
Bloom, 2007
(James, BusinessGreen, 07 Nov 2007 www.vnunet.com/business-green/analysis/2202907 )

It might be easy to dismiss as a sci-fi fantasy, but a recently published Pentagon report claims that beaming solar power from orbiting
satellites to the earth could soon become commercially viable. The National Security Space Office (NSSO) predicts such a service will
be in operation between 2017 and 2020. The spacecraft, the report argues, would be equipped with a microwave or laser beam, which
could supply energy to remote locations facing high costs to generate or import electricity. However, despite the fact an array of solar
panels in geo-stationary orbit would be exposed to roughly eight times as much sunlight as it would on the ground, the orbiting array
would still need to measure one and a half square miles across to generate 1 gigawatt continuously, the capacity of a traditional power
station. Consequently, Lt. Col. Damphousse of the NSSO believes that the technology remains some way off large scale commercial
viability. "As of today we cannot close the business case," he says, but quickly adds that that could soon change. "The price of oil is
going to continue rising," he argues. "If SSP [Space Solar Power] can go through a scaling up process over the next few decades it
could generate ten percent of US baseload power by 2050." But while the Pentagon reckons the technology is decades away from
commercial use there are several private companies aiming to launch a prototype SSP platform within the next two years and one of
these companies, California-based start-up Space Island Group, predicts it will supply space-generated electricity to the UK domestic
market at competitive rates as early as 2012. Advocates of the technology reckon recent advances in ion thrusters and thin-film solar
cells have made such a prototype project viable today. Wireless energy transmission over distances of up to one mile has been
successfully demonstrated since the 1970's, and some experts argue that subsequent improvements in transmission efficiency mean it
would be perfectly feasible to beam power down from orbital solar power stations.

Advantage – Hegemony – Japan Getting SPS


Japan began testing on SPS this year

Nillay Patel, Feb 8 2008, "Japan's space agency planning on space-based solar power arrays" Engadget

We've seen some pretty out there solar installations, but JAXA, the Japanese space agency, is about to get really far out with its latest
project: a space-based solar array that beams power back to Earth. The agency is set to begin testing on the microwave power
transmission system on February 20th, with an attempt to beam enough power over the 2.4GHz band to power a household heater at
50 meters (164 feet). That's certainly not the sort of large-scale sci-fi power system we were hoping for, but fret not -- if the tests are
successful, JAXA's plan is to eventually launch a constellation of solar satellites, each beaming power to a 1.8-mile wide receiving
station that'll produce 1 gigawatt of electricity and power 500,000 homes.

Page | 40
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Advantage – Hegemony - India and China Racing
Page, Jeremy June 20, 2008, Times Online, India takes on old rival China in new Asian space race Jeremy Page

The world’s two most populous countries — and biggest emerging economies — have fought one war on land and are rapidly
modernising their air, naval and nuclear forces in case of another. Now India and China are taking their rivalry into orbit, with Delhi
determined to catch up with Beijing in what is starting to look like an Asian version of the Cold War “space sace”. General Deepak
Kapoor, India’s Chief of Army Staff, has spoken publicly for the first time of his fears about China’s military space programme and
the need for India to accelerate its own. “The Chinese space programme is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive
and defensive content,” he told a conference attended by India’s military Describing space as “the ultimate high ground”, he called for
the establishment of an interservices space command to supervise surveillance, reconnaissance and rapid response. It was a rare
example of a top Indian official — military or civilian — speaking openly about India’s usually secret military space programme and
about its strategic rivalry with China. India and China enjoyed close ties in the 1950s but fell out when Delhi gave refuge to the Dalai
Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, in 1959. The two countries then fought a brief but bloody border war in 1962. top brass this week. “The
Indian Army’s agenda for exploitation of space will have to evolve dynamically. It should be our endeavour to optimise space
applications for military purposes.” China mad at US space weapon development Randerson, James (deputy news editor with New
Scientist magazine and has a PhD in evolutionary genetics) and Tran, Mark (correspondent for the Guardian in Washington (1984-
1990) and New York (1990-1999), Feb 21, 2008. The Gaurdian China today accused Washington of double standards after the US
navy fired a missile to destroy a failed satellite 150 miles above the Pacific. Beijing - which was criticised by the US and others when
it shot down one of its own satellites last year - turned the tables on the Bush administration after the satellite was shot down today.
"The United States, the world's top space power, has often accused other countries of vigorously developing military space
technology," the People's Daily, the ruling Communist party's newspaper, said. "But faced with the Chinese-Russian proposal to
restrict space armaments, it runs in fear from what it claimed to love." Earlier this month, Russia and China proposed a treaty to ban
weapons in space and the use or threat of force against satellites and other spacecraft. Washington rejected the proposal as
unworkable, saying it favoured confidence-building efforts, US reports said. At a regular news conference, the Chinese foreign
ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, said: "The Chinese side is continuing to closely follow the US action, which may influence the
security of outer space and may harm other countries."

Advantage – Hegemony - China Leads Space Race


America losing the lead in space to China

Free Internet Press 7/9/2008 "U.S. Dominance In Space Slips As Other Nations Explore"

China plans to conduct its first spacewalk in October. The European Space Agency (ESA) is building a roving robot to land on Mars.
India recently launched a record 10 satellites into space on a single rocket. Space, like Earth below, is globalizing, and as it does,
America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing "the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts
believe. Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields - and owns half the military satellites currently
orbiting Earth - experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial
space capabilities at a far faster pace. "We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead
in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency's budget is down by 20 percent
in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992. "We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not ... chosen to invest at
a level that would preserve that commanding lead."

Page | 41
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Hegemony – China Getting SPS


China can is going to implement an SPS
Space Island Group 2006 "Clean Energy, Cheap Hydrogen, and Weather Control From Space",
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/solarsat.html)

China has signed agreements totaling over $100 billion with oil-producing and coal-producing nations around the world to supply its
energy needs over the next 20-30 years. The Space Island Group believes that China may be the first nation on Earth to purchase clean
electrical power from solar satellites during the next decade, and that other Kyoto nations will follow their example. It’s very likely
that signed contracts for this power can be applied to Kyoto reduction goals long before 2012. If China signs first, it’s likely that the
U.S. will follow their lead. The electricity costs will be lower than today’s, the pollution cuts will be higher than Kyoto would have
required, and American’s ability to begin eliminating Middle East oil imports will be an enormous attraction. If the National Weather
Service’s storm cycle predictions are accurate, the U.S. government and state governments could save tens of billions of dollars
annually through prevention of hurricane and flood damage

Advantage – Hegemony – China Leads Space Race


China to be leader in space within next 5 years

Rui C. Barbosa, 5/16/2007 "The space power that rises in the East - China's five year plan" NASAspaceflight.com This is an important
part of the new five year plan that will see China promoting 'the industrialization of space technologies and attach great importance to
the development of telecommunication, navigation and remote sensing satellites,' according Vice Premier Zeng, as quoted by the
Xinhua news agency.

'Space technologies should support and push China's economy and provide stable, continuous and high-quality services for
telecommunication, weather forecasting and maritime investigation, among others.' Next year, Chinese yuangyuans are going to return
to space aboard Shenzhou-7. This three person mission will see the first spacewalk by Chinese astronauts and should mark a new
phase in Chinese manned spaceflight. Also, after Shenzhou-7, it is expected that the docking between to Shenzhou spacecrafts or
between a Shenzhou and a Shenzhou orbital module - will occur. The Chinese plans for lunar exploration will advance with the launch
of Chang'e-1 in September, via a CZ-3A rocket. This should be the first of a series of lunar missions. Cheng'e-1 will orbit the Moon
for a full year to test the technology future missions and to study the lunar environment and it's surface. China is also planning a lunar
rover, to be launched 2012. The Chinese lunar plans are effectively divided in three stages: 2007 - orbiting the Moon; 2012 -
unmanned vehicle on the lunar surface; and 2017 - unmanned lunar landing with collection of soil samples. For years the Chinese
have been talking of a space station - however, for that they'll need a new launch vehicle. This new launch vehicle is now one of the
priorities of the new five-year plan. The CZ-5 Chang Zheng-5 launch vehicle family will be able to loft large payloads to low Earth
orbit and to geosynchronous orbit. Original plans for the first launch claimed this would take place in 2008. It now appears that the
project will see its first launch in 2012. Meanwhile, China has been using its space assets to modernize is agriculture with better
planning, via high-resolution Earth observation platforms in orbit. Space is now a common element in Chinese every day life. The use
and development of telecommunication, navigation and remote sensing satellites, plays an important role in modern China. To the
West, the space power that rises in the East can sometimes be a source of threat to its security. Many saw on the recent anti-satellite
test a sign of a threat that silently rises. Despite being a secretive State, the Chinese have made it no secret that they intend to take the
leadership role in the 21st century space exploration drive - and this is something that the old space powers can't neglect.

Page | 42
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Hegemony – China Leads Space Race


China developing space programs
Leonard David 3/6/2008 (Special Correspondent) "Pentagon Report: China's Growing Military Space Power" SPACE.com posted: 6
March 2008http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ 080305-china-2008-report.html

A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi-dimensional program to
limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict. Furthermore, last year's
successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds,
underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space
domains. Although China's commercial space program has utility for non-military research, that capability demonstrates space launch
and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon —
is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad
implications for military counterspace operations."

Advantage - Hegemony – Solvency


SBSP significantly strengthens U.S. military capabilities.

National Security Space Office, 2007


(“Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment [The National Security Space Office (NSSO) was established in May 2004. We were formed by combining the National
Security Space Architect (NSSA), the National Security Space Integration (NSSI) office, and the Transformational Communications
Office (TCO). The NSSO facilitates the integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities.
We are the only office specifically focused on cross-space enterprise issues and we provide direct support to the Air Force, National
Reconnaissance Office, other Services and Agencies, Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, White House, and Congress, as well as other national security space stakeholders.]

For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from spacein quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential to be a disruptive game changer
on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on
demand” for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over-land
fuel deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra long-endurance airborne or
terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely, SBSP could provide the ability to
deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation-building activities.
SBSP could also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable ground-
based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American and allied defense establishments remain relevantover the entire
21st Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to
energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically secure energy supply.

Page | 43
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Hegemony - Solvency


The United States would gain soft power with space based solar power
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment. 10 October 2007. "Space‐Based Solar Power As an
Opportunity for Strategic Security" (accessed July 7th, 2008. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-
release-01.pdf)

There seems to be significant global interest in promoting the peaceful use of space, sustainable development, and carbon neutral
energy sources, indicating that perhaps an open avenue exists for the United States to exercise “soft power” via the development of
SBSP. That there are no show‐stoppers should in no way imply that an adequate or supportive regime is in place. Such a regime must
address liability, indemnity, licensing, tech transfer, frequency allocations, orbital slot assignment, assembly and parking orbits, and
transit corridors. These will likely involve significant increases in Space Situational Awareness, data‐sharing, Space Traffic Control,
and might include some significant similarities to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) role for facilitating safe
international air travel. Very likely the construction of a truly adequate regime will take as long as the satellite technology
development itself, and so consideration must be given to beginning work on the construction of such a framework immediately.

Advantage – Hegemony - Solvency


Space Based Solar Power would make the U.S. the leader of the future

Hedman. February 4, 2008. (Eric R. Chief technology officer of Logic Design Corporation. Accessed July 9th, 2008.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1050/1)

When the US committed to landing a man on the Moon by the end of the sixties, it led to great improvements in education and built
the foundation for our current level of technological development. It’s time for our political leadership to grab hold of a vision to lead
us into the future. There is hope that technology can help lift us out of what seems like an endless stream of problems. Developing
space-based solar power and a lower cost reusable launch system could spawn a whole series of technological innovations and entirely
new industries. The SPBS report points out that eventually it may be more cost effective to build solar power satellites from lunar
materials requiring an infrastructure throughout cislunar space. It may be prudent to wait for the results of a project to test the
feasibility of solar power satellites before committing to developing a fully reusable launch system. But when one is eventually built, I
believe it will open up other markets, including tourism as well as others we have yet to imagine. I believe that if we build it, they will
come. I also believe that space-based solar power is worth looking into to see if it could be one answer—of possibly several—to our
energy and trade deficit problems.

Advantage – Hegemony – Tech Key


Technological innovations are key to U.S. military supremacy.
Joshua Muravchik,1996, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, PhD at Georgetown “The Imperative of American
Leadership: A Challenge to Neo-Isolationism,” p.148

Technology. Another consideration is the extremely rapid evolution of military technology . With 1.4 million men and women under
arms, American forces are much smaller than Russia's or China's and scarcely bigger than India's or North Korea's.47 Our military
supremacy depends on staying ahead of the pack in military technology. Maintaining superiority will require diligence and foresight
and generous funding for research and development.

Page | 44
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Hegemony – AT Counterbalancing


U.S. hegemony discourages counterbalancing.
Brooks & Wohlforth 2K2 (Stephen & William, assistant & Associate Professors, Department of Government at Dartmouth, “American
Primacy in Perspective”, Foreign Affairs, July/Aug 2002, lexis )

These are not just facts about the current system; they are recognized as such by the major players involved. As a result, no global
challenge to the United States is likely to emerge for the foreseeable future. No country,or group of countries,wants to maneuver itself
into a situation in which it will have to contend with the focused enmity of the United States. Two of the prime causes of past great-
power conflicts -- hegemonic rivalry and misperception -- are thus not currently operative in world politics. At the dawn of the
twentieth century, a militarily powerful Germany challenged the United Kingdom's claim to leadership. The result was World War I. In
the middle of the twentieth century, American leadership seemed under challenge by a militarily and ideologically strong Soviet
Union. The result was the Cold War. U.S. dominance today militates against a comparable challenge, however, and hence against a
comparable global conflict. Because the United States is too powerful to balance, moreover, there is far less danger of war emerging
from the misperceptions, miscalculations, arms races, and so forth that have traditionally plagued balancing attempts.Pundits often
lament the absence of a post -- Cold War Bismarck. Luckily, as long as unipolarity lasts, there is no need for one.

Advantage – Hegemony – AT Counterbalancing


There is no motivation for counterbalancing.

Kupchan 1999 (Charles A, Professor of International Relations at Georgetown, “Life After Pax Americana”, World Policy Journal,
Fall, lexis)

In contrast to this historical pattern, neither the diffusion of power nor balancing against the United States will be important factors
driving the coming transition in the international system. It will be decades before any single state can match the United States in
terms of either economic or military capability. Current power asymmetries are extreme by historical standards. The United States
spends more on defense than all other great powers combined and more on defense research and development than the rest of the
world combined. Its gross economic output dwarfs that of most other countries and its expenditure on R&D points to a growing
qualitative edge in a global economy increasingly dominated by high-technology sectors.(n2) Nor is balancing against American
power likely to provoke a countervailing coalition.The United States is separated from both Europe and Asia by large expanses of
water, making American power less threatening. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine that the United States would engage in behavior
sufficiently aggressive to provoke opposing alliances. Even in the wake of NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia, U.S. forces are
for the most part welcomed by local powers in Europe and East Asia. Despite sporadic comments from French, Russian, and Chinese
officials about America's overbearing behavior, the United States is generally viewed as a benign power, not as a predatory
hegemon.(n3)

Advantage – Hegemony - Solves Terrorism


Hegemony solves terrorism
Schmitt – 2006
( Resident scholar and director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies at the American Enterprise Institute – 2006 [Gary, “Is
there any alternative to U.S. primacy?” The Weekly Standard, Books & Arts, Vol. 11 No. 22, February, Lexis] )

The core argument itself is not new: The United States and the West face a new threat--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of
terrorists--and, whether we like it or not, no power other than the United States has the capacity, or can provide the decisive
leadership, required to handle this and other critical global security issues. Certainly not the United Nations or, anytime soon, the
European Union. In the absence of American primacy, the international order would quickly return to disorder. Indeed, whatever
legitimate concerns people may have about the fact of America's primacy, the downsides of not asserting that primacy are, according
to The American Era, potentially far more serious.The critics "tend to dwell disproportionately on problems in the exercise of

Page | 45
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
[American] power rather than on the dire consequences of retreat from an activist foreign policy," Lieber writes. They forget "what
can happen in the absence of such power."

Advantage – Hegemony – Indo Pak / Taiwan War Impact


US space leadership solves India Pakistan and Taiwan war
Miller 2002
[John, “Our next manifest destiny”, National Review, July 15, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...54/ai_87869078]

With the right mix of intellectual firepower and political muscle, the United States could achieve what Dolman calls "hegemonic
control" of space. The goal would be to make the heavens safe for capitalism and science while also protecting the national security of
the United States. "Only those spacecraft that provide advance notice of their mission and flight plan would be permitted in space,"
writes Dolman. Anything else would be shot down. That may sound like 21st-century imperialism, which, in essence, it would be. But
is that so bad? Imagine that the United States currently maintained a battery of space-based lasers. India and Pakistan could inch
toward nuclear war over Kashmir, only to be told that any attempt by either side to launch a missile would result in a boost-phase blast
from outer space. Without taking sides, the United States would immediately defuse a tense situation and keep the skies above
Bombay and Karachi free of mushroom clouds. Moreover, Israel would receive protection from Iran and Iraq, Taiwan from China, and
Japan and South Korea from the mad dictator north of the DMZ. The United States would be covered as well, able not merely to deter
aggression, but also to defend against it.

Advantage – Hegemony – Indo Pak Escalation


Space Warfare Between India and Pakistan Would Quickly Escalate into all out Nuclear Conflict

Lewis, Jeffrey. What if Space Were Weaponized? Possible Consequences for Crisis Scenarios. Washington, D.C.: Center for Defense
Information, July 2004. [ 16 quotes ] [ page 31 ]

Perhaps more importantly, the risk of Pakistani ASAT attacks would create the same escalatory incentives for India that the United
States faces in the second scenario. U.S. war games suggest that future conflicts in South Asia may not be very stable. A contractor
who has conduct more than two dozen war games for the Pentagon and other military-planning centers told the Wall Street Journal
that the India-Pakistan scenarios usually escalate to the use of nuclear weapons "within the first 12 'days' of the war game." "It's a
scary scenario," said one participant. Anti-satellite weapons would reinforce the strong escalatory dynamic that many war games have
revealed. For example, war games that quickly escalate to nuclear use are often restarted to allow the Indian side to reconsider some of
the moves that lead to Pakistani escalation. The Indian side, however, generally learns the opposite lesson and attempts a "lighting
strike" to destroy the Pakistani nuclear stockpile. When asked if the Indian Armed Force could really execute a preemptive strategy,
one participant noted, "Probably not, but they believe they could."

Advantage – Hegemony – Taiwan Strait Impact


Chinese Counterspace Preparations to Deter U.S. Involvements in Taiwan Strait Scenario and U.S.
Countermeasures Risk Crisis Escalation and Miscalculation

Tellis, Ashley J. Punching the U.S. Military's "Soft Ribs": China's Anti-Satellite Weapon Test in Strategic Perspective. Washington,
D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 2007. [ 15 quotes ] [ page 7 ]

Third, the growing Chinese capability for space warfare implies that a major conflict in the Taiwan Strait would entail serious
deterrence and crisis instabilities.If such a clash were to compel Beijing to attack U.S. space systems—primarily intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance, military communications, navigation and guidance, and meteorology assets— right at the beginning
of a war to increase China’s chances of achieving its objectives, the very prospect of such a “Space Pearl Harbor” could, in turn,
provoke the United States to contemplate preemptive attacks or horizontal escalation on the Chinese mainland, particularly if such a
conflict were to occur before Washington had the opportunity to fully invest in survivable space capabilities. Already, U.S. Strategic
Command officials have publicly signaled that conventionally-armed Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles would be
appropriate weapons for executing the prompt strikes that might be necessary in such a contingency. These types of attacks on space

Page | 46
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
launch sites, sensor nodes, and command- and-control installations on the Chinese mainland could well be perceived as precursors to
an all-out war. This indicates how difficult it would be for all sides to limit the intensification of such a conflict, even if one discounts
the complications of accidents and misperception.

Advantage - Hegemony – China Nuke War Impact


If China wins the space race then they would attack Taiwan resulting in nuclear war

Broad, 2007
(WILLIAM J., “Look Up! It's No Meteor, It's an Arms Race”, New York Times, Section 4; Column 1; Week in Review Desk; THE
WORLD; Pg. 3, LN)

A Heritage Foundation analysis of such diplomacy says China is charging ahead to build space arms while ''seeking to block the
United States from developing its own anti-satellite weapons and space-based ballistic missile defense systems.'' China's strategy, the
analysis says, is clear: ''Work on public opinion in the United States to make moral arguments against weapons in space, develop
international coalitions to limit the way that the United States can use space, and develop China's own weapons systems and tactics to
destroy American satellites and space-based weapons.'' But Theresa Hitchens, a critic of the administration's space arms research who
is director of the Center for Defense Information, a private group in Washington that tracks military programs, said that China's
antisatellite test might be ''a shot across the bow'' meant to prod the Bush administration into serious negotiations. In the test, a
Chinese missile pulverized an aging Chinese weather satellite more than 500 miles above Earth on Jan. 11. Ms. Hitchens warned that
an arms race in space could easily spin out of control, noting that India has been ''rattling its sword'' and some experts in that country
are openly calling for antisatellite arms. A global competition that produced armadas of space weapons, she added, could raise the risk
of accidental nuclear war if, for instance, a whirling piece of space junk knocked out a spy satellite. ''How do you know it's not a
precursor to a nuclear attack?'' she asked. ''Do you have an itchy trigger finger? If you've got a lot of satellites out there, you probably
do.'' The Bush administration has conducted secret research that critics say could produce a powerful ground-based laser meant to
shatter enemy satellites. The project, parts of which were made public through Air Force budget documents submitted to Congress last
year, appears to be part of a wide-ranging administration effort to develop space weapons, both defensive and offensive. John E. Pike,
who is the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a group in Washington that conducts research on military and space topics, said that treaties
and defensive measures were the smart, cheap way to counter antisatellite threats, and that the star warriors in the wake of the Chinese
tests were playing a false card. ''They're trying to piggyback on a totally unrelated topic,'' he said. ''This says nothing about space-
based weapons, star wars or any of that.'' But a report, ''Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the 21st Century,'' researched by
a group of organizations that focus on national security issues and published late last year by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis,
called the military development of the high frontier vital to the nation's protection from a wide variety of threats -- including Chinese
arms. ''Without the means to dissuade, deter and defeat the growing number of strategic adversaries now arrayed against it,'' the group
warned, ''the United States will be unable to maintain its status of global leadership.''

Page | 47
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Hegemony - Impact


Without U.S. Hegemony, there will be an apolar dark age of economic meltdown, terrorism, regional
nuclear wars, and anarchic destruction.
Ferguson 2004
(Niall Professor of History at New York University, Foreign Policy, July / August, date accessed 7/24/2006)

So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age
experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would
be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous-roughly 20 times
more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now
human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite.
Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades,
globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital-has raised living standards throughout the world,
except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization--which a
new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to
protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less
hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists'
infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An
economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined
previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of
default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of
the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease,
terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations
frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions,
beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly
poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and
malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these
continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar
world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global
hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend
that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish
for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far more
dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.

Page | 48
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Hegemony - Impact


Nuclear war will result if US loses hegemonic position
Robert Kagan, July 19, 2007
“End of Dreams, Return of History”, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic
fellow at the German Marshall Fund, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...of_histor.html

The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-
Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power,
influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its global
predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other
nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but
often throughconfrontation andwars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness.One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is
that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make
them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of
stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such
that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to
be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even
when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world,
however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict
between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other
major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the
goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes
its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to
reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however
distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a
genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war.People who believe greater equality
among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the
order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was
diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that 's not the way it works. International order
does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the
distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power,
a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order,
with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that
international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of
enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no
guarantee against major conflict among the world 's great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving
the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could
erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the
consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or
other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be
unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or
withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially truein East Asia,where most nations agree that a reliable
American power has a stabilizingand pacificeffect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. But even
China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American
withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the
scene -- even if it remained the world's most powerful nation --could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even
moreoverbearing and potentiallyforceful approach tounruly nations on its periphery.Although some realist theorists seem to imagine
that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to
the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even
without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore
balancing" -- this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw
the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American
position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital

Page | 49
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it
unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would
a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle
East, obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American
commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the
region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would
simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has
ragedfor at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't change this. It only adds a new and more threatening
dimension to the competition, whichneither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate
American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is
further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak.A diminution of American influence would not be
followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to
secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the
vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the
Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not
return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United
States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional
stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist
movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of
American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.

Advantage – Space Exploration - Uniqueness


US ban on tech sales hampered space development
Free Internet Press 7/9/2008 "U.S. Dominance In Space Slips As Other Nations Explore"

Concerned about Chinese use of space technology for military purposes, Congress ramped up restrictions on rocket and satellite sales,
and placed them under the cumbersome International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In addition, sales of potentially "dual use"
technology have to be approved the State Department rather than the Commerce Department. The result has been a surge of rocket and
satellite production abroad and the creation of foreign-made satellites that use only homegrown components to avoid complex U.S.
restrictions under ITAR and the Iran Nonproliferation Act. That law, passed in 2000, tightened a ban on direct or indirect sales of
advanced technology to Iran (especially by Russia). As a result, a number of foreign governments are buying European satellites and
paying the Chinese, Indian and other space programs to launch them. "Some of these companies moved ahead in some areas where,
I'm sorry to say, we are no longer the world leaders," said Griffin. Joan Johnson-Freese, a space and national security expert at the
Naval War College in Rhode Island, said the United States has been so determined to maintain military space dominance that it is
losing ground in commercial space uses and space exploration. "We're giving up our civilian space leadership, which many of us think
will have huge strategic implications," she said. "Other nations are falling over each other to work together in space; they want to
share the costs and the risks," she added. "Because of the dual-use issue, we really don't want to globalize."

Advantage - Hegemony – AT Space Treaties


International treaties will not prevent a race to space
Randerson, James (deputy news editor with New Scientist magazine and has a PhD in evolutionary genetics) and Tran, Mark
(correspondent for the Guardian in Washington (1984-1990) and New York (1990-1999), Feb 21, 2008. The Gaurdian

Most debris should re-enter the atmosphere within 48 hours, and the remaining pieces will leave orbit within 40 days. Scientists and
groups opposed to the militarisation of space backed China's criticism of the US exercise. Professor Michio Kaku, the distinguished
physicist and author of Physics of the Impossible, said: "With a certain amount of justification, the Chinese claim there is a double
standard … this latest move can be seen as provocative, since the US has refused to renegotiate and strengthen the 1987 outer space
treaty. "What is needed is a comprehensive ban on the militarisation of outer space … arming the heavens will only put us one step
closer to a disastrous war in space that no one can win."

Page | 50
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Advantage – Space Exploration - Solvency
Solar Power Satellites are the door that leads to space colonization
Yager , 2002
(Yager , Bryan [Industrial Technology Instructor ] "Space Settlements: A Design Study",
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/, July 10, 2002 ,
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/s.s.doc.html)

An important goal for the design for space colonization is that it be commercially productive to an extent that it can attract capital. It is
rather striking then that the study group has been able to envision only one major economic enterprise sufficiently grand to meet that
goal. No alternative to the manufacture of solar power satellites was conceived, and although their manufacture is likely to be
extremely valuable and attractive to investors on Earth, it is a definite weakness of the design to depend entirely on this one particular
enterprise. A number of valuable smaller scale manufactures has already been mentioned in chapter 2 and, of course, new colonies will
be built, but these do not promise to generate the income necessary to sustain a growing space community.There is some choice
among possible satellite solar power stations (SSPS). Two major design studies have been made, one by Peter Glaser of Arthur D.
Little, Inc. (ref. 25), and the other by Gordon Woodcock of the Boeing Aircraft Corporation (ref. 26). Conceptually they are very
similar, differing chiefly in the means of converting solar power to electricity in space. Woodcock proposes to do this with
conventional turbogenerators operating on a Brayton cycle with helium as the working fluid; Glaser would use very large arrays of
photovoltaic cells to make the conversion directly.There is not a great deal to argue for the choice of one system rather than the other,
except perhaps that the turbogenerator technology proposed by Woodcock is current, while Glaser relies on projections of present day
photovoltaic technology for his designs. In the spirit of relying on current technology, the Woodcock design seems preferable, but a
definite choice between the two is not necessary at this time. A more detailed description of the SSPS alternatives with a discussion of
microwave transmission and its possible environmental impact is given in appendix H.

Advantage - Space Exploration - Solvency


SSP Can Be Used To Observe Deep Space
Mankins, 1997
(John,Former Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight,Nasa ,HDG,Space Future: A Fresh Look at Space Solar
Power: New Architectures, Concepts and Technologies,http://spacefuture.com/archive/
a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml)

SSP systems may be applied for very large space observatories based in a solar orbit several times farther from the sun that the Earth
is which are capable of finding and studying Earth-like planets around near-by stars deep space (this is the so-classed "Planet-Finder"
science mission concept). Another application is in integrated radar and/or high-rate communications for science missions to the
asteroids, comets, or other small solar system bodies.

Advantage - Space Exploration - Solvency


SSP Will Allow High Energy Requirement Commercial Geostationary Sattellites

Mankins, 1997
(John,Former Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight,Nasa ,HDG,Space Future: A Fresh Look at Space Solar
Power: New Architectures, Concepts and Technologies,http://spacefuture.com/archive/
a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml)

Various commercial applications can be identified. SEPS stages for commercial GEO satellites may be developed. Also, high levels of
on-board power for these satellites may be of interest. Finally, affordable power for farther-term future space business parks could be
readily developed from space solar power systems.

Page | 51
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Advantage – Space Exploration - Solvency
DOD should do SSP - technological spinoffs make SSP economically viable!
National Space Security Office Spring 2008
Space-Based Solar Power Study Group “Solar power from space can help keep the peace on Earth” AdAstra The national Space
Society Magazine

Because the NRC had already verifiedNASA’s “Fresh Look Study” conclusion thatSSP was not science fiction but insteadjust a very
massive engineering challengeto solve, the Caballeros focused on how todemonstrate that SSP could in fact be economicallyfeasible.
While DOE and NASA had previously failed to close the SSP business case by examining energy as the only delivered revenue
stream, DoD has a voracious demand for many different capabilities beyond just energy. These capabilities include command and
control, persistent surveillance, operationally-responsive space access, space control, orbital debris removal, and in-space construction
and maintenance of large structures.Recognizing that technical advances are occurring exponentially around the globe, and that history
has shown time and again that deliberate and sustained innovation is the engine that drives true economic and political power, the
“Eureka!” moment came with the realization that all of the previous business case analyses failed to include the economic and national
security benefits of sure spin-off technologies and ancillary capabilities associated with deployment of a major SSP system.This list
included not only the capabilities previouslydescribed, but also space infrastructure,low-cost reusable space access, orbitalmaneuver
capabilities, broad-area spaceradar surveillance and telecommunication,and space-to-space and ground-to-groundpower beaming. The
ancillary benefit list wasso remarkably large that it became nearly asimportant as the actual energy SSP could provide—no one in the
DoD had ever viewed SSPthrough this lens before.Eager to share their epiphany, the Cabellerosset out to flesh out the SSP-DoD
storyby intensely researching military and dual-useenergy applications for SSP. In addition to making large quantities of orbital power
available for a long list of space applications, the most obvious use of SSP was for military base power. An average requirement of 5-
15 MWof 24/7 baseload electricity could be deliveredinside most base perimeters with a onekm-wide or less rectenna—tremendously
significantfrom a force-protection perspective forminimizing vulnerable external overland linesof fuel and power
transportation.Supporting the individual soldier came next.Today the average GI on the ground consumesthe equivalent of one AA
battery perhour to power his suite of electronic gear. Addto this the proliferation of other remote sensorand electronic equipment. The
logistic supplyrequirement of this reality is enormous andcould be significantly reduced by deliveringlow-intensity, wide-area
broadcast powerWhen someone in the media referred to us as “the Pentagon’s space hippies”I had to laugh. Then again, our message
was getting out. That’s a good thing.You see, last year it was my pleasure to co-lead what I think was the cheapestand possibly the
most influential space study ever done—well, that I’ve everheard of anyway.

Advantage – Space Exploration - Solvency


SBSP Can Provide Cheap Energy For Future Space Missions
Ad Astra:The magazine of The National Space Society, Spring 2008
(Volume 20, Number 1 ,HDG,http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf)

At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in space. More ambitious
missions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence of
new space industries such as space tourism and manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much as
they do on progress in space transportation.

Page | 52
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Space Exploration - Solvency


Development of an SPS system would allow for the advancement of interstellar exploration and planetary
defense
Dickinson. 1997
(Richard M. [BSEE from Auburn University in 1958 and his MSEE from the University of Texas-Austin in 1962. Member of the
Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.] IEEE AES Systems Magazine. "Issues in
Microwave Power Systems Engineering." Accessed July 7th, 2008. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/62/12953/
00587810.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=587810) The concept of using space solar power systems for beaming energy to Earth and
to other spacecraft is getting a fresh look from NASA. This idea, first proposed by Peter Glaser in 1968, was studied extensively
during the next two decades. NASA's recent study reexamining the possibility was followed up by a concept definition study in 1998.)

Other potential uses for space-based lasers are abundant, once the considerations just discussed have been addressed. Interstellar
exploration. Potential interstellar missions involve photon-driven light sails powered by very large, high-power laser beaming systems.
Planetary defense. A phased-array laser beamer also might be used to focus intense power on the surface of potential Earth-impacting
asteroids or comets. This would create jets of heated material having enough mass and velocity to change the object's orbit and cause
it to miss the Earth. Commercial uses. Power from space-based laser "depots" could be used to deliver energy to next-generation
high-power communication satellites and space stations or platforms. These could, in turn, support lunar or planetary bases and, used
with various forms of propulsion, could transport materials from the Moon or asteroids to space-based manufacturing facilities.
Technology and demonstrations. The technologies for all of the elements of a space-based laser power transmission system are
available, including the pilot-beam safety system. What is now needed is a commercial "carrot" to set things in motion -- that is,
ground-based demonstrations and test facilities.

Advantage – Space Exploration - Solvency


Human Space Exploration can be powered via SSP
Mankins, 1997
(John,Former Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight,Nasa ,HDG,Space Future: A Fresh Look at Space Solar
Power: New Architectures, Concepts and Technologies,http://spacefuture.com/archive/
a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml)

Lastly, there are a number of potential applications of these technologies in future human exploration missions, including the moon,
Mars and asteroids in the inner solar system. These include: megawatt-class SEPS Lunar cargo space transfer vehicles Lunar orbit
WPT for Lunar s+urface power affordable human Mars mission transportation systems. Of these, the concept of using multi-
megawatt-class space solar power systems to achieve very low cost Mars mission concepts appears to have particular leverage. By
using systems that are amenable to low-cost, multi-unit, modular manufacturing, even though the overall system masses are not lower,
the cost appears to be significantly lower. Example: The "SolarClipper". An especially intriguing opportunity is that of using
affordable megawatt-class space power for interplanetary space missions. It appears to be possible to reduce the cost for Earth surface-
to-Mars orbit transportation dramatically through the use of very advanced, large-scale space solar power in a solar electric propulsion
system (SEPS) approach. The basic architectural strategies of the SolarClipper concept are straightforward: Use low-mass/high-
efficiency space solar energy, rather than nuclear energy, as the basic power system; Modularize transportation systems into packages
of less than 40,000 pounds each to enable launch of all but selected surface systems, with resorting to heavy lift launch vehicles
(HLLVs); Fabricate multiple identical SEPS systems to enable effective mass production at dramatically lower cost per unit weight of
purchased hardware; and, Use "brilliant" systems architectures that can assemble themselves in Earth orbit with little more than
autonomous rendezvous and docking technologies; Exploit the higher fuel efficiency ("specific impulse" of electric propulsion to
offset the mass associated with modularity of systems and interconnections between systems assembled in space. Because the majority
of a mission's mass could be transported to Earth orbit on lower cost vehicles, a substantial savings (perhaps a factor of 2-to-3) in
launch costs might be achieved. Because most system elements are mass-produced, costs per unit weight could be reduced by as much
as a factor of 10. As an added advantage, SolarClipper cargo transfer vehicles can - once they reach Mars orbit - be deployed for use
as operational solar power satellites using wireless power transmission to provide essential energy to surface operations (thus
eliminating the need for Mars surface nuclear reactors). This combination of SEPS for Earth-Mars transport, and SPS WPT at Mars,
could make possible non-nuclear exploration architectures (at least within the inner solar system).

Page | 53
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Advantage - Space Exploration - Solvency
SBSP Will Serve As a Catalyst for Space Exploration
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

SBSP cannot be constructed without safe, frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to space and ubiquitous in‐space
operations. The sheer volume and number of flights into space, and the efficiencies reached by those high volumes is game‐changing.
By lowering the cost to orbit so substantially, and by providing safe and routine access, entirely new industries and possibilities open
up. - 12 SBSP and low‐cost, reliable space access are co‐dependent, and advances in either will catalyze development in the other.
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that by providing access to an inexhaustible strategic reservoir.

Advantage – Space Exploration – Space Sails


Jackson June 27 , 08 (Holly Jackson. [News.com intern. Statistician with ATP's Economic Assessment Office (EAO). Bachelor of
Science degree in Mathematics from Salisbury University in Salisbury, MD] " Solar power to set in space" http://news.cnet.com/8301-
10784_3-9979259-7.html. 09 July 2008)

According to a report by NASA Science, the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Ames Research Center have teamed up to make
history, by deploying its first solar sail, the

NanoSail-D. The solar sail, made of aluminum and space-age plastic, has the ability to harness the radiation of the sun for movement.
Since outer space is frictionless, the sail could potentially accelerate forever, traveling much faster and much farther than a rocket
running on fuel. Travel back to Earth would require a turn of the sail. NASA said it means big things for space travel. According to
Sandy Montgomery, the speed of the solar sail would make it feasible for a spacecraft to leave our solar system in a decade, instead of
the 30 years it took for the Voyager missions to get to the edge of the solar system. In theory, rockets would be used for short missions
and sails would be used for longer missions. The NanoSail-D will travel to space onboard the SpaceX Falcon 1 rocket, launching from
the Pacific Ocean as early as July 29. It will be brought on board in a 10-pound suitcase, and if successfully unfurled, it will measure
at 100 square feet.

Advantage - Space Exploration - AT No Tech


Prognosis for space colonization is good

David. February 23, 2005.


(Leonard. [Senior Space Writer]Space.com."Space Colonization: The Quiet Revolution ." Accessed July 10th, 2008.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_colonization_050223.html)

The prognosis for space colonization is good, said Edward McCullough, principal scientist for The Boeing Company in Huntington
Beach, California. He pointed to numbers of technologies that are on exponential growth curves - that is, showing signs of increasing
rapid growth. "During the last half of the 20th century, a host of technologies and disciplines which had witnessed millennia of slow or
no growth...suddenly went exponential," McCullough reported at the STAIF meeting. McCullough pointed to photography, chemistry
and quantum mechanics that have combined to produce a new industrial revolution. Electrical and mechanical engineering are on
courses that appear to indicate unbounded exponential improvement. Delving into the structure of DNA has spurred a better
understanding of the cellular processes. The human genome has been sequenced and micro biomechanics has taken off, he said.
Furthermore, the centuries old technology of printing has been extended to three dimensions with inks of polymers, ceramics, wood
and metals. "These technologies have affected other technologies so that now at the dawn of the 21st century, one technology after
another is assuming an exponential trajectory," McCullough noted. And all this is good news, he suggested, when one speculates on
what these technologies portend for space colonization.

Page | 54
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Advantage - Space Exploration - Impact
Space colonization is key to the future of the human race
Bardi. April 23rd, 2008.
(Jason Socrates. [senior science writer for the Inside Science News Service.] American Institute of Physics. "Stephen Hawking
Renews Call to Colonize Space." Accessed July 10th, 2008. http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2008/012.html)

Famed astronomer and author Stephen Hawking renewed his call for humans to colonize space in the coming centuries and argued
that this long-term strategy should be funded by setting aside a quarter of one percent of global gross domestic product. The United
States' share would amount to about $35 billion a year—approximately twice NASA's current annual budget.Spreading out into space
would have an even greater effect than Christopher Columbus' 1492 voyage, Hawking told an invitation-only crowd packed into a
modern lecture hall on the campus of George Washington University on Monday."It will completely change the future of the human
race and may determine whether we have any future at all," Hawking said through his computer to the several hundred people in
attendance. He suffers from the motor neuron disease ALS and must communicate through a device attached to his wheelchair. "Isn't
our future worth a quarter of a percent?"Hawking delivered the lecture with his daughter Lucy, with whom he has recently written two
children's books on space. The children's books are aimed at interesting the next generation in science, a goal that dovetails with his
call to colonize space. "We live in a society that is increasingly governed by science and technology yet fewer and fewer young people
want to go into science," Hawking said. "A new manned space flight program would do a lot to restore public enthusiasm for space
and for science generally."Not everyone in the scientific community is as enthusiastic as Hawking about spending considerable sums
on the human colonization of space. Some question whether large increases in science funding might not be better spent on programs
here on Earth or on unmanned space missions, which are generally much less expensive and accomplish more scientifically.Hawking
countered these arguments in his lecture by stating that colonizing space is as much about survival as it is about science. "If one is
considering the future of the human race, we have to go there ourselves," he said.

Advantages - Space Exploration - Impact


We must act now and colonize space to preserve humankind
Tierney. July 17th, 2007.
(John. New York Times. "A Survival Imperative for Space Colonization." Accessed July 10th, 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17tier.html?pagewanted=2&ref=science)

Since there’s a 50 percent chance that we’re already in the second half of the space program’s total lifespan, Dr. Gott figures there is a
50 percent chance it will not last more than another 46 years. Maybe the reason civilizations don’t get around to colonizing other
planets is that there’s a narrow window when they have the tools, population and will to do so, and the window usually closes on
them. “In 1970 everyone figured we’d have humans on Mars by now, but we haven’t taken the opportunity,” Dr. Gott says. “We
should it do soon, because colonizing other worlds is our best chance to hedge our bets and improve the survival prospects of our
species. Sooner or later something will get us if we stay on one planet. By the time we’re in trouble and wish we had that colony on
Mars, it may be too late.”

Page | 55
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Space Exploration - Impact


SPS research will help spur new tech that will solve all the worlds problems and may confirm
extraterrestial intelligence----such a project will put space on the political agenda and save humanity
from complete and utter destruction
Glenn & Gordon, 2000
(“VIEWS FROM THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT ON THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY with Implications for Society and the
United Nations System” Jerome C. Glenn and Theodore J. Gordon, Futures. 32.6 (August 2000): 603(10). Expanded Academic ASAP.
Gale. Kansas State University Libraries. 8 July 2008 http://www.unu.edu/millennium/glenn-gordon.pdf. )

The synergies of advanced research in biology and physics necessary for human space flight have generated an extraordinary number
and range of inventions; stimulated thought about the meaning of life, history, and our common future; and created many opportunities
for peaceful international cooperation. Space-related inventions have created new industries, tax sources for social programs,
improved living standards, expanded access to tools by miniaturization, and produced processes that have lowered the costs of many
technologies from satellite communications to medical diagnostic techniques. Some argue that migration from earth is inevitable; it is
in the myths of many cultures; it is an exciting goal and could provide alternative habitats as an insurance for the human species
should an earthly catastrophe destroy life on earth. For example, if the trajectory of the comet that crashed into Jupiter in 1994 had
been slightly different, it would have destroyed life on the earth. New space projects could continue to improve our understanding of
the nature of the solar system and the universe; develop completely novel technologies that could contribute to alleviation of some of
the world's most vexing problems (food, shelter, health, etc.); lower costs and increase efficiencies in production processes; accelerate
peaceful international collaboration; provide virtually instant, ubiquitous multicommunications among both fixed and mobile users;
and possibly confirm extraterrestrial intelligence or microbial life (a development that could revolutionize our sciences, values,
philosophies, and views of the universe). Public interest is high. For example, the coverage of the 1997 July 4th Mars rover landing
and surveying was one of the biggest Internet events in history with 700 million hits on NASA's web site over a 2-3 month period. By
the year 2050, the energy demand of a larger and wealthier Third World will require enormous amounts of energy that probably can be
delivered from solar power satellites without generating either greenhouse gases or nuclear wastes. A solar power satellite should be
tested in orbit. This should be the next major goal after the International Space Station (ISS). A study in the mid-1970s assumed that
all materials and components were manufactured on earth and then flown to orbit by a large number of flights by the original space
shuttle. The approach preferred by leading advocates of solar satellites are more cost/effective. They suggest the use of nearby
asteroids and/or lunar material and manufacture and assemble as much as possible in space. An orbital “robot spider” could spin
photovoltaic webs. The US has allocated $25 million to update the previous research on solar power satellites. The graph from Fig. 1,
Consumption of Fossil Fuels over time, by Guy Pignolet, European Space Agency, illustrates that fossil fuel, like the match, has a
short life compared to the past and potential future of humanity. Some Millennium Project participants speculated that space tourism,
driven by global lottery systems, (in addition to communications and energy from space) could provide profit incentives for private
development of space. Would 100,000 people buy a lottery ticket for US$5 to go to space? A flight in a next generation space shuttle
might cost $200,000-500,000 per winner. NASA is leading an international effort, Mission to Planet Earth, now called Earth Science,
to use satellites and ground sources to provide data to create an integrated computer model of the earth from cloud tops to inside the
oceans within four years. Attention to global warming will help put space on the political agenda by drawing attention to the role of
monitoring earth from space. As we realize the fragility of life on earth, the need to have communities off earth as insurance for the
future of humanity will become more apparent.

Page | 56
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Asteroid - Solvency


SBSP can protect earth from comets and asteroids and expand space exploration
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth‐and
space‐based power beaming applications. A truly developed Space‐Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new
exploration and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but
because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, deorbit of
space debris, space to space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far term concepts as a true interstellar probe
such as Dr. Robert Forward’s StarWisp Concept.

Page | 57
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Global Warming - Solvency


Solar Power reduces global warming's effects
Bernadette Del Chiaro. Environment California Research & Policy Center. Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik. Frontier Group. Spring
2008. (Environment America Research & Policy Center. "Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming." Accessed
July 8th, 2008. http://www.environmentamerica.org/ uploads/0f/jZ/0fjZtsJDnQCqGKdr9a7Hjg/On-The-Rise.pdf.)

A 2007 study by the American Solar Energy Society estimated that 30 GW- 80 GW of solar thermal capacity could be installed in the
Southwest by 2030 with strong and consistent public policy support. Developing even this level of CSP—a fraction of the nation’s
ultimate solar thermal potential—would make a rapid and meaningful contribution to the nation’s efforts to reduce global warming
pollution.

Advantage - Global Warming - Solvency


SBSP Only Renewable that can solve Global Warming
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The final global effect is not obvious, but also important. While it may seem intuitively obvious that SBSP introduces heat into the
biosphere by beaming more energy in, the net effect is quite the opposite. All energy put into the electrical grid will eventually be
spent as heat, but the methods of generating electricity are of significant impact for determining which approach produces the least
total global warming effect. Fossil fuel burning emits large amounts of waste heat and greenhouse gases, while terrestrial solar and
wind power also emit significant amounts of waste heat via inefficient conversion. Likewise, SBSP also has solar conversion
inefficiencies that produce waste heat, but the key difference is that the most of this waste heat creation occurs outside the biosphere to
be radiated into space. The losses in the atmosphere are very small, on the order of a couple percent for the wavelengths considered.
Because SBSP is not a greenhouse gas emitter (with the exception of initial manufacturing and launch fuel emissions), it does not
contribute to the trapping action and retention of heat in the biosphere.

Page | 58
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Global Warming - Impact


Rising green house gas emission sending us into an ice age
Bernard J. Eastlund and Lyle M. Jenkins Eastlund, 2003.

Vol. 1-451 Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power’ Scientific Enterprises 151 Ravenhead Houston, TX 77034
Ivleieiikins@e.lrthiin k.net 713-946-0819

3. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT ISSUES The continued extreme use of fossil fuels to meet world energy needs is putting the Earth at
risk for significant climate change [Ref. 21. In an uncontrolled experiment, the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is
apparently affecting the Earth’s climate. Glaciers are receding in all regions. Some sea level rise is being measured by satellite
observations. Severe storms such as hurricanes and tomadoes seem to be getting worse. A greater range of drought and flooding is
occurring in an unpredictable cycle. Although the major consensus of atmospheric scientists affms the potential for significant change,
the initial measurements of change show only a fiaction of the predictions of General Circulation Models. This appears to be the result
of inadequate modeling of feedback cycles since there is no dispute that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at a level that is 30%
greater than it was at the start of the industrial age.

Imbedded ‘in this global warming risk is the potential to flip the climate back into the glacier ages, as often described by Dr. Wallace
Broeker. Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica show that this transition has occurred in the several times in the last 200,000 years.
Analysis indicates that transitions take less than a decade. This rapid change is logical in considering that moving ffom one stable
combination to a new stable configuration is not likely to involve intermediate configurations. The stress on the Earth’s environmental
system may result in changes in the ocean and atmospheric currents that act to distribute heat from the tropics to the higher latitudes.
These changes may very well result in the build up of a vast sheet of ice covering Europe, Canada, and much of the United States. Vol.
1-452 2

Page | 59
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Food Prices - Solvency


SPS Solves the food crisis permanently
Space Island Group 2006
([Private company composed mostly of retired NASA engineers] "Clean Energy, Cheap Hydrogen, and Weather Control From Space",
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/ solarsat.html)

If aimed down on agricultural areas, this continuous sunlight would let crops mature four to-five times faster than normal. (Most
plants experience 80% of their growth from 10 AM to 2 PM, when the sun is directly overhead.) Commercial forests owned by lumber
companies would do the same, eliminating the need to cut old growth stands. Operators of the reflectors could charge farmers a
monthly fee per acre to cover their costs. If aimed down on portions of the eastern Pacific Ocean the extra sunlight could temporarily
raise the temperature of the upper three or four feet of seawater by three or four degrees, increasing evaporation and cloud-generation.
These clouds, carried over the western U.S. by normal jet stream flows a couple of days later, could extinguish the huge forest fires
that plague the region. They could end droughts and reduce the need for more dam and aqueduct construction. In fact the rainwater
produced by solar reflectors and the electricity produced by solar satellites could allow many U.S. dams, and dams around the world,
to eventually be torn down and the rivers allowed to return to their natural state. A variation of the material could allow sunlight to
pass through, reflecting only the warming, infrared portion of sunlight down onto the Earth. These reflectors, spending half their orbit
far “behind” the Earth (from the sun’s point of view), could bounce this warmth onto northern cities in the winter, raising their
nighttime temperatures by several degrees while reducing their heating oil consumption. In extreme cases two or three of them could
be aimed at the same city, keeping the temperature well above freezing. This would dramatically cut the taxpayer cost of clearing
away snow and ice, and reduce the economic losses these areas now suffer. Cities could be charged as little as $2 per month per
resident to cover these costs. The saving in heating costs to residents would be dramatic.

Page | 60
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Terrorism - Solvency


Solar Power Satellites are the perfect form of alternative energy.
Globus, 17 May 2007
Al, writer for space.com "Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy for America and the World?", accessed 9 July 2008.
http://www.space.com/adastra/ 070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html

Suppose I told you that we could build an energy source that: unlike oil, does not generate profits used to support Al Qaeda and
dictatorial regimes. unlike nuclear, does not provide cover for rogue nations to hide development of nuclear weapons. unlike terrestrial
solar and wind, is available 24/7 in huge quantities. unlike oil, gas, ethanol and coal, does not emit greenhouse gasses, warming our
planet and causing severe problems. unlike nuclear, does not provide tremendous opportunities for terrorists. unlike coal and nuclear,
does not require ripping up the Earth. unlike oil, does not lead us to send hundreds of thousands of our finest men and women to war
and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a military presence in the Persian Gulf. The basic idea: build huge satellites in
Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know we can do it, most
satellites are powered by solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been demonstrated with very high efficiency.
We're talking about SSP - solar satellite power.

Page | 61
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Hurricanes – Uniqueness


The frequency of intense hurricanes is increasing exponentially
Sample, 2006
(Ian [Science Correspondent] “Increasing ocean temperatures fuelling more powerful hurricanes, say scientists”, The Guardian,
Tuesday September 12, 2006

Hurricane breeding grounds in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are being warmed by greenhouse gases, raising fears that more intense
and devastating storms will be unleashed on nearby coastlines, scientists warned yesterday. Climate researchers found that emissions
from burning fossil fuels and other industrial activities were to blame for driving temperatures upwards in tropical waters where
hurricanes form. They predict warmer ocean waters will energise hurricanes and make them more powerful. If sea temperatures
continue to rise, scientists fear that category four and five hurricanes, such as Katrina, which battered New Orleans last summer, will
become more commonplace.

Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency


Government should invest in SSP to stop hurricanes and tornadoes
Eastlund, B.J.; Jenkins, L.M., March 8-15, 2003 "Thunderstorm solar power satellite-key to space solar power" Aerospace
Conference, 2003. Proceedings. 2003 IEEE Volume 1, Issue ,

The continued extreme use of fossil fuels to meet world energy needs is putting the Earth at risk for significant climate change. In an
uncontrolled experiment, the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is apparently affecting the Earth's climate. The
global climate is warming and severe storms such as hurricanes and tornadoes seem to be getting worse. Alternatives to fossil fuels
may reduce the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Space Solar Power, from orbiting satellites, provides an option for clean,
renewable energy that will reduce the pressure on the Earth's environmental system. Uncertainty in the cost of commercial power from
space has been the principal issue inhibiting investment support by the power companies. The Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite
(TSPS) is a concept for interacting with thunderstorms to prevent formation of tornadoes. The TSPS can develop and demonstrate the
technology and operations critical to understanding the cost of space solar power. TSPS benefits are saving lives and reducing
property. These benefits are not as sensitive to the system economics as the commercial solar power satellite and can be used to justify
government investment in space solar power. Consequently, there is no direct competition with fossil fuel based power supplies until
SSP technology and operations have been demonstrated. Before weather modification can be safely attempted, the fine structure of
thunderstorms must be simulated and related to tornadogenesis.

Page | 62
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency


Solar Power Satellite should be developed by government for weather control to avoid competition with
f.f. costs

Bernard J. Eastlund and Lyle M. Jenkins Eastlund, 2003.

Vol. 1-451 Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power’ Scientific Enterprises 151 Ravenhead Houston, TX 77034
Ivleieiikins@e.lrthiin k.net 713-946-0819

10. CONCLUSIONS Solar energy, as an alternative to fossil fuel, reduces stress on the Earth’s environmental system. Cost of solar
power, particularly fiom space, is not competitive with current prices of fossil fuels. Collecting the energy in space provides
significant advantages in continuity of supply over terrestrial solar, but there is large initial cost prior to getting a return on the
investment. The “Fresh Look at Space Solar Power’’ study shows that concepts needing less investment in an operational system may
be practical. But significant resources are needed to develop technology and to demonstrate practicality. This is the role proposed for
TSPS. The TSPS concept can save lives and reduce property damage. This gives the government a justification for development of the
system and avoids the issue of competing with the cost of fossil fuels. Control of the weather is a complex issue because there may be
adverse consequences from interacting with the chaotic system that is the earth’s atmosphere. The key to this potential for interaction
is the sensitivity to small perturbations [Ref. 141. This same sensitivity makes prediction of the range of effects a problem. Even so,
the specific phenomena of a tornado vortex could be eliminated with confidence adverse side effects are unlikely. Only about 20% of
the supercell thunderstorms form tornadoes. If that 20% are “normalized” there should be little overall change in the weather. The key
strategy is the early involvement of the commercial energy industry in the concept of Space Solar Power. The development and
operation of TSPS will show the commercial energy industry the capability and cost parameters that can reduce the risk of investment
in space solar power. Implementation of Space Solar Power is a means for reducing the potential of global environmental change.
REFERENCES

Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency


Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellites ability to save human life is an effective incentive for govt
investment

Bernard J. Eastlund and Lyle M. Jenkins Eastlund, 2003.

Vol. 1-451 Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power’ Scientific Enterprises 151 Ravenhead Houston, TX 77034
Ivleieiikins@e.lrthiin k.net 713-946-0819

Abstract-The continued extreme use of fossil fuels to meet world energy needs. is putting the Earth at risk for significant climate
change. In an uncontrolled experiment, the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is apparently affecting the Earth’s
climate. The global climate is warming and severe storms such as hurricanes and tornadoes seem to be getting worse. Alternatives to
fossil fuels may reduce the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Space Solar Power, from orbiting satellites, provides an
option for clean, renewable energy that will reduce the pressure on the Earth’s environmental system. Uncertainty in the cost of
commercial power from space has been the principal issue inhibiting investment support by the power companies. The Thunderstorm
Solar Power Satellite (TSPS) is a concept for interacting with thunderstorms to prevent formation of tornadoes. The TSPS can develop
and demonstrate the technology and operations critical to understanding the cost of space solar power. TSPS benefits are saving lives
and reducing property. These benefits are not as sensitive to the system economics as the commercial solar power satellite and can be
used to justify government investment in space solar power. Consequently, there is no direct competition with fossil fuel based power
supplies until SSP technology and operations have been demonstrated. Before weather modification can be safely attempted, the fine
structure of thunderstorms must be simulated and related to tornadogenesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page | 63
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency


Transition to SPS with weather control satellites will create a carbon free fuel and does not need to be
financially competitive with oil immediately
Bernard J. Eastlund and Lyle M. Jenkins Eastlund, 2003.

Vol. 1-451 Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power’ Scientific Enterprises 151 Ravenhead Houston, TX 77034
Ivleieiikins@e.lrthiin k.net 713-946-0819

The research on understanding the impact of human activities on the global environment is finally influencing decisions by
governments. There is a developing consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is the result of human activities [Ref. 21.
Still there continues to be some uncertainty in the results of the research. The strong commitments needed to counter the buildup of
CO2 in the atmosphere are difficult to obtain. One major obstacle is the relative cost of clean renewable energy generation to the cost
of fossil fuels [Ref. 1 I]. Space Solar Power (SSP) can be considered as a primary base load source of electricity for the power grid.
Also, it could be a source of energy for production of hydrogen, a carbon-free fuel. Major impediments to SSP development are the
expense and technical risk of building the satellite system. This paper proposes the TSPS as a transition program. The primary
function of TSPS would be weather modification to prevent formation of tornadoes. These satellites would generate electricity fkom
solar radiation. They would also be equipped to generate intense, steerable beams of 26 Ghz to 96 Ghz radiation. These beams would
manipulate the fine 0-7803-7651-X/03/$17.00 0 2003 IEEE IEEEAC paper # 131 1, Updated September 19,2002 structure of weather
systems by heating of moisture at strategic locations within the weather systems. When not in use for weather control, the satellites
beam the power to rectennas on earth. Although minimal size to keep implementation costs down, they could contribute to electricity
production. However, their demonstration of technology and operations could be a factor in further investment in space solar power.
Enormous investment at considerable financial risk is needed before the first saleable kilowatt is available to the power grid from a
solar power satellite. Preventing tornadoes with TSPS provides direct beneiits, saving lives and reducing property damage. With social
objectives to draw government support, this concept enables technology and space infrastructure development. Thus, SSP can obtain
an initial development funding without competing directly with the low cost of electricity fiom fossil fuels. This theme of a staged
costhapability development is implicit in this paper.

Advantage - Hurricanes - Solvency


SPS systems can break up large storms such as hurricanes to prevent massive human casualties and
prevent the loss of billions of dollars
Space Island Group 2006
([Private company composed mostly of retired NASA engineers] "Clean Energy, Cheap Hydrogen, and Weather Control From Space",
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/ solarsat.html)

The cover story from the October, 2004 issue of Scientific American magazine described a NASA-funded study of how the power
beams from solar satellites could be used to steer a hurricane away from coastal cities by warming the air on one side or the other of
its path. It also explained how this beam could break up hurricanes, typhoons and even tornadoes by disrupting the delicate heat
balance they need to survive. The article can be seen at: www.scientificamerican.com. The loss of human life (and wildlife) and the
incredible disruptions suffered by millions of evacuees from the Florida hurricanes in 2004 are impossible to measure, but the
insurance losses alone totaled some $25 billion. That was more than they paid out for the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Payouts for uninsured
losses from state and federal agencies plus emergency services and lost business in the region cost another $50 billion. Insurance
losses in Japan, Taiwan and other areas of the world affected by the same worldwide storm pattern totaled another $24 billion, and the
U.S. National Weather Service has announced that 2004 was the first year of a regular 30-year long cycle of increased storm activity
worldwide. The first Space Island solar satellite prototype devoted to hurricane control should be in orbit by about 2012. It will likely
test the storm-control computer models on Pacific hurricanes, which are spawned off the west coast of Mexico. These westbound
storms usually blow themselves out in the Pacific before they reach land, so they offer a safer way to refine this technique in
international waters. Once the operating parameters are set, more advanced solar satellites will orbit over the Atlantic between Florida
and Africa, off the coast of Japan and in other storm areas.

Page | 64
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Advantage - Hurricanes - Impact
Storms kill more people than terrorism
Bernard J. Eastlund and Lyle M. Jenkins Eastlund, 2003.

Vol. 1-451 Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power’ Scientific Enterprises 151 Ravenhead Houston, TX 77034
Ivleieiikins@e.lrthiin k.net 713-946-0819

One aspect of the global environment change projections is the probability of more severe storms due to the enhanced greenhouse
effect. The increased energy trapped in the atmosphere seems to be producing greater incidences of hurricanes and local storms.
Analysis of the occurrence of such events is receiving greater worldwide attention. An example is the comparison of mesocyclones in
the United States and China pef. 31. These strong storms do their worst damage when tornadoes are generated. Tornadogenesis is a
complex process that depends on the interaction between the warm updraft and cold rain downdrafts. Only about 20% of the supercell
thunderstorms produce tornadoes. This low probability of incidence indicates that only a small change in conditions may be able to
“normalize” a thunderstorm. The simulation of tornado formation in a computer program is a significant challenge [Ref. 41. However,
reproducing the formation of tornadoes in the storm cell with computer models is crucial to the evaluation of any intervention concept.
Computer modeling based on the current research, primarily Project Vortex, must define the fine structure of the storm system. This
structure would be modified through selective heating of the cold rain region in analysis by computer programs that synthesize the
formation of tomadoes. Tornadoes kill about 100 persons each year. Property damage is in the billions of dollars. If these statistics are
compared to the casualties fiom terrorism, it appears to be cost effective to prevent tornadoes.

Page | 65
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage – Space Weapons Good - Solvency


SPS systems would allow the military to develop space laser weapons
Dickinson. 1997
(Richard M. [BSEE from Auburn University in 1958 and his MSEE from the University of Texas-Austin in 1962. Member of the
Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.] IEEE AES Systems Magazine. "Issues in
Microwave Power Systems Engineering." Accessed July 7th, 2008. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/62/12953/
00587810.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=587810) The concept of using space solar power systems for beaming energy to Earth and
to other spacecraft is getting a fresh look from NASA. This idea, first proposed by Peter Glaser in 1968, was studied extensively
during the next two decades. NASA's recent study reexamining the possibility was followed up by a concept definition study in 1998.)

A space-based system could achieve greater efficiency if the laser could be pumped directly by solar energy instead of by electricity
derived from photovoltaic arrays. Researchers at the Energy Research Center of Weizmann Institute have built and tested multispectral
solar-pumped lasers with efficiencies up to 30% and power in the kilowatt range. The conversion efficiency in space is estimated at
about 20%, which exceeds the composite efficiency of the solar-to-electric-to-laser concept. Lucent Technologies is rumored to have
achieved 60% conversion efficiency in a solar-pumped green laser. If this break-through is confirmed and can be scaled in power, it
will be a major justification for considering laser rather than microwave power transmission for both space-to-space and space-to-
Earth systems. The Air Force is developing chemical lasers in the megawatt power range for airborne and space-based laser weapons.
Such lasers would not be optimum for electric utility use because they need frequent refueling. But the technologies being developed
in these programs for cooling the high-power mirrors, for building and testing the adaptive optics, and for devising fast, accurate
tracking and acquisition techniques are applicable to laser beam electric utility and transportation applications. And researchers at the
University of Vienna recently designed and tested a 16-element retrodirective optical phased array for space intersatellite-link
communication. This technology is applicable to the laser power beam safety requirement and has only to be scaled in quantity of
elements, their aperture packing, and their power-handling capabilities.

Page | 66
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Space Weapons – No Link


SPS beams can't be used for weapons - energy Beams Don’t Incinerate Cities
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

The physics of electromagnetic energy beamingis uncompromising, and economies of scale make the beam very unsuitable as a
“secret” weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities. The
distance from the geostationary belt is so vast that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration useful for a weapon.
The beam can also be designed in such a manner that it requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak level. Without the
pilot signal the microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional failsafe cut‐off mechanisms. The
likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if occurring would be extremely anti‐climactic.

Page | 67
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Advantage - Robots - Solvency


SSP Can Be Used To Power High Energy Space Robotics
Mankins, 1997
(John,Former Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight,Nasa,HDG,Space Future: A Fresh Look at Space Solar
Power: New Architectures, Concepts and Technologies,http://spacefuture.com/archive/
a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml)

Several space science applications of advanced SSP technologies can be identified. For example, Solar Electric Propulsion System
(SEPS) stages for outer planet robotic science missions, non-RTG/nuclear power for Jupiter robotic science missions (in the 1 kW-
class or more) with the option for high-rate communications. (This approach integrates the power collector and the RF
communications antenna - the so-called a "power antenna" approach created by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.)

Page | 68
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

AT States CP - USFG Key


The US government should provide financial incentives in order to switch to solar powered satellites
Cho, 2007
(Cho, Dan [Director of Dan serves as the executive director of The Veritas Forum and is working to lead the organization in its next
stage of development. Dan's relationship with Veritas dates back to his freshman year at Harvard when he attended the very first
Forum. He has nearly a decade of college ministry experience as staff with Berkland Baptist Church in Cambridge and has also
worked in the development offices of Harvard and MIT. In addition to earning an A.B. from Harvard College in social anthropology,
Dan has also received master's degrees from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School.]
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-beam-solar-power-fromspace.html )

A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report
released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-
power-generating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space-based solar
power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of
microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based
on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions.
The NSSO report (pdf) recommends that the US government spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to build a test satellite capable
of beaming 10 megawatts of electric power down to Earth.

AT States CP - USFG Key


Government funding necessary for SPS
Taylor Dinerman 6/16/08 THE Space Review "Financial risk analysis for the space industry"

All of the above mentioned systems have achieved their success thanks to heavy and sustained investments by governments. This
money was only available because the states involved wanted to be able to independently launch national security payloads into orbit.
As the saying goes, they “bought down the risk.” This has happened in other areas of the space industry. Communications satellites,
for example, were developed and perfected with government funds. Commercial remote sensing satellites were developed with
technology intended for military reconnaissance purposes. Space solar power, if and when it is developed, is likewise going to be
considered a national security space asset, the same way that any major energy source is. Investments by governments intended to buy
down the risk, or to take on some of the commercial risk by agreeing to purchase the power at a fixed price, are made for essentially
strategic reasons. What is often termed “industrial policy” is most often a cover for a military industrial policy. Risk-taking
entrepreneurs and investors are in the business most often for the money, but sometimes just for the glory. Unlike governments, they
assess risk according to formulas and policies that may vary from firm to firm or from individual to individual. First of all, they want
to get their money back. They may realize that in many cases they may lose it all, but this is pretty basic. They want to see that they
have a chance of making a big return: 100% is a minimum for a venture capitalist, who needs a really big payoff on the ones that
succeed since most of his or her investments will fail. For a high-risk business such as the NewSpace industry, the potential returns
have to be on the order of 200 to 300% in order to attract serious venture capital.

Page | 69
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

AT International CP - US Leadership Key


Current Technical Barriers are being overcome, all what is needed is US leadership
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

DoD and other ongoing U.S. Government and international R&D efforts are independently reducing SBSP technical barriers via S & T
development for other goals. However, there is no single entity for identifying and tracking these independent developments for the
sole purpose of SBSP applicability. The SBSP Study Group recommends that the United States should conduct a survey of state of the
art component technologies, identify major types of satellite designs that are feasible to build using known technology, and generate a
roadmap to inform further decisions for rational retirement of risk for full‐sized SBSP systems. Such an effort is likely to cost
approximately $500,000 to $2 million.

Page | 70
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

AT – Terrorism Against SPS


SSP’s would eliminate the ability for terrorists to target energy production and cannot be used as a
weapon
Globus, 2007
(Al, [Al Globus serves on the National Space Society Board of Directors and is a senior research associate for Human Factors
Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center.] Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy
for America and the World?, http://www.space.com/adastra/070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html )

Suppose I told you that we could build an energy source that: unlike oil, does not generate profits used to support Al Qaeda and
dictatorial regimes. unlike nuclear, does not provide cover for rogue nations to hide development of nuclear weapons. unlike
terrestrial solar and wind, is available 24/7 in huge quantities. unlike oil, gas, ethanol and coal, does not emit greenhouse gasses,
warming our planet and causing severe problems. unlike nuclear, does not provide tremendous opportunities for terrorists. unlike
coal and nuclear, does not require ripping up the Earth. unlike oil, does not lead us to send hundreds of thousands of our finest men
and women to war and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a military presence in the Persian Gulf. The basic idea: build
huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know we
can do it, most satellites are powered by solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been demonstrated with very high
efficiency. We're talking about SSP - solar satellite power. SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave beams will
heat the atmosphere slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any kind, and
that's not all. Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The satellites can be built from
lunar materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably the most
environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for everyone, and the sun's energy
will last for billions of years. While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate SSP alone, and SSP is nearly useless to
terrorists. The satellites themselves are too far away to attack, the rectennas are simple, solid metal structures, and there is no
radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind. Access to SSP energy cannot be cut by foreign governments, so America will have no need
to maintain an expensive military presence in oil-rich regions

Page | 71
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

A2-Your satellites will get hit by enemy forces


SPS Safe from Attack, and would decrease resource wars
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

Certainly both the rectenna and satellite are vulnerable to attack, just like every other type of energy infrastructure. However, it takes
significantly more resources and sophistication to attack an asset in geostationary orbit than it does to attack a nuclear power plant, oil
refinery or supertanker on Earth. The satellite is also very large and constructed of a number of similar redundant parts, so the attack
would need to be very precise. An attack on the receiving antenna would probably be the least value‐added attack, since it is a diffuse
and distributed array of identical modular elements that can be quickly repaired while the receiving station continues to operate.
Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity and redundancy of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international

regime where those who are capable of damaging a SBSP system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their
own benefit.

Page | 72
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

AT Politics - Public Supports SPS


The public would support SPS
David, 2008
(“Big Future for Solar Power Satellites”, LEONARD DAVID, Senior Space Writer, 17 October 2001 Space.com, accessed 7 July
2008. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/ solar_power_sats_011017-2.html )

On the other hand, while the willingness of potential customers to adopt a new power technology like SSP is promising, flight testing
the idea would help boost adoption of the in-space energy idea. Early on, supplying power from an SSP could gain greater acceptance
as a supplement, rather than a substitute for, an existing power system on a spacecraft, Macauley and Davis note.

AT Politics - Bi-Partisan Support for SPS


SPS has bipartisan support

Singer, 2007
(“Many people will be interested in Solar Satellite Power. Singer, 11 April 2007 Jeremy, space news staff writer, "Pentagon
Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power " Jeremy Singer, space news staff writer, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/
070411_tech_wed.html)

The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on
foreign energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally friendly source of energy, Kueter said.

Page | 73
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

AT Biomass CP
Biomass contributes just as much to global warming as fossil fuels
ScienceDaily, Mar. 24, 2008
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080323210225.htm, Science Daily.)

Black carbon, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel
exhaust, has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates, according to scientists in an
upcoming review article in the journal Nature Geoscience. Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist
V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael, said that soot and other forms of black carbon could have
as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2. The
researchers also noted, however, that mitigation would have immediate societal benefits in addition to the long term effect of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. "Observationally based studies such as ours are converging on the same large magnitude of black carbon
heating as modeling studies from Stanford, Caltech and NASA," said Ramanathan. "We now have to examine if black carbon is also
having a large role in the retreat of arctic sea ice and Himalayan glaciers as suggested by recent studies." In the paper, Ramanathan
and Carmichael integrated observed data from satellites, aircraft and surface instruments about the warming effect of black carbon and
found that its forcing, or warming effect in the atmosphere, is about 0.9 watts per meter squared. That compares to estimates of
between 0.2 watts per meter squared and 0.4 watts per meter squared that were agreed upon as a consensus estimate in a report
released last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N.-sponsored agency that periodically synthesizes
the body of climate change research.

Page | 74
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Neg - Too expensive


SPS systems are too expensive to implement
Space Island Group, 2006
([Private company composed mostly of retired NASA engineers] "Clean Energy, Cheap Hydrogen, and Weather Control From Space",
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/ solarsat.html)

Earth-built components for a single solar satellite will weigh from several thousand tons to several hundred thousand tons, depending
on the design and power output needed. The largest versions could supply power to an entire city, state or province, while the smaller
versions could supply individual factories with heavy electrical needs, like aluminum smelters. Communications satellites weigh from
a few hundred pounds to over ten tons. Launching them on today’s unmanned rockets costs from $3,000 to $5,000 per pound (of
satellite). Manned launches cost ten times as much. Several start-up launch companies hope to drop the unmanned launch cost to
$1,000 per pound during this decade, but that’s not nearly low enough.

SSP would not work – it costs too much money and do not have the required technological advancements

Macauley et al., 2000


(Molly K. Macauley, Joel Darmstadter, John N. Fini, Joel S. Greenberg, John S. Maulbetsch, A. Michael Schaal, Geoffrey S. W.
Styles, James A. Vedda[President, Princeton Synergentics] Aerospace America Features; Economics; Pg 42. http://www.rff.org/rff/
documents/rff-dp-00-16.pdf)

SSP faces several challenges in competing with terrestrial electricity generation: The relative immaturity of the technologies required
for SSP makes it difficult to assess the validity of its cost estimates and likely competitiveness. As with most space development
initiatives, orders-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of launch and deployment are necessary. In addition, the NASA studies have
assumed all on-orbit operations, including construction and maintenance, to be accomplished telerobotically. Achieving an
economically viable SSP will require that government play a major role in developing a relevant technology base that can be exploited
by industry. It would be premature for the government to make commitments (through loan guarantees or tax incentives, for example),
other than possibly pursuing a technology development and demonstration program. State-of-the-art conventional technologies
feature numerous environmental controls, eroding somewhat the environmental advantage of nonfossil fuel technologies. Actual
and/or perceived health risks associated with exposure to electric and magnetic fields generated by SSP are likely to cause significant
public concern. National security and economic considerations may cause some countries to require equity participation in SSP, to
rely on it for only a small share of their energy portfolios, or to decline its use altogether. These findings argue for furthering progress
in technologies needed not just for SSP but for other space activities as well. They also highlight the need for special consideration of
health and national security concerns that might be associated with SSP. The economic success of SSP appears to be contingent on
achieving very low-cost space transportation and significant advances in telerobotics. Since technology investments are being made in
these areas under other NASA programs, it seems prudent to assess additional technology investments specifically in support of SSP
in terms of progress in these two critical areas. Modeling of the economics of SSP should explicitly incorporate analyses of risk and
uncertainty. It also should develop information regarding the likelihood that SSP energy pricing would be competitive with terrestrial
energy pricing given a desired financial rate of return. In addition, the models used for analyzing the SSP should allow for
investigating the implications of assumptions involving telerobotic assembly, refurbishment, and on-orbit operations. The model
should also allow for the costs of scale model demonstration facilities, the likelihood of different results, and the costs and schedules
that might ensue as a function of the achieved outcome. The results of prior economic analyses of the Fresh Look study concepts are
unreliable because of model limitations and the use of most likely estimates. New economic modeling should provide a means for
structuring an efficient long-term technology development program. Previously developed methods and techniques could serve as the
basis for this modeling. The modeling of manufacturing plant investment, plant sizing, and product pricing needs careful
consideration. Because by its very nature it extrapolates from small quantity to very large quantity production, it should explicitly and
quantitatively consider uncertainty and risk. Two areas of concern are the validity of the data currently being used, and -- whatever
numbers are ultimately used -- how decision-makers can be convinced that these are valid. What role the U.S. government should play
in an SSP program, beyond synergistic technology development and demonstrations, is open for debate. The Fresh Look study
concluded that initial applications of the SSP would be as an energy source for use by developing countries. If this remains the
conclusion of further studies, then the case must be made that the benefits to the nation's economy from the U.S. share in
manufacturing and ownership exceeds the cost of the U.S. investment in the development and demonstration of the technology. Based
on the group's findings, it may be concluded that the SSP's time in the sun has not yet arrived, and is unlikely to do so within the next
two decades. The economic success of SSP depends to a large extent on achieving very low-cost transportation to LEO and a very

Page | 75
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
advanced telerobotics capability. Thus it may be prudent to delay further SSP-specific technology investments until reasonable
progress has been made in achieving both transportation and telerobotics goals.

Neg – Laser power bad


Laser powered lasers are too dangerous to use when beaming energy down to earth

Dickinson. 1997.
(Richard M. [BSEE from Auburn University in 1958 and his MSEE from the University of Texas-Austin in 1962. Member of the
Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.] IEEE AES Systems Magazine. "Issues in
Microwave Power Systems Engineering." Accessed July 7th, 2008. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/62/12953/
00587810.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=587810) The concept of using space solar power systems for beaming energy to Earth and
to other spacecraft is getting a fresh look from NASA. This idea, first proposed by Peter Glaser in 1968, was studied extensively
during the next two decades. NASA's recent study reexamining the possibility was followed up by a concept definition study in 1998.)

There are issues that must be addressed when considering the use of laser power. Atmospheric and weather effects. Both microwave
and laser beams are attenuated by Earth's atmosphere and its weather-dependent particulate content. But the problem is far greater
with laser beams, because their shorter wavelength is much closer to the size of the particles in the atmosphere. Thus power beam
interruptions in the terrestrial utility station may occur. The longer wavelength microwaves pass through rain and clouds with only
small attenuation and scattering. Glaser's original concept and the early NASA/DOE studies were based on microwave power
transmission at 2.45 GHz, a frequency whose wavelength is long enough to be totally unaffected by weather. However, interference
considerations and size-related system economics may dictate the use of higher microwave frequencies, which could introduce some
weather effects. But such effects would be far more severe with lasers. Baseload electric utility systems using laser technology will
need many dispersed receiving sites to deal with weather outages. One approach would use ground-based energy storage; another
would entail transferring power from clear sites via a ground network. The costs for either remedy, and for multiple sites, could
compromise the economics of laser transmission. Safety. Because the power flux density of a laser beam is much higher than that of a
microwave beam for the same total power delivered, the consequences of any intrusion into the beam by people, animals, or objects
could be much more serious for the laser beam. One advantage of the laser beam, however, is that if the wavelength of operation is
suitably selected, it is clearly visible because of diffraction by the atmosphere's aerosol content. The microwave beam is invisible and
can only be felt by its thermal effects. Geopolitics. Any space-based laser must comply with the constraints of the 1972 U.S.Soviet
antiballistic missile treaty, which prohibits space-based defenses from having the ability to intercept long-range ballistic missiles. As
the economics of wireless transmission depend heavily on the transported power level, any limitations will be bound to affect
investment in commercial laser-beamed power development. Technical maturity. Although laser power transmission technologies are
less mature than those used in microwave power beaming, they have seen major advances in recent years. The overall efficiency of a
laser is now estimated to be more than half that attainable with a microwave system, and the technology continues to improve.

Page | 76
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Neg – Space Lasers are not safe


Laser powered lasers are too dangerous to use when beaming energy down to earth

Dickinson. 1997
(Richard M. [BSEE from Auburn University in 1958 and his MSEE from the University of Texas-Austin in 1962. Member of the
Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.] IEEE AES Systems Magazine. "Issues in
Microwave Power Systems Engineering." Accessed July 7th, 2008. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/62/12953/
00587810.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=587810) The concept of using space solar power systems for beaming energy to Earth and
to other spacecraft is getting a fresh look from NASA. This idea, first proposed by Peter Glaser in 1968, was studied extensively
during the next two decades. NASA's recent study reexamining the possibility was followed up by a concept definition study in 1998.)

Space-to-space laser power beaming should use wavelengths that are strongly absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere to prevent
illumination of people and animals on the ground. For space-to-Earth beaming, wavelengths that are not strongly absorbed are
desirable. However, such beams are potentially more dangerous, and their use requires careful attention to safety features. Laser
beams that are economically useful for power transmission and transportation are of high intensity and hence more hazardous.
Consequently, fail-safe means must be provided that automatically shut off the beam, spread it out, or divert it from potential victims.
Where possible, physical barriers, exclusion zones, warning lights and signs, auditory warnings, high-frequency noise irritants, odor
warnings, and hazard markings should be used to keep people and animals away from the beam. Conditioned responses may have to
be promulgated for the affected populace. Surveillance to detect a beam's potential interaction with victims is also required, with due
regard for the round-trip time delay in turning off the beam. The hazard is the remaining energy already in transit from space to
ground. Sensors are needed to detect imminent mishaps. Accurate beam impact predictions require high signal-to-noise-ratio
acquisition and tracking of potential victims, including good prediction of their trajectories. Sensors must be tested often to ensure that
they are operating properly. Thus, interlocked beam testers, sensors, and shut-off switches will be required. One approach to a beam
tester design could be miniature GPS-equipped beam-powered helicopters that live right in the beam and drift horizontally back and
forth at its edges, like insects hovering around an outdoor night-light. They would transmit continuous information on their location
and the beam intensity transmitter control, and the beam could be turned off if it wandered or intensified. Air and, eventually, space
traffic control systems must be tied in to laser power beam utilities so that movement of personnel and equipment can be coordinated
for safety. Laser beam sites should be located away from airline and avian migratory routes. Restricted airspace locations would be
desirable, but, in an air emergency, an errant aircraft, for example, should be given priority over an electric power beam. [The danger
to aircraft flying through the beam is primarily the laser's deleterious effects on the eyes of people inside, and possibly on critical
instrumentation, but not "zapping" of the aircraft itself. The time spent in the beam is so short that, even if the full power of a 10-m-
diam, 500-MW laser were absorbed by a small commuter aircraft, its skin temperature would rise no more than a degree or two.] With
such safety measures, systems using the beams must be prepared for unannounced power delivery interruptions. Power-beam electric
utilities, for example, must be prepared for the tremendous transients that sudden interruption can create. Less of a problem, but also
of concern, are the transients that occur in reestablishing power delivery. For laser-powered transport vehicles, dealing with
interrupted power delivery would require the ability to change trajectories and coasting time, to implement emergency descent
procedures, and to carry on-board energy storage systems. Periodic and random beam testing are recommended to ensure the system's
safety. The public should be encouraged to initiate beam tests by having many locations for doing so, and they should be apprised of
the results immediately. It is recommended that power beams to Earth be visible (green, for example). This will help to allay fears of
unseen "beam wandering" off designated receiving sites. Even if a high-power beam is at longer-than-visible wavelengths, it should be
coaxially surrounded with a visible-color beam. To ensure that the power beams are delivered continuously, reliably, and with no
chance of wandering, the power transmission devices must be retrodirective phased arrays -- that is, they will not operate without a
pilot safety signal sent from the ground receiver to the space-based transmitter. Although a single continuous-aperture beamer could be
used, the many elements of a phased array would ensure rapid, incoherent beam spreading whenever the phase reference provided by
the pilot safety signal was not present, thereby dispersing the generated power harmlessly. The inherent electronic beam-steering
capability of a phased array also would allow rapid shut-down and reestablishment of a laser beam to its alternate weather site with
mechanical repositioning of the satellite. The pilot safety signal could be coded and of such magnitude that a terrorist could not easily
duplicate it for destructive purposes. All safety systems should be designed to be fail-safe -- that is, no response, no beam. In some
applications it may be possible to use a high-altitude stratospheric platform as a power relay site, wherein the long hop to or from
space is made with a laser beam, and the short hop -- between the platform and the ground -- is made with a much wider, less intense
microwave beam. The microwave beam will suffer less atmospheric loss and provide more consistent all-weather beamed power
operation. Any such system will be affected by the cascade of safety interlocks, meaning there will often be false alarms. However,
that may well be a reasonable price to pay for having alternatives to technologies that produce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Page | 77
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Neg - SSP too expensive and dangerous
The only reason that Solar Satellites have already been put into effect is that they aren't viewed as having
an economic benefit.
David, 17 October 2001
Leonard, senior space writer, “Big Future for Solar Power Satellites" accessed 7 July 2008.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html

A swarm of unknowns and criticisms always fly in tight formation around the prospect of energy-beaming satellites actually having
any economic benefit to Earth. Among them: The size, complexity, and cost of an SSP undertaking are daunting challenges.
International legal, political, and social acceptability issues abound. Health or environmental hazards from laser or microwave beams
broadcast from space appear worrisome. Additionally, in the battle of energy market forces on Earth, any SSP constellation may prove
far too costly to be worth metering. In 1995, NASA embarked on what's tagged as a Fresh Look study. SSP feasibility, technologies,
costs, markets, and international public attitudes were addressed. In general, NASA found that the march of technology and America's
overall space prowess has re-energized the case for SSP. NASA did point out, however, that launch cost to orbit remains far too high -
but that this problem was being attacked.

Page | 78
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Neg - UN CP

UN should do SPS one country alone with SPS will cause a doomsday scenario with advanced military
might

Ledbetter, William Spring 08


(past presidentof NSS works in the aerospace/defense industry) “An energy pioneer looks back “An inspiring conversation with Dr. Peter Glaser”
Glaser, Peter (Ph.D. mechanical engineering and went to work for Arthur D. Little Inc., served on major committees for NASA and the National
Academy of Sciences, president of the International Solar Energy Society) AdAstra SBSP-2008
Ad Astra: Do you think the push to create space-based power systems should be spearheaded by the government or the
privatesector?Glaser: Since it would be such a hugeundertaking, I think it would be best accomplishedat an international level, perhaps
even managed by the United Nations. Each country could contribute their best effort, and then each country would reap the benefit of
cheap and plentiful power from the sun. We could utilize the knowledge of all thenations that have been researching spacebasedsolar
power. If only one country hasthe satellites, the international community willworry that the technology will be misused.With every
nation taking part in the planning,building, and operation of the system, therewould be inherent transparency, oversight,and equality.
There would be no secrets, andno country would be left in the dark.On the other hand, if one nation decides tobuild the system, all hell
may break loose.There would be distrust and a huge shift inthe balance of power. Any nation with sucha system would not only have
an advantagein space, but they would have economic andmilitary advantages on the ground as well.And there are many countries
taking the ideaof solar power from space much more seriouslythat we are in the United States. I wouldprefer to see a network of
power satellitesbuilt by an international effort.

Page | 79
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Neg – Private Actor CP


SPS systems would be cheaper and create effective markets if implemented by the private sector – energy
companies would be happy to foot the bill
Space Island Group 2006
([Private company composed mostly of retired NASA engineers] "Clean Energy, Cheap Hydrogen, and Weather Control From Space",
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/ solarsat.html)

This is not a government program. We feel that taxpayers have already funded most of the hardware we’ll use. Now it’s our job to use
that proven hardware to let a broad range of industries profitably capitalize on that investment. Along the way, we expect that we and
these industries will create millions of high-paying American jobs that overseas competitors won’t be able to take away for decades. In
fact we’ll make those American jobs a lease-condition for our tenants. These jobs will start with the defense contractors. Some 90% of
our development funds will go to the firms that now build shuttle components for NASA. Tens of thousands of current aerospace jobs
will end when the shuttles retire in 2010. Our first launch in 2008 or 2009 will not only absorb those employees, but will increase their
numbers many times over during the following decade. Many of the same firms will build our space hardware, but we’ll use simpler,
commercial procedures rather than the more complex ones used for government work. The Space Island Group is essentially an
aerospace marketing company in the same sense that a commercial airline “markets” the products of aircraft makers. Boeing builds
greatplanes, but they could never run an airline. The skills needed are radically different. Our role will be to profitably operate these
stations by filling them with paying tenants, just as an airline fills its seats and cargo bays with passengers and freight. Firms haven’t
rushed to lease space on NASA’s space shuttles or on the International Space Station (ISS) because of high cost and limited
capabilities. NASA’s role was to prove that this equipment worked, not to directly spawn new space industries. The hundreds of
manufacturers we’ve spoken with are stunned by our low cost guarantees. NASA charges $20,000 a pound to carry passengers and
material into space. We’ll charge nothing. NASA charges $2500/cubic foot/day for research compartments on the ISS. We’ll charge
$25 for the same thing. To profitably manufacture new zero-g materials on the ISS and transport them on the shuttles, a company
would have to sell them for $10,000/ounce. Our facilities will let them make a very substantial profit by selling these materials it for
$50/ounce. These unique zero gravity materials will make possible electric batteries, fuel cell components, and solid hydrogen storage
systems several times more efficient than those produced on Earth. Two sectors will profit most from the solar satellites we’ll build:
insurance and energy. Based on the National Weather Service forecasts of increased storms over the next 30 years, insurers will likely
payout some $40 billion annually worldwide for hurricane, tornado, and flood damage. That’s more than $1 trillion over the next three
decades. Insurers have set aside reserves totaling nearly $400 billion to cover these payouts. We’re asking the largest underwriters to
discuss how they could back a five-year, $10 billion line of credit for us in exchange for several years of free, “as-needed” use of the
solar satellites for storm control. That amount will get our first station components in orbit, and let us build our first solar satellite
prototype. A conditional commitment of that size will in turn let us immediately sign advance lease agreements with the hundreds of
firms and universities eager to use our facilities. Right now they understand our space hardware, but they don’t understand where
we’ll get this level of funding. Banks have told us they’ll make loans to us once we get those advance leases signed, which could
reduce our line of credit draw downs to nearly zero. This is how shopping malls and industrial parks are financed. The architects pick
a location and design the facility, then get lease commitments from tenants of substance. Banks loan them the funds to buy the land
and build the mall or industrial park, then collect a part of the lease payments until the loan is paid off. The other economic sector that
will profit most from solar satellites is energy. Most large oil companies have divisions making solar cells for houses, and several are
producing hydrogen for experimental cars and trucks. Their crude oil supplies are stable at the moment, but 2004 was the first year in
which they discovered less oil than they pumped. Most of them fear that the condition will only grow worse in the years ahead. Solar
satellites won’t put oil companies out of business for decades. But the fact that they’ve changed their name to “energy companies” and
that they’re already exploring other options like solar means that they see the writing on the wall. The insurance company savings
from solar satellites and the profits for the energy companies are probably a decade away, but their international image benefits to the
public and to investors will be immediate. The image of insurance companies has ranged from bland to negative. In late 2004 and on
into 2005 some of American’s largest insurers have been sued for overcharging businesses, states and individuals. The insurance
industry has played a key role in expanding commerce around the world for centuries, but today most people put them in the same
category as used car dealers. By backing our effort, they could change that image overnight. They’d be using their financial resources
to shield millions of people worldwide from Nature’s most devastating fury. Everyone talks about the weather, but this industry can
finally do something about it. And there’s more. Insurers now “own” some $15 billion worth of communications satellites they’ve
bought through insurance payouts when they failed in orbit. Workers aboard Space Island stations could use “space tugs” to bring
these dead satellites down from their 22,000 mile orbits to the 400-mile high stations, then repair or refuel them and tow them back to
their operational orbits for $5-$10 million each. Insurers could sell them all for nearly $7 billion in clean profits. Then there are the

Page | 80
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
liability issues of space station crews and space tourists. An entire new field of space insurance would have to be created, and the
firms who help us will lead that field. It’s likely that the U.S. Congress would help insurers with liability caps for the first decade or
two, since hurricane and tornado damage costs the federal government even more every year than it costs insurers. The image of
energy companies working with us would also give their public image an immediate boost. Instead of being the target of
environmentalist attacks, they’d be seen as the key brokers of a program that will eventually put an end to man-made global warming.
They could be the industry that lets Kyoto nations keep their carbon dioxide promises. In fact energy companies’ international
experience could let them sign advance agreements and collect deposits from energy-starved nations like China and India, financing
their Space Island support with other people’s money. Energy companies could contract with us to build solar satellites just like they
contract with firms today to build their offshore oil platforms. In fact some of these same firms could end up managing our station and
solar satellite construction in orbit. In many ways industrial space stations will resemble offshore platforms more than anything else.

Page | 81
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Neg - Feasibility
Space Transportation Barrier to SSP
Mankins, John C. Spring 2008,

(NASA advanced policy guru) Ad Astra SBSP – 2008 Special Report.The magazine of the National Space SocietyPages 1-21

So, in order to make space solar power possible, what has to be done about space transportation? In the case of conventional
transportation infrastructures, low cost has always been achieved through reuse of vehicles and the deployment of general-purpose
infrastructures that can be used many times by multiple customers, such as canals, railways, roads, and airports. It is hard to imagine
how automobiles, aircraft, ships, or any other modern transportation system might somehow be produced so cheaply that the transport
could somehow be “disposable” after each use. In order for space solar power systems to be economically viable, reusable Earth-to-
orbit launchers will be essential. In-space transportation advances are also needed. In-space transportation systems must be very fuel-
efficient. Also, transport hardware costs must be dramatically reduced through the development of reusable, rather than expendable,
systems. Finally, the personnel costs for the transport infrastructure must be drastically reduced: the system must be largely
autonomous, involving neither “marching armies” of operators or maintenance engineers.

Page | 82
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Neg – AT Space Exploration Advantage


Space Colonization will be too expensive and impractical
Globus, 2005
(Globus, Al [NASA Administrator] "Space Settlement Basics", http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/,
September 22, 2005 , http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html)

Space colonization is extraordinarily expensive because launch vehicles are difficult to manufacture and operate. For example, the
current (2004) cost to put an individual into orbit for a short time is about $20 million. To enable large scale space tourism by the
middle class, this cost must be reduced to about $1,000-$10,000, a factor of 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. Space tourism has launch
requirements similar to space settlement suggesting that a radical improvement in manufacturing technology my be necessary to
enable space colonization. Note that current launch costs vary from $2,000-$14,000 per pound for operational vehicles.One candidate
for a major improvement in manufacturing technology is molecular nanotechnology. An important branch of nanotechnology is
concerned with developing diamonoid mechanosynthesis. This means building things out of diamond-like materials, placing each
atom at a precise location (ignoring thermal motion). Diamond is 69 times stronger than titanium for the same weight and is much
stiffer. If spacecraft were made of diamonoid materials rather than aluminum, they could be much lighter allowing more payload. For
an excellent analysis applying nanotechnology to space development, see McKendree 1995Diamond mechanosythesis may enable a
radical transportation system that could allow millions of people to go to orbit each year -- an orbital tower. An orbital tower is a
structure extending from the Earth's surface into orbit. To build an orbital tower, start construction at geosynchronous orbit. Extend the
tower down towards Earth and upwards at the same rate. this keeps the center-of-mass at geosynchronous orbit so the tower stays over
one point on the Earth's surface. Extend the tower all the way to the surface and attach it. then an elevator on the tower can move
people and materials to and fromorbit at very low cost. There are many practical problems with orbital towers, but they may be
feasible.

Neg – Space Exploration Advantage


Radiation Prevents Space Colonization
Choi April 2, 2008
(Charles Q. Choi [Special to SPACE.com]."Study: Radiation Would Kill Astronauts Before They Got to
Mars".http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344491,00.html .July10)

Dangerous levels of radiation in space could bar astronauts from a mission to Mars and limit prolonged activity on the moon, experts
now caution. The magnetic field of Earth protects humanity from radiation in space that can damage or kill cells. Once beyond this
shield, people become far more vulnerable.To further investigate the risks that space radiation currently pose, the National Research
Council assembled experts in space and biology together.At the present time, given current knowledge, the level of radiation
astronauts would encounter "would not allow a human crew to undertake a Mars mission and might also seriously limit long-term
Moon activity," this committee notes in their new report Monday.

Neg – Hegemony Advantage


China still lags very far behind the US in the space race
Ritter, 2008
(Peter, Time,com, “The New Space Race: China vs. US”, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1712812,00.html)

China's space program lags far behind that of the U.S., of course. "They're basically recreating the Apollo missions 50 years on," says
Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Studies Department at the U.S. Naval War College and an expert on China's space
development. "It's a tortoise-and-hare race. They're happy plodding along slowly and creating this perception of a space race."

Page | 83
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Neg – Hegemony Advantage
China does not want the U.S. to be successful in space and has the capability to damage our space assets,
not allowing for any U.S. hegemony gains
Neill. January 20th, 2007. (Alex. head of the Asia security programme at the Royal United Services Institute. The Guardian (London)
- Final Edition. "Space: Expert view: A shot across the bows." Accessed July 9th, 2008. Found on LexisNexis. http://web.lexis-
nexis.com/scholastic/ document?_m=a912412f5b102f39352c7af8e0130fa1&_docnum=16&wchp=dGLbVtz-
zSkVk&_md5=222a28d4c03de828a3874199b95b8111)

I imagine there are some deep ruminations going on at the Pentagon. The crux of US defence capability is its command-and-control
networks, which are reliant on satellite capabilities. This is a clear statement that China does not want to see (US) hegemony of what
they call "the space arena". There were allegations late last summer that an American optical surveillance satellite had been
illuminated by a Chinese laser system. This can be regarded as a symbolic gesture but, if true, it means they can track a satellite and
potentially blind it as it passes over China. The Chinese have now demonstrated that they can track, target and destroy in space.
Leading analysts of the murky world of Chinese shashoujian weapons are growing suspicious that China will aim to counter its
perceived enemies with anti-satellite and directed-energy systems, micro-satellite configurations and jamming weaponry. Worrisome,
too, is the potential to detonate nuclear devices in space, releasing an electromagnetic pulse that could cripple space assets in the
targeted vicinity. These moves come at a time when Russia and China have made international calls to restrain those attempting to take
warfare into the space domain. A Sino-Russian UN working paper, proposed in May 2002, called for a ban on weapons in orbit. China
knows that if it is to face off against the US in the Taiwan straits, damaging US space assets would render their forces deaf, dumb and
blind.

Page | 84
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Neg –Inefficient Energy


Energy Analysis of the Solar Power Satellite makes it a waste
Herendeen, Kary, and Rebitzer, 1979 (Herendeen, R.A.; Kary, T.; Rebitzer, J. [Members of the Energy Research Group, Office of Vice
Chancellor of Research, University of Illinois] Science 3 August 1979: Vol. 205. no. 4405, pp. 451 - 454 "Energy Analysis of the Solar
Power Satellite")

The energy requirements to build and operate the proposed Solar Power Satellite are evaluated and compared with the energy it
produces. Because the technology is so speculative, uncertainty is explicitly accounted for. For a proposed 10-gigawatt satellite
system, the energy ratio, defined as the electrical energy produced divided by the primary nonrenewable energy required over the
lifetime of the system, is of order 2, where a ratio of 1 indicates the energy breakeven point. This is significantly below the energy
ratio of today's electricity technologies such as light-water nuclear or coal-fired electric plants.

Page | 85
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

SPS Neg- Not feasible


SSP may be sustainable but not cheap enough yet to be feasible
Bernard J. Eastlund and Lyle M. Jenkins Eastlund, 2003.

Vol. 1-451 Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power’ Scientific Enterprises 151 Ravenhead Houston, TX 77034
Ivleieiikins@e.lrthiin k.net 713-946-0819

6. SPACE SOLAR POWER Solar energy is a resource that meets the criteria of sustainability. Collecting the energy in space provides
significant advantages in continuity of supply,although its development presents many obstacles. Currently, space solar power ideas
lack credibility with many observers because of the scope, size, and cost of the system needed to produce useful quantities of
electricity. The basic concept of a Solar Power Satellite is illustrated in Figure 1. Vol. 1-453 Figure 1. Major Elements of a Satellite
Power System Skeptics cite the technical challenges, the cost estimates fi-om older studies and the investment required before usehl
levels of power are produced [Ref. 51. Specifically, there will be a huge initial cost prior to getting any return on the investment. The
Fresh Look at Space Solar Power Study [Ref. 101 defined concepts with lower initial investment. But the estimated cost per kwhr is
still not competitive with fossil fuel energy production. Access to space, launch cost, drives the cost of the space components. The
current rates, dollars per pound of payload to orbit, are nearly two orders of magnitude too high to challenge the fossil fuel rates for
electricity production. Most technology and processes essential to SSP have been demonstrated on earth and in space. There are no
technical breakthroughs needed to implement the system [Ref. These technologies and operations must be refined and characterized to
understand efficiencies and to provide increased confidence in SSP.

Impossible to implement a solar power satellite system

Access To Energy, 2004


(“THE SOLAR POWER SATELLITE”, Vol. 8, No. 10, http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a4466.htm)

The idea of collecting solar energy in outer space and beaming it to earth is one that is well developed conceptually, and research on
its feasibility has been funded by Congress. "Ottinger and Nader are against it, so the idea can't be all bad," writes a reader. But it's not
that simple. Both of these energy scholars are so unreliable that one cannot even rely on them always being wrong. They don't like two
things about the solar satellite: Unlike rooftop cells producing piddling amounts of energy at exorbitant costs, it would give thousands
of megawatts indiscriminately to everybody (not just sensitive, aware and affluent suburbanites); and it would require advanced
technology managed by a corporation of shareholders instead of spending taxpayers' money on wheelbarrows and treadmills. On the
other hand, many of the SPS's vehement promoters want to go into space for everything and at all costs, including the taxpayers' costs.
So let's judge the idea on its merits rather than on the company it keeps. Unlike energy in space, which can be beamed to other space
vehicles by laser beams (requiring only small reflectors), energy from space must transverse the atmosphere, which leaves only
microwaves as the carrier: Laser light would not penetrate the cloud cover, and longer radio waves would require unreasonably large
antennas, for any antenna (or reflector) must have a diameter several orders larger than the wavelength of the transmitted radiation if it
is to concentrate it into a narrow beam. The Luddites who found it possible to brainwash people into fearing nuclear power on
objectively indefensible grounds would find it even easier to scare them with the dangers of an aircraft flying into the beam, or the
beam moving off target (the receiving antenna on the ground) due to a malfunction of the transmitter antenna on the satellite. That
beam would transmit a power of several thousand megawatts•and The Zapping of America screamed murder about this type of
radiation at the microwatt level. But far more important than this incidental aspect are the technical and economic considerations. The
technical advantage over solar-electric plants on earth lies ultimately only in the constant (and just slightly higher) illumination of the
collectors•no night or cloud cover. But that is an advantage over a system that is not very good in the first place. The dilute flow of
solar energy remains; in particular, the area for the collectors, though not owned by anybody, is very much harder to come by. As for
economics, we are talking about tens or hundreds of square miles of collectors, to be put up at a cost of tens (hundreds?) of billions of
dollars over many years, to produce the power that could be produced by tens of nuclear or coal-fired units on earth. The cost of an
installed kilowatt, claim the supporters, is close to "competitive" with nuclear or coal, and will look better as the cost of oil goes up.
No, object the opponents, it comes to two or three times the cost of a conventional kilowatt. But without calling either side a liar, take
a look at the oft repeated story of oil shale, synthetic fuels, and other energy sources. OPEC oil prices were to catch up with the high

Page | 86
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
cost of these sources in a year or two. And by Jove, in a year or two they did catch up•with the cost of a year or two ago... So all things
considered, we believe there are a million good reasons to go forward into space; but a vulnerable, overpriced energy source is not one
of them.

Earth Based Solar Power Aff Parts


Inherency – Solar Power
USFG has frozen solar power projects
Frosch. June 27, 2008. (Dan. New York Times. "Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects." Accessed July 9th,
2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/ 27solar.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all.)

Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar
projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land
Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it
oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. But the decision to freeze new solar
proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar
companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the
demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating. “It doesn’t make any sense,” said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and
regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. “The Bureau of Land Management land has some of
the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry.”

Inherency - US Solar Plans on Hold


News Scientist July 5th,08

(News Scientist.[News Scientis website] "Wind power sails ahead in UK as US Solar Plans freeze".
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19926633.600-wind-power-sailsahead-in-uk-as-us-solar-plans-freeze.html. 09 July,
2008)

IT'S been a contrasting week for renewable energy advocates on opposite sides of the Atlantic. The UK announced plans to make wind
power in its coastal waters "what the Gulf of Arabia is for the oil industry". Meanwhile, hopes for the solar equivalent in the American
Southwest's largely uninhabited desert have been derailed by a tortoise. UK prime minister Gordon Brown wants to build 3000
turbines around the UK's coast, part of a plan that will see renewable energy provide 30 per cent of the nation's electricity by 2020.
The US Bureau of Land Management is less bullish. It plans to defer any further applications for solar power projects while it
conducts an environmental review, with the fate of the desert tortoise one cause for concern. The review is expected to take about two
years.

Inherency – Solar Power


Solar Power tax credits are set to expire and the USFG has suspended solar power projects
Frosch. June 27, 2008. (Dan. New York Times. "Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects." Accessed July 9th,
2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/ 27solar.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all.)

The industry is already concerned over the fate of federal solar investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year
unless Congress renews them. The moratorium, combined with an end to tax credits, would deal a double blow to an industry that,
solar advocates say, has experienced significant growth without major environmental problems. “The problem is that this is a very
young industry, and the majority of us that are involved are young, struggling, hungry companies,” said Lee Wallach of Solel, a solar
power company based in California that has filed numerous applications to build on public land and was considering filing more in the
next two years. “This is a setback.”

Page | 87
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008
Solvency – Regular Solar Power
Transition to solar power would ease tensions in the Middle East, stop global warming, and cure cancer
Zweibel et al., 2007
(Ken, [Zweibel is president of PrimeStar Solar in Golden, Colo., and for 15 years was manager of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratorys Thin-Film PV Partnership. Mason is director of the Solar Energy Campaign and the Hydrogen Research Institute in
Farmingdale,

N.Y. Fthenakis is head of the Photovoltaic Environmental Research Center at Brook haven National Laboratory and is a professor in
and director of Columbia University's Center for Life Cycle Analysis.] "A Solar Grand Plan", Scientific American, December 2007,
Society & Policy, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan, KZ) Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and
politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S.
needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer.
Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy
consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest
alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of
solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption
in 2006. To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar
heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the
nation. The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity
and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold
to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind,
biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90
percent of its energy by 2100. The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete
the 2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars
year after year. The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the
fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing
political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be
displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005
levels, putting a major brake on global warming.

Page | 88
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

A2- Solar Power needs sun all the time


Solar power doesn't need the sunlight all the time
Zweibel et al., 2007
(Ken, [Zweibel is president of PrimeStar Solar in Golden, Colo., and for 15 years was manager of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratorys Thin-Film PV Partnership. Mason is director of the Solar Energy Campaign and the Hydrogen Research Institute in
Farmingdale, N.Y. Fthenakis is head of the Photovoltaic Environmental Research Center at Brook haven National Laboratory and is a
professor in and director of Columbia University's Center for Life Cycle Analysis.] "A Solar Grand Plan", Scientific American,
December 2007, Society & Policy, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan, KZ)

The great limiting factor of solar power, of course, is that it generates little electricity when skies are cloudy and none at night. Excess
power must therefore be produced during sunny hours and stored for use during dark hours. Most energy storage systems such as
batteries are expensive or inefficient. Compressed-air energy storage has emerged as a successful alternative. Electricity from
photovoltaic plants compresses air and pumps it into vacant underground caverns, abandoned mines, aquifers and depleted natural gas
wells. The pressurized air is released on demand to turn a turbine that generates electricity, aided by burning small amounts of natural
gas. Compressed-air energy storage plants have been operating reliably in Huntorf, Germany, since 1978 and in McIntosh, Ala., since
1991. The turbines burn only 40 percent of the natural gas they would if they were fueled by natural gas alone, and better heat
recovery technology would lower that figure to 30 percent. Studies by the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif.,
indicate that the cost of compressed-air energy storage today is about half that of lead-acid batteries. The research indicates that these
facilities would add three or four cents per kWh to photovoltaic generation, bringing the total 2020 cost to eight or nine cents per
kWh. Electricity from photovoltaic farms in the Southwest would be sent over high-voltage DC transmission lines to compressed-air
storage facilities throughout the country, where turbines would generate electricity year-round. The key is to find adequate sites.
Mapping by the natural gas industry and the Electric Power Research Institute shows that suitable geologic formations exist in 75
percent of the country, often close to metropolitan areas. Indeed, a compressed-air energy storage system would look similar to the
U.S. natural gas storage system. The industry stores eight trillion cubic feet of gas in 400 underground reservoirs. By 2050 our plan
would require 535 billion cubic feet of storage, with air pressurized at 1,100 pounds per square inch. Although development will be a
challenge, plenty of reservoirs are available, and it would be reasonable for the natural gas industry to invest in such a network.

Page | 89
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Generic Solar – Requires USFG


Transition to Solar Energy requires subsidies from the Federal Government
Zweibel et al., 2007
(Ken, [Zweibel is president of PrimeStar Solar in Golden, Colo., and for 15 years was manager of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratorys Thin-Film PV Partnership. Mason is director of the Solar Energy Campaign and the Hydrogen Research Institute in
Farmingdale, N.Y. Fthenakis is head of the Photovoltaic Environmental Research Center at Brook haven National Laboratory and is a
professor in and director of Columbia University's Center for Life Cycle Analysis.] "A Solar Grand Plan", Scientific American,
December 2007, Society & Policy, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan, KZ)

Our model is not an austerity plan, because it includes a 1 percent annual increase in demand, which would sustain lifestyles similar to
those today with expected efficiency improvements in energy generation and use. Perhaps the biggest question is how to pay for a
$420-billion overhaul of the nation’s energy infrastructure. One of the most common ideas is a carbon tax. The International Energy
Agency suggests that a carbon tax of $40 to $90 per ton of coal will be required to induce electricity generators to adopt carbon
capture and storage systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This tax is equivalent to raising the price of electricity by one to two
cents per kWh. But our plan is less expensive. The $420 billion could be generated with a carbon tax of 0.5 cent per kWh. Given that
electricity today generally sells for six to 10 cents per kWh, adding 0.5 cent per kWh seems reasonable. Congress could establish the
financial incentives by adopting a national renewable energy plan. Consider the U.S. Farm Price Support program, which has been
justified in terms of national security. A solar price support program would secure the nation’s energy future, vital to the country’s
long-term health. Subsidies would be gradually deployed from 2011 to 2020. With a standard 30-year payoff interval, the subsidies
would end from 2041 to 2050. The HVDC transmission companies would not have to be subsidized, because they would finance
construction of lines and converter stations just as they now finance AC lines, earning revenues by delivering electricity. Although
$420 billion is substantial, the annual expense would be less than the current U.S. Farm Price Support program. It is also less than the
tax subsidies that have been levied to build the country’s high-speed telecommunications infrastructure over the past 35 years. And it
frees the U.S. from policy and budget issues driven by international energy conflicts. Without subsidies, the solar grand plan is
impossible. Other countries have reached similar conclusions: Japan is already building a large, subsidized solar infrastructure, and
Germany has embarked on a nationwide program. Although the investment is high, it is important to remember that the energy source,
sunlight, is free. There are no annual fuel or pollution-control costs like those for coal, oil or nuclear power, and only a slight cost for
natural gas in compressed-air systems, although hydrogen or biofuels could displace that, too. When fuel savings are factored in, the
cost of solar would be a bargain in coming decades. But we cannot wait until then to begin scaling up.

Page | 90
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar Incentives = Leadership


Solar incentives by the United States Federal Government boost U.S. Leadership
U.S. Department of Energy. June 25th, 2007.

(U.S. Department of Energy. "Frequently Asked Questions About Solar Energy." Accessed July 9th, 2008.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/ solar_faqs.html#government_incentives) Government incentives are used to
accelerate the development of a market and to ensure

U.S. technology leadership. Government incentives can increase the installed solar capacity, which drives down solar costs in the long
run, to the point where incentives are no longer needed. Maturing solar markets such as Japan have reduced or ended the incentives for
purchase of solar equipment as market penetration increases.

Page | 91
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency – Solar Thermal


Solar thermal power is simple, affordable, green, and saves money
MacKenna. November 2007. (Elle. M.S. in Environmental Science. Hub Pages. "Solar Thermal Systems for Energy Savings."
Accessed July 9th, 2008. http://hubpages.com/hub/Solar-Thermal-Systems-forEnergy-Savings.)

Solar thermal systems are one of my favorite energy-efficiency topics. They are simple, affordable, green and save money. As energy
costs continue to soar and sustainable building goes mainstream, many homeowners are turning an enthusiastic eye to solar thermal
systems for energy savings. Solar thermal gained in popularity during the oil crisis in the early 1970s, when fuel for hot water was
scarce and expensive. The industry boomed for a short time, in part due to government incentives and subsidies. It lost momentum
when oil became cheap again but the technology continued to evolve. Today, consumers can benefit from a wide range of applications
that are suitable to nearly any region and building type. The systems operate on a simple natural process that captures the sun’s
warmth and transfers it to mediums that can be used for heating in the home. We experience this process regularly but too often fail to
use it effectively. Think about swimming in a natural water body like the ocean or a lake. These are cooler in the morning and at the
beginning of warm seasons. This is because water stores absorbs and stores heat. When it’s cool or dark outside, this heat escapes
making water cooler at these times. When the sun is shining or the weather has been warm for a longer time, the water retains this
heat. By coupling the sun’s energy with modern technology, solar thermal systems provide a cost effective way to heat hot water and
reduce the need for non-renewable fuels. While simple in principle, there are a few different techniques used depending on the region
and situation.

Page | 92
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar Thermal – Dependency Solvency


Solar thermal energy meets the energy demand for a year in six hours
Albert W.L. Moore Sr. Jul 02, 2008. (Examiner.net. "Someday solar energy will fuel America's bright future." Accessed July 9th,
2008. http://www.examiner.net/letters/x1743986709/Someday-solar-energy-will-fuelAmericas-bright-future)

"The amount of energy that the sun shines onto the earth’s desert regions in six hours is roughly the global demand for energy for an
entire year.” – Prof. Michael Dueren of the University of Giessen, quoted in Welt Online. Solar thermal energy could make a major
contribution to American energy independence and quality of life. It might be essential, given the apparent permanent uncertainty of
supply and price in the international petroleum market. Instead of converting sunlight directly into electricity, solar thermal energy
concentrates the heat of sunshine, typically to generate steam for turbines that drive electrical generators. The heat can be stored for
use when the sun is not shining. A few utilities have used solar thermal power generators in the past, and more are being built.
MarketWatch on June 18 reported that BrightSource Energy closed a $115 million round of financing from Chevron Corp., Google,
BP PLC, and others after making a deal with Pacific Gas & Electric for 900 megawatts of solar thermal power. Yes, Chevron and BP
are financing solar thermal energy. MarketWatch reported further that BrightSource earlier this month had dedicated a pilot project in
the Israeli desert consisting of 1,600 mirrors and a boiler atop a 60-foot tower, a model for plants to be built in the Mojave. Edison
International agreed to buy 245 megawatts of solar thermal electricity from a Mojave Desert plant utilizing 500,000 parabolic mirrors,
to be completed in 2011. New Solar Ventures plans to build a 300-megawatt solar thermal plant in Deming, N.M. They are expensive
to construct, but the fuel is free and does not have to be purchased or transported to the power plant. Hence the initial cost can be
quickly recovered over time, not only from selling power but also from avoiding the need to purchase fuel and the flexibility to locate
a plant on cheap land without considering proximity to ports, roads or rail lines for fuel handling.

Page | 93
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar Thermal Effective at night


Solar Thermal is effective even at night
Michael Kanellos. June 7, 2007. (Staff Writer. CNET News.com. "Solar thermal energy making a comeback." Accessed July 9th,
2008. http://news.cnet.com/Solar-thermal-energy-making-a-comeback/ 2100-11392_3-6189468.html)

Solar thermal plants, also called concentrated solar power plants, harvest heat from the sun with highly polished mirrors. The mirrors
concentrate the heat on a tube filled with liquid or gas. Pressure builds inside the tube, and the pressure is then exploited to crank a
turbine. Heat is harvested by the mirrors. What can't be economically converted to electricity at the time it's obtained can be stored in
molten salts at these plants. Thus, solar thermal plants are capable of generating electricity at night.

Page | 94
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar energy prices decreasing


Solar energy costs are decreasing
Kanellos May 11,07
(Micheal Kanellos [Michael Kanellos is a senior department editor at CNET News.com. He holds qualifications from Cornell
University and Hastings College of the Law.] "Shrinking the cost for solar power".http://news.cnet.com/Shrinkingthe-cost-for-solar-
power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html?hhTest July 08, 2008)

One of the big problems with solar power has been that it costs more than electricity generated by conventional means. But some
experts think that, under certain circumstances, the premium for solar power can be erased, without subsidies or dramatic technical
breakthroughs. A sufficiently large solar thermal power plant (also called concentrated solar power, or CSP) could potentially generate
electricity at about the same cost as electricity from a conventional gas-burning power plant, experts say. Costs can then be reduced
further by building the plants close to consumers. It costs about $1.5 million per mile for transmission lines, according to statistics
from Acciona Solar Power, which owns solar thermal plants. Solar thermal plants work best in arid deserts that get little rainfall. Since
some of the fastest-growing cities in the world are located in sun belts, that's less of a problem than it used to be. Even if all of these
factors could be completely optimized, solar thermal power plants would likely not produce electricity at a level that would compete
with coal plants. Coal plants, however, will likely be hit with carbon taxes in the near future, which will make solar thermal more
competitive. Still, at less than 10 cents.

Page | 95
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar power good for military


Solar Power is good for the Military
Cho 11 October, 07
(Dan Cho. [News Scientist.Executive director of The Veritas Forum. A.B. from Harvard College in social anthropology, master's
degrees from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School.] "Pentagon backs plan to beam solar power from
space." http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-beam-solarpower-from-space.html. 09July 2008)

A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report
released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor The NSSO report recommends
that the US government spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to build a test satellite capable of beaming 10 megawatts of electric
power down to Earthprojects to demonstrate solar-power-generating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private
development of the technology. We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant
colonel Paul Damphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US. The NSSO report says that solar-
powergenerating satellites could also solve supply problems in distant places such as Iraq, where fuel is currently trucked along in
dangerous convoys and the cost of electricity for some bases can exceed $1 per kilowatt-hour – about 10 times what it costs in the US.
The report also touts the technology's potential to provide a clean, abundant energy source and reduce global competition for oil.
NSSO and its supporters say that no fundamental scientific breakthroughs are necessary to proceed with the idea and that space-based
solar power will be practical in the next few decades.

Page | 96
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency - CSP
CSP is becoming more inexpensive , stores heat effectively, and is easy to obtain
Joseph Romm. Senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. served as acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency
and renewable energy in 1997. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT April 14, 2008. (Salon.com. "The technology that will save
humanity." Accessed July 9th, 2008. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/index.html)

The key attribute of CSP is that it generates primary energy in the form of heat, which can be stored 20 to 100 times more cheaply
than electricity -- and with far greater efficiency. Commercial projects have already demonstrated that CSP systems can store energy
by heating oil or molten salt, which can retain the heat for hours. Ausra and other companies are working on storing the heat directly
with water in the tubes, which would significantly lower cost and avoid the need for heat exchangers. CSP costs have already begun to
decline as production increases. According to a 2008 Sandia National Laboratory presentation, costs are projected to drop to 8 to 10
cents per kilowatt hour when capacity exceeds 3,000 MW. The world will probably have double that capacity by 2013. The price drop
will likely occur even if the current high prices for raw materials like steel and concrete continue (prices that also affect the
competition, like wind, coal and nuclear power). Since all three remaining presidential candidates endorse a cap on carbon dioxide
emissions coupled with a system for trading emissions permits, carbon dioxide will likely have a significant price within a few years.
And that means the economics of carbon-free CSP will only get better. Improvements in manufacturing and design, along with the
possibility of higher temperature operation, could easily bring the price down to 6 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour. CSP makes use of the
most abundant and free fuel there is, sunlight, and key countries have a vast resource. Solar thermal plants covering the equivalent of a
92-by-92-mile square grid in the Southwest could generate electricity for the entire United States. Mexico has an equally enormous
solar resource. China, India, southern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Australia also have huge resources. CSP plants can
also operate with a very small annual water requirement because they can be air-cooled. And CSP has some unique climate-friendly
features. It can be used effectively for desalinating brackish water or seawater. That is useful for many developing countries today, and
it's a must-have for tens if not hundreds of millions of people if we don't act in time to stop global warming and dry out much of the
planet. Such desertification would, ironically, mean even more land ideal for CSP.

Page | 97
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar Power - Feasibility


Solar power is both technically and economically feasible
David R. Mills and Robert G. Morgan. July 3, 2008.
(Renewable Energy World.com Online. "A solar-powered economy: How solar thermal can replace coal, gas and oil ." Accessed July
8th 2008. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ rea/news/reworld/story?id=52693)

We all know that concentrating solar thermal technology in California has been delivering 'no fuel' electricity for two decades. Now
advanced solar thermal electric options are dropping in price and some companies are introducing thermal storage to match power
demand. Here, David R. Mills and Robert G. Morgan explain how this technology can deliver very much more. Their modeling shows
that solar thermal power could not only replace most fossil-fueled electricity generation in the US, but could replace petroleum-based
transportation. They argue it's not only technically, but economically feasible - and not just for the US but for China and India as well.
The sun is a much larger practical energy resource than any non-direct solar resource. Consequently, solar electricity is the most likely
means to nearly eliminate contributions to global warming from electricity generation by mid-century. Furthermore, with thermal
storage much cheaper than electrical, mechanical or hydrogen storage, solar electricity will probably be predominantly in the form of
solar thermal electricity (STE) with thermal storage, rather than photovoltaic solar electricity with electrical or mechanical storage.
STE (often referred to as CSP, or concentrating solar power – though this, strictly speaking, includes concentrating photovoltaics) uses
a field of solar reflectors to create a hot fluid to run a heat engine such as a Rankine or Brayton cycle. This is a proven concept using
Rankine cycle turbines. It has, for instance, been successfully demonstrated in the Californian desert for two decades using
commercial parabolic trough technology and steam turbines, achieving an annual field availability of 99%.

Page | 98
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency – Solar Thermal


Solar Thermal Energy is the only feasible large-scale renewable energy
Moran and McKinnon, 08
(Moran, Susan, and J. Thomas McKinnon. "Hot times for solar energy: utility-scale solar thermal power may be poised for the big
time.(concentrating solar power)." World Watch 21.2 (March-April 2008): 26(6). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Kansas State
University Libraries. 7 July 2008, KZ)

Now the sun is shining again on CSP. One clear sign of the revival is the number of CSP-related startups that have cropped up in the
past couple years, including BrightSource Energy of Oakland, California; Stirling Energy Systems of Phoenix, Arizona; and Ausra,
Inc. of Palo Alto, California. BrightSource was started by Goldman, Luz's founder. (To claim this professional pedigree, Goldman
named BrightSource's Israel subsidiary Luz II.) Although none of these companies has built a commercial CSP plant, they have wooed
millions in financing from venture capitalists, who now view solar and other renewable-energy technologies as the next thing after the
Internet that can promise billions in returns. Ausra, whose founder David Mills and his small team moved from Australia to Silicon
Valley last year to be closer to venture capitalists, found what they were looking for in Vinod Khosla, the Valley's most high-profile
evangelist of large-scale renewable energy. Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers together invested $47 million in
Ausra. Khosla argues that CSP is the only technology that can offer real, large-scale renewable power. "The big enchilada is getting
power that's cheaper than next-generation coal power," he says in a phone interview. Cost is critical. The original Luz team succeeded
in bringing down the cost of electricity from the Mojave parabolic trough solar stations from 26 U.S. cents to 16 cents per
kilowatthour (kWh), according to Goldman. Acciona currently sells electricity from Nevada Solar One to Nevada Power Company for
roughly 17 cents per kWh. But Western Governors' Association projections suggest that CSP power could fall to 8 cents per kWh as
the operators ascend the learning curve and develop cost reduction strategies.

Page | 99
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solvency – Solar Power


Solar power is the logical answer to the energy crisis
Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis. December, 2007. (Scientific American Magazine. "A Solar Grand Plan." Accessed
July 8th, 2008. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan.)

High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its
foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy
looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour
millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet. Well-meaning scientists,
engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps
are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar
power is the logical answer. Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is
equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square
miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500
quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would
match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

Solar Power – Cost Effective


Solar power becoming more cost effective
Portland Business Journal. June 17, 2008. (Portland Business Journal. "Solar Power is Becoming More Cost Effective." Accessed July
8th, 2008. http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/06/16/daily17.html.)

"As capital and fuel costs have doubled or tripled for coal, natural gas, and nuclear power over the past few years, solar power costs
are coming down," said Alisa Gravitz, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Co-op America. "For the first time in history,
cost-competitive solar power is now within the planning horizon of every utility in the nation." The study, based on interviews with
more than 30 solar, utility, financial, and policy experts, gives a comprehensive roadmap for utilities, solar companies, and regulators
to reach 10 percent of electricity from solar sources by 2025 --- a $26 billion to $33 billion-per-year investment. For the first time,
solar power is beginning to reach cost parity with conventional energy sources, says the study. As solar prices decline and the capital
and fuel costs for coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants rise, the U.S. will reach a crossover point by around 2015.

Page | 100
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

CSP – Fast Timeframe


CSP Can Be Deployed Quickly
Bernadette Del Chiaro. Environment California Research & Policy Center. Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik. Frontier Group. Spring
2008.
(Environment America Research & Policy Center. "Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming." Accessed July 8th,
2008. http://www.environmentamerica.org/uploads/0f/jZ/0fjZtsJDnQCqGKdr9a7Hjg/On-The-Rise.pdf.)

Another advantage of solar thermal power is that it can be deployed quickly. CSP plants are built largely from widely available and
easily manufactured materials such as glass, steel and concrete. And experience confirms that rapid construction is possible with CSP
plants. The Nevada Solar One project, for example, one of the world’s newest solar thermal plants, achieved construction in less than
16 months.

Page | 101
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar Power Solvency – Global Warming


Solar Power reduces global warming's effects
Bernadette Del Chiaro. Environment California Research & Policy Center. Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik. Frontier Group. Spring
2008. (Environment America Research & Policy Center. "Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming." Accessed
July 8th, 2008. http://www.environmentamerica.org/ uploads/0f/jZ/0fjZtsJDnQCqGKdr9a7Hjg/On-The-Rise.pdf.)

A 2007 study by the American Solar Energy Society estimated that 30 GW- 80 GW of solar thermal capacity could be installed in the
Southwest by 2030 with strong and consistent public policy support. Developing even this level of CSP—a fraction of the nation’s
ultimate solar thermal potential—would make a rapid and meaningful contribution to the nation’s efforts to reduce global warming
pollution.

Page | 102
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

A2: Generic Solar Energy bad Environment


Space Solar avoids the environmental problems of terrestrial solar
National Security Space Office, 10 October 2007
(Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security:Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study,HDG,http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/ SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf,Report to the Director, National Security Space Office
Interim Assessment, Contributors included military and government leaders as well as aerospace corporations)

Unlike terrestrial solar facilities,microwave receiving rectennas allow greater than 90% of ambient light to pass through, but absorb
almost all of the beamed energy, generating less waste heat than terrestrial solar systems because of greater coupling efficiency. This
means that the area underneath the rectenna can continue to be used for agricultural or pastoral purposes. To deliver any reasonably
significant amount of base‐load power, ground solar would need to cover huge regions of land with solar cells, which are major
sources of waste heat. As a result, these ground solar farms would produce significant environmental impacts to their regions. The
simultaneous major increases to the regional temperature, plus the blockage of sunlight from the ground, will likely kill off local
plants, animals and insects that might inhabit the ground below or around these ground solar farms. This means that that a SBSP
rectenna has less impact on the albedo or reflectivity of the Earth than a terrestrial solar plant of equivalent generating capacity.
Moreover, the energy provided could facilitate water purification and irrigation, prevent frosts, extend growing seasons (if a little of
the energy were used locally) etc. In the plains of the U.S. (e.g., South Dakota, etc), in sub‐Saharan Africa, etc. etc. there are vast areas
of arable land that could be both productive farm land and sites for SBSP rectennas.

Page | 103
K-State Debate
Purple Lab
Solar Power Satellites Affirmative
Wildcat Debate Workshop 2008

Solar Power increasing internationally


Solar power is gaining popularity around the globe
USA Today 2008
(USA Today (Magazine) 136.2757 (June 2008): p15(1) Solar power starts to sizzle.(Alternative Energy)
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1432503/ solar_power_starts_to_sizzle/index.html )

Global production of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells increased 51% in 2007, to 3,733 megawatts, according to a report from the
Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., and Prometheus Institute, Cambridge, Mass. More than 2,935 megawatts (MW) of solar
modules were installed in 2007, bringing cumulative global installations of PVs since 1996 to over 9,740 MW--enough to meet the
annual electricity demand of more than 3,000,000 homes in Europe. "Thanks to strong, smart policies in countries like Germany and
Spain, the PV industry is making great strides in efficiency and cost, bringing solar power closer to price parity with fossil fuels,"
maintains senior researcher Janet Sawin. Over the past year, Europe--led by Germany--surpassed Japan to lead the world in solar cell
manufacturing, producing an estimated 1,063 MW. Thanks to government policies that guarantee high payments for solar power fed
into the electric grid, Germany remains the world leader in PV installations, accounting for almost half the world total. About 40,000
people now are employed in that industry in Germany. Spain ranked second for total installations in 2007, but accounts for only an
estimated three percent of global production. As in Germany, the Spanish market is being driven by a strong guaranteed price for PV
electricity. Despite a dramatic increase in solar cell production in the U.S., up 48% to 266 MW, the nation's share of global production
and installations continues to fall. In contrast, China raced past the U.S. for PV cell manufacturing to place third globally, and ranks
second only to Japan for national production. Over the past two years, China's PV production has increased more than sixfold, to 820
MW. Despite these impressive numbers, the domestic market remains small and most PV cells made in China are exported to Europe.
"With billions of dollars invested in the solar energy technologies in the last several months, the PV sector is primed for accelerating
its impact in both centralized and distributed generation at increasingly competitive costs," notes Travis Bradford, president of the
Prometheus Institute. "As it reaches widespread cost parity in the next few years, demand will flourish in many places around the
world simultaneously." Solar PV prices declined slightly in 2007, with even greater reductions held back by the hot pace of demand
and a continued shortage of polysilicon, an essential ingredient for conventional solar cells. Analysts expect much more dramatic price
drops--perhaps as much as 50% in the next two years--as more polysilicon becomes available, production and installation are scaled
up further, manufacturing efficiencies increase, and more advanced technologies are introduced. As a result, solar electricity soon
could be a competitive alternative to conventional retail power in many regions, including California and southern Europe.

Page | 104

You might also like