Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Neg Nukes Good Bad

Neg Nukes Good Bad

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19 |Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/14/2012

 
UMKC SDI 2008
 
 NUCLEAR POWER Winfrey/Dietrich
1/35
NUCLEAR POWER GOOD/BAD INDEX
 NUCLEAR POWER GOOD/BAD INDEX ....................................................................................1 NUKE POWER BAD ......................................................................................................................2Solvency Frontline ...........................................................................................................................3 NUKE POWER INEVITABLE .......................................................................................................5INCENTIVES FAIL ........................................................................................................................6URANIUM SHORTAGES .............................................................................................................9LOANS = DEFAULTS .................................................................................................................10Terrorism Turn ...............................................................................................................................11 Nuclear Power = Terrorism ............................................................................................................12Accidents Turn ...............................................................................................................................13Ext- Nuclear Power - Accidents .....................................................................................................14Proliferation Turn ...........................................................................................................................15 NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE .......................................................................................................16A2: WARMING ADV ....................................................................................................................18POLITICS- NUKE POWER IS PARTSIAN .................................................................................21Politics Links- BIPART .................................................................................................................22POLTICS- PUBLICLY POPULAR ...............................................................................................23POLITICS- PUBLICALLY UNPOPULAR ..................................................................................24 NUKE POWER GOOD .................................................................................................................25 Nuclear Power Solves Warming ....................................................................................................26 NUCLEAR POWER SOLVE OIL DEPENDENCE .....................................................................28A2: Accidents .................................................................................................................................29A2: TERRORISM ..........................................................................................................................32A2: WASTE ...................................................................................................................................34A2: PROLIFERATION ..................................................................................................................351
 
UMKC SDI 2008
 
 NUCLEAR POWER Winfrey/Dietrich
2/35
NUKE POWER BAD
2
 
UMKC SDI 2008
 
 NUCLEAR POWER Winfrey/Dietrich
3/35
Solvency Frontline
1. STATUS QUO SOLVES LOAN GUARANTEES EXIST NOWCBO 08
(Congressional Budget Office, “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity,” May 2008,http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf 
 
)
Current energy policy
, especially as established and expanded under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct),
provides incentives for building additional
capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil-fueltechnologies and an advanced generation of 
nuclear reactor designs
that are intended to decrease costs andimprove safety.2 Among
the provisions of EPAct that specifically apply to newly built nuclearpower plants are funding for research and development; investment incentives, such asloan guarantees and insurance against regulatory delays; and production incentives,including a tax credit. Since the enactment of EPAct, about a dozen utilities haveannounced their intention to license about 30 nuclear plants.2. PLAN DOESN’T ENSURE PLANTS WILL BE BUILTDaks 07
(Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007,http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535)Another federal benefit that Crane calls a "significant motivation" for NRG's decision to move ahead is a provisionthat lets the secretary of energy authorize
loan guarantees
for up to 80 percent of the cost of a nuclear plant."We believe this
will encourage banks to extend loans for projects
like the Texas generators," saysCrane, who adds that NRG expects to tap its own resources for about 20 percent-or $1.2 billion-of the estimatedcost, with banks and capital markets making up the difference. The 2005 Energy Act also provides tax breaks for operators of new nuclear plants based on the energy they produce, and requires the federal government to indemnifyoperators in the event of an accident.
While such provisions may add up to a sweet deal for newentrants into nuclear power, they don't guarantee that any proposed projects will actuallyget built
. For one thing,
there's plenty of opposition to nuclear power
from organizations likeCommon Cause that question the safety of such plants
and
note that
there is still no federal repository forfederal waste
.
3. SHORTAGES IN URANIUM PREVENT SOLVENCYHarding 07
(Jim Harding, a consultant from Olympia, Washington. He's worked on a whole series of energy andenvironmental issues, “Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a GlobalizedEconomy, Session II: What Is the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?” Council on Foreign Relations, June 15,2007,http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html
 
)On the
uranium
issue, this
is a very peculiar commodity
. Today, world consumption -- let me state itdifferently --
world production of uranium is about 60 percent of consumption
.
It doesn't happen inturkey, butter, milk or many other commodities. And the reason for that is that you need to procure uranium quite a long ways in advance, and beginning sort of in the mid- to late 1970s, people had ordered a lot of reactors in the U.S., Western Europe and Russia, secured long- termcontracts -- meaning seven to 10 years for uranium -- at a high price, and they cancelled the plan. So all that secondary supply came into themarket, depressing the price. It was followed by privatization of centrifuge -- of enrichment in the United States. We also bought lots of surplusenriched uranium from Russia. And most recently, we are blending down or diluting surplus weapons uranium into U.S. fuel.
So
we'rerunning the global nuclear industry on a secondary supply that pops pretty quick 
. And it'shad the unfortunate impact that existing contracts have fixed prices for uranium; the same is generally true on theenrichment side.
You need to procure the product about four years in advance of burning it.
We're at a price of $135 a pound, pretty much a historical peak.
Utilities for the most part run out of their existing supply by 2012, 2013
.
They've got to get back into this market. And it's hard to tell what the long- term pricewill be. This is not -- it's not a physical shortage of uranium, it's a shortage of milling capacity and also enrichment capacity. The enrichmentissue was somewhat complicated, because when you go to a higher uranium price, you want to decrease the tails assay at the enrichment plant.
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->