Neg Nukes1

UMKC SDI 2008 Mapes/Petite
Nuclear Power Neg
Nuclear Power Negative

Nuclear Power Negative.............................................................................................................. ................1
**Global Warming Advantage**..................................................................................................... ............2
Can’t Solve- General........................................................................................................... ........................3
Can’t Solve- Time Delays................................................................................................................... .........4
Can’t Solve- Time Delays................................................................................................................... .........5
Increases Pollutants............................................................................................................. ........................6
Increases Warming................................................................................................................................... ....7
Increases Warming................................................................................................................................... ....8
**Prolif Advantage**................................................................................................................. .................9
Prolif Inevitable......................................................................................................................... ................10
Nuke Power = Prolif.............................................................................................................. ....................11
NPT Crashing Now.................................................................................................................................. ..12
NPT Crashing Now.................................................................................................................................. ..13
NPT Bad.................................................................................................................................... ................14
**Hegemony Advantage*................................................................................................................. .........15
Hegemony Dead.................................................................................................................... ....................16
Hegemony Dead ................................................................................................................... ....................17
**Solvency*.......................................................................................................................... ....................19
Time Delays.......................................................................................................................................... .....20
Accidents..................................................................................................................................... ..............21
Accidents..................................................................................................................................... ..............22
Meltdowns.................................................................................................................................. ...............23
Loan Guarantees Not Enough........................................................................................................ ............24
Don’t Increase Electricity...................................................................................................... ....................25
Labor Shortage................................................................................................................. .........................26
Locations............................................................................................................................... ....................27
NRC Won’t Approve................................................................................................................................ ..28
Plants = terrorism...................................................................................................................................... .29
**Disad Links**................................................................................................................................. .......30
Spending Links............................................................................................................................. .............31
Spending Links............................................................................................................................. .............32
Spending Links............................................................................................................................. .............33
Oil Links............................................................................................................................................ ........34
Politics Links- Unpopular (Public) ..................................................................................... ......................36
**Australia DA**............................................................................................................................. .........37
Australia Coal 1nc................................................................................................................ .....................38
Australia Coal 1nc................................................................................................................ .....................39
Australia Coal Dependent.............................................................................................................. ............40
Coal Key Australia Economy................................................................................................................... ..41
Australia Key Asian Economy.......................................................................................................... .........42
Asian Economy Key Global Economy................................................................................. .....................43
Trade Key US/Australian Relations................................................................................................ ...........44
US/Australia Trade Key Global Economy.................................................................................. ...............45
**Trade Off DA**............................................................................................................................ .........46
Trade off 1nc............................................................................................................................................. .47
Uniqueness- Investments.......................................................................................................... .................48
Link- Nuclear Power................................................................................................................................ ..49
Link- Nuclear Power............................................................................................................................... ..50
1
Nuclear Power Neg
Link- Nuclear Power................................................................................................................................ ..51

Investment key........................................................................................................................................ ...52
impact – economy ............................................................................................................................... ......53
**Global Warming Advantage**
2
Nuclear Power Neg
Can’t Solve- General
Nuclear Power doesn’t solve global warming.

Michael Totty news editor for The Journal Report in San Francisco, June 30, 2008; “The Case For and
Against Nuclear Power”. The Journal Report.
http://www.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121432182593500119.html. 7/27/08$
Nuclear power isn't a solution to global warming. Rather, global warming is just a convenient rationale for an
obsolete energy source that makes no sense when compared to the alternatives. Sure, nuclear power generates lots
of electricity while producing virtually no carbon dioxide. But it still faces the same problems that have stymied
the development of new nuclear plants for the past 20 years -- exorbitant costs, the risks of an accident or terrorist
attack, the threat of proliferation and the challenge of disposing of nuclear waste.
Nuclear Power cant solve global warming because we still use fossil fuels and the supply of
uranium is finite
Kathy Graham, researcher on nuclear energy, September 1, 2005, “The Power and Passion”. The Lab.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/powerpassion/default.htm. 7/27/08$
Sometimes that means glossing over the fact that annual global electricity generation is responsible for only about
39% of atmospheric pollutants (the bulk of which are actually produced by trucks and cars). Even if the entire
world switched to nuclear power, it wouldn't solve the problem of global warming. The uranium we have,
including that from recycled decommissioned warheads, won't last forever. In fact it's been estimated that
economically viable (high-grade, low cost) uranium will run out in 50 years - much sooner than that if more
reactors are built.
Nuclear Power can’t solve global warming

Public Citizen’s Energy Program, September 2006, Climate Change: The Urgency, Impacts, and
Solutions” Public Citizen’s Energy Program. http://www.citizen.org/documents/ClimateChange.pdf.
7/27/08$
The effects of global warming depend largely upon the energy path we take. Solutions will include changes both in
electricity production and transportation. For electricity, the current plan to build new coal and nuclear power
plants in the U.S. will not be effective at halting global warming and will only make other problems worse. Of the
153 newly proposed coal plants, most are in addition to existing coal plants – not replacing older plants – and
almost all will continue to emit large amount amounts of CO2, as well as sulfur, nitrogen oxides and mercury.
Even if plants are built with carbon sequestration technology, there are likely to be problems with CO2 leakage
and contamination, and coal mining will continue to pollute soil and ground water. Likewise, the proposal for
more than twenty new nuclear reactors in the U.S. – while releasing fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal –
would come with its own set of problems. Building new reactors requires polluting uranium mining, the generation
of radioactive waste, and increased proliferation, accident, and terrorist risks. No country in the world has found a
solution for these problems. Proposals for new reactors, licensing, and construction together also require long lead
times, at best 10 years, and would be expensive. Already wind power at good sites in the U.S. is significantly
cheaper than power would be from new nuclear power plants.
3
Nuclear Power Neg
Can’t Solve- Time Delays

Can’t solve global warming- time delay and lacking amount
Furbur 08
The Future of Nuclear Power ; Furber, Robert D; Warf, James C; Plotkin, Sheldon C; ; Monthly Review
02-01-2008
The careful analysis of Furber, Warf, and Plotkin thus points to the irrationality of current proposals to
resort massively to nuclear power as an answer to global warming. In order for nuclear power to make a
dent in the global warming problem it would be necessary to build hundreds of nuclear power plants
around the world, each one taking ten years to construct, and each an enormous hazard to the earth,
generating radioactive wastes lasting for hundreds/thousands/millions of years. The most important
principle of environmental thought is that of safeguarding the earth for future generations. To turn to
nuclear power as a solution to global warming would be to abandon that trust.-Ed.
Plants built too slow to combat warming problems

LEAN 2004
[Geoffrey, Writer for indpdnt/UK “nuclear power can’t stop climate change”,
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0626-05.html, june 26, 2004, axd aug 10, 04// ]
Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set up to promote atomic energy
admits today.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom,
reveals in a new report that it could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change -
even under the most favorable circumstances.
The report - published to celebrate yesterday's 50th anniversary of nuclear power - contradicts a recent
surge of support for the atom as the answer to global warming.
That surge was provoked by an article in The Independent last month by Professor James Lovelock - the
creator of the Gaia theory - who said that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main
energy source could prevent climate change overwhelming the globe.
Professor Lovelock, a long-time nuclear supporter, wrote: "Civilization is in imminent danger and has to
use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our
outraged planet."
His comments were backed by Sir Bernard Ingham, Lady Thatcher's former PR chief, and other
commentators, but have now been rebutted by the most authoritative organization on the matter.
Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change. However, it
has long been in decline in the face of rising public opposition and increasing reluctance of governments
and utilities to finance its enormous construction costs.
No new atomic power station has been ordered in the US for a quarter of a century, and only one is being
built in Western Europe - in Finland. Meanwhile, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden have
all pledged to phase out existing plants.
The IAEA report considers two scenarios. In the first, nuclear energy continues to decline, with no new
stations built beyond those already planned. Its share of world electricity - and thus its relative
contribution to fighting global warming - drops from its current 16 per cent to 12 per cent by 2030.
Surprisingly, it made an even smaller relative contribution to combating climate change under the IAEA's
most favorable scenario, seeing nuclear power grow by 70 per cent over the next 25 years. This is because
the world would have to be so prosperous to afford the expansions that traditional ways of generating
electricity from fossil fuels would have grown even faster. Climate change would doom the planet before
nuclear power could save it.
4
Nuclear Power Neg
Can’t Solve- Time Delays

Nuclear reactors do not solve for global warming and will take a long time before they are
up and running
Reporter: Kim Landers Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 21/11/2007 US builds its first
nuclear reactor in 30 years http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:slHJdUA
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:slHJdUA-
DHoJ:www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2096454.htm+nuclear+reactors+wont+work+in+america&h
l=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&lr=lang_en date accessed July 27,2008
KIM LANDERS: The existing 103 nuclear reactors already provide 20 per cent of America's electricity
needs. With demand expected to soar 40 per cent by 2030, the Department of Energy estimates 35 new
nuclear plants could be built. The nuclear industry says almost two thirds of Americans support new reactors and
that concern about global warming is a key factor. JIM RICCIO: We actually want to solve climate change.
Nuclear is the exact wrong direction to go. We've known that for a generation, yet despite that, the industry has
found a boogey man that they want to use which is climate change to be their selling point. KIM LANDERS:
Green peace's Jim Riccio has had two decades of nuclear policy experience. He argues nuclear power is not
carbon free because of the emissions from mining uranium, enriching it and building the power plants too. JIM
RICCIO: We know that from analysis here in the States that every dollar you spend on energy efficiency and
renewable technologies like wind and solar, goes seven to 10 times further at addressing global warming gases than
a dollar spent on nuclear. KIM LANDERS: But money and jobs from nuclear power is exactly what the
town of Bay City in South Texas wants. It's 19,000 residents live about 20 kilometres from the existing
plant. RICHARD KNAPIK, BAY CITY MAYOR: For so many years Bay City has been what we refer to
as a quiet little small town. Now we're on the brink of growing. KIM LANDERS: The new reactors will
add another 800 jobs to the 1,200 strong work force, another 4,000 jobs will be created during
construction. It's why the city has set up a new training centre to help meet demand. RICHARD
KNAPIK: Bay City and Matagorda County are really excited about the prospect of having two more
reactors because they know it means good jobs for a long time and it's a clean, reliable source of energy.
KIM LANDERS: America's first new nuclear reactors in three decades won't appear overnight. The nuclear
regulatory commission could take three and a half years to approve them. They won't be running until 2014 and will
cost $7 billion. The company that operates the plant says safety is always first and the new reactors could withstand
a direct hit from a plane, something Green peace disputes. JIM RICCIO: We still haven't solved many of the
safety problems, the security problems or what to do with the radioactive waste. And now you have the
addition of the fact that you have suicidal terrorists that want to target these reactor to cause harm to the
home state. ED HALPIN, STP NUCLEAR OPEATING COMPANY: Those are robust, hardened units.
The containment walls are five feet thick, they're lined with steel and there are walls inside of walls inside
of walls before you get to the protected reactor vessel. KIM LANDERS: While Australia hesitates about
whether to embark on a nuclear path, here in South Texas there are no doubts. ED HALPIN: My advice
would be to go nuclear and I'll tell you why. Number one, they're safe. We operate safely, safety goes first.
They are environmentally friendly. We produce no greenhouse gases.
5
Nuclear Power Neg
Increases Pollutants
Pollutants and leaks will counter any positive impact on warming
TEXAS RADIATION ONLINE 2004
[http://www.radtexas.org/ “Nothing Clean About Nuclear Energy Production” accessed 9/29/04 // ]
Mechanical failure and human error can cause a reactor's components to leak. As a nuclear plant ages, so
does its equipment- and leaks generally increase. Some gases leak into plant interiors and are released during
periodic "purges" and "ventings." These airborne gases contaminate not only the air, but also soil and water.
Radioactive releases from a nuclear power reactor's routine operation often are not fully detected or
reported, and accidental releases may not be completely verified or documented. During the accident at
Three Mile Island, large amounts of radioactive particles were vented into the atmospere, notably
significant amounts of krypton-85. [Nuclear Information and Resource Service, "Routine Radioactive
Releases from Nuclear Reactors"]
6
Nuclear Power Neg
Increases Warming
Time delays and efficiency problems means nuke power increases the greenhouse effect
CALDICOTT 1999
[Helen, Physician, scientist, Nobel prize nominee, “Nuclear madness” // ]
Let’s dissect the above assumptions. It was estimated in 1974 in a Friends of the Earth paper, that a
nuclear reactor must operate at full capacity for ten years to repay its energy debt incurred by uranium
mining, enrichment, fuel fabrication, steel and zirconium manufacture, and plant construction (this does
not include decommissioning). Add to this eight to ten years for plant construction and fuel loading and
reloading. It would therefore take approximately eighteen years for one noe calorie of energy to be
generated for societal consumption. These operations generate large quantities of carbon dioxide gas so
the nuclear energy advertisements are a lie. Nuclear energy adds to the greenhouse effect.
Nuclear Power Can’t Solve Warming- It makes it worse

Roy C Dudgeon (a cultural anthropologist and a founding member of the Green Party of Manitoba.) 2008 “Is nuclear power the answer to
global warming?” Capitol News Connections (CNC) [http://www.helium.com/users/333203] Accessed July 27, 2008
Nuclear power generation in particular requires the use of fissionable material (plutonium). Just like oil and coal,
fissionable material also exists in limited quantities. Just like the fossil fuels, it is also used up during the process of
generating electricity. Nuclear power, therefore, is /inherently/ unsustainable over the long-term, just as fossil fuels are.
Far worse than this, however, is the fact that nuclear power generation /inevitably/ involves the creation of toxic nuclear waste
which remains deadly to all living things for a period of thousands of years. The plutonium wastes generated have a half-life of roughly 10,000
years. What this means is that it takes 10,000 years for /half/ of this waste to degenerate into non-radioactive isotopes, and another 10,000 years
for the remaining 50% of the material which is still radioactive to do the same, etc. If the ancient Egyptians had used plutonium reactors, for
example, the wastes they would have produced several thousand years ago would still be roughly 95% as lethal as when they first stored them.
Yet the ancient Egyptian civilization collapsed millenia ago, which would have left no one to ensure that these wastes were prevented from
leaking into the environment (and contemporary industrial society is not immune from a similar fate). There is also /no known way/ of
rendering these materials non-radioactive or non-polluting, nor is any likely in the future given our current understandings of the
sciences of physics and chemistry. Nor is there any /proven/ way of "safely" storing these materials for the period of time
necessary (which means preventing the release of these materials into the larger environment for tens of thousands of years).
The mining of fissionable materials also /inevitably/ creates environmental damage and ecological contamination, just
ask the people living near the mines in northern Saskatchewan, Canada (Goldstick 1987). Despite these facts, however, there are
unfortunately some misguided souls who would tout nuclear power as a so-called "solution" to global warming, because
nuclear facilities release no greenhouse gases over the short-term. This may be true, but that is much like suggesting
chemotherapy as a treatment for the common cold. The pollution created by nuclear reactors is far more deadly and far more
permanent, and the potential impacts on life on this planet far more potentially devastating over the long-term. This
is because release of some of this material into the environment is statistically /inevitable/ over the long-term, both from leaks
from stored materials, and due to "accidental" releases from operating nuclear facilities such as the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine some
years ago. There are any number of reasons why such accidents can occur, including human error, mechanical failure, design flaws,
administrative flaws (or some combination of them), to say nothing of military or terrorist attacks and natural disasters such as earthquakes.
And the more nuclear facilities there are in existence, the more statistically inevitable further such releases becomes, both due to the
proliferation of nuclear reactors, and the wastes they generate. Nuclear reactors themselves, when they go off-line, also become a nuclear waste
disposal problem.
7
Nuclear Power Neg
Increases Warming
The water cooling system used by the IFR reactors heats up nearby lakes increasing global
warming and hurting the economy
Ziggy Kleinau, No date (Coordinator for non-profit organization Citizens For Renewable Energy)The
Canadian “Nuclear Power outed in Ontario, for speeding-up Global Warming, and Great Lakes water depletion”
[http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/21/02482.html] accessed 7/27/08 MS
Much has been made of the power contained in a single uranium fuel bundle used in Ontario's CanDU reactors to
produce electricity. It is supposed to be able to generate as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrels
of oil (Canadian Nuclear Association website: Nuclear Facts). Compared to the burning of fossil fuels to produce
the steam to generate electric power the fuel bundle undergoes a fission process, splitting the uranium atoms to
produce heat to fabricate the steam to drive turbines connected to the generators in a complicated process of
electricity generation. As a matter-of-fact, so much heat is produced by the fission-activated neutrons that to keep
the fuel from uncontrolled meltdown, “ there need to be huge amounts of cooling water drawn from Lakes Huron
and Ontario. The 6 operating Bruce Power reactors, by the way, are drawing close to 17 million litres of lake
water A MINUTE(!) to keep the process from overheating (Golder Associates Ltd. Consultants). What happens to
this cooling water? Most of it is discharged back to the lake, but not in the same condition. It goes back out up to
12 degrees Celsius warmer. This so-called thermal plume has been heating up the Lakes for decades, 24/7, 365
days a year. Very little ice has been forming on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay over successive, even colder,
winters, resulting in lake water evaporation over the full 12 months instead of the normal 8 months of ice-free
water. Without ice cover solar irradiation will also have the effect of additional warming of the open waters, while
ice cover would have reflected the sun's rays. No wonder lake levels continue to drop, now at record low levels,
affecting the economy of shipping companies and marinas, with waters getting warmer, resulting in increased
evaporation and cloud forming.
8
Nuclear Power Neg
**Prolif Advantage**
9
Nuclear Power Neg
Prolif Inevitable
Nuclear Proliferation is inevitable

Daniel Nexon , researcher on nuclear proliferation, Saturday, May 28, 2005, “nuclear proliferation”, The
duck of Minerva.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NjkmqbG1eRYJ:duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2005/05/nuclear-
non-proliferation-treaty-npt.html+npt+collapse+inevitable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us. 7/2708$
The big question, of course, is how much blame for these developments can be laid at the feet of the US. Are we
witnessing the mounting costs of anti-Americanism engendered by the Bush administration, or the more or less
inevitable consequences of unipolarity, the spread of weapons technology, and other factors? The answer is
probably both. At the very least, the growing antipathy towards US foreign policy, combined with the fact that the
nuclear powers - including the US - aren't exactly taking their NPT obligations seriously, provides rhetorical cover
for states like Iran.
Nuclear Proliferation is happening now, there is no chance to stop.

Hamid Mir, former CIA agent, 4. February 2008, “Nuclear proliferation cannot be controlled now -
Former CIA agent says”. Nachrichten Heute. http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/. 7/27/08$
A former American CIA agent and nuclear expert David Dastych has claimed that main nuclear arsenals of
Pakistan, India, Britain, France, the USA, Russia and China are safe but nuclear proliferation could not be
controlled now because it has completely slipped out of control. He said some corrupt officials of the US defense
and state departments were involved in the theft of US nuclear secrets which were sold to many countries
including Israel and Pakistan. In an exclusive interview with Hamid Mir, he said questioning Pakistani scientist Dr
A Q Khan is not of any high value now. He said Russian-made small neutron bombs are a real threat to world
peace. David Dastych (66) was recruited to polish intelligence in 1961. He joined CIA in 1973 and became a
double agent. He served in the USA, Europe, Vietnam, and China and in other countries. He was arrested by
Polish counterintelligence in 1987 on charges of espionage for American and Japanese secret services. He was
released from prison in 1990, after the fall of communist regime in Poland American, Australian, Canadian, and
also Mexican businessmen or intelligence "front companies" participated in the illegal nuclear trade and in the
proliferation of nuclear technology.
North Korea is proliferating and has a suspected link with Syria

Jason Strother , Despite Declaration, Hard Work Remains in North Korea Talks | Bio | 01 Jul 2008
World Politics Review Exclusive [http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2368] Date
accessed 7/27/08 MS
The atomic device that North Korea test-fired in October 2006 is believed to have been constructed with
plutonium from the Yongbyon complex. The declaration did not shed much light on either a suspected highly
enriched uranium (HEU) program or a nuclear proliferation link with Syria, but did make reference to both.
Speaking in Seoul over the weekend, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said these concerns will be addressed
during the next phase of the denuclearization talks.
10
Nuclear Power Neg
Nuke Power = Prolif
Nuclear power increases proliferation

Public Citizen, April 2006, "Renewable Energy is Capable of Meeting Our Needs", Public citizen.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/RenewableEnergy.pdf . 7/27/08$
Nuclear power also increases the risks the nuclear weapons proliferation. As more reactors are built around the
world, nuclear material becomes more vulnerable to theft and diversion. Power reactors have also historically led
directly to nuclear weapons programs in many countries. Sensitive nuclear technology such as uranium enrichment
and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing are ostensibly employed to create fuel in power reactors, they may be easily
adjusted or redirected to produce weapons-grade fissile material. Moreover, power reactors themselves produce
plutonium, which may be used in bombs. In practice, there is no way to segregate nuclear technologies employed
for "peaceful" purposes from technologies that may be employed in weapons—the former may be, and have been,
transformed into the latter.
Nuclear power increases proliferation

Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power,
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm)
2. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, “During my 8 years
in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear
reactor program.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can’t develop a domestic
nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries. Here too, nuclear power
proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given
plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in
the rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear
proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear
materials will not fall into the wrong hands
11
Nuclear Power Neg
NPT Crashing Now

The NPT is Doomed and can’t be fixed
Liaquat Ali Khan (professor of law at Washburn University and writer of A Theory of International Terrorism) May 4, 2005 “Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treat Poised to Fall Apart” CounterPunch [http://www.counterpunch.org/khan05042005.html] Accessed July 27, 2008
1. The NPT's nuclear club has been broken into. In 1970, the Treaty divided the world into two camps: haves and have-nots.
It acknowledged that five states--US, UK, France, Russia & China--lawfully possessed nuclear weapons. It hoped that the
rest of the world would not acquire them. That did not happen. In 1998, India and Pakistan detonated nuclear
weapons in face of the world. The US now publicly admits that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Probability dictates that
North Korea has them too. The dilemma is therefore insurmountable. If the club of five is expanded to eight and perhaps
more, proliferation would seem to have been accommodated. If not, the club would be treated as a foolish anomaly. Either way, the NPT is
in legal disarray
The NPT is Doomed- Withdraws Prove

2. The NPT can be lawfully dumped. It allows a signatory state to withdraw from the non-proliferation regime "if it decides
that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. All that is required is
a three months advance notice. North Korea joined the NPT in 1985. In January, 2003, however, it withdrew from the
Treaty (effective immediately). If North Korea detonates the bomb and joins the de facto club, the NPT would be further weakened. And the
dumping rule will be reaffirmed in international law. As luck would have it, there will be new withdrawals from the NPT, most
likely in the Middle East where states will not accept Israel's regional nuclear monopoly. Even one or two more
withdrawals will kill the Treaty.
The NPT is doomed- New Nukes Prove

3. The NPT's foundational promise is not kept. The five declared nuclear-weapon states promised to cease the nuclear arms
race and head toward a complete nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control. The collapse of the Soviet
Union was a godsend that ceased the superpowers, nuclear arms race. But no good faith effort, as the Treaty requires, is being made
towards complete nuclear disarmament. In fact, contrary to the letter and spirit of the NPT, the Bush administration is actively
considering to develop brand new nuclear bunker-buster weapons. No treaty regime can succeed on such blatant
contempt for the world. When the shepherd on the white horse loses his way, no sheep come home.
The NPT is doomed- Iran-US nuclear uncertainty Proves

4. The NPT is a double-headed monster. It is simultaneously good and evil. The Treaty allows the development of nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes. In fact, the Treaty rests on a bargain. States relinquished the right to have nuclear weapons because they were led to
believe that "peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to them. Iran that signed the NPT claims that it has "the
unalienable right to develop peaceful nuclear energy. The United States claims that if Iran is allowed to acquire
nuclear technology, it would come closer to developing nuclear weapons. Both claims are simultaneously accurate.
This double-headedness is precisely the inherent flaw of the NPT. Its one head spews light, the other flames.
12
Nuclear Power Neg
NPT Crashing Now
The NPT is doomed- US Foreign Policy and Nuclear Security Proves

5. The NPT is a suicide pact. The US foreign policy has created a global context in which it is far more protective for states to
have nuclear weapons than not to have them. The war on Iraq demonstrates that a state without weapons of mass
destruction is vulnerable to invasion and occupation. It would be perfectly logical to conclude that Iraq was attacked not
because it had weapons of mass destruction but because it had none. This pathological logic will be further confirmed
if the United States continues to pursue diplomacy with North Korea that presumably have both nuclear weapons
and missiles to deliver them. The Iraq/North Korea binary reality resurrects old truths that might is right, and be firm with the bullies
And so, in a dangerous world, adhering to the NPT will be considered foolish. For these five reasons, the NPT seems no
longer viable. If the analysis above is dark and pessimistic, and something can indeed be done about the weapons of mass destruction,
beware, more wars and "the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind might be on the way. A complete nuclear disarmament is, of
course, another possible solution.
The NPT wont be ratified by India, Pakistan, Isarel or North Korea, four serious
proliferating threats
Bennett Ramberg, A unified front against nuclear weapons, guardian.co.uk, Saturday July 26 2008
Article history [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/26/unitednations.nuclear] Accessed
7/27/08 MS
One fact is not in doubt: the NPT is the legal linchpin for the nuclear nonproliferation regime now signed and
ratified by all but three nations – India, Pakistan, and Israel – and one drop-out, North Korea. The treaty's
principles remain bold: the pact's five acknowledged nuclear weapons states – the US, Britain, France, Russia, and
China – promise to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and the remaining parties commit not to acquire nuclear
weapons in exchange for the right to develop civil nuclear power, with international assistance, subject to binding
safeguards.
13
Nuclear Power Neg
NPT Bad
NPT has many flaws
Public Citizen’s Energy Program, September 2006, “Nuclear's Fatal Flaws: Proliferation” Public
Citizen’s Energy Program. http://www.citizen.org/documents/ClimateChange.pdf. 7/27/08$
While it is considered one of the most successful international arms-control agreements ever instituted, the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—commonly known as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or
“NPT”—suffers a fatal flaw: Article IV of the NPT allows and even encourages signatories to develop nuclear
technology for “peaceful purposes,” such as for the production of electricity, calling such use the “inalienable
right” of all parties to the treaty. Article IV further encourages NPT signatories to engage in the “fullest possible
exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear
energy.” Non-nuclear-weapons states are especially encouraged to participate in commercial nuclear power
development.
14
Nuclear Power Neg
**Hegemony Advantage*
15
Nuclear Power Neg
Hegemony Dead
US Hegemony is low now because of Iraq. Plan will not model or improve U.S. credibility
R.S. Zaharna (Middle East analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and an assistant professor of public communication at American University.)
December 13, 2006 “The U.S. Credibility Deficit” FPIF Strategic Dialogue [http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3796] Accessed July 27, 2008
What U.S. officials don't seem to register is that no amount of information pumped out by U.S. public diplomacy will be enough to
improve the U.S. image. The problem, ultimately, is not lack of information but lack of credibility. People around the world
questioned the Bush administration's actions before it entered Iraq back in February 2003. Last month, the U.S. public resoundingly expressed
their misgivings about the Bush administration's handling of the war. Iraq has focused a spotlight on U.S. credibility. The more
the United States flounders in Iraq, the more U.S. credibility erodes in the world. Without credibility, no amount of
information holds persuasive weight, and U.S. soft power can't attract and influence others.
US Hegemony is low now due to overwhelming Anti-Americanism

R.S. Zaharna (Middle East analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and an assistant professor of public communication at American University.)
December 13, 2006 “The U.S. Credibility Deficit” FPIF Strategic Dialogue [http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3796] Accessed July 27, 2008
Snow effectively underscores the severity and repercussions of anti-Americanism on the U.S. image. However nebulous the term, anti-
Americanism has very real costs in terms of diminished U.S. prestige, restricted foreign policy options, lost revenues for
American businesses, and, of course, decreased American security. International poll results give a disturbing glimpse of how
pervasive and deep the sentiment has become. While anti-Americanism is not new, its growth—despite an aggressive
public diplomacy effort to refurbish the U.S. image—is alarming. In this, I agree with Snow that U.S. public diplomacy needs “a
fundamentally different approach.” Where I differ somewhat is on the depth and direction of that approach.
US Hegemony is being Undermined by faulty human rights and anti-terror policies.

Jeremy Bransten (Staff writer) January 11, 2007 “World: Rights Report Cites Diminishing U.S. Credibility” Radio Free Europe Radio
Liberty [http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1073948.html] Accessed July 27, 2008
Lost Leadership[:] But this year's [Human Rights Watch] report takes particular aim at the United States. The United
States -- according to Human Rights Watch -- used to lead the world in promoting global human rights. But the group argues
that because of the antiterrorism policies of U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. credibility on rights has been "utterly
undermined." For Human Rights Watch, America's Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, where foreigners identified as "enemy
combatants" have been detained indefinitely without trial, symbolizes Washington's abdication of moral leadership. So does the use
of what Bush has called "alternative" interrogation procedures. Among the most controversial is holding detainees' heads under water for
prolonged periods of time -- which Human Rights Watch calls a "classic torture technique." "The reason Human Rights Watch selected the fifth
anniversary of Guantanamo to launch our annual report is because it really highlights the leadership crisis that is facing the human rights
movement these days at the governmental level," HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth told RFE/RL. "Traditionally, we're used to
looking toward the United States to take the lead, on at least many human rights issues. But because of Guantanamo,
because of the Bush administration's policy of using torture and detention without trial as a way of combating
terrorism, U.S. credibility on human rights is simply shot in many parts of the world. It is dramatically undermined. And so
there's an urgent need for someone else to come in and fill that leadership void."
16
Nuclear Power Neg
Hegemony Dead
U.S. hegemony is destroyed only a major change in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
can change this.
Jim Lobe, staff writer for Inter Press Service, October 27, 2006 “50 Years After Suez, U.S. Hegemony
Ebbing Fast” Inter Press Service.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qqoFb_O7x1AJ:www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1027-
02.htm+us+hegemony+is+destroyed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us. 7/27/08$
WASHINGTON - As the Middle East prepares to mark the 50th anniversary on Oct. 29 of the Suez Crisis that
effectively ended European colonialism, a half century of U.S. hegemony in the region also appears to be coming
to an end, according to a growing number of analysts here. The observation is based primarily on the serious
damage done to Washington's position in the Middle East by its 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq,
where more than 140,000 of its troops remain bogged down in what seems likely an increasingly futile effort both
to crush a Sunni insurgency that it failed to anticipate and prevent a larger sectarian civil war. In addition,
however, the passivity -- or obstinacy -- of the administration of President George W. Bush in failing to revive any
kind of Arab-Israeli peace process, particularly in the wake of last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah or
the ongoing deterioration of the Palestinian Authority, appears to have brought both Washington's image and
influence in the region to an all-time low. "American foreign policy in the Middle East is approaching a very
serious crisis," noted Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under former President Jimmy Carter, at a
dinner this week in which he noted the imminence of the 1956 crisis that he said marked "the beginning of
(Washington's) domination of the region". "We are facing the possibility of literally being pushed out of the
Middle East," he warned, suggesting that only a major change in U.S. policy, particularly regarding the Israeli-
Palestinian peace process, can reverse the current trend. While other analysts insist that Washington's status as the
world's military hyperpower and its continued heavy reliance on Middle Eastern oil -- let alone its continued
presence in Iraq -- ensure its continued relevance to the region, the consensus among regional specialists here is
that its ability to affect events there has indeed been substantially diminished. "The age of U.S. dominance in the
Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun," wrote Richard Haass,
president of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and a top Middle East adviser to the George H.W.
Bush administration, in a remarkably downbeat article in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs journal.
US has no credibility leading to no influence worldwide

R.S. Zaharna; a Middle East analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and an assistant professor of public
communication at American University; Dec. 13, 2006; FPIF (Foreign Policy in Focus); “The US
Credibility Deficit”; http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3796 accessed 07/27/08
Snow effectively underscores the severity and repercussions of anti-Americanism on the U.S. image. However
nebulous the term, anti-Americanism has very real costs in terms of diminished U.S. prestige, restricted foreign
policy options, lost revenues for American businesses, and, of course, decreased American security. International
poll results give a disturbing glimpse of how pervasive and deep the sentiment has become. While anti-
Americanism is not new, its growth—despite an aggressive public diplomacy effort to refurbish the U.S. image—
is alarming. In this, I agree with Snow that U.S. public diplomacy needs “a fundamentally different approach.”
Where I differ somewhat is on the depth and direction of that approach. America's inability to listen is tied to its
preoccupation with designing and delivering messages. Since 9/11, U.S. public diplomacy has gone into overdrive
to get the message out about U.S. values, policies, and positions. This information-centered approach presumes
either a lack of information or an abundance of misinformation—hence the flurry of U.S. public diplomacy
initiatives such as the Shared Values advertising campaign, Hi magazine, Al-Hurra television, and Radio Sawa.
Yet, because of the U.S. superpower status, countries are continuously monitoring and gathering as much
information as they can about U.S. activities and policies. What U.S. officials don't seem to register is that no
amount of information pumped out by U.S. public diplomacy will be enough to improve the U.S. image. The
problem, ultimately, is not lack of information but lack of credibility. People around the world questioned the Bush
administration's actions before it entered Iraq back in February 2003. Last month, the U.S. public resoundingly
expressed their misgivings about the Bush administration's handling of the war. Iraq has focused a spotlight on
U.S. credibility. The more the United States flounders in Iraq, the more U.S. credibility erodes in the world.
17
Nuclear Power Neg
Without credibility, no amount of information holds persuasive weight, and U.S. soft power can't attract and
influence others.
18
Nuclear Power Neg
**Solvency*
19
Nuclear Power Neg
Time Delays
Lawsuits cause time delays- 1970’s prove
MORRIS 2002
[Robert, received PH.D in Chemistry & edu. From Nebraska ’68, The Environmental
Case for Nuclear Power, 2002, pub: Paragon House 2700 Univ. Avenue West st. Paul,
Minnesota 55114, PG-25 prgf 3-4 // ]
Subsequently, 65,000 antinuclear activists marched on Washington and demanded that all nuclear power
plants be shut down. Later, a commission appointed by the president looked into the matter and concluded
that "Three Mile Island had never threatened the public in any way."6 But the weeks of hysteria had
taken their toll, and the commission's report did little to alleviate the public's fear. After Three
MileIsland, antinuclear activists stepped up their efforts to stop the use of nuclear power plants. Not only
were they successflul in stopping the construction of any plants ordered after 1974, but they also
forced many utility companies to tear down billions of dollars worth of nearly finished nuclear power
plants. The antinuclear activists were able to accomplish this by filing thousands of frivolous lawsuits,
each of which halted the construction of a nuclear power plant. Although almost all of these lawsuits
were ultimately either defeated or thrown out of court, they accomplished their purpose by stopping
construction while each lawsuit slowly made its way through the courts. And, as soon as one lawsuit was
resolved, a new suit was filed, stopping construction again. These delays cost the utility companies bil-
lions of dollars because they had to continue paying interest on the money previously borrowed for
construction, even though construction was held up.
20
Nuclear Power Neg
Accidents
Accidents are inevitable- their evidence about safety is a lie. 100% safety mechanisms are imposible
with radioactive material
MAKHIJANI AND SALESKA 1996
[Arjun, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Ph.D and Scott The Nuclear Power
Perception “U.S. Nuclear Mythology from Electricity "Too Cheap to Meter" to "Inherently Safe" Reactors
http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html accessed 9/24/04 // ]
This conclusion is not limited to groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, which maintain a
healthy skepticism about nuclear power. A study conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory also has
reached similar conclusions: A nuclear reactor can never be completely inherently safe because it
contains large quantities of radioactive materials to generate usable heat-energy; but nuclear reactors
can be made inherently safe against some types of events and have characteristics which limit
consequences of certain postulated accidents.2'3 These cautionary statements raise another crucial concern:
the possibility that in designing to eliminate certain now-commonlv recognized accident possibilities,
new accident scenarios will be unwittingly introduced. As a survey of advanced designs by Britain's
Atomic Energy Agency concluded. Safety arguments, in many cases, are-very underdeveloped, making it
difficult to gauge if the reactor is any safer than traditional systems. [Advanced reactor] designers tend to
concentrate... on one particular aspect such as a [loss-of-coolant accident], and replace all the systems for
dealing with that with passive ones. In so doing, they ignore other known transients or transients
possibly novel to their design.'16
Even advanced reactors risk accidents

MAKHIJANI AND SALESKA 1996
(Arjun, president Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and Scott, “The Nuclear Power
Deception, Chapter 7: "Inherently Safe" Reactors: Commercial Nuclear Power's Second Generation?” pg.
Online @ http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html // )
The general arguments of advanced reactor advocates, some of which may be conceptually plausible and
appealing, are difficult to either verify or refute in the abstract. This is because they are all essentially in
the design stage, with only very limited details made public. Although greater incorporation of passive
safety features, if undertaken with care and rigor, could be an advance in reactor design philosophy, we
are concerned with the constant references by advanced reactor advocates to the supposed "inherent
safety" of their designs.
Regardless of the validity of claims about immunity to the meltdown accident scenario, this terminology
of "inherent safety" has more rhetorical merit than technical content. It is fundamentally misleading to
describe as "inherently safe" a technology which necessarily contains and produces such large amounts of
extremely hazardous material as does nuclear power. Although it may be possible to design a reactor which renders
certain accident scenarios virtually impossible -- or to make reactors that are considerably safer relative to existing reactors -- that
does not mean that the technology per se can be considered to have acquired safety as an inherent characteristic.
As stated in a 1990 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) which considered several advanced reactor designs,
As a general proposition, there is nothing 'inherently' safe about a nuclear reactor. Regardless of the
attention to design, construction, operation, and management of nuclear reactors, there is always
something that could be done (or not done) to render the reactor dangerous. The degree to which this is
true varies from design to design, but we believe that our general conclusion is correct.214
This conclusion is not limited to groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, which maintain a
healthy skepticism about nuclear power. A study conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory also has
reached similar conclusions:
A nuclear reactor can never be completely inherently safe because it contains large quantities of
radioactive materials to generate usable heat-energy; but nuclear reactors can be made inherently safe
against some types of events and
21
Nuclear Power Neg
Accidents
Accidents likely to happen in nuclear plants

Michael Totty. News editor for The Journal Report in San Francisco. June 30, 2008. “The Case For and
Against Nuclear Power.” The Wall Street Journal Online.
http://www.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121432182593500119.html 7/27/2008
The safety of nuclear plants has certainly improved, thanks to changes adopted in the wake of the Three Mile
Island accident. But safety problems persist, because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't adequately
enforcing existing safety standards. What's more, countries where nuclear power is likely to expand don't have a
strong system for regulating nuclear safety. The important thing to remember about safety is this: The entire
nuclear power industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst performers, because an accident anywhere
in the world would stoke another antinuclear backlash among the public and investors. Opposition to a long-term
waste repository at Yucca Mountain shows how difficult it will be to come up with a politically acceptable
solution. Yucca Mountain has been plagued by questions about the selection process and its suitability as a
repository, and even if it is ultimately approved, it won't be available for at least another decade -- and it will be
filled to capacity almost immediately. If it isn't approved, any replacement site will face the same opposition from
neighbors and local political leaders. Finally, critics say that an expansion of nuclear power will increase the
danger that potentially hostile nations will use nuclear material from a power program to develop atomic weapons,
or that rogue states or terrorists will steal nuclear material to make bombs.
Accidents inevitable in a nuclear power plant

Time for Change. January 2007. http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-
sustainability
High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to
build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident
would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear
power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure
somewhere in the world. The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power
generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to
build new nuclear power plants in a short time.
Nuclear power plants are prone to accidents and take very long to build
Paul Gunter. No Date. Energy policy analyst and activist. “The Nuclear Power Danger.” Beyond
Nuclear Power. http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html.
Nuclear power cannot address climate change. Greenhouse gases are emitted throughout the nuclear fuel chain,
from the mining of the necessary fuel - uranium - to its enrichment, transportation and the construction of nuclear
plants. Nuclear plants take too long to build - up to a dozen years or more. The planet is already in crisis with
experts pointing to rapid climate change already underway and less than ten years left to pre-empt disaster. There
is no time to wait for nuclear plant construction. Terrorism: The opportunity for theft by terrorists of nuclear
materials usable in even a "dirty bomb" would susbtantially increase if nuclear power is expanded. This could
result in a level of destruction hitherto unenvisaged. Reactors are themselves terrorist targets and current ones are
not even defended to the level of the 9/11 assault – 19 men in four teams, including air attack scenarios. Thirty-two
U.S. reactors have fuel pools on the upper levels of the reactor building, shielded only by sheet metal and an open
invitation to air attack. Accidents: New reactors, like old ones, are at their most vulnerable to accidents. Yet in the
event of an accident, existing evacuation plans have been found to be unrealistic. Furthermore, the Price-Anderson
Act ensures that the liability of an accident to a utility is capped at $10.8 billion. A serious reactor accident could
cost as much as $600 billion, the balance of which would likely be paid by taxpayers.
22
Nuclear Power Neg
Meltdowns
Risk of meltdowns- US plants prove
Sheehan Miles 2k4
[Charles Executive Director- Nuclear policy reeasearch institute, june 11,
www.nuclearpolicy.org/newsarticle.cfm?newsID=1653, ]
A number of nuclear power plants in the United States have recently faced public safety problems that
were unexpected by industry officials. These problems could have had catastrophic effect for the
American people. Inspectors at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, located 21 miles southeast of Toledo,
Ohio, identified a six-inch deep football-sized hole in the reactor vessel. This hole was initially missed by
years of inspections, and would have resulted in a meltdown had it not been identified. At the time the
hole was found, 95% of the steel protecting the reactor from meltdown had been eaten away by acid. In
2003 cracks were found in the instrumentation tubes which measure the operations of the South Texas
Project nuclear reactors, 90 miles southwest of Houston, Texas, allowing the reactor to leak. Had these
leaks not been identified by routine inspection, they could also have eventually resulted in a meltdown.
23
Nuclear Power Neg
Loan Guarantees Not Enough
Loan guarantees don’t mandate plants-projects won’t get built

Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535)
Another federal benefit that Crane calls a "significant motivation" for NRG's decision to move ahead is a
provision that lets the secretary of energy authorize loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of a
nuclear plant. "We believe this will encourage banks to extend loans for projects like the Texas
generators," says Crane, who adds that NRG expects to tap its own resources for about 20 percent-or $1.2
billion-of the estimated cost, with banks and capital markets making up the difference. The 2005 Energy
Act also provides tax breaks for operators of new nuclear plants based on the energy they produce, and
requires the federal government to indemnify operators in the event of an accident. While such
provisions may add up to a sweet deal for new entrants into nuclear power, they don't guarantee that any
proposed projects will actually get built. For one thing, there's plenty of opposition to nuclear power from
organizations like Common Cause that question the safety of such plants and note that there is still no
federal repository for federal waste.
DOE not capable of supporting the loan guarantees

EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy
Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007,
http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30
07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf)
A provision of the Senate bill exempts DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec. 504(b) of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). The Senate provision allows, among other things, for DOE to write
unlimited loan guarantees without Congressional oversight. If adopted, this provision removes
Congressional authority and the safeguards in place through the appropriation process, and shifts the
financial risk from private lenders to taxpayers. Initial analyses of the loan guarantee program have
shown that DOE lacks the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement its program. Reports from the
GAO and DOE’s Office of the Inspector General state that the necessary policies, procedures, and staff
remain absent, raising questions about DOE’s ability to manage its loan guarantee program. This Issue
Brief explores these issues raised by the 2007 energy bill provisions, as they pose potentially significant
risks and high costs to America’s taxpayers.
24
Nuclear Power Neg
Don’t Increase Electricity
Nuclear power does not produce clean and effective energy

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool. Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia
and Globalization. 21 July, 2008. “Nuclear power: False climate change prophet?” Scitizen.
http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/07/Nuclear-power-False-climate-change-prophet/
A new study reveals that nuclear power is not as clean as the industry claims. Put simply, investments in nuclear
power are much worse at fighting climate change than pursuing wind, solar, and other small-scale power
generators. Policymakers would be wise to embrace these more environmentally friendly technologies if they are
serious about producing electricity and mitigating climate change. As for Generation IV reactors, they are
completely theoretical and, as you point out, at least 20 to 30 years away. We need carbon reducing electricity
technologies NOW, not later, and even if you are correct that Gen IV reactors will be very efficient, it doesnt justify
the nuclear industry claiming today that existing reactors are emissions free.
25
Nuclear Power Neg
Labor Shortage
Not enough workers to fill the plants
Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle, A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry, March 13, 2008, U.S. News &
World Report, http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-
nuclear-industry_print.htm)
The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade, concentrated in the
South—not only nuclear generators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, and
electricity transmission lines. All projects need skilled craft workers, and they are in drastically short
supply. The utility Southern Co. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20,000 workers
in the Southeast. That shortfall will balloon to 40,000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay is
inching up and hours are increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. Fluor says skilled workers at
the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-into-overtime 50-hour weeks
that had been planned. Looking ahead, the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the
skilled-labor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but
workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years.
But in the next five years, just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers
—35 percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising
average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern," likely to push up the cost of
nuclear power plant construction, said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent report. The nuclear
industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago. "Parents,
guidance counselors, and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary
education with the intention of then attending a four-year college program," concludes a recent white
paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute. "High-paying skilled
labor jobs, once considered excellent career options, are now perceived as second class."
26
Nuclear Power Neg
Locations
Not enough places to put plants to solve power problems
Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power,
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm)
6. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17,000 – or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due
to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling,
and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes,
earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are
at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear
power. There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to
be built – further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because
of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, geography, local politics, political
instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.
Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces the
number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes against
nuclear power, many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. How
could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power, if we need to build
17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?
27
Nuclear Power Neg
NRC Won’t Approve

The NRC is not ready to approve new nuclear reactors, France proves the concerns
Harvey Wasserman ( staff writer for Commondreams.org)July 26, 2008 The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission says The Reactor Revival Is NOT
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/26/10619/Ready For Prime Time
A devastating blow to the much-hyped revival of atomic power has been delivered by an unlikely source—the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC says the “standardized” designs on which the entire premise of
returning nuclear power to center stage is based have massive holes in them, and may not be ready for approval for
years to come. Delivered by one of America’s most notoriously docile agencies, the NRC’s warning essentially says: that all cost estimates
for new nuclear reactors—and all licensing and construction schedules—are completely up for grabs, and have no reliable basis in fact. Thus
any comparisons between future atomic reactors and renewable technologies are moot at best. And any “hard number” basis for independent
financing for future nukes may not be available for years to come, if ever. These key points have been raised in searing testimony before state
regulators by Jim Warren of the North Carolina Waste and Awareness Reduction Network and Tom Clements of the South Carolina Friends of
the Earth, and by others now challenging proposed state-based financing for new Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors. The NRC gave conditional
“certification” to this “standardized” design in 2004, allowing design work to continue. But as recently as June 27, the NRC has issued written
warnings that hundreds of key design components remain without official approval. Indeed, Westinghouse has been forced to actually withdraw
numerous key designs, throwing the entire permitting process into chaos. The catastrophic outcome of similar problems has
already become tangible. After two years under construction, the first “new generation” French reactor being built
in Finland is already more than two years behind schedule, and more than $2.5 billion over budget. The scenario is
reminiscent of the economic disaster that hit scores of “first generation” reactors, which came in massively over
budget and, in many cases, decades behind promised completion dates. In North and South Carolina, public interest groups
are demanding the revocation of some $230 million in pre-construction costs already approved by state regulators for two proposed Duke
Energy reactors. In both those states, as well as in Florida, Alabama and Georgia, Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors have been presented to
regulatory commissions to be financed by ratepayers as they are being built.This astounding pro-utility scheme forces electric consumers to pay
billions of dollars for nuclear plants that may never operate, and whose costs are indeterminate. Sometimes called Construction Work in
Progress, it lets utilities raise rates to pay for site clearing, project planning, and down payments on large equipment and heavy reactor
components, such as pressure vessels, pumps and generators, that can involve hundreds of millions of dollars, even before the projects get final
federal approval. The process in essence gives utilities an incentive to drive up construction costs as much as they can. It allows them to force
ratepayers to cover legal fees incurred by the utilities to defend themselves against lawsuits by those very ratepayers. And the public is stuck
with the bill for whatever is spent, even if the reactor never opens—or if it melts down before it recoups its construction costs, as did
Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island Unit Two in 1979, which self-destructed after just three months of operation. According to Warren and
Clements, Duke Energy and its cohorts have “filed some 6,500 pages of Westinghouse’s technical design documents as the major component of
applications” to build new reactors. “Of the 172 interconnected Westinghouse documents,” say NCWARN and FOE, “only 21 have been
certified.” And most of what has been certified, they add, rely on systems that are unapproved, and that are key to the guts of the reactor,
including such major components as the “reactor building, control room, cooling system, engineering designs, plant-wide alarm systems,
piping and conduit.” In other words, despite millions of dollars of high-priced hype, the “new generation” of “standardized design” power
plants actually does not exist. The plans for these reactors have not been finalized by the builders themselves, nor have
they been approved by the regulators. There is no operating prototype of a Westinghouse AP-1000 from which to draw actual
data about how safely these plants might actually operate, what their environmental impact might be, or what they might cost to build or run. In
fact, as the NRC’s June 27 letter notes, Westinghouse has been forced to withdraw key technical documents from the regulatory process. The
NRC says this means design approval for the AP-1000 might not come until 2012.
28
Nuclear Power Neg
Plants = terrorism
Plans risk terrorism

Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic
Renaissance, E The Environmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780)
In spite of its obvious benefits, nuclear power may simply be too risky. Opponents of the nuclear
renaissance point to a host of serious concerns. “They’re proposing a replay of a demonstrated failure,”
says Paul Gunter, director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource
Service (NIRS). “The financial risks have only gotten worse, and our concerns about safety issues are
heightened now that these plants are known terrorist targets.” Alex Matthiessen, director of Hudson
Riverkeeper, declares, “In the post-9/11 era, nuclear power plants pose an unacceptable risk.” He
points out that NRC studies conclude that a serious accident at one of Indian Point’s two working reactors
could cause 50,000 early fatalities. Al Qaeda operatives have, by their own admission, considered
attacking nuclear facilities. And according to Riverkeeper, only 19 percent of Indian Point guards think
they can protect the facility from a conventional assault, let alone a suicidal mission. Riverkeeper says
that the proposed evacuation plans for the area are woefully inadequate, and the site is vulnerable to an
airborne attack. Plant operator Entergy refutes these charges, and says that the 3.5-foot steel-reinforced
concrete containment structures protecting the reactor and other radioactive materials are “among the
strongest structures built by man.”
Nuclear power plants are terrorist hot spots

George Bunn and Fritz Steinhausler (Writers for Arms control asscocition) October 2001 Guarding
Nuclear Reactors and Material From Terrorists and Thieves Date accessed July 27,2008
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_10/bunnoct01
Safeguards Do Not Protect-The 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires non-nuclear-weapon states
to accept safeguards administered by the IAEA on all their nuclear activities. But, when the NPT was drafted,
nuclear terrorism was not perceived as a significant threat, and the safeguards consist of monitoring and
accounting measures designed to prevent non-nuclear-weapon states from diverting nuclear material from peaceful
nuclear activities to weapons programs. The safeguards are not intended to prevent theft of nuclear material by
outsiders or the bombing of reactors and spent fuel by terrorists. Today there are threats not foreseen in 1968 that
are unlikely to be deterred by NPT requirements: terrorists who want to blow up nuclear reactors with high
explosives to kill civilians and create chaos, thieves who want to steal weapons-usable nuclear material to sell to
states or terrorists seeking nuclear weapons, and disgruntled employees who want to steal material and sell it on
the black market.1 The threat that a terrorist might try to blow up a U.S. nuclear facility is frighteningly plausible.
Even before the September 11 attacks, conventional high-explosive bombs delivered by car, truck, or boat had
been used in numerous terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities: a U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the World
Trade Center in New York City in 1993, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, a U.S. military housing
complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996, two American embassies in Africa in 1998, and a U.S. naval vessel in a port in
Yemen in 2000. If such an attack against a nuclear plant were successful, the number of casualties could be
extremely high because of the resulting spread of radioactive material. In 1981, an environmental impact statement
prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) estimated that a large truck bomb used against a
nuclear reactor in a highly populated area could produce 130,000 fatalities.2 In effect, a simple conventional
explosive used against a nuclear facility would serve as a large radiological weapon. The possibility of terrorist
attacks on nuclear reactors is, of course, not limited to those in the United States.
29
Nuclear Power Neg
**Disad Links**
30
Nuclear Power Neg
Spending Links
Loan guarantees are the link

Severance 08 (Craig A. Severance, The Public Record, Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh, June
19, 2008, http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?view=article&id=149%3Anuclear-not-only-way-to-
generate-a-kwh-&option=com_content_)
At $9 billion for an 1100 megawatt nuclear plant, nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the
price of the same power capacity in gas turbines, and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power
output from wind farms. In addition to costing far more, the nuclear plants would not come on line for at
least 10 years, delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. Faced with such bad
numbers, the nuclear industry has admitted it cannot find backing from Wall Street. Instead, the industry
is turning to taxpayers. Congress has authorized $18.5 billion in Federally guaranteed loans for new
nuclear plants. This will only be enough to fund two plants, so the industry is pushing for hundreds of
billions more. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default on these nuclear loans to
be at least 50 percent. This massive new outlay for nuclear power would eclipse all public funds for all
other energy sources combined. The nation is now reeling from the aftermath of people buying homes
they could not afford, because someone was reckless enough to loan them the money. Do we want our
utilities to buy power plants they can’t afford? The taxpayer funded banquet for the nuclear industry
would not end with power plants. This initial pork would be followed by taxpayer subsidies for fuel
enrichment, plant decommissioning costs, and perpetual taxpayer funds for thousands of years to maintain
the nuclear waste.
The cost would be trillions of dollars

ROGERS et al. 2003
[Paul, Rothstien, Linda, Chicago-based freelance writer, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Nuclear-
powered cars?” Sep/oc2003// ]
Others are less than pleased with the notion. Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense points out
that nuclear power is still much more expensive than coal- or gas-fired power. The seven reactors at
Kashiwazaki cost more than $21 billion, according to Tepco records. Using that number, meeting the
230,000-metric-ton estimate of daily U.S. hydrogen needs would require more than 50 such plants, at a
cost of more than $1 trillion.
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, believes that the loan guarantees proposed to the nuclear industry
in the new Energy bill could risk as much as $30 billion of public money. He reminded his colleagues that
when the Washington Public Power Supply System pulled the plug on its ambitious, over-budget nuclear
program in 1983, it mothballed several unfinished nuclear plants and defaulted on $2.25 billion in
bonds--at the time, the worst bond default in history, but positively Yugo-sized compared to the potential
fallout from a subsidized nuclear renaissance built around hydrogen-powered cars.
Nuclear plants cost 14 billions dollars each- that’s a check the economy cant cash
Charleston Gazette, 2008, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. Monday, July 21,
2008 11:51 PM, “Energy; Ongoing Crisis”
[http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2418467&title=Energy__Ongoing.html
] Date Assecced 7/22/08 MS
However, nuclear plants have become prohibitively expensive to build, according to Dr. Joseph Romm, a physicist
who headed a U.S. Department of Energy branch under President Clinton. In a long analysis, he wrote that
estimated prices of some proposed new "nuke" plants are climbing past $12 billion or $14 billion too high for
electricity customers to bear.
31
Nuclear Power Neg
Spending Links
Nuclear power is more expensive than original thoughts

Michael Graham Richard, Staff Writer for Tree Hugger.com , Tree Hugger.com, New
Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected, 5/14/2008
The Wall Street Journal reports that new-generation nuclear power plants are going to end up costing quite a bit
more than estimates. Not just a few percents, but double to quadruple, or $5 billion to $12 billion a plant. Fossil
fuels are getting more expensive too, and this increase in cost might partly be explained by high demand from
Asia, but it still is quite a big chunk of change and it is eroding the pro-nuke argument about lower overall costs.
For our part, the only nuclear we are excited about right now is Thorium. If it can deliver on its promises, that is.
We wish that more R&D would go into it rather than in Uranium-powered plants that have well-known downsides
(including the fact that taxpayers usually subsidize their insurance).
Nuclear power costs are more than double the assumed price
Joseph Romm, Staff writer for Salon, Salon, 6/2/2008, Nuclear energy, the sequel, is opening to
raves by everybody from John McCain to a Greenpeace co-founder. Don't be fooled. It's the
"Ishtar" of power generation.
Since new nuclear power now costs more than double what the MIT report assumed -- three times what the
Economist called "too costly to matter" -- let me focus solely on the unresolved problem of cost. While safety,
proliferation and waste issues get most of the publicity, nuclear plants have become so expensive that cost
overwhelms the other problems. Already nuclear energy, the sequel, is a source of major confusion in the popular press. Consider this
recent interview between Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria and Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, who is now a strong advocate
for nuclear power. Zakaria asks, "A number of analyses say that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies,
there's no real market for it." Moore replies: That's simply not true. Where the massive government subsidies are is in wind and solar ... I know
that the cost of production of electricity among the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States is 1.68 cents
per kilowatt-hour. That's not including the capital costs, but the cost of production of electricity from nuclear is very low, and competitive
with dirty coal. Gas costs three times as much as nuclear, at least. Wind costs five times as much, and solar costs 10 times as much. In short:
That's absurd. Nuclear power, a mature industry providing 20 percent of U.S. power, has received some $100 billion
in U.S. subsidies -- more than three times the subsidies of wind and solar, even though they are both emerging
industries. And how can one possibly ignore the capital costs of arguably the most capital-intensive form of energy? Moore's statement is
like saying "My house is incredibly cheap to live in, if I don't include the mortgage." Furthermore, after capital costs, wind power and
solar power are pretty much free -- nobody charges for the breeze and the sun. Operation is also cheap, compared with nukes, which
run on expensive uranium and must be monitored minute by minute so they don't melt down. Moore is talking about old nuclear plants, which
have been paid off. But the price of new nuclear power has risen faster than any other form of power, as a detailed
study of coal, gas, wind and nuclear power capital costs by Cambridge Energy Research Associates concluded.
32
Nuclear Power Neg
Spending Links
Three reasons why nuclear power is too expensive

Professor Stuart White, director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of
Technology, Sydney, June 13, 2005, http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/The-nuclear-power-
option--expensive-ineffective-and-unnecessary/2005/06/12/1118514925517.html,
Nuclear power is not the way to achieve the significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that will be
required to pass on a stable climate to future generations - it's not effective, it's not cheap and it's not necessary.
First, nuclear power is not, as suggested, such a great performer in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. This is
mainly because of the significant energy requirements for mining, milling and, particularly, enrichment of the
uranium for the fuel rods. These energy inputs are highly dependent on the concentration, or grade, of the original
ore. Even with high-grade ores, it takes seven to 10 years to "pay back" the energy used in the construction and
fuelling of a typical reactor; with the lower-grade ores that would need to be accessed if nuclear power was
expanded, the net emissions would be greater than for a gas power station. Second, if there was such a large-scale
deployment of nuclear power, the only means by which it could become sustainable in the long term is through the
use of breeder reactors, which create their own fuel in the form of plutonium. These reactors have never shown
their ability to generate sufficient new fuel. Even if breeders could operate as intended, this would mean that
plutonium, a highly hazardous radioactive material, would be transported in increasing quantities around the globe.
The potential diversion of even a small fraction of this material would significantly increase the threat of nuclear
terrorism. Third, nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite
massive historical government support for the industry globally. The same level of support has not been available
for energy efficiency and renewable energy. In countries such as the US and Britain, where it has had recent
relative exposure to competition, the nuclear power industry has been in the economic doldrums for the past 20
years.
The reprocessing of plutonium like the aff would cost about 500 billion and take 150 years
Robert Alvarez, (Senior Advisor in the Department of Energy during the Clinton administration) Nuclear
Recycling Fails the Test July 7, 2008, Editor: Miriam Pemberton ,Foreign Policy In Focus
[http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/53510] Accessed 7/27/08 MS
But then came the Academy's unequivocal conclusion: the idea was supremely impractical. It would cost up to
$500 billion in 1996 dollars and take 150 years to accomplish the transmutation of plutonium and other dangerous
long-lived radioactive toxins. Ten years later the idea remains as costly and technologically unfeasible as it was in
the 1990s. In 2007 the Academy once again tossed cold water on the Bush administration’s effort to jump start
nuclear recycling by concluding that “there is no economic justification for going forward with this program at
anything approaching a commercial scale.”
33
Nuclear Power Neg
Oil Links
An Increase in Nuclear power will decrease dependence on Oil.
Neil M. Cabreza, 2003, (Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
Nuclear Power VS. Other Sources of Power,
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html, Accessed 7/27/08, ZS)
No energy source is perfect, but nuclear energy comes close. The use of nuclear energy is cheap and
environmentally safe since its waste is contained. All the existing and operating nuclear power plants of the United
States are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and abide by their safety standards. Nuclear energy
also creates jobs since it is the most labor intensive electricity source. Furthermore, the use of nuclear energy will
decrease the United States dependency on imported oil. The unceasing public outcry over the use of nuclear energy was one of
the major factors that led to the termination of the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States. People believe that nuclear energy
produces radioactive wastes that can destroy the environment. People also believe that nuclear power plants emit cancer causing radiation and
for this reason its use should be discontinued. What most people don't realize is that most of what they hear are false rumors started by anti-
nuclear activists. The waste nuclear power plants generate is all contained and none of it is released into the environment. This, however, does
not hold true for the other major sources of power. A typical 1000-megawatt coal-burning plant emits 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 75,000
tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5000 tons of fly ash into the environment per year while a typical 1000-megawatt oil-burning plant emits about
16,000 tons of sulphur dioxide and 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. These emissions account for damaging human lungs, the formation of acid
precipitation that defaces monuments and buildings and kills the life in countless lakes. However, the problems don't stop here. These type of
plants also emit great quantities of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide tends to trap heat on the earth's surface and thus in sufficient concentrations,
could create the dreaded greenhouse effect. High enough concentrations could also increase global temperatures which could affect the
distribution of rainfall and could create deserts of much of the Northern Hemisphere, causing irreversible catastrophes of unparalleled
magnitude, affecting all of mankind. The use of nuclear power since 1973 has been able to offset the demand for
electricity provided by oil and coal, thus decreasing the mentioned figures significantly. In a span of twenty years,
electricity generated by nuclear power plants averted the cumulative emission of 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, 65 million tons of
sulphur dioxide, and 27 million tons of nitrogen oxides.
By increasing nuclear power and other alternative energies, oil dependence in the US will
be decreased.
Stephanie Beckett, 2/4/ 05 (Braden Engineering-Communication, University of Texas, The Danger of
Oil Scarciety: A Two Pronged Attack,
http://www.engr.utexas.edu/braden/documents/BradenEssay_Beckett_05.pdf, Accessed 7/27/08, ZS)
Ensuring that the US is not subject to the whims of the Middle East during times of oil scarcity is a formidable
problem because, according to Mark (2004), fossil fuels currently provide eighty five percent of the US’s energy
(U.S. Energy Production section). However, some energy sources, such as renewable and nuclear energy, are
technically feasible alternatives to oil. Therefore, the strategy to decreasing the US’s reliance on the Middle East
should be two- pronged, involving the further research and implementation of both renewable and nuclear energy.
Increasing Nuclear Power will decrease the amount of Natural Gas used, which will then be
used to replace Oil in the transportation sector.
Ferenc L. Toth, Hans-Holger Rogner, 8/8/05 (Planning and Economic Studies Section, Department of Nuclear
Energy, Oil and nuclear power: Past, present, and future, http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/
assets/oil+np_ toth+rogner0106.pdf, Accessed 7/27/08, ZS)
Another, to some extent related form of indirect linkage is the substitution by nuclear of other energy sources for
electricity generation that can then be used to substitute oil in other market segments. In particular, nuclear may
replace natural gas in power generation and this would then free natural gas that could replace oil in the
transportation sector or heat market. In as far as the indirect competition between nuclear electricity and oil
products is concerned, it is useful to analyze the market share of electricity in total final energy as a function of
nuclear electricity generation in different countries. In France, for example, nuclear accounts for 78% of electricity
production while electricity holds a share of 20% of final energy. The corresponding indicator pairs for other
countries are: Germany: 29%/ 18%; USA: 20%/19%; Japan: 27%/24%. In contrast, in countries with no nuclear
power, the electricity share is 23% in Australia, 19% in Austria, 18% each in Italy and Denmark. In short, at a first
glance there is little evidence that suggests a strong influence of the level of nuclear presence in electricity
generation on the electricity market share in final energy and hence a significant indirect competition between
nuclear power and oil.
34
Nuclear Power Neg
35
Nuclear Power Neg
Politics Links- Unpopular (Public)

Massive public disapproval
BECK 1994
[Peter, Associate Fellow, Royal Institute of Industrial AffairsProspects and Strategies for Nuclear Power,
PG 77 pgf 1-2 // ]
More easy to envisage Is a case where individual nuclear reactors, when at the end of their life, are mostly
replaced by non-nuclear facilities, so shrinking the importance of nuclear power, until within a few
decades it would no longer be worthwhile to keep the industry up to date. By that is meant that the
continuous effort to utilize operational experience to improve the reliability, safety and economics of an
industry - a matter which is especially essential in such a complex high-teclmology field as nuclear
energy - would become inadequate to keep the industry healthy. One can see such a case arising, possibly
even in quite a fortuitous way. As already mentioned in Chapter 5, it is, under present circumstances,
difficult to see private operators deliberately choosing nuclear power generation, unless government not
only supports such a choice but underwrites many of the risks that are specific to nuclear energy. If
present trends to bring greater competition into the electricity market, together with public mistrust of nu-
clear energy, continue, individual governments may meet political resistance when trying to agree
adequate incentives to entice potential investors into nuclear projects. Assistance for other energies, such
as renewables, could become politically easier. Overtime, therefore, there could be a slow mn-down
of nuclear capacity by default. Even if some countries stood out against such a trend and were to continue
to invest in nuclear plant, the industry would soon lose its critical mass and slowly decline.
Three mile island means public hates nuclear power

MAKHIJANI 3/01
[Arjun, with Hisham Zerriffi & Annie Makhijani, (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research)
“Magical Thinking,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, v. 57 n. 2 p. 34, LN]
And finally, no one seems to know what to do with the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear
power plants, much of which--when measured by a human time frame--threatens to hang around more or
less forever. Over the past two decades in particular, the nuclear industry in the developed world has
stumbled into a bottomless bog in one country after another. In the United States, nuclear power failed on
Main Street in the aftermath of Three Mile Island, and then it took a dive on Wall Street because of
staggeringly high capital COSTS.
36
Nuclear Power Neg
**Australia DA**
37
Nuclear Power Neg
Australia Coal 1nc

High coal prices are keeping Australia’s economy afloat
AAP Newsfeed May 7 2008 “Clean coal will boost Australia's prosperity,”
Australia's prosperity will be boosted by clean coal technology, federal government climate change adviser Professor Ross Garnaut says.
Addressing the NSW Clean Coal Summit in Sydney this morning, Prof Garnaut said the rising prices for exported coal would boost
Australia's economy. "The increase in export price of coal this year is likely to add about $25 billion to the value of
Australian exports," he said. "The increase in price alone in one year of this one commodity, our largest export
commodity, is likely to contribute more than 2.5 times the total value of exports of all merchandise to the United
States of America. "That's one important reason why analysts are not anticipating a downturn in the Australian
economy, as the United States plays dice with recession." Australia could not wait to find an avenue for clean coal technology,
Prof Garnaut said. "Coal is set to play a big role in future Australian prosperity, so long as we can deal effectively with an
inconvenient truth (of global warming)." NSW Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Ian Macdonald told the summit clean coal was the
way of the future.
US demand is key to driving coal prices and Australia exports

AFX NEWS June 30 2004 “Australian mining firms confident on global coal demand outlook”, l/n,
BHP Billiton vice-president, business development, energy coal, Mike Henry said even though there remains abundant energy coal reserves
around the world, the outlook for suppliers of seaborne energy coal is solid because of a variety factors, including the likelihood
of a decline in China's net export position. Henry said the seaborne coal market will be driven by three key factors, including
modest growth in European imports even though overall demand is declining, increased imports into the US driven by cost and
quality and strong demand for imported coal from Asia, including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Australia key to Asian economies

Peter Drysdale (Economist Editor) June 22 2008 “Australia and India”, East Asian Economic Forum,
http://eastasiaforum.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/australia-and-india/
Australia is already deeply integrated into the East Asian economy. Australia’s external economic relations are more
closely tied to the East Asian economy than are those of any other country in the world. The whole structure of our
interests in global economic and political affairs was changed fundamentally over the past four or five decades by the development of our
relationships with Japan and East Asia. India has embarked on a great externally-oriented reform. The scale and the nature of forces that are
driving India’s involvement in the global economy are also deepening integration across Asia. This huge process in which India and
Australia are both now engaged in the Asian economy, from different ends, will inexorably draw us more and more
closely together. This is a strategic opportunity, and to capture it is important not only to Australia and to India but also regionally and
globally. The direct imperative that will shape the future of the Australian and Indian partnership in Asia is the deep complementarity between
our two economies. Already that is having its impact on the growth and importance of our bilateral trade and investment. Australia’s trade and
economic relationship with India is now one of our fastest growing. In the past five years commodity exports have increased fourfold and last
year alone Australia’s exports to India rose by 37 per cent. India is already Australia’s second largest market for metallurgical coal and is a
huge potential market for energy, including uranium. But there is more to the relationship than the resource trade. The rapid growth of services
trade both ways, as Australia educates Indian students and entertains Indian visitors in growing numbers, and migration are new and major
elements. What is now happening between Australia and India, is the emergence of a trade pattern that is well established
in Australia’s relationships with East Asia. The trade relationship with Australia is also strategically important to
East Asia. Australia alone supplies around half of Northeast Asia’s key imported industrial raw materials and more than 22 per cent of Japan’s
energy supplies (not including uranium) - Australia is a more important energy source for Japan than is Saudi Arabia. These are large,
deep, reliable relationships, critical to the prosperity and stability of the entire Asian region.
38
Nuclear Power Neg
Australia Coal 1nc

Asian economy key to the global economy
Michael Swaine (Senior Associate and Co-Director of the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment
For International Peace) 1998 Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century
Such growth rates suggest that by the year 2010, the East Asian region alone will account for over 34 percent of the
world’s total output, with Western Europe and North America following with 26 percent and 25 percent respectively. If the output
of
the South Asian subregion is added to the East Asian total, the share of Asian output rises even more—closer to 40
percent—relative to Western Europe and North America. The data for world trade show similar Asian dominance. East Asia
alone is expected to contribute almost 40 percent of the world’s trade, with Western Europe and North America following with
about 37 percent and 20 percent, respectively.12 This high sustained growth will continue to be fueled by high rates of domestic savings,
increased intra-Asian economic integration, increasing investment in infrastructure and human capital, a decreasing rate of population growth,
and continuing export-led growth. Second, the wealth and prosperity of the United States will remain dependent on
continued linkages with the Asian economies. The Asian continent today represents the most important locus of
American economic engagement. The 1993 data for merchandise trade, for example, show that the United States imports over 42
percent of its goods from the Asia-Pacific region, in contrast to about 20 percent from Europe, about 19 percent from Canada, about 12 percent
from the rest of North America, and about 5 percent from the rest of the world. The story is similarly revealing where merchandise exports are
concerned. The Asia-Pacific region accounts for about 30 percent of American merchandise exports; Europe accounts for about 25 percent,
Canada for about 21 percent, the rest of the Americas for about 16 percent, with the rest of the world accounting for about 5.6 percent of the
total. When trade in invisibles and services is considered, a similar picture emerges: the Asia-Pacific region remains the single most
important destination for the United States, a fact reflected by the data in Tables 5 and 6 below.
Global economic decline will bring Armageddon.

Lt. Col Tom Bearden (PhD Nuclear Engineering) April 25 2000
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm
Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that
some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then---as all the old
strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The
reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to
desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of
the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic
collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major
nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent
of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it,
resulting.
39
Nuclear Power Neg
Australia Coal Dependent

Australia’s economy is dependant on coal
ACA, 07, (last mentioned date was 06), “Australian Black Coal Exports”,
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.htm
Australia's black coal exports were worth around $A22.5 billion in 2006-07, a decrease of about 8% on the record
$A24.5 billion figure for 2005-06. Black coal remains Australia's largest commodity export, representing around
19 per cent of Australia's total commodity exports in 2005-06 –
Australia is the worlds largest exporter of coal

ACA, 07, (last mentioned date was 06), “Australian Black Coal Exports”,
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.htm
Australia's black coal exports were worth around $A22.5 billion in 2006-07, a decrease of about 8% on the record
$A24.5 billion figure for 2005-06. Black coal remains Australia's largest commodity export, representing around
19 per cent of Australia's total commodity exports in 2005-06 –Total world trade in hard coal in 2004-05 was 766
million tonnes - comprising 566 Mt of thermal (steaming) coal and 200 Mt of metallurgical (coking) coal .
Australia maintained its position as the world's largest coal exporter with exports of 233 Mt in 2005-06, or 30% of
the world total - see chart above right and right. In terms of thermal and metallurgical coal markets, Australia's
share in 2004 represented 20% and 60% respectively of total world trade.
40
Nuclear Power Neg
Coal Key Australia Economy

COAL IS KEY TO AUSTRALIA’S ECONOMY
McGuirk, 07 [Rod McGuirk, AP Writer, “PM says Australia will export coal despite global warming,”
Associated Press, 2/8/07]
Scientist and author Tim Flannery, who last month was chosen as Australian of the Year for his contribution to public understanding of the
environment, said late Wednesday that Australia could no longer justify being the world's largest coal exporter given the dire consequences of
global warming. But Howard ruled out cutting coal exports, arguing that Australia's response to climate change must
protect jobs in the coal industry. "You can't do that," Howard told Sky television of the prospect of ending coal
exports. "That would be devastating to many communities throughout Australia; it would cost thousands of jobs
we are the largest coal exporter in the world," Howard added. He said his government was investing in the development of new
technology that would make coal-fired power generation cleaner.
Australia’s Economy Is Currently Dependent On Coal Exports

Evans, 08 [Chris Evans, Rep. in the Australian Senate, “Howard, Greens on wrong track,” The
Australian, 3/14/07]
Coal provides about three-quarters of our electricity, more than 30,000 jobs and nearly $25 billion worth of export
revenue each year. Our huge reserves of cheap coal provide a level of energy security that many other countries can only dream of.
Forecasts show coal continuing to supply the bulk of our base load power during at least the next two decades and remaining a significant
source of exports and jobs. Coal is vital to our national interest. That means Australia has to get serious about developing
technologies that will put our coal industry on a more environmentally sustainable footing.
Australia’s Coal Exports Are At The Center Of It’s Growing Economy

Burrell, 06 [Steve Burrell, Journalist, “Super Power,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 7/22/09, Lexis]
No prediction is certain, but Howard's vision is based on hard facts. Australia is already approaching energy
superpower status. It is the world's biggest coal exporter, with almost a third of the global trade. In the past two years
coal export earnings jumped 130 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics forecasts coal exports in 2006-07 at
almost $32 billion. Overall, the nation will earn $45 billion from energy exports this year - more than three times that
for meat, grains and wool combined. Australia has already jumped off the sheep's back and onto the coal truck,
and this shift will only accelerate.
41
Nuclear Power Neg
Australia Key Asian Economy

Australia economy key global economy
Peter Costello (Australia Treasurer) and Rodrigo De Ratioo (Managing Director of IMF) June 14 2006
“Global and Australian economy, IMF reform, industrial relations, ethanol, stock market, Westpac
Consumer Sentiment survey, immigration legislation”, Joint Press Conference Parliament House
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=transcripts/2006/089.htm&pageID=004&min=phc&
Year=2006&DocType=2
These meetings certainly, the situation of the global economy, has been one of the most important issues, together with also the
evolution of the Asian economy. The situation of the Australian economy, as Minister Costello has referred, also has been
part of our discussions, and looking forward to the prospect of the Australian economy and its role in the Asian economy. As I said
yesterday, we believe that many of the changes that Australia has gone through in recent times can be seen by others as a good path to follow
and we think that the micro-economic situation of Australia is strong and should allow the country to move forward in the future.
42
Nuclear Power Neg
Asian Economy Key Global Economy

Asian Economy key to world economy
Asia Times 2006, 6/24/06 [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HF24Dj01.html]
The United States, China and India will together account for more than 50% of global economic growth between 2005 and 2020, with Asia's
overall share of the world economy rising to 43% from its current 35%, according to the "Foresight 2020" study conducted
by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and sponsored by Nasdaq-listed Cisco Systems. The next 15 years will see a significant
outpacing by Asia, and particularly the powerhouses of China and India, of the rest of the developing world in
gross domestic product (GDP), wages and consumption power.
43
Nuclear Power Neg
Trade Key US/Australian Relations

US-Australian trade relationship is key to overall relations
Dana Robert Dillon (Policy Analyst for Southeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center) Denise H. Froning
(former Trade Policy Analyst) and Gerald P. O'Driscoll (Director of, the Center for International Trade
and Economics at The Heritage Foundation) June 18 2001 “Time to Strengthen U.S.-Australian Relations
in Trade and Defense”,
Backgrounder #1450, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1450.cfm
President George Bush recently announced that he will meet with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia on September 10 in Washington to
discuss trade, regional security, and the future of U.S.-Australian relations. 1 Australia is one of America's most durable and
dependable allies and an important trading partner. 2 Indeed, Americans and Australians have fought side by side in
every major war of the last century. Although their defense alliance with New Zealand, the ANZUS Treaty, is marking its 50th
anniversary this year, concerns about regional security are growing, and Australia is seeking a bilateral trade agreement with the United States.
Trade not only strengthens the economies of trading partners, but also enhances the defense and security ties of
allies. In other words, promoting trade is both good economic policy and good foreign policy. A bilateral agreement
should be promoted. Regarding security, Australia is one of America's most supportive allies. Strengthening the interoperability of U.S. and
Australian forces to further buttress the alliance should be a policy objective. In addition, although the United States has not yet approached the
Australian government about a direct involvement in its missile defense efforts, there may be a role for Australia to consider. The Bush
Administration has signaled its desire to establish closer relations with Canberra, and the opportunity to do so is clearly at hand.
44
Nuclear Power Neg
US/Australia Trade Key Global Economy

US-Australian trade relations is key to the global economy
Kevin Rudd (Prime Minister of Australia) March 26 2008 “Address to the East Asia Forum in
conjunction with the Australian National University, Advancing Australia's Global and Regional
Economic Interests”, http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0145.cfm
The United States is the biggest economy in the world. It is the largest trading nation in the world. The US dollar
dominates global financial transactions. For Australia, too, the United States is a crucial economic partner. Our trade is
robust – it was worth around AUD$47 billion last year, making the US our third-largest trading partner overall. The US also accounts
for nearly 30 per cent of our incoming investment and for nearly 40 per cent of our outwards investment. The
United States is more than a close economic partner. In many ways, it plays the most important role in sustaining
global growth and sustaining the momentum underpinning open global markets.
45
Nuclear Power Neg
**Trade Off DA**
46
Nuclear Power Neg
Trade off 1nc

a) uniqueness – investment in renewables is increasing – government funding and investor
confidence are driving growth
business intelligence middle east 7/13/08 (“Clean energy looks buoyant in 2009”)
UAE. Clean energy markets are looking lively with institutional funding coming forward from governments and
investor confidence being backed by regulatory directives over the last 12 months. According to a recent UNEP report, over
US$148 billion in new funding entered the sustainable energy sector globally last year, up 60% from 2006. With pressure
building on most parts of the global economy, a balancing act has begun with cleaner energy and long-term investments, an act that brings the
leading minds to the fore. Overall, there appears, a pertinent moment to look at some of the recent activity in the marketplace. In Russia on 1
July, RAO UES (Unified Energy Systems of Russia), one of the giants of the Russian economy with a capitalisation of US$50 billion ceased to
exist through liquidation. Until recently, RAO UES was one of the world’s largest power companies controlling 72% of Russian national
power-plant generation and 96% of electric distribution through hydro and thermal production. The renewable interest lies in the privatisation
of RAO USE subsidiary, Hydro OGK, with a free float of initially 21% (now 40% since 1 July), into a publicly traded company, RusHydro.
RusHydro produces 22 GW of hydroelectric energy, second largest in the world. Share at market debut this February traded at US$0.08, it was
trading at US$0.07 on 4 July. However, Viacheslav Sinyugin, CEO of Hydro OGK, was reportedly sacked shortly before the RAO USE
liquidation and the market awaits its first privatised steps. The US Department of Energy, DOE, has confirmed US$10 billion
in loan guarantees for advanced technology development in efficiency, renewable energy and electrical
transmission. Clean transport, construction, batteries, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and biomass all qualify under the solicitation.
b) link – government incentives for nuclear power TRADE OFF WITH RENEWABLES
Jack Spencer (Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy) and Nicolas Loris (Research Assistant in the
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation) June 19 2008 “Critics
of Nuclear Power's Costs Miss the Point”, WebMemo #1961)
Government has no business making any decisions about nuclear power based on costs. Its role should be to provide
adequate oversight and fulfill its legal obligations on nuclear waste. It is primarily private companies that produce America's
power,[12] and consumers pay for it. Their interactions in the marketplace should determine the best way to meet
America's energy needs. The irony of mandates is that wind and solar may well have a place in meeting America's
long-term energy needs. Massive wind farms that attempt to duplicate the model of high-output centralized power stations and individual
photovoltaic solar installations on rooftops may not be the appropriate models. It may be that a decentralized model where households or
neighborhoods have their own energy sources would work better for some of these technologies while more centralized models may work for
others. But because the government attempts to funnel investment in one direction rather than allow the market to
respond to peoples' needs, wind and solar many never get the opportunity to succeed.
c) impact – renewables key to prevent extinction from climate change

socialist worker 5’ (“can we save the planet”, december 2005)
Most scientists now agree that it is too late to prevent the emission of greenhouse gases having a significant impact on the
climate in coming decades. The question is how great the impact will be, and whether it can be reversed. Mark Lynas, author
of High Tide: News From A Warming World, told Socialist Worker, “Projections are for a rise of between two and six degrees
centigrade by the end of the century. This means anything from disaster to the outright end of civilisation.” To avert
this disaster, Mark argues, “the best thing would be to stop all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow — or yesterday in fact. We’re
already going to drive the Earth’s climate into a new state. “Politically, it’s probably best to start by demanding that we limit the change to
below two degrees centigrade, which would mean a 40 percent cut to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in the next three decades. That
would mean a major change to the way we all live.” … Elaine Graham-Leigh, who speaks for Respect on the environment, told Socialist
Worker, “The central issue is a radical shift in energy production. It simply means that more investment is needed in
cleaner, renewable technologies such as wind, wave, tidal and solar power.”
47
Nuclear Power Neg
Uniqueness- Investments
investment is high now – state pressure
yung 7/13/08 (katherine, free press business writer, “Utility boosts job-creating industry in state”)
DTE Energy is getting ready to spend billions of dollars on alternative energy investments in Michigan, boosting
the state's efforts to become a leader in this rapidly growing market.The parent company of the Detroit Edison and
MichCon utilities plans to make about $3 billion in renewable energy investments in Michigan over the next six to
seven years, said Knut Simonsen, senior vice president of DTE Energy Resources Inc. These investments depend
on the state passing a new law mandating that 10% of its electricity come from renewable energy sources. The
House of Representatives and the Senate have passed their own bills toward this goal, but major differences
between the two must be reconciled. "It's exciting times in the sense that clean tech investment's time has finally
come," Simonsen said. States are clamoring for renewable energy projects such as wind farms and solar power
plants because of the potential jobs they create, in addition to reducing global warming and increasing the
country's energy independence.
48
Nuclear Power Neg
Link- Nuclear Power

investments in nuclear power trade off with true renewables
Carbon Control News 7/7/2008 “Activists make new economic case against nuclear's climate
benefits”, lexis
A number of new reports have emerged arguing that investments in nuclear power could contribute to climate change,
rather than reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, because those investments would divert limited resources from more cost-
effective clean energy alternatives. The reports aim to counter the nuclear industry's inroads in casting nuclear power as a solution to
global warming and highlight the contentious nature of the debate over what role -- if any -- nuclear should play in federal polices to address
climate change. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain (AZ) has said his administration would seek to build 45 new
nuclear power plants by 2030 in order to stave off the worst effects of global warming. Meanwhile, industry officials point out that nuclear
power is currently the largest source of low-carbon power in the United States. Nuclear plants are also "the lowest-cost producer of base-load
electricity," according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), with the costs of operating a plant amounting to 1.76 cents per kilowatt-hour. But
environmentalists are increasingly citing rising construction costs and lingering concerns surrounding the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste
to claim nuclear energy is not a long-term solution to climate change. And some environmentalists are now arguing that by diverting
resources from more cost-effective renewable and energy efficiency investments, proponents of nuclear energy may
actually be making attempts to mitigate global warming more difficult. Yet in a recent article for the conservative Heritage Foundation, Jack
Spencer and Nick Loris write that, "Nuclear power must be expanded if CO2 caps are to work." They argue that unlike wind and solar power,
which are intermittent and incapable of providing consistent base-load energy, nuclear power is capable of meeting growing demand for energy
without emitting greenhouse gases. While environmentalists point to the high costs of constructing a plant, the authors maintain those costs are
not as high when considered in the context of the full lifetime operation of a nuclear plant. In fact, they write that, "Given the low cost needed
to operate a nuclear plant, lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed. It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar
power should be built at all." Currently, NEI estimates construction costs for a new nuclear plant to be between $6 billion and $7 billion, while
the utility company Florida Power & Light, which has plans to construct two new nuclear reactors, recently estimated that costs for a single
reactor could be as high as $12 billion. But Spencer and Loris write that, "Additional production will allow these costs to be spread, thus
lowering costs overall. Further savings should be achieved by applying lessons learned from initial construction projects. Because nuclear
plants could have an operating life of 80 years, the benefit could be well worth the cost." But those arguments have prompted a rebuttal from
environmentalists and some economists. In a paper recently released by the environmental think tank Rocky Mountain Institute, "The Nuclear
Illusion," Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh concede that nuclear power, at least from a climate change perspective, far outperforms coal power,
which currently provides around half of U.S. electricity. But the authors argue that nuclear power's decentralized, low-carbon competitors --
wind, solar, hydro, and cogeneration power -- can displace more coal power per dollar at a faster pace. "New nuclear power costs far
more than its distributed competitors, so it buys far less coal displacement per dollar than the competing
investments it stymies," the authors write. "And its higher relative cost than nearly all competitors, per unit of net CO2 displaced, means
that every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar."
Sheikh tells Carbon Control News that he and Lovins wrote the article, in part, because, "We're seeing this perceived resurgence in nuclear
power because it's carbon-zero, or roughly carbon-zero, and since climate change is becoming such a hot topic." The paper was released now,
Sheikh says, as a way to counter the increased focus on nuclear power as an answer to climate change, and to show "we can offer more climate
protection for less money" by pursing efficiency and small, decentralized electricity production -- what is termed "micropower." His advice for
lawmakers? "Just let all types of generation and efficiency compete on a level playing field, and when that happens micropower will probably
win." That is an argument Sheikh and Lovins repeatedly make in their paper: let investors choose energy sources, not politicians,
because subsidies will only distort the market and possibly delay effective action on climate change. The authors argue
that "full U.S. deployment" of decentralized micropower, including recovered waste-heat cogeneration and wind power, and end-use efficiency
measures could replace much of nuclear energy's current U.S. market share "without significant land-use, reliability, or other constraints, and
with considerable gains in employment" -- and without federal subsidies. In April testimony before the House Select Committee on Global
Warming and Energy Independence, Lovins noted that nuclear energy has attracted "no private risk capital despite U.S.
taxpayer subsidies that can now total about $13 billion per new nuclear plant--roughly its entire cost." While politicians may decide
to approve further subsidies for nuclear, "Heroic efforts at near- or over-100% subsidization will continue to elicit
the same response as defibrillating a corpse: it will jump, but it won't revive."
49
Nuclear Power Neg
Link- Nuclear Power

INVESTMENT IS ZERO SUM – EVERY DOLLAR WE SPEND ON NUCLEAR
TRADES OFF WITH RENEWABLES
NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service) 2008
(http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/cdmnukesnirsbackground.htm, date page info)
Further investment in nuclear would also keep funds away from renewable energy development. This trade-off is
exactly what has happened in the U.S. over the past 50 years. When comparing U.S. government subsidies for
nuclear, solar, and wind, the nuclear power industry has received the majority (96.3%) of $150 billion in investments
since 1947; that’s $145 billion for nuclear reactors and $5 billion for wind and solar. Nuclear subsidies have cost the average household a
total amount of $1,411 [1998 dollars] compared to $11 for wind. The more money we spend on nuclear power, the less
greenhouse gas reduction benefit we receive, while we hurt sustainable technology investment.
nuclear power trades off with cheaper alternative energy

ROBIN OAKLEY, Journalist, Cutting through windy arguments, Financial Times, July 26, 2003, Lexis
All forms of wind power are cheaper than nuclear power. The problem of nuclear waste cannot be left out of the
equation. The British Energy fiasco and reprocessing crisis at British Nuclear Fuels show what an insurmountable problem
waste is. As the government itself has said, renewables and energy efficiency are not only safer and cleaner than the alternatives,
they are the most cost-effective way to tackle climate change. Indeed, with successful energy efficiency measures
as part of the package, overall bills for electricity customers may well fall. Oxera's point that wholesale electricity prices are
too low to support new generation is yet another argument for closing nuclear power stations. It is the fact that old, dangerous and expensive
nuclear plant is being kept on the system by massive subsidies that is causing overcapacity and artificially forcing down prices. If nuclear
plants were decisively phased out it would make welcome room for new cleaner capacity and send strong signals
to the markets that government really is behind renewable energy.
Nuclear power is empirically proven to divert investment from renewables

Amory B. Lovins, CEO of Rocky Mountain Institute, “Nuclear Power: economics and climate-protection
potential,” 9/11/2005, www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf
Empirical data also confirm that these competing technologies not only are being deployed an order of magnitude
faster than nuclear power, but ultimately can become far bigger. In the U.S., for example, full deployment of these very
cost-effective competitors (conservatively excluding all renewables except windpower, and all cogeneration that uses fresh fuel rather
than recovered waste heat) could provide ~13–15 times nuclear power’s current 20% share of electric generation—all
without significant land-use, reliability, or other constraints. The claim that “we need all energy options” has no analytic basis
and is clearly not true; nor can we afford all options. In practice, keeping nuclear power alive means diverting private and
public investment from the cheaper market winners—cogeneration, renewables, and efficiency—to the costlier
market loser.
nuclear power diverts resources from renewables and worsens our ability to abate climate
change.
Alice Slater, New York Director, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Convenor, Abolition 2000 Working
Group for Sustainable Energy, “Nuclear Power Is No Solution for Global Warming: Time to Establish an
International Sustainable Energy Agency,” Abolition 2000, 2000,
www.abolition2000.org/atf/cf/%7B23F7F2AE-CC10-4D6F-9BF8-
09CF86F1AB46%7D/articlepacificecologist.doc
Equally important, nuclear
power is the slowest and costliest way to reduce CO2 emissions, as financing nuclear power
diverts scarce resources from investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The enormous costs of
nuclear power per unit of carbon emissions reduced would actually worsen our ability to abate climate change as
we would be buying less carbon-free energy per dollar spent on nuclear power compared to the emissions we
would save by investing those dollars in solar, wind or energy efficiency. According to a Massachusetts Institute of
Technology study on the future of nuclear power, 1500 new nuclear reactors would have to be constructed worldwide by mid-century for
nuclear power to have a modest impact on the reduction of greenhouse gasses. In addition, nuclear power’s role in mitigating climate change is
further constrained because its impact is limited to the production of electricity.
50
Nuclear Power Neg
Link- Nuclear Power

Nuclear power diverts resources from renewable energy sources
Greenpeace International, Environmental Organization, “Nuclear Power - Unsustainable,
Uneconomic, Dirty and Dangerous,” Greenpeace, 5/4/2006,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclear-power-unsustainable
The dilemma between building nuclear power or suffering the effects of climate change is a false dilemma. Nuclear energy is slow to
build, dirty, dangerous and expensive. Nuclear energy, with its inflexibility, generation of waste, inherent danger
and security implications, as well as its hidden costs, undermines economic development, social development and
environmental protection. Investments of human and economic resources are far better placed into energy efficiency
and the numerous renewable technologies available to guarantee the right to safe, clean and affordable energy. In
diverting resources from sustainable and renewable energy, investment in nuclear energy and associated subsidies
would erect obstacles to sustainable energy. Problems with reactor safety, radioactive waste management, the proliferation of fissile
material and life cycle cost all mean that nuclear power has no place in the energy mix. Resources and efforts must instead go to the
clean and renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, which have shown remarkable growth since 2000.
Rather than to include nuclear power in the ‘mix’, countries need to focus on implementing the commitments made in the World Summit in
September 2005 to take action to promote clean energy and energy efficiency and conservation, accelerate the development and dissemination
of affordable and cleaner energy efficiency and energy conservation technologies, and promote and support greater efforts to develop
renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal. Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution, as recent analyses such
as the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission (SCD) show. The SDC gave a unanimous ‘no’ to the question ‘Is nuclear the answer to
tackling climate change or energy security?’ Their reasons included long-term waste, cost, inflexibility, undermining energy efficiency and
international security issues, including accidents, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Nuclear energy relies on subsidies, including
underwriting for construction cost or caps on construction costs, operating performance, non-fuel operations and maintenance
cost, nuclear fuel cost and decommissioning cost, liability caps and guarantees that the output will be purchased at a guaranteed price. Usually
absent from consideration are decommissioning costs, the long-term costs of dealing with waste and external costs such as environmental
damage, effects on human health and social costs. Nuclear power plants are particularly risky for developing countries, with exposure to cost
overruns, downtime, the cost of dealing with waste and dependence on foreign technology. Nuclear power is quite simply the wrong
answer, and would divert scarce resources from investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
51
Nuclear Power Neg
Investment key
investment key to renewables
Business Green 8 [Andrew Charlesworth, July 4, http://www.businessgreen.com/business-
green/news/2220758/darling-urges-faster-nuclear]
The government and some eminent environmentalists, such as Gaia-theorist James Lovelock, argue that nuclear power is the only
viable short-term replacement for coal- and gas-fired plants. Alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power
are not developing quickly enough to provide reliable supplies, they say. However, many environmental experts reject this
logic and say that if the huge sums of money required for nuclear development were invested in alternative energy
sources then they could become viable much more quickly.
52
Nuclear Power Neg
impact – economy
renewables are key to the economy – job growth and competitiveness
sanders 4/13/2004 (robert, university of california at berkeley, “Renewable energy promotes U.S. job
growth better than investment in fossil fuels”)
Berkeley - Investing in renewable energy such as solar, wind and the use of municipal and agricultural waste for fuel would produce
more American jobs than a comparable investment in the fossil fuel energy sources in place today, according to a
report issued today (Tuesday, April 13) by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. "Across a broad range of scenarios, the
renewable energy sector generates more jobs per average megawatt of power installed, and per unit of energy produced,
than the fossil fuel-based energy sector," the report concludes. "All states of the Union stand to gain in terms of net
employment from the implementation of a portfolio of clean energy policies at the federal level." Daniel Kammen, a
professor in UC Berkeley's Energy & Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, and head of UC Berkeley's Renewable and
Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), directed the team that reviewed 13 previous reports that looked at the economic and employment
impacts of the clean energy industry in the United States and Europe. Though the independent studies used a range of different methods that
made comparison difficult, their uniform conclusions held up under scrutiny, he said. "Renewable energy is not only good for our
economic security and the environment, it creates new jobs," Kammen said. "At a time when rising gas prices have raised our
annual gas bill to $240 billion, investing in new clean energy technologies would both reduce our trade deficit and
reestablish the U. S. as a leader in energy technology, the largest global industry today." Kammen released the report at a
forum in Seattle on the New Apollo Energy Project, an initiative toreplace the energy bill now languishing in Congress with a new bill
emphasizing energy independence and weaning the country from a reliance on imported fossil fuels by 2010. The project is spearheaded by
U.S. Representative Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), sponsor of the day-long forum at Seattle's Jackson Federal Building. The UC Berkeley report found
that a comprehensive, coordinated energy policy works best, emphasizing not only renewable energy sources but also energy efficiency and
sustainable transportation. These, it said, "yield far greater employment benefits than supporting one or two of these sectors separately."
"While certain sectors of the economy may be net losers, policy interventions can help minimize the impact of a transition from the current
fossil fuel-dominated economy to a more balanced portfolio that includes significant amounts of clean energy," the report continued.
"Further, generating local employment through the deployment of local and sustainable energy technologies is an
important and underutilized way to enhance national security and international stability." In their study, Kammen and colleagues Kamal
Kapadia and Matthias Fripp of the Energy & Resources Group at UC Berkeley considered all types of job creation, both direct - those created in the manufacturing, delivery, construction and installation, project management and
operation and maintenance of the different components of the technology or power plant under consideration - and indirect, that is, those induced through multiplier effects of the industry under consideration. Installing wind
turbines, for example, is a direct job, while jobs created to manufacture the steel used to build the wind turbine are indirect jobs. They then calculated the jobs created by investing in renewable energy sources so that by 2020 they
would constitute 20 percent of all energy sources. They assumed various mixes of renewable energy sources, from the current situation, where the bulk of renewable energy is from the burning of waste or biomass, such as corn
stalks (85 percent, versus 14 percent for wind energy and a mere 1 percent from solar), to improved scenarios in which wind energy dominates at 55 percent of all renewable power sources, biomass energy makes up 40 percent and
solar photovoltaic constitutes 5 percent. The non-renewable alternative, in which fossil fuels comprise the 20 percent that could have been renewable sources by 2020, were assumed to be either half coal-powered and half natural
gas, or 100 percent natural gas. They found that for all feasible scenarios, the renewables industry consistently generated more jobs per average megaWatt generated in construction, manufacturing and installation, in operations
and maintenance and in fuel processing, than the fossil fuel industries. In the scenario assuming most renewable energy comes from biomass burning, this could amount to as many as 240,000 new jobs created by 2020, versus no
more than 75,000 new jobs if the country sticks to fossil fuels. Investment in renewables also generates more jobs per dollar invested than does the fossil fuel energy sector. Most states would benefit from the move to renewables,
the study found. The Midwest, for example, has the best wind power resources in the United States. According to Greenpeace-USA, North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity each year,
which amounts to 32 percent of the total U.S. electricity consumption in 2002. Part of the job-creating advantage of renewables over fossil fuels lies in the fact that the employment rate in fossil fuel-related industries has been
declining steadily, Kammen said, for reasons that have little to do with environmental regulations. Though a shift from fossil fuels to renewables in the energy sector will create some job losses, these losses can be adequately
compensated for through a number of policy actions. "For too long, innovations in solar, wind, and biomass/waste technologies, green buildings, highly efficient vehicles, and construction practices that minimize waste have
languished in the market despite impressive technical advances, cost reductions, and great potential that make these renewable energy technologies competitive with imported oil and gas supplies," Kammen said. "Investment in
This difference underscores the economic benefits of

new renewable energy sources leads to roughly 10 times more jobs than a comparable investment in the fossil-fuel sector.
moving our economy and society from one of energy 'hunter gatherers' to one of 'energy farmers' and innovators."
Global economic decline will bring Armageddon.

Lt. Col Tom Bearden (PhD Nuclear Engineering) April 25 2000
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm
Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that
some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then---as all the old
strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The
reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to
desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of
the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic
collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major
nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent
of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it,
resulting.
53

Neg Nukes1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neg Nukes1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UMKC SDI 2008 Mapes/Petite

Nuclear Power Neg

Nuclear Power Negative

Link- Nuclear Power................................................................................................................................ ..51

**Global Warming Advantage**

Can’t Solve- General

Nuclear Power doesn’t solve global warming.

Nuclear Power can’t solve global warming

Can’t Solve- Time Delays

Plants built too slow to combat warming problems

Can’t Solve- Time Delays

Nuclear Power Can’t Solve Warming- It makes it worse

Nuclear Proliferation is inevitable

Nuclear Proliferation is happening now, there is no chance to stop.

North Korea is proliferating and has a suspected link with Syria

Nuke Power = Prolif

Nuclear power increases proliferation

Nuclear power increases proliferation

NPT Crashing Now

The NPT is Doomed- Withdraws Prove

The NPT is doomed- New Nukes Prove

The NPT is doomed- Iran-US nuclear uncertainty Proves

NPT Crashing Now

The NPT is doomed- US Foreign Policy and Nuclear Security Proves

US Hegemony is low now due to overwhelming Anti-Americanism

US Hegemony is being Undermined by faulty human rights and anti-terror policies.

US has no credibility leading to no influence worldwide

Even advanced reactors risk accidents

Accidents likely to happen in nuclear plants

Accidents inevitable in a nuclear power plant

Loan Guarantees Not Enough

Loan guarantees don’t mandate plants-projects won’t get built

DOE not capable of supporting the loan guarantees

Don’t Increase Electricity

Nuclear power does not produce clean and effective energy

NRC Won’t Approve

Plans risk terrorism

Nuclear power plants are terrorist hot spots

Loan guarantees are the link

The cost would be trillions of dollars

Nuclear power is more expensive than original thoughts

Three reasons why nuclear power is too expensive

Politics Links- Unpopular (Public)

Three mile island means public hates nuclear power

Australia Coal 1nc

US demand is key to driving coal prices and Australia exports

Australia key to Asian economies

Australia Coal 1nc

Global economic decline will bring Armageddon.

Australia Coal Dependent

Australia is the worlds largest exporter of coal

Coal Key Australia Economy

Australia’s Economy Is Currently Dependent On Coal Exports

Australia’s Coal Exports Are At The Center Of It’s Growing Economy

Australia Key Asian Economy

Asian Economy Key Global Economy

Trade Key US/Australian Relations

US/Australia Trade Key Global Economy

**Trade Off DA**

Trade off 1nc

c) impact – renewables key to prevent extinction from climate change

Link- Nuclear Power

Link- Nuclear Power

nuclear power trades off with cheaper alternative energy

Global Warming Advantage

Trade Off DA