Document1

BCC 2011-2012

Page 1 of 2
Text: The United States federal government should not develop space-based solar power. The Department of Defense should replace current spending on fossil fuels by agreeing to pay at least one dollar per kilowatt-hour for space-based solar power services developed by the private sector. The United States federal government should offer long-term, low-interest, guaranteed loans to any private company that expresses interest in investing in space-based solar power. 1) CP solvesDoD as anchor tenant is the only way to get the private sector on board NSSO 7 (October 2007, National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/.../final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf )

The SBSP Study Group found that industry has stated that the #1 driver and requirement for generating industry interest and investment in developing the initial operational SBSP systems is acquiring an anchor tenant customer, or customers, that are willing to sign contracts for highvalue SBSP services. Industry is particularly interested in the possibility that the DoD might be willing to pay for SBSP services delivered to the warfighter in forward bases in amounts of 5 50 MWe continuous, at a price of $1 or more per kilowatt hour. Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the DoD should immediately conduct a requirements analysis of underlying longterm DoD demand for secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery to the war fighter, what the DoD might be willing to pay for a SBSP service delivered to the warfighter and under what terms and conditions, and evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of various approaches to signing up as an anchor tenant customer of a commerciallydelivered service, such as the NextView acquisition approach pioneered by the National GeoSpatialimaging Agency. 2) SSP will be equal to current energy costs for the DoDit must begin with the DoD before costs are low enough for private sector spillover

Betancourt 10 (Kiatar Betancourt, Online Journal of Space Communication, Legal Challenges Facing Solar Power
Satellites,http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/betancourt.html )

Military Interest: The U.S. military was spending over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward military positions due to transportation and security costs. This estimate of cost does not include the significant numbers of soldiers killed or injured protecting supply convoys. Unlike the public sector where SBSP would need to cost as low as 8-10 cents per kilowatt to be a viable energy option, for military purposes SBSP could still be viable at a cost closer to $1 per kilowatt .[29] The NSSO Study proposed that DoD partner with private companies and foreign allies in creating a test model for SBSP. The DoD would agree to be an anchor tenant customer for the initial SBSP systems. The DoDs high energy supply costs could justify the high initial implementation cost of SBSP. Energy companies working with the DoD could also begin to supply SBSP to the public sector as the costs of SBSP lower over time. Loan guarantees guarantee private sector investment NSSO 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, 10-10-2007, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, NSS, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf) Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that consistent with the U.S. Government incentives provided to other carbonneutral 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 offsets 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 30year tax holiday on any profits made by U.S. industry in the successful operation of spacebased solar power systems.

Document1

BCC 2011-2012

Page 2 of 2 3) Funding provided by the private companies will increase U.S. Economy more than just USFG. Wagner 10 [Brian Wagner: Reporter in Voice of America, US Space Plan May Boost Private Space Firms, 2010, accessed 07 09-11, ZR]
Space experts say the White House's new plan for space exploration is a boost to private companies that are developing cutting-edge technologies needed in coming years. New funding may propel research and create thousands of new jobs. When President Barack Obama spoke this week at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, he wanted to assure NASA veterans that he is committed to hu man space flight. With only three space shuttle flights remaining, critics have said it could be decades before the U.S. space agency can develop a vehic le to take its place. But the president said he hopes to see bold new missions, including trips to nearby asteroids an d Mars, during his lifetime. He said a

key to that goal is encouraging private companies to develop new technologies and operate cargo flights and manned missions into space. John Logsdon, a member of NASA's advisory council , says the private sector has been waiting for that kind of message. "This approach is a signal to the private space community that they can look to government partnerships, government as a user, or even government as an investment partner as they go forward," he said. One private partner may be the
Space X company, founded by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk. On his trip to Kennedy Space Center, President Obama met with Mu sk and visited the company's Falcon rocket, which is set for a test launch next month. So far, Space X and other private firms have relied on private money. But the president's new plan includes $6 billion to fund research and development into new rocket engines and other components. That funding is a major turnaround in the U.S. space budget , says John Gedmark of the Washington-based trade group Commercial Spaceflight Federation. "Technology development funding had pretty much been zeroed out under the previous p lan," he said. Gedmark says a privately funded study shows that an increase in NASA's budget this year will create nearly 12,000 new jobs. He says new funding for private space firms will create even more jobs. Critics of the president's new approach say it is a mistake to rely on private space companies, because it could take years for them to develop a rocket capable of carrying astronauts. Once the space shuttle is retired this year, the only way to get astronauts into orbit will be aboard Russian Soyuz rockets. Under current plans, NASA has agreed to pay Russia to send U.S. astronauts on missions, including trips to the space station. Supporters of the president's new plan say the U.S. should encourage private firms to help share that role with Russia. Norm Augustine recently led a panel of space experts that reviewed U.S. space plans. "The question arises: do we have less faith in the U.S. aerospace industry to carry our astronauts to orbit, than we have to the Russian space industry to car ry our astronauts to orbit?"

4) Solve for resource wars, whereas their plan does not.

Dependence on oil causes economic instability and conflict in Central Asia International Crisis Group 7 (Asia Group, No. 133, 24 May, p. 36-37, http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000480.pdf, accessed: 8 July 2011, JT)
Regional Instability: The three hydrocarbon exporters Kazakhstan this has come in the form of macroeconomic

in the region are all suffering from varying degrees of the oil curse. In problems, corruption and inequality. In Turkmenistan, oil and gas allowed for the development of one of the most dictatorial regimes of recent decades. In Uzbekistan , gas revenues have helped to sustain one of the most brutal police states on earth. In the long-term, the prospects for stability are not good in any of these nations just as other major energy producers
around the world have suffered sustained unrest. Although there have been disputes over hydrocarbon fields in the Caspian, energy has not proven to be a cause for conflict amongst the three Central Asian exporting states. Rather, although they still depend on shared infrastructure, they have taken divergent paths in the development of their industries. The dangers are within each country. Kazakhstan is at risk from all the macroeconomic and social effects of oil: Over-investment in prestige infrastructure projects that have the side benefit of being easy to pilfer while ignoring education and healthcare. The country is well below others of a similar wealth in these areas but is spending billions on a garish new capital. Ignoring the environmental and social impact of oil production while channelling benefits elsewhere. The oil is produced in Atyrau and Mangghystau but the regions are poor and benighted. Failing to create flexible and open state systems that can manage the tensions between the need for saving oil revenues to prevent Dutch disease and the pressing needs of development. Turkmenistan, having seen oil and gas revenues siphoned off by its former leader, is now facing pressing new challenges : A lack of investment in infrastructure and training has meant that revenues may peak soon. Foreign investment to sustain output and improve outlets is unlikely unless political conditions change but the cushion of energy money that might allow that is deflating fast. Social policies put in place by Niyazov have created a generation that is ill-equipped to run a complex gas economy. The rest of the economy is derelict. Uzbekistans income from energy is not so great that it shapes the entire economy but is still critical: Declining energy income due to reduced prices or declining output would reduce the resources available to the security forces to maintain Karimo vs repressive rule. The sale of gas to Russia has left the regime reliant on one international partner which will have implications in the transition after Karimov. Resource Wars Cause Extinction