P. 1
WHAM Nuclear Power Aff 2.0

WHAM Nuclear Power Aff 2.0

|Views: 19|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Dec 16, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

05/09/2014

pdf

text

original

Sections

SDI 2008 WHAM!

1 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

1AC Waste Disposal 4 minute version.........................................................................................3 ADV U.S. Nuclear power leadership............................................................................................6 ADV Global Warming...................................................................................................................8 ADV Brownouts/Blackouts..........................................................................................................11 ADV Dependency.........................................................................................................................12 ADV Legal obligation..................................................................................................................13 ADV US-Australian relations.....................................................................................................14 ADV US-Russian Relations.........................................................................................................15 ADV Competitiveness..................................................................................................................16 Inherency......................................................................................................................................18 CA Dry Cask storage is safe........................................................................................................19 CA Companies want to build nuclear power plants.................................................................20 AT CA Public opposes nuclear power........................................................................................21 AT CA Nuclear power is to expensive........................................................................................22 AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive......................................................................................23 AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive ext. Waste storage key to NP....................................24 AT DA Generic – nuclear power expanding now......................................................................26 AT DA Generic – Lots of incentives to do nuclear power now................................................28 AT DA Yucca mountain is unsafe...............................................................................................29 AT DA Nuclear plant meltdowns................................................................................................30 AT DA Nuclear waste is dangerous............................................................................................32 AT DA Reprocessing....................................................................................................................33 AT DA Economy...........................................................................................................................34 AT DA Spending...........................................................................................................................35 AT DA Politics – Nuclear power is unpopular...........................................................................36 AT DA Politics – Obama will do the plan (DA turns the case).................................................37 AT CP States.................................................................................................................................38 AT CP Solar .................................................................................................................................39 AT CP Wind..................................................................................................................................40 AT CP Natural Gas......................................................................................................................41 AT CP Hydroelectric....................................................................................................................42 AT CP Cap and Trade..................................................................................................................43 AT CP PIC out of Yucca Mountain............................................................................................44

SDI 2008 WHAM!

2 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT K Discursive...........................................................................................................................46 SMART Act..................................................................................................................................47 GNEP............................................................................................................................................49 .......................................................................................................................................................49

SDI 2008 WHAM!

3 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

1AC Waste Disposal 4 minute version
Inherency Despite a host of incentives the nuclear industry needs one more – a place for waste disposal. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S., there are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs of natural gas and oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly objects to the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and insurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want? Just one thing: a place to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed, the lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging over the entire enterprise. The projected opening of a federal waste storage repository in Yucca Mountain in Nevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest) has already slipped by two decades, and the cooling pools holding spent fuel at the nation’s nuclear power plants are running out of space. Plan: The United States Federal Government should pursue a dual track approach to nuclear waste storage allowing interim dry cask storage and developing a permanent repository.

Solvency The plan would save the nuclear power industry. Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A
CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis, dru The waste storage problem in the United States is manageable. The United States should pursue a dual-track approach: commit to developing a consensus and then opening up a permanent repository and in parallel store as much spent fuel as possible in dry casks that are hardened against attack at existing reactor sites. The combination of interim storage and commitment to a permanent repository would provide the assurances needed by the public and the investment community for continued use of nuclear power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

4 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Advantage 1 Global Warming The only way to reduce greenhouse gases and nuclear energy is to use nuclear energy United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises
Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM The IPCC panel, which was established by the UN to assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, includes a major expansion of nuclear power as a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the world’s climate. “This is a nobrainer: any realistic plan to reduce carbon emissions in a meaningful way must include a vast expansion of nuclear power. The IPCC is right to include nuclear energy as a necessary part of the climate change solution,” said Domenici, who is the author of “A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy.” Global warming causes disease spread, environmental damage, and escalating regional conflicts Podesta, Stern, and Batten 2007 (John, Todd, and Kit, President, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy, and Senior
Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Capturing the Energy Opportunity, November 2007, Accessed May 15, 2008, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf)

Climate change presents the United States with multiple foreign policy challenges quite apart from those directly
connected to our nation’s deepening dependence on imported oil, which we will detail shortly. These challenges include, for example, increased border stress resulting from the impact of climate change-induced storms and droughts in Mexico and the Caribbean. Or consider the complications posed by ever-scarcer water supplies to political progress in the Middle East. Perhaps the greatest climate change-induced geopolitical challenge in the shortterm, though, will

arise in the developing countries in the earth’s low latitudes. In these countries, even a relatively small climatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, the spread of disease, and natural resource competition. Such conditions fuel political turmoil, drive already weak states toward collapse, and threaten regional stability. According to a recent report by 11 former Army generals and Navy admirals, climate change is a “threat multiplier for instability” in volatile parts of the world.16 Nigeria and East Africa pose particularly acute
challenges. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, will confront intense drought, desertification, and sea-level rise in the coming years. Already, approximately 1,350 square miles of Nigerian land turns to desert each year, forcing both farmers and herdsmen to abandon their homes.17 Lagos, the largest Nigerian city, is one of the West African coastal megacities that the IPCC identifies as at risk from sea-level rise by 2015.18 These conditions, coupled with rapid population growth projections, are likely to force significant human migration and contribute to regional political and economic turmoil. The threat of regional turmoil is higher yet in East Africa because of the concentration of weak or failing states, numerous unresolved political conflicts, and the severe effects of climate change. Climate change will likely create large fluctuations in the amount of rainfall in East Africa during the next 30 years—a 5 percent to 20 percent increase in rainfall during the winter months would cause flooding and soil erosion, while a 5 percent to 10 percent decrease in the summer months would cause severe droughts.19 Such volatility will jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of people and the economic capacity of the region: Agriculture constitutes some 40 percent of East Africa’s GDP and employs 80 percent of the population.20 In Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya, water shortages have already led to the desertification of large tracts of farmland and grassland. Fierce competition between farmers and herdsmen over the remaining arable land, combined with simmering ethnic and religious tensions, helped ignite the first genocide of the 21st century.21 This conflict has now spilled into Chad and the Central African Republic. Meanwhile, the entire Horn of Africa remains threatened by a failed Somalia and other weak states. Beyond Africa, the IPCC warns that

“coastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East and Southeast Asia, will be at greatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some mega-deltas, flooding from the rivers.”22 In South Asia, this will generate political tension as displaced people traverse the region’s many contested borders and territories, such as those between Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and China. In Bangladesh, for example, the combination of deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, radical Islamic political groups, and dire environmental insecurity brought on by climate change could prove a volatile mix, one with severe regional and potentially global consequences.23

SDI 2008 WHAM!

5 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Independently, warming causes human extinction
Henderson 2006 (Bill, Frequent Contributor to online news source CounterCurrents, Counter Currents, August 19, 2006, Accessed May 10,
2008, http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm)

The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer

temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old
existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

Advantage Two U.S. Nuclear energy leadership Nuclear Power Requires Global Cooperation To Solve Climate Change, Proliferation, And Economic Objectives Christina Bellantoni, 7-7-08, The Washington Times, GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states; Economy
takes focus, lexis, bc "(I) will discuss with Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh how best to take forward this reform agenda, which is something the United Kingdom attaches great importance to." He will iterate that sentiment in a speech on Monday which 10, Downing Street has said will be one of his major speeches of 2008. It will dwell on the need for significant modernization of the international framework of governance in order to make it representative and effective. Climate change is another issue that will be high on his agenda during the visit to India. Appreciating India's advocacy of common but differentiated responsibility, the British prime minister said in the interview that developed countries should take responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to a low-carbon, high-growth model of economic development. "Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Caused by developed countries, the weight of responsibility to solve it lies with us," Mr Brown said. "However," he added, "countries need to act together to have the greatest hope of solving this shared dilemma." In that context, Mr Brown said that nuclear energy is non-polluting and it can make a significant contribution to limiting climate change. He suggested that, under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices, new nuclear power stations would yield economic benefits to India in terms of carbon reduction and security of supply. "The UK and India agree on the potential of civil nuclear energy to be a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of energy, which could make a significant contribution to meeting the global challenge of achieving energy security, sustainable development, economic growth and limiting climate change," he said. The British prime minister reiterated his country's support for the proposed India-USA civil nuclear cooperation agreement. "The UK supports the India-USA civil nuclear cooperation initiative. We believe that the deal can make a significant contribution to energy security, development, economic and environment objectives for India and the international community," he said. Britain has unveiled a new energy policy, the centrepiece of which is a decision to support the building of new nuclear power stations. Mr Brown said the UK and India are actively engaged on non-proliferation and arms control issues, too. "We engage with India on a full range of non-proliferation and arms control issues, both bilaterally and through multilateral forums, including the UN and organizations related to it, such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said. He asserted that "such international engagement is increasingly vital in reducing proliferation risks, including that of terrorists gaining access to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons and their means of delivery". Mr Brown said he is looking forward to building on the very close relationship enjoyed by the UK and India during Monday's summit. His discussions with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will centre on how both countries can work together to meet common challenges for the future at all levels - bilaterally, multilaterally or globally. "At a bilateral level, (I am) keen to strengthen education and trade links between the two countries," Mr Brown said. A senior level delegation of UK business leaders and heads of some of the UK's top universities will accompany him to India. "We hope to conclude a number of agreements at the summit. Another important issue for (me) is that of development.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

6 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

ADV U.S. Nuclear power leadership
Having a strong nuclear industry is key to the U.S. ability to decrease proliferation. Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, D. C. 3/2/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000302ebel.pdf The ability of the United States to influence the control of proliferation of nuclear weapons derives from our ability to influence the policies and practices of other nations as they develop their own nuclear power industry. But our ability to influence depends very much on the state of our own nuclear industry.

Nuclear power expansion is supported by other countries, which undermines U.S. nuclear power leadership. Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf
Clearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy. At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist these consumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption. Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear power as a viable option in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-looking plan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Minister of Atomic Energy recently stated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. Does China? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by the year 2020. Does Japan’s, despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plans to add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclear option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our judgment that the market alone won't do it).

SDI 2008 WHAM!

7 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Invigorating the nuclear industry is key to our nuclear energy leadership and competitiveness. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in
2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008 Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come. Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental benefits offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but it’s not the whole story. What has been missing from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can accrue if the U.S. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United States greatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the early 1990s. At that time, U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global use of nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy leadership. In the ever-expanding global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be able to compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred supplier position. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual.” The Unites States invented nuclear energy, and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design, manufacturing, service and supply improves, our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear design, manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in: o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories; o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; and o greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns. Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of the growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close attention to the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers and operators, as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will be needed to build, operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

8 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

ADV Global Warming
Nuclear Energy is the best solution to carbon dioxide emissions Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest)
WITH NEWS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GROWING MORE alarming day by day, some are stepping forward to suggest that nuclear energy-a form of energy that Americans had largely rejected by the 1980s-is the best and fastest way to reduce the United State's enormous carbon footprint. The term "nuclear renaissance," promoted by the nuclear-energy industry, is finding its way into news articles featuring interviews with well-known environmentalists like Patrick Moore, co-founder oh Greenpeace, who hold up low-carbon nuclear power as the answer to global warming.

Nuclear energy is the only way to cost effectively decrease CO2. Kemeny, Leslie, 2008. Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy,
Canberra Times, July 4, 2008, p.15/A. Lexis V.F Australian industrial leaders and domestic consumers of energy will digest with some apprehension the economic impacts of Professor Ross Garnaut's emission trading scheme. His interim report will be issued today. A green paper should be available from Climate Minister Penny Wong's department a little later. Without nuclear power, Australia stands exposed to hefty economic penalties as energy prices will undoubtedly escalate. Meanwhile, the coercive utopian exponents of renewables and clean coal vigorously advocate their populist causes. These already cost Australians an estimated $8 billion a year. Globally there is a growing consensus among energy experts and climate scientists that the only effective way to combat climate change and to maintain energy security at reasonable cost is through the comprehensive acceptance of nuclear power. Fifty years ago Australia was set to become the first nation south of the equator to embrace civilian nuclear power. Sadly, political vacillation, poor education, radical green activism and the fossil fuel lobby have, so far, successfully conspired to negate such enterprise. Our energy and climate change policy-makers could well learn from Australia's uranium trading partners. While the Canberra summit essentially removed nuclear power from its agenda, the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit 2008 Conference in Sydney provided a central forum for its discussion. Renowned physicist Paul Davies claimed that for too long nuclear power has been "politically incorrect" in Australia but would be the fastest and most effective way of reducing the nation's carbon emission. Former top public servant Peter Shergold said it would be unrealistic for any debate on global warming to neglect the nuclear option. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states that as global emission will be mandated to more than half by 2050, nuclear technology is a global imperative. And, for the risk-conscious Australian psyche it delivers a special message "the safety record of nuclear energy is better than any other major industrial technology in OECD countries".

Nuclear power is the only practical way to solve global warming
Steven J. Milloy 4/13/06 “Twenty Years After Chernobyl” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/019,05270.cfm It’s quite ironic that while Greenpeace squawks about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in order to avert the much-dreaded global warming, the group continues spreading fear about greenhouse gas-free nuclear power plants – the only practical alternative to burning fossil fuels for producing electricity.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

9 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Nuclear Power Is Best Weapon To Solve Global Warming While Maintaining Economic Development
Ben Packham, 9-6-07, Herald Sun, PM feels heat as nuke deal struck, lexis, bc JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday, announcing a joint nuclear energy action plan with the US. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global warming. They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible, saying action on climate change was ''urgently needed''. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed to tackle climate change as a priority. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies, reduce poverty, and improve living standards,'' Mr Howard said. Under the deal, the US will back Australia's membership of a global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. Nuclear and clean coal technology will be shared directly with the US under the pact. US President George Bush said the PM had been an international leader on climate change. ''Now, I know some say, 'Well, since he's against Kyoto he doesn't care about climate change','' Mr Bush said. ''That's urban legend. That is preposterous.'' Backing Mr Howard's nuclear ambitions, Mr Bush said the power source was a vital weapon in the fight against global warming. ''If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us -- if we take the issue seriously, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John does -- then you should be supportive of nuclear power,'' he said. ''After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases.'' Under the nuclear deal, the US agreed to support Australian membership of the Generation IV International Forum -- a global body working on next-generation reactor technology. The fourth-generation reactors are being designed to be safer, cheaper and more efficient. Australia will also join -- as revealed by the Herald Sun in July -- the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a US-backed initiative to expand the use of safe, zero-emission nuclear energy. The deal, the product of months of negotiations, comes amid intensive talks on an APEC-wide agreement. Insiders said delegates were a long way from a consensus, which Mr Howard hopes will be the summit's major outcome. The APEC Business Advisory Council, which comprises as many as three business representatives from each of APEC's 21 economies, will be urging leaders to set a transparent and consistent policy framework to combat global warming as soon as possible. ''What APEC is saying to those leaders is there is a real sense of urgency in the business community for the policy makers to set clear rules,'' said Mark Johnson, chairman of retailer AGL Energy Ltd and head of a business advisory council to APEC leaders. He said business must accelerate innovation, research, development and investment in new technologies. ''For all this to work, clear market-based policies are required for business so business can make judgments about where to invest,'' he said. ''Consumers are going to have to change their behaviour in response to the cost of climate change, and business is going to have to change its behaviour markedly.'' Mr Bush said cutting greenhouse emissions did not require slowing of development. The US had managed to curb its own greenhouse emissions last year while growing its economy, he said. A government-endorsed report earlier this year found Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors up and running by 2050. Mr Howard recently moved to calm concerns about the nuclear industry by guaranteeing local residents a veto on the location of any reactor.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

10 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

With nuclear power we can meet the Kyoto Treaty. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp Had we continued to build nuclear power plants over the past 30 years instead of depending increasingly on fossil plants and fickle renewables, we would most likely be meeting our Kyoto Treaty limits for carbon dioxide emissions.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

11 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

ADV Brownouts/Blackouts
Expanding nuclear power is the way to increase electicity generation and cut co2 emissions. Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, “Nuclear energy now our only option”, p.
17/A. Lexis VF The two cleanest means of generating power are nuclear and solar, but nuclear produces enough. Solar doesn't. The world's first civilian nuclear power reactor came on stream 50 years ago. There are now 440 reactors generating power in 31 countries and producing 15 per cent of the worlds electricity. In France, 80 per cent of electricity is generated in nuclear power stations. In the OECD generally, it is 22 per cent. The International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook for last year observed that the world faced the twin threats of not having adequate and secure supplies of energy together with the environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it. Switkowski expects demand for electricity to more than double by 2050, while at the same time pollution and emission levels must be brought down on today's levels. The solution as he sees it is a fast deployment of 25 nuclear reactors by 2050, so that about one third of electricity generation is nuclear, with greenhouse gas emissions down by 18 per cent. The first of them could be operating by 2016 and certainly by 2020. They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low. Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste, which takes 50 years to decay.

If scheduled plants come on line nuclear power will substantially increase the amount of electricity generation. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises
Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. If all the proposed nuclear power plants come online, an additional 38,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020—enough to power 28 million American households.

Increasing nuclear power necessary just to maintain current electricity generation. Steven J. Milloy 5/15/08 “McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech” Originally published in FoxNews.com o.z. http://cei.org/articles/mccain’s-embarrassing-climate-speech
McCain lauded wind as a "predictable source of energy." He must have missed this Feb. 27 headline from Reuters: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency." The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes. "Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels," McCain stated. What he’s talking about is not quite clear since our current economy is about 75 percent dependent on fossil fuels and will remain that way for at least the next 25 years, as solar and wind technologies remain only marginal sources of energy. If anything, we are likely to be even more dependent on fossil fuels in the future as nuclear power, which provides about 20 percent of our electricity, shrinks in availability as a supply of energy. Although our energy needs are ever-growing, construction of nuclear power plants is not keeping pace — not one has come online in the last 30 years. Even if a few nuke plants are constructed during the next decades, they will not supply enough power to keep nuclear power at the 20 percent level.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

12 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

ADV Dependency
Nuclear Power Will End Our Dependence On Oil From Unstable Regimes
Daniel Martin and David Derbyshire, 1-11-08, Daily Mail, Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills, lexis, bc A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be in place within a decade, the Government promised yesterday. MPs were told that the technology was 'tried and tested, safe and secure'. John Hutton said nuclear power would also mean Britain would not have to rely on oil and gas supplies from unstable regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Business Secretary said he had invited energy firms to build new reactors and the first could be in place 'well before' 2020. Critics said the move would see household electricity bills rise by up to £250 a year, partly because of the cost of dealing with waste. They said plants would be built only with taxpayer subsidies. However, EDF, a French nuclear power giant, said yesterday it would submit plans to build four reactors by 2017. Westinghouse, a British nuclear firm, also expressed an interest. Mr Hutton said: 'Giving the go-ahead that nuclear power should play a role in providing the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest. 'Set against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear power stations is compelling. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this important part of our energy policy. 'I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power stations. 'With a third of our generating capacity coming offline within the next 20 years and increasing reliance on imported energy it is clear we need investment in a range of new energy infrastructure.'

Nuclear energy would decrease the dependence on fossil fuels and help rid the environment of harmful emissions.
Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007. www.oxfordeconomics.com VF Moreover, maintaining the current generation capacity of the US nuclear energy industry would also imply reducing US reliance on imports of oil to meet its energy needs – future oil imports would fall by up to $41 billion per year (assuming an oil price of $50pb in constant 2005 prices) as a result of the investment program compared to a baseline in which nuclear generation capacity fell to zero. A higher oil price would clearly increase the savings: $75pb would generate savings of $62 billion per year. Finally, nuclear energy produces electricity without the attendant carbon emissions that come from burning fossil fuels. Maintaining the current nuclear generation capacity would mean reducing future US emissions by up to 390 million tonnes of CO2 per year compared to a zero-new-nucleargeneration baseline

SDI 2008 WHAM!

13 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

ADV Legal obligation
The USFG has a legal obligation to open a nuclear waste repository. Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc
"It's high time that we accomplish this task," he said. "We've passed laws and resolutions to do it. We've collected over $27 billion ? from electricity consumers to pay for it. And courts have affirmed that we have a legal obligation to do it." Inhofe drafted the bill without input from the nuclear power industry, though several of its sections are in line with industry priorities. Portions of the bill also resemble legislation Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced in 2006 (NF, 9 Oct. '06, 9). The Inhofe bill, for instance, would allow DOE to begin some non-nuclear work at the site in preparation for repository construction before NRC issues a license authorizing DOE to build a disposal facility there.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

14 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

ADV US-Australian relations
Nuclear Power Use Strengthens US-Australian Relations-- solving global poverty, living standards, and economic growth
Ben Packham, 9-6-07, Herald Sun, PM feels heat as nuke deal struck, lexis, bc JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday, announcing a joint nuclear energy action plan with the US. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global warming. They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible, saying action on climate change was ''urgently needed''. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed to tackle climate change as a priority. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies, reduce poverty, and improve living standards,'' Mr Howard said. Under the deal, the US will back Australia's membership of a global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. Nuclear and clean coal technology will be shared directly with the US under the pact. US President George Bush said the PM had been an international leader on climate change. ''Now, I know some say, 'Well, since he's against Kyoto he doesn't care about climate change','' Mr Bush said. ''That's urban legend. That is preposterous.''

Australia and the US are currently forming a nuclear energy alliance
Barlow, Karen, 2007. Reporter for ABC. ABC, . July 20, 2007. “Govt leak confirm Australia-US nuclear plan.” Lexis VF TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Government is taking steps to move Australia further down the nuclear power track. Australia could soon be working much more closely with the United States in developing an Australian nuclear energy industry. A leaked draft letter from the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Resources Minister to John Howard talks about cooperating with the United States. The letter, seen by AM, appears to be from senior Australian ministers, Alexander Downer and Ian Macfarlane. It proposes that the Prime Minister announce an Australian-American plan on nuclear energy during the APEC leaders summit in September. Karen Barlow reports. KAREN BARLOW: The letter, marked confidential, is unsigned and undated but the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, and the Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, indicate they're seeking action before the end of this month. EXCERPT FROM LETTER: "We are writing to seek your approval for officials to begin discussions on a joint nuclear energy action plan with the United States. The US Department of Energy has suggested Australia and the United States conclude such a plan to provide an overall framework for nuclear energy cooperation." KAREN BARLOW: Ian Macfarlane's office says Australia and the United States have had a nuclear energy cooperation agreement since 1982. The sending of spent nuclear fuel rods to the US earlier this year could be seen as an example of that agreement. But this letter talks of technical and engineering cooperation relevant to the international groupings known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and the Generation IV International Forum. EXCERPT FROM LETTER: "While some areas of the action plan proposal require clarification, we believe there would be an advantage in commencing discussions with US officials. The proposed action plan could help open the way for valuable nuclear energy cooperation with the United States."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

15 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

ADV US-Russian Relations
Nuclear energy programs provide a framework for US-Russian cooperation but those frameworks need to be implemented.
Daniel Horner, 7-16-07, Nuclear Fuels, Bush-Putin statement pledges increased effort on nuclear issues, lexis, bc The US and Russia this month announced "a new format for enhanced cooperation" on nuclear energy and nonproliferation, pledging to work together to promote the global expansion of nuclear energy, particularly in developing countries, while controlling proliferation. The statement was issued July 3 by US President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, after their July 1-2 meeting in Maine. At a July 3 briefing in Washington, US Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Robert Joseph said a "model" for the initiative is the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which the US and Russia launched a year ago (Nucleonics Week, 27 July '06, 9) and now has more than 50 members. The new initiative, Joseph said, shows how the US and Russia can "work together when our interests intersect." The declaration, he said, "reflects a shared vision of the future in which nuclear power plays a central role." Analysts said the Bush-Putin statement contained little policy language that went beyond previous statements on nuclear energy and nonproliferation. A US official familiar with the issue did not dispute that point and characterized the document as a "broad statement of intent." One section that drew the attention of some analysts speaks of "facilitating and supporting financing to aid construction of nuclear power plants through public and private national and multinational mechanisms, including international financial institutions" and of "providing assistance to states to develop the necessary infrastructure to support nuclear energy, including development of appropriate regulatory frameworks, safety and security programs to assist states in meeting international standards, and training of personnel." The US official described those provisions as "down-the-road stuff" that would not require US government expenditures for at least the next several years. For now, the IAEA's technical cooperation programs are sufficient to provide the needed assistance, he said. The declaration specifically pledges support for expansion of the technical cooperation programs. Bush and Putin also said they want to ensure that the IAEA "has the resources it needs to meet its safeguards responsibilities as nuclear power expands worldwide." In a July 9 interview, Henry Sokolski, the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, said "there is an awful lot of government in this document, and not much of markets." The statement indicates the two presidents would be willing to provide financial support to projects that private industry would not be willing to finance, he said. It seems "weird" to "pay extra for nuclear," Sokolski said. It could make more sense to provide government support for nonnuclear energy options and thus avoid the risks of nuclear proliferation, he said. At the same time, he said, the declaration suggests that Bush and Putin might be willing to interfere with the nuclear fuel market, the one part of the nuclear marketplace that "looks to be commercially viable on its own terms," Sokolski said. One section of the document deals with nuclear fuel assurances, a key part of separate but similar proposals by Bush and Putin to provide enriched uranium as an incentive to countries to refrain from pursuing indigenous enrichment programs. According to the document, US and Russian efforts will include "taking steps to ensure that the commercial nuclear fuel market remains stable and that states are assured of reliable access to nuclear fuel and fuel services for the lifetime of reactors."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

16 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

ADV Competitiveness
Nuclear energy provides more jobs and secures an increase in industry
Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007. www.oxfordeconomics.com VF With a substantial program of new investment, the US nuclear energy industry could support a large number of new jobs and value added - a peak of up to 400,000 jobs and $30 billion of value added. Without this investment, this opportunity will be lost, and the capacity of the industry could dwindle to zero by the 2050s. The jobs it supports will also gradually disappear. · In this study, we assess the economic benefits of a reinvestment program for the nuclear energy industry. This program would involve two overlapping phases of work: o The investment phase – the construction and manufacture of a new fleet of nuclear reactors and nuclear recycling plants o The operation phase - when the reactors and the recycling plants start generating electricity · The economic benefits of the investment program have three components: o Direct employment and value added – how many people are employed in the construction, manufacturing and operation of the new nuclear energy industry as a result of the reinvestment program, and how much value added to they create? o Indirect employment and value added – how many jobs and how much value added are supported down the supply chain to the nuclear energy industry, in each of the three phases of the project? o Induced employment and value added – how much do the direct and indirect employees of the nuclear energy industry spend in the US economy, and how many jobs and how much value added is supported by that spending? The three kinds of economic benefit (peak effects) in each of the phases are set out in the charts below. Without investment in the nuclear industry, these benefits would be lost. Of course, demand for electricity would be unlikely to change, so generation capacity would have to be created or expanded in other ways, for instance with coal power, and that would imply an associated quantity of direct, indirect and induced jobs and value added, as above. · Crucially, however, a large proportion of the jobs that would be supported by the nuclear investment program are manufacturing jobs in the production of the capital goods necessary to support the nuclear energy industry. These are high-tech, high-value-added jobs that reflect high spending on R&D and fixed investment: jobs that the US economy can ill afford to lose. Alternative ways of meeting US electricity generation needs would be unlikely to create so many high-value-added manufacturing jobs.

Nuclear energy expansion helps the economy – jobs and exports.
Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007. www.oxfordeconomics.com VF · An investment program to maintain the US nuclear energy industry’s current generation capacity into the long term would secure these vital manufacturing jobs, and would position the US economy to regain the lead in nuclear reactor technology globally, and claim the lead in recycling technology, both of which potentially represent major sources of export earnings into the long term.·

SDI 2008 WHAM!

17 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Reviving the nuclear industry key to the U.S. economy – it could create a million jobs. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in
2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008 Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come. Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental benefits offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but it’s not the whole story. What has been missing from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can accrue if the U.S. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United States greatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the early 1990s. At that time, U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global use of nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy leadership. In the ever-expanding global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be able to compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred supplier position. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual.” The Unites States invented nuclear energy, and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design, manufacturing, service and supply improves, our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear design, manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in: o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories; o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; and o greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns. Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of the growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close attention to the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers and operators, as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will be needed to build, operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

18 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Inherency
Yucca Mountain Too Expensive With 21% Budget Shortfall—opening in 2017 will be delayed.
Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08, Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change, lexis, bc The Yucca Mountain Project is bogged down in uncertainty roughly 21 years after former President Ronald Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which established the DOE repository program, into law and nearly a decade after the department was supposed to begin disposing of utility spent fuel. Under standard contracts DOE signed with nuclear utilities in 1983, the DOE repository was to have begun disposal operations by January 30, 1998. Instead, the department is wrestling with a 21% budget shortfall that threatens to delay the program further. Meanwhile, the country's inventory of utility spent fuel tops 56,000 metric tons and grows at a rate of roughly 2,000 mt a year, according to industry estimates. Unless Congress lifts the current 70,000 mt cap on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository, the existing US fleet of power reactors will have generated enough spent fuel by 2010 to fill the facility, Sproat said. Any spent fuel generated over the 70,000 mt limit would have to be disposed of in a second repository, and many believe that efforts to site and build a second facility won't be easier. DOE and industry officials have maintained that technically the Yucca Mountain site could accommodate at least twice the amount of spent fuel permitted under the existing cap. DOE's ability to submit a repository license application by the department's self-imposed June deadline will remain up in the air until senior managers report in six to eight weeks on the impact of its fiscal 2008 budget cut, according to Sproat. But he reiterated he is "cautiously optimistic" an application can be sent to NRC sometime this calendar year (NW, 17 Jan., 3). Sproat also told industry officials that the department won't meet its previous goal of having a repository ready to operate in 2017, which the department has described as the "best achievable" date for repository operations. That date, which many program observers called overly optimistic, could be met only if the program received adequate funding, wasn't delayed by lawsuits, and was licensed by NRC in three years. Meanwhile, there are quiet informal discussions under way at DOE, which Sproat described as hallway talk, about what kind of changes should be made to the program to help ensure its success. Options aren't limited to shifting the program to a government corporation, he said.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

19 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

CA Dry Cask storage is safe
Dry cask storage is safe. Inside Energy With Federal Lands, 3-3-08, NRC still sure of waste rule: Klein, lexis, bc
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein on Monday said his agency remains confident that at-reactor storage of spent nuclear fuel will pose no safety risk, despite new delays in the schedule for opening a geological repository. In remarks to a nuclear waste conference in Phoenix, Arizona, Klein said spent fuel stored in dry casks at many nuclear power plant sites is safe for at least 100 years and deepgeological disposal of that fuel is technically feasible. Under its so-called "waste confidence" rule, NRC has stated it believes spent fuel can be safely stored until permanent storage is available. In the rule, the agency said it is confident a repository will be available to begin accepting shipments by 2025.Klein said later that a "significant or unusual change" in the Energy Department's repository program would need to occur to trigger a new rulemaking. "Clearly, just a minor delay isn't significant," he said.

Light,dry storage casks best – prevent terrorism Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Would such storage be dangerous? I would argue that keeping older fuel produced by the once-through system in dry storage casks represents a negligible addition to the existing nuclear hazard to the surrounding population. The 10 kilowatts of radioactive heat generated by the 10 tons of 20-year-old fuel packed in a dry storage cask is carried off convectively as it warms the air around it. Terrorists intent on doing harm might attempt to puncture such a cask using, say, an antitank weapon or the engine of a crashing aircraft, but under most circumstances only a small mass of radioactive fuel fragments would be scattered about a limited area. In contrast, if the coolant in the nearby reactor were cut off, its fuel would overheat and begin releasing huge quantities of vaporized fission products within minutes. And if the water were lost in a storage pool containing spent fuel, the zirconium cladding of the fuel rods would be heated up to ignition temperature within hours. Seen in this light, dry storage casks look pretty benign.

Dry casks are a safe storage option. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP In the meantime, spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor sites in dry casks. And even after it is placed in a geologic repository, it would remain retrievable for at least a century. So in the unlikely event that technology or economic circumstances change drastically enough that the benefits of reprocessing exceed the costs and risks, that option would still be available. But it makes no sense now to rush into an expensive and potentially catastrophic undertaking on the basis of uncertain hopes that it might reduce the long-term environmental burden from the nuclear power industry.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

20 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

CA Companies want to build nuclear power plants
There are companies interested in building nuclear power plants. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “Domenici
Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f6294ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM “It is clear that momentum for nuclear energy in America is continuing to grow. After 30 years with no action, we have now seen three applications to build new plants in the last three months, with even more possible in the near future. This is an exciting time for nuclear, and for those that want cleaner energy in our nation,” Domenici said. “It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as other nations have done,” he continued.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

21 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CA Public opposes nuclear power
Public perception against nuclear power has changed.
Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc When "The Simpsons" first aired in 1989, Matt Groening created the perfect hometown for his satirical family - Springfield. It was Anywhere, America, with a convenience store, a pub, a prison, and a nuclear plant that would become a setting for regular and profound social commentary on American industrialism. Nuclear energy production is depicted by the infamous, gushing green ooze. Some speculate that the show's writers often hint that this uncontained, carelessly handled by-product of the nuclear facility is to blame for Springfield's idiosyncrasies, including Marge's blue hair and the fact that Springfield's inhabitants never age. However, the evolution of the nuclear industry in the public eye is a marked departure from the Simpsons' debut. Just as it had its place in the premise of "The Simpson's" television show, nuclear must have its place in the national dialogue about the animated family's movie premiere. Thankfully, the nuclear industry isn't frozen in time like it is in Springfield and the show provides a great benchmark to measure how much improvement in plant performance and in public perception of nuclear has occurred over nearly two decades. There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Finally, nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe, economical source of energy. And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change, environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. Unlike the '90s when energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life, energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States. A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington, coming in behind only Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy. As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more and more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again. A survey conducted by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition last year found that the more people learn about nuclear, the more supportive they are of it. After a quick lesson about energy issues and nuclear's capabilities, 73 percent of respondents said that they felt favorably or somewhat favorably about the use of nuclear. Similarly, Bisconti Research found that 86 percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important part of meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent agree that utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the next decade. Even some policy makers who have been lukewarm to nuclear seem to be coming around to its merits. People like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barack Obama are beginning to understand that nuclear energy needs to be part of the energy mix if we are going to meet our future energy demands safely and cleanly. "The Simpsons" is almost 20 years old. Although time may stand still in Springfield, it certainly hasn't for the nuclear industry which is experiencing a reported "renaissance" in this country. Nuclear perceptions are finally catching up with nuclear reality as Americans accept nuclear power as a reliable, efficient, and safe source of energy that is also kind to the environment. It's clear that nuclear does, in fact, belong in Anywhere, America.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

22 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CA Nuclear power is to expensive
Nuclear power costs going down. Kemeny, Leslie, 2008. Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy,
Canberra Times, July 4, 2008, p.15/A. Lexis V.F As well it cites the remarkable performance of nuclear power in the United States in 2007. In that year, America's 104 nuclear power stations established a high average capacity factor of 91.8 per cent and produced a massive 807 billion kilowatt hours of energy at a record low cost of 1.68c per kilowatt hour. Some 10 years after Kyoto, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has published its Cool Earth 50 program. It is a detailed road map of energy related technologies that will halve the level of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has prioritised advanced nuclear power for this project.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

23 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive
1. counter definition – incentives must be positive. Knowler, 99 - UN Food and Agricultural Organization (D., “Incentive Systems for Natural Resource
Management: The Role of Indirect Incentives”, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x2247e/x2247e00.pdf) 1.8 Incentives may be broadly defined, as in “everything that motivates or stimulates people to act” (Giger 1996). What is important about such a broad definition is that it allows for incentives to be of either a passive or an active nature. In the former case, we can think of incentives as signals in the producer’s environment which influence decision-making about farming practices, whether intended or otherwise. Many macroeconomic policies, being remote from the producer and targeted at objectives other than promoting sustainable farming practices, would fit into this category. In contrast, the notion of ‘active’ refers to a government’s ability to actually design or modify policies with a desire to bring about certain conservation outcomes. McNeely (1988), for example, refers to this concept of incentive when he defines incentives as “any inducement which is specifically intended to incite or motivate governments, local people, and international organizations” (p.38-39). We draw this distinction because of the need to consider both active and passive aspects when assessing the importance of incentives for NRM. While governments may be most concerned with the design of good policies aimed at improving NRM, they need to be cognizant of the sometimes counterproductive influence exerted by a poor incentive structure, in the passive sense. 1.9 McNeely (1988) also makes the useful distinction between incentives, disincentives and perverse incentives. In contrast to incentives, which we have described above, disincentives are purposely designed to discourage particular behaviours and can include taxes, fines and various other penalties or moral suasion. For purposes of this study, we will not consider disincentives as distinct from incentives per se, but it is useful to be aware of the distinction. In contrast, perverse incentives incite resource users to damage or deplete the resources in question in a socially inefficient manner and are closely related to the concept of policy failure, which is discussed in Chapter 2.

2. superior interpretation – our interpretation substantially narrows the topic since it excludes regulation affs and prevents a bidirectional topic. 3. we meet the counter interpretation – industry wants waste storage before doing nuclear power. 4. It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing nuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to debate it. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “Domenici
Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f6294ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM “It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as other nations have done,” he continued.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

24 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive ext. Waste storage key to NP
Opening Yucca is an incentive to increasing nuclear power.
Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma last week introduced nuclear waste legislation aimed at fasttracking DOE's beleaguered repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and at making DOE's obligation to dispose of utility spent fuel the basis for an NRC declaration of waste confidence. Five other Republican senators co-sponsored the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2008 that Inhofe introduced January 24. Inhofe, who has supported nuclear power as a vital component of the country's energy mix, last week expressed concern that continuing delays in opening a repository at Yucca Mountain would "hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the US." Speaking on the Senate floor, Inhofe noted that the location of the country's sole repository site was decided in 2002 when President George W. Bush recommended that Yucca Mountain be developed as a high-level waste repository and Congress adopted that recommendation.

SDI 2008 WHAM! AT T ext. Nuclear power is the only true alternative energy

25 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Only true alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power.
Waste News, 10-1-07, Revisiting the nuke debate, lexis, bc It's back! After some 30 years, applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the United States. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. NRG Energy is seeking to build two new facilities in Texas, the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since then. What may be different now is that the nation is willing to take a more serious look at alternative forms of energy, as imperfect as they all are. Probably the biggest thing nuclear power has going for it right now is that, at this point in time, it is the only real large-scale alternative to fossil-fuel generated energy. But to what extent its pros outweigh its cons, if at all, continues to be heatedly debated. But the current energy portfolio needs to change, and quickly. Part of that means throwing away some of our preconceptions of the past. This is a crucial crossroad for the nuclear power industry, and we hope they are up to the challenge. A solid, viable alternative energy source such as nuclear would be a badly needed shot in the arm for America's energy game plan.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

26 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Generic – nuclear power expanding now
Nuclear power is increasing worldwide – that’s the first card in our 1AC that says nuclear power is flourishing in Europe and Asia. Non-unique —197 Reactors In Europe In Squo With China, Russia, And India Building more. Elisabeth Bumiller, Nytimes media group, 6-20-08, International Herald Tribune, McCain sets target of 45
new nuclear reactors, lexis, bc ''China, Russia and India are all planning to build more than a hundred new power plants among them in the coming decades,'' McCain said in this pocket of Missouri that is reliably Republican. ''Across Europe, there are 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. And if all of these nations can find a way to carry out great goals in energy policy, then I assure you that the United States is more than equal to the challenge,'' he said. Although there has been a shift of opinion in the industry and among some environmentalists toward more nuclear power - it is clean and far safer than at the time of the nuclear accident in 1979 at Three Mile Island, in Pennsylvania - most environmentalists are skeptical of the most recent claims by advocates of nuclear energy. They also say that no utility will put its own financing into building a plant unless the U.S. government lavishly subsidizes it. ''Wall Street won't invest in these plants because they are too expensive and unreliable,'' said Daniel Weiss, who heads the global warming program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal research group. ''So Senator McCain wants to shower the nuclear industry with billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts.''

U.S. using Nuclear Energy Now Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc
There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Finally, nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe, economical source of energy. And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change, environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. Unlike the '90s when energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life, energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States. A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington, coming in behind only Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy. As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030.

Nuclear Impacts Inevitable—UK, Germany, and France Using Nuclear in Squo Macer Hall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bc
MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers - but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources, including wind turbines and solar panels, cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe, secure energy. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a low-carbon form of energy, " Mr Brown said. Foreign energy firms including the French-owned EDF, German power company E.On and British Gas parent Centrica have all showed their eagerness to take part. EDF is hoping to build four nuclear power stations in the UK. Industry insiders predict new atomic power stations could be under construction over the next decade, with EDF ready to open a new generator by 2017. Tory frontbencher Alan Duncan welcomed the commitment to nuclear power.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

27 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Nuclear Energy is inevitable worldwide.
Dipka Bhambhani, 2-11-08, Inside energy with federal lands, Spending for DOE nuclear programs up 40% in fiscal 2009 budget request, lexis, bc Vienna, 18 September: Making a strong pitch for international nuclear energy cooperation with India, Atomic Energy Commission [AEC] chairman Anil Kakodkar made it clear on Tuesday [18 September] that nuclear power was an "inevitable option" and pressed for "reformation" of global thinking on it. "There is a need for reformation of global thinking that is necessary and consensus on closed fuel cycle has to be reached by those going to participate in the future nuclear renaissance," Kakodkar said. He was speaking at the scientific forum, an integral part of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) being attended by more than 500 participants. "The world has to move forward with nuclear power as an inevitable option based purely on partnership on objective, reliable and predictable basis with holistic mutual understanding and trust as a pre-requisite," he said. Kakodkar's carefully-worded comments come amidst a raging political debate on the India-US nuclear deal in India with Left parties and the opposition closely watching his approach at the IAEA. The Left parties have warned the UPA government of a "political crisis" if it went ahead with operationalising the deal. An India-specific safeguards agreement and changes in guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group are required to put the deal into force.

Nuclear energy inevitable, strong nations already pursuing it Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, “Nuclear energy now our only option”, p.
17/A. Lexis VF They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low. Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste, which takes 50 years to decay. Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. Australia would need to invest in research and development, and in education and training across a range of fields. Australia can only benefit from the great impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. Concerted effort around the world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during the past four years. We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly known elsewhere by green activism, by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political implications, rather than on their merits. It is time to put it behind us.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

28 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Generic – Lots of incentives to do nuclear power now
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a number of incentives to increase nuclear power resulting in 30 nuclear power plants being on the drawing board. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises
Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM “Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. Most importantly, its available right now. Many countries around the world have already realized this, which is why nuclear power is flourishing in Europe and Asia. The good news is that thanks to the Energy Policy Act we passed in 2005, it is beginning to flourish here as well and we now have more than 30 nuclear power plants on the drawing board in the United States,” Domenici said. The Energy Policy Act provided loan guarantee authority, production tax credits, and insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation for nuclear power projects. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. If all the proposed nuclear power plants come online, an additional 38,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020—enough to power 28 million American households.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

29 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Yucca mountain is unsafe
No link – the plan creates the opportunity to reopen discussions about where waste should be stored. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Part of the problem is the view in Nevada that the Reagan administration and Congress acted unfairly in 1987 when they cut short an objective evaluation of other candidate sites and designated Yucca Mountain as the location for the future nuclear waste repository. To overcome this perception, it may be necessary to reopen deliberations for choosing an additional site. Such a move should not be difficult. Indeed, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 requires the secretary of energy to report to Congress by 2010 on the need for a second storage facility. Given the disastrous record of the DOE in dealing with radioactive waste, however, consideration should also be given to establishing a more specialized and less politicized agency for this purpose.

Yucca Mountain Is Safe—EPA and State Of Nevada Agrees
Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc In addition, DOE's obligation to dispose of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste would be declared sufficient to support an NRC finding that spent fuel generated by new reactors will be disposed of in a safe and timely manner. The bill also names the US Environmental Protection Agency the permitting agency for air permits needed for work at Yucca Mountain. The state of Nevada, which has spent decades fighting the planned repository, now is the permitting entity. In addition, the bill would eliminate the existing 70,000 metric ton limit on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository. It also calls for phased licensing of the repository, with the first phase being a 300-year operations phase. During that period, the bill says, waste would be retrievable and the facility would be "actively monitored." It added that new information on the site and technological innovations could be incorporated into the license through a license amendment process every 50 years. If NRC authorizes DOE to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 days later the department would have to file a license amendment request with NRC seeking authorization to receive and possess spent fuel and HLW at the site.

Yucca Mountain Inevitable—No matter who wins the election.
Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08, Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change, lexis, bc The next administration, whether Democratic or Republican, cannot unilaterally kill the DOE repository project in Nevada, DOE waste program director Edward Sproat said January 22. Instead, a new administration would have to convince Congress to change the federal law governing it, he said. Responding to an audience question following his address at the Nuclear Energy Institute fuel supply forum in Washington, DC, Sproat said the next administration would have three options. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE is to site and build, if licensed by NRC, a repository at Yucca Mountain. The next administration, Sproat said, can comply with the law, ignore it, or change it. Still, the next administration also could withdraw a repository license DOE submitted to NRC, Sproat later told reporters. However, he added that the administration would have to show some basis for taking such action, especially if NRC had already deemed the application acceptable for review.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

30 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Nuclear plant meltdowns
The health risks of nuclear reactor accidents are highly exaggerated claims made by fearmongers Steven J. Milloy 4/13/06 “Twenty Years After Chernobyl” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/019,05270.cfm
April 26 marks the 20th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Anti-nuclear activists are still trying to turn Chernobyl into a bigger disaster than it really was. Although the Number Four nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded just before dawn on April 26, 1986, Soviet secrecy prevented the world from learning about the accident for days. Once details began to emerge, however, the anti-nuclear scare machine swung into action. Three days after the accident Greenpeace “scientists” predicted the accident would cause 10,000 people to get cancer over a 20-year period within a 625-mile radius of the plant. Greenpeace also estimated that 2,000 to 4,000 people in Sweden would develop cancer over a 30-year period from the radioactive fallout. At the same time, Helen Caldicott, president emeritus of the anti-nuclear Physicians for Social Responsibility, predicted the accident would cause almost 300,000 cancers in 5 to 50 years and cause almost 1 million people either to be rendered sterile or mentally retarded, or to develop radiation sickness, menstrual problems and other health problems. University of CaliforniaBerkeley medical physicist and nuclear power critic Dr. John Gofman made the most dire forecast. He predicted at an American Chemical Society meeting that the Chernobyl accident would cause 1 million cancers worldwide, half of them fatal. But the reality of the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident seems to be quite different than predicted by the anti-nuke crowd. As of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths were attributed to radiation from the accident – that’s according to a report, entitled “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” produced by an international team of 100 scientists working under the auspices of the United Nations. Almost all of those 50 deaths were rescue workers who were highly exposed to radiation and died within months of the accident. So far, there have been about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children. But except for nine deaths, all of those with thyroid cancer have recovered, according to the report. Despite the UN report, the anti-nuclear mob hasn’t given up on Chernobyl scaremongering. According to a March 25 report in The Guardian (UK), Greenpeace and others are set to issue a report around the 20th anniversary of the accident claiming that at least 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the accident. Ukraine's government appears to be on board with the casualty inflation game, perhaps looking for more international aid for the economically-struggling former Soviet republic. The Guardian article quoted the deputy head of the Ukraine National Commission for Radiation Protection as touting the 500,000-deaths figure. A spokesman for the Ukraine government’s Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine told The Guardian, “We’re overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the [UN] data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago.” Putting aside the anti-nuclear movement’s track record of making wild claims and predictions in order advance its political agenda, I put more credence in the UN’s estimates because it squares with what we know about real-life exposures to high levels of radiation. Among the more than 86,000 survivors of the atomic bomb blasts that ended World War II, for example, “only” about 500 or so “extra” cancers have occurred since 1950. Exposure to high-levels of radiation does increase cancer risk, but only slightly. There is no doubt that Chernobyl was a disaster, but it was not one of mythical proportions. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island – the U.S. nuclear plant that accidentally released a small amount radiation in 1979 – are examples of how the anti-nuclear lobby takes every available opportunity to scare the public about nuclear power. But no one was harmed by the incident at Three Mile Island. The Chernobyl accident can be chalked up to deficiencies in its Sovietera design and operation. Neither reflect poorly on the track record of safety demonstrated by nuclear power plants designed, built and operated in countries like the U.S., U.K., France and Japan.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

31 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Nuclear power plants are safe and productive Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, “Nuclear energy now our only option”, p.
17/A. Lexis VF They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low. Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste, which takes 50 years to decay. Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. Australia would need to invest in research and development, and in education and training across a range of fields. Australia can only benefit from the great impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. Concerted effort around the world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during the past four years. We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly known elsewhere by green activism, by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political implications, rather than on their merits. It is time to put it behind us.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

32 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Nuclear waste is dangerous
Nucler Waste is No Issue—Over 90% Can Be Recycled
Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more and more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again.

Nuclear waste can be recycled for more energy Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp Rather than dispose of spent fuel, however, we could follow the French. Using technology we developed, they recycle the fuel for even more energy. California, after all, is a national leader in recycling. Nuclear power can be slightly more expensive than coal-fired power, but the current energy options allowed in California are far more expensive than either coal or nuclear, and coal has become subject of an effective ban in California as well.

Non-unique - Lots of nuclear waste now. Brad Glosserman is Director of Research at Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based think tank, and a Contributing Editor to The Japan Times. June 15, 2001. Pac Net. Solving Asia's Nuclear-Waste Dilemma. AP.
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0125.pdf A half century of nuclear development has left a considerable legacy. It is estimated that world accumulation of spent fuel will reach 341,095 tons by 2010; Asia's share is 50,610 tons. That is enough material to cover a road 10 meters wide and 300 km long to a depth of one meter. That mountain of radioactive waste will accumulate even if no additional nuclear capacity is installed in Northeast Asia; it is the product of plants already under construction or which were well in to the planning stage. Were that not sobering enough, there is the fact that that waste will contain 450 tons of plutonium. Dealing with that waste is, argues Ron Smith, director of defense and strategic studies at the University of Waikato, New Zealand and who has been studying the back-end problem for several years, "the Achilles heel of the nuclear question."

SDI 2008 WHAM!

33 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Reprocessing
Non-unique - U.S. moving toward reprocessing now. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Under pressure to start moving the fuel off the sites, the DOE has returned to an idea that it abandoned in the 1970s—to “reprocess” the spent fuel chemically, separating the different elements so that some can be reused. Vast reprocessing plants have been running in France and the U.K. for more than a decade, and Japan began to operate its own $20-billion facility in 2006. So this strategy is not without precedent. But, as I discuss below, reprocessing is an expensive and dangerous road to take.

Turn Dry casks can easily be stored removing the need to reprocess. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Is there enough physical room to keep them? Yes, there is plenty of space for more casks at U.S. nuclear power plants. Even the oldest operating U.S. reactors are having their licenses extended for another 20 years, and new reactors will likely be built on the same sites. So there is no reason to think that these storage areas are about to disappear. Eventually, of course, it will be necessary to remove the spent fuel and put it elsewhere, but there is no need to panic and adopt a policy of reprocessing, which would only make the situation much more dangerous and costly than it is today.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

34 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Economy
Nuclear Power Creates Huge Job Pool, Booming The Economy
Jenny Weil, 6-23-08, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Nuclear Construction could create thousands of jobs, group says, lexis, bc A nuclear revival in the US could create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs if the 30 reactors that are currently on the drawing boards are actually built, according to a report released last week by a nuclear energy advocacy group. The report, released Tuesday by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, or CASEnergy, said that each of the 30 reactor projects might create jobs for as many as 4,000 highly skilled construction workers. Additionally, each new reactor might generate between 400 and 700 permanent positions, the report said. Christine Todd Whitman, one of the group's two co-chairs, said the report shows that expanding nuclear energy would be a boon for the US economy. "A renewed focus on nuclear energy will translate into tens of thousands of high-paying American jobs needed to build and operate new reactors," said Whitman, a Republican who formerly served as the governor of New Jersey and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The figure for the peak construction period is much higher than the 2,400-worker estimate previously cited by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. But neither CASEnergy nor NEI specified whether the 4,000 or 2,400 jobs would be needed to build one or two nuclear generating units. NEI has said that building a plant would create about an average of 1,400 to 1,800 jobs. CASEnergy, which was established in 2006, is comprised of various companies, business and labor groups, and elected officials who support nuclear power. Funding for much of the coalition's early activities was provided by NEI. High salaries seen Overall, CASEnergy estimated that as many as 21,000 new jobs could be added to the market if the 30-plus reactors are built. Moreover, the average salaries for plant workers are often "substantially more" than the pay for other jobs in the community near the plant, the group said. Specifically, the report said that the median salary for a senior reactor operator is $85,426, and that standard reactor operators earn about $77,782, on average. Electrical technicians can earn about $67,517, and mechanical technicians are paid about $66,581, the report said. The jobs range from engineers to radiation protection specialists to maintenance and skilled craft workers and plant operators. Support staff would be needed in areas such as recordkeeping, general maintenance and janitorial services, the report said. Another concern for the nuclear industry is replacing retiring workers. The report estimated that about 35% of the current workforce will be eligible to retire within five years, providing an opportunity for hiring about 19,600 workers. CASEnergy noted, for example, that 36% of plant operators are 48 years old or older, and 27% will be eligible to retire in the next five years. An additional 12% might leave for other reasons, and 21% could be promoted to other jobs, the report said.

Turn - Plan spurs consumer spending.
Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007. www.oxfordeconomics.com VF Finally, there are further significant benefits for the economy arising from the induced effects of spending of those directly or indirectly employed as a result of the nuclear energy investment program. Once again, these induced effects are particularly pronounced for the manufacturing phase, thanks to the relatively high wages (and therefore high spending of employees) in that sector.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

35 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Spending
Failure to create a federal repository means the government has to pay $300 million per year for dry casks. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks, each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S. nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

36 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Politics – Nuclear power is unpopular
Global warming provides political cover for increasing nuclear power. England proves. Steven J. Milloy 6/18/07 “Hold the Line on Global Warming” Originally found on Junkscience.com o.z.
http://cei.org/gencon/019,05984.cfm When Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister in 1979, her mandate was to reduce Britain’s economic decline. Thatcher wanted to make the UK energy-independent through nuclear power – she didn’t like her country’s reliance on coal, which politically empowered the coal miner unions, or oil, which empowered Middle Eastern states. So Thatcher latched onto her science adviser’s notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide warmed the planet in a harmful way, thereby providing the perfect political cover for advancing her nuclear power agenda without having to fight the miners or Arab oil states. She empowered the U.K. Meteorological Office to begin global climate change research, a move that eventually led to the 1988 creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ group that has come to be the “official” international agency for global warming alarmism. The Europeans now see global warming as a means of hampering U.S. economic competitiveness through increased energy prices. In a global warming-worried world, it becomes more expensive to use coal, for example. About 52 percent of U.S. electricity is produced by burning coal. France, in contrast, gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Guess whose economy takes the hit. The Europeans also know that environmentalists and trial lawyers will ensure that greenhouse gas emissions regulations are strictly enforced in the U.S. The same cannot be said for Europe.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

37 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT DA Politics – Obama will do the plan (DA turns the case)
Obama Against Going Nuclear
Christina Bellantoni, 7-7-08, The Washington Times, GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states; Economy takes focus, lexis, bc But Barack Obama? For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes. No to nuclear. No to more production. No new solutions," a narrator says. "Barack: just the party line." The spot will run in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Both parties have identified these states as critical battlegrounds for the Nov. 4 general election, and both candidates have made multiple visits. The RNC plans to spend about $3 million onthe ad, its first that targets Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. An Obama campaign spokesman labeled the ad an "attack" and said the energy crisis can be solved only through honest debate. "There's a real choice in this election between John McCain 's promise to continue the Bush approach of trying to drill our way out of our energy crisis - which even he admits won't lower prices this summer - or Barack's plan to provide meaningful short-term relief for our families and to make a historic investment in alternative energy development that will create millions of new jobs, keep the cost of energy affordable and secure our energy independence once and for all," spokesman Hari Sevugan said. The Republican ad accuses Mr. Obama of saying "no to nuclear," though the senator from Illinois has been criticized by environmentalists for his qualified past support for nuclear power. Mr. Obama has panned Mr. McCain's proposal for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. The RNC cites a December campaign stop in Newton, Iowa, where Mr. Obama told voters, "I am not a nuclear energy proponent." A recent McCain Web ad used a longer version of the same remark while arguing that Mr. Obama says "no" to "clean, safe nuclear energy." Mr Brown will arrive in New Delhi on Sunday [20 January] for a two-day visit to India - his first as the prime minister of Britain. Strengthening education and trade links, and learning from India's experience of promoting cohesion in a multicultural and multi-religious society, will also engage his attention here.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

38 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CP States
Failure to create a federal repository means the federal government has to pay $300 million per year for dry casks – the states counterplan doesn’t solve this because it’s a legal obligation the federal government has to energy companies. Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuelrecycling&page=5, VP Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks, each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S. nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

39 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CP Solar
Solar power can’t provde enough energy.
Macer Hall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bc MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers - but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources, including wind turbines and solar panels, cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe, secure energy. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a lowcarbon form of energy, " Mr Brown said.

Nuclear Energy is a consistent source of energy and more cost effective than solar. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available rain or shine.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

40 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CP Wind
Wind power can’t provide enough energy
Macer Hall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bc MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers - but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources, including wind turbines and solar panels, cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe, secure energy. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a lowcarbon form of energy, " Mr Brown said.

Nuclear power is more cost effective and isn’t subject to fuel volatility. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available rain or shine.

Nuclear Power requires fewer acres to generate power than wind farms Dr. Patricia A. Lapoint is professor of management at McMurry University and president of P&L Consultants. 6/7/2008. Abilene Reporter News. There's a price for subsidizing wind energy with taxpayer dollars. AP
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/press/theres-a-price-for-subsidizing-wind-energy-with-taxpayer-dollars Currently, there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States that generate over 97,000 MW. Nuclear plants operate at 90 percent capacity compared to 30-33 percent for wind farms (ERCOT). For a comparable amount of electricity output, a nuclear power plant requires approximately 50 acres of land vs. 80,000 acres of land for wind farms -- 1,600 times the land usage for wind generated power! For the same or less taxpayer money, why not put those taxpayer dollars into more nuclear power plants and protect our natural environment from the thousands of square miles of industrial wind turbines dotting the landscape?

SDI 2008 WHAM!

41 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CP Natural Gas
Nuclear power is less expensive and isn’t subject to fuel volatility. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available rain or shine.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

42 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CP Hydroelectric
No way to expand hydroelectric power. Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf
The future for hydroelectric generation is rather dim. Little unexploited potential remains. Indeed, there are pressures even today to remove hydropower dams in place because of various environmental concerns. And whenever an oil supply crisis emerges, a call for greater use of solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass inevitably arises. Their future is always just around the corner but we have yet to turn that corner and I cannot say for certain that we ever will. That leaves the nuclear option. The nuclear industry is far more regulated than are competing forms of energy. With electricity becoming more essential to our way of life, is it not time to develop a set of criteria to measure the effectiveness of the individual forms of power generation, to give nuclear energy the benefit of a level playing field?

SDI 2008 WHAM!

43 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CP Cap and Trade
Cap and trade will hurt the economy. Steven J. Milloy 5/15/08 “McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech” Originally published in FoxNews.com o.z. http://cei.org/articles/mccain’s-embarrassing-climate-speech
This is unlikely since cap-and-trade’s economic harms have been exposed and condemned by the likes of the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency and renown economists such as Alan Greenspan and Arthur Laffer. Even the Clinton administration warned of the economic harms that would be caused by cap-and-trade.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

44 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT CP PIC out of Yucca Mountain
Yucca key to GNEP Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth, Australia, 2007-05-29, “US-led Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership”, jlk, http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energypartnership/?searchterm=legislate Even if the Yucca Mountain repository is eventually opened, the current legal limit for the repository is insufficient for the total projected waste output of the current cohort of reactors operating in the US, although the GNEP reprocessing and transmutation plans aim to partly address this problem. Steve Kidd (2006) from the World Nuclear Association states: "The difficulties encountered with establishing Yucca as an operating repository have undoubtedly influenced the move towards GNEP. The likelihood of having to establish several Yuccas in the USA alone, if there is a significant boom in nuclear power in the 21st century, has obviously concentrated a lot of official thinking."

GNEP key to solve prolif
Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program, lexis, bc GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide. It aims to reduce proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Even though the waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury, it has been used in appropriations processes over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit.

We Need To Open Yucca Mountain to revive the nuclear industry.
Nuclear Fuels, 1-28-08, Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project, lexis, bc Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma last week introduced nuclear waste legislation aimed at fasttracking DOE's beleaguered repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and at making DOE's obligation to dispose of utility spent fuel the basis for an NRC declaration of waste confidence. Five other Republican senators co-sponsored the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2008 that Inhofe introduced January 24. Inhofe, who has supported nuclear power as a vital component of the country's energy mix, last week expressed concern that continuing delays in opening a repository at Yucca Mountain would "hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the US." Speaking on the Senate floor, Inhofe noted that the location of the country's sole repository site was decided in 2002 when President George W. Bush recommended that Yucca Mountain be developed as a high-level waste repository and Congress adopted that recommendation. "It's high time that we accomplish this task," he said. "We've passed laws and resolutions to do it. We've collected over $27 billion ? from electricity consumers to pay for it. And courts have affirmed that we have a legal obligation to do it." Inhofe drafted the bill without input from the nuclear power industry, though several of its sections are in line with industry priorities. Portions of the bill also resemble legislation Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced in 2006 (NF, 9 Oct. '06, 9).

Yucca Mountain Key To Nuclear Power Expansion And National And Environmental Security
Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc The Yucca Mountain repository, located 16 miles from the California border, would eventually store 70,000 metric tons of waste that has been accumulating since the first reactors went online. And the amount of waste will grow at an increasing rate in future decades: In the last year, utilities have launched a nuclear power renaissance, announcing plans for 15 new commercial reactors. The application "will further encourage the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, which is absolutely critical to our energy security, to our environment and to our national security," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday. The license application, which is 8,600 pages long, was filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has up to four years to act. If everything goes unfettered, Bodman said, Yucca Mountain could be open for business by 2020 at a cost of about $70 billion. Although the impetus for a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain may be greater than ever, the legal and political hurdles for the project are vast.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

45 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Yucca needed to revive nuclear energy.
Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bc Michael Skelly , the Democratic candidate for the gerrymandered 7th Congressional District in Houston, told Natural Gas Week "we've got to open Yucca Mountain" before any progress can be made in the next wave of nuclear generation. Skelly is the president of the multi-billion-dollar Horizon Wind Energy, one of the leading wind developers in the nation ( see p8 ). But Yucca Mountain has hit its share of political snags. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) vowed never to let it open ( NGW Nov.5 ,p12 ). Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois), this year's Democratic candidate for president, and his former opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York), also oppose opening Yucca Mountain . Yucca Mountain will actually be a fuel reprocessing facility set up as a federally-owned entity -- much like Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bonneville Power Administration. The entity would handle all elements related to the back end of the nuclear cycle, as is done in Europe , and could lead the administration's efforts to rekindle nuclear fuel reprocessing under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. As such it has drawn considerable fire from environmentalists. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review process is expected to take about three years, federal officials said, and the earliest it could open would be 2020. Last month, the Department of Energy awarded contracts to Areva Federal Services and NAC International for shipping canisters to get the waste to Yucca Mountain . Both contracts are for a term of up to five years, and could total as much as $13.8 million, if the DOE exercises all options.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

46 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

AT K Discursive
We create in-round education necessary to restore U.S. nuclear leadership. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in
2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008 The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

47 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

SMART Act
The SMART Act will promote the establishment of nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities, along with economic incentives United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 6-27-2008, “Domenici
Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710, CM WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, last night introduced bipartisan legislation that will allow America to fully realize the promise of nuclear energy by laying the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. Domenici, along with Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.) introduced the Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act (S.3215). The legislation promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy (DOE) and private industry to finance engineering and design work —and the development of license applications-- for up to two spent fuel recycling facilities. The bill also establishes an economic incentive program for communities that wish to host interim storage facilities for waste. The SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services and for storage facility operators. “After a decade of hard work, there can now be no doubt that a nuclear renaissance is under way. Increasing our use of nuclear energy is the only way for America to meet our increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential. I’m pleased to introduce this legislation which takes the first step toward resolving the question of nuclear waste,” Domenici said.

Nuclear recycling can permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 6-27-2008, “Domenici
Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710, CM “Nuclear recycling will help us permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel while simultaneously increasing the amount of nuclear material available to generate base load power. In the past, the issue of waste disposal has provided an argument to object to expanding nuclear power, and I’m hopeful this legislation will jump-start recycling in America – leading to more clean, reliable nuclear power here at home. It is time the United States caught up with other nations that have demonstrated that recycling can be conducted in a safe and cost-efficient way,” Sessions said. “Nuclear power is one of the most promising alternative technologies that can help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It emits no pollutants, and does not contribute to global warming. But if we do not get serious about managing nuclear waste, the technology will not advance. This bill will finally help resolve the nuclear waste stalemate that has paralyzed U.S. nuclear energy production for more than 30 years,” Landrieu said.

The SMART Act will be funded by a revolving fund, which will not need annual Congress appropriations United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 6-27-2008, “Domenici
Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710, CM “Given how important it is for this nation to cut carbon emissions, it is vital that we tear down all the roadblocks that have slowed nuclear power’s revival. Setting up a program for the government to help the private sector develop nuclear waste recycling plants, creating a funding mechanism to pay for the work and then allowing only the communities that want the economic activity that a waste recycling

SDI 2008 WHAM!

48 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

plant will produce to apply are all useful steps that will help the economics of nuclear power. It will allow for the economic recycling of fuel and help reduce waste volumes and their toxicity protecting the environment,” Murkowski said. The SMART Act is funded by allowing access to a small portion (around five percent) of the $20 billion Nuclear Waste Fund. The bill establishes a $1 billion revolving fund, which will also receive contributions from annual interest on the Nuclear Waste Fund. The revolving fund will allow projects to proceed without the need for annual appropriations from Congress.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

49 of 49 AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

GNEP
GNEP
Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program, lexis, bc GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide. It aims to reduce proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Even though the waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury, it has been used in appropriations processes over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit.

More money needed for GNEP
Dipka Bhambhani, 2-11-08, Inside energy with federal lands, Spending for DOE nuclear programs up 40% in fiscal 2009 budget request, lexis, bc The Energy Department called for a 40% boost in funding for nuclear energy programs in the fiscal 2009 budget it unveiled last week. One of the biggest items in the budget is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a controversial spent-fuel recycling program. DOE requested $302 million for GNEP, even though Congress cut that amount in half last year. "We're going to have to do a better job explaining to the Congress why this program is critical to the expanded use of [nuclear energy] in the US and internationally," said Dennis Spurgeon, DOE's assistant secretary for nuclear energy. GNEP is a partnership of 20 countries that work together to spur the use of nuclear energy while ensuring that the spent fuel and other byproducts that are created in the process do not fall into the hands of terrorists. The program became mired in controversy last fall, after a congressionally chartered panel of scientists urged DOE to abandon its plans for GNEP.

GNEP
Barlow, Karen, 2007. Reporter for ABC. ABC, . July 20, 2007. “Govt leak confirm Australia-US nuclear plan.” Lexis VF KAREN BARLOW: The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is an American initiative, designed to advance clean, carbon free energy while stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. The Generation IV International Forum represents governments of nuclear powered countries. Australia is not part of those groups but is in discussions with a view to join. Just this week the Prime Minister renewed his Government's commitment to nuclear power, saying Australia should take advantage of its vast uranium deposits. Eminent nuclear physicist professor, Leslie Kemeny, says the letter is timely. LESLIE KEMENY: It could give us the possibility of constructing nuclear power stations with the right sort of joint venture partners - they could well be United States, on the other hand France may be drawn into this, and in turn we might be asked to go beyond mining uranium and exporting the yellowcake and letting other people make the fuel.

You're Reading a Free Preview

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