P. 1
Aff & Neg Nukes

Aff & Neg Nukes

|Views: 209|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

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

Availability:

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

10/16/2011

Sections

Security inattentiveness is incredibly tiny – and task forces solve
Fertel 8
Marvin SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE;
(Marvin, Federal News Service, HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC
WORKS; SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OVERSIGHT: SECURITY OF OUR NATION'S
NUCLEAR PLANTS, February 28, L/n rday)

Let me turn now to the subject of this hearing, which is security officer attentiveness. In an environment of strong security
and professionalism, we still have had isolated incidents of security officer inattentiveness.
Every company expects the on-duty security force to be fully attentive and able to respond when called upon. And certainly,
that is the predominant situation when you look across our sites.
In 2007, we're aware of 12 incidents of inattentive officers at our site. And that's at a roughly about 16 million man hours of
security officers on duty.
Now, that doesn't make it okay. It shouldn't be happening at all. As the chairman said, you're going for perfection. But we
should keep in mind we have 24/7 security officers on guard at every site and we've had 12 incidents, not acceptable but not
systemic.
Immediately following the Peach Bottom situation, NEI communicated with the industry's chief nuclear officers and
recommended several immediate actions to be taken by each site.
Consistent with the chairman's statement about his P3 (ph) experience, one of the things we emphasized at that point was
the need for leadership at the site and encourage each chief nuclear office to meet with the security organization to discuss
the importance of officers being attentive to their duties and reinforce the organization's expectations and standards.
We also created a task force which is actively engaged examining security organization, cultural issues, as well as
additional measures that may be effective for ensuring security officer attentiveness.
The taskforce is working to define the performance and professional standards needed to promote the security culture
desired across all of our plants. It is looking at the behavior observation program and how we can strengthen it.

Nuclear power plants are protected from terrorist attacks – they are cracking down against lax security
Fertel 8-
Marvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute (2-28-08, Speech for
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clear Air and Nuclear Safety,
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/ferteltestimony/ //VR)

In summary, our defenses were robust prior to September 11, 2001 and they are significantly better today. It is highly
unlikely that attackers could successfully breach security at a nuclear power plant and even more unlikely they could
produce a release of radiation that would endanger the residents near the plant. We take security officer inattentiveness
seriously. We have taken and are continuing to take aggressive action to ensure appropriate measures are in place. In
addition, security at our nuclear power plants is not static. We are constantly reviewing and reevaluating our security
programs. Consequently, America’s nuclear energy industry will continue to play its role as a leader and model for
protecting our country’s critical infrastructure.

Michigan 7 weeks

227

Nuclear power good / bad disads

AT: AIRCRAFT STRIKES

Hijacked planes can’t cause plants to release radiation – studies prove that even in a perfect scenario structures are
too strong, NORAD controls local airspace, and plants are triggered to shutdown
Fertel 06
, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE, (Marvin, Federal
News Service, HEARING OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION EFFORTS TO SET SECURITY STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES,
April 4, L/n, rday)

MR. FETEL: Just a response to that, first of all from a pure technical study standpoint. The NRC has done studies, and I'm
sure they can brief you in their secret session. The industry did studies that we don't hold secret. We hired the Electric
Power Research Institute shortly after 9/11 to look at a 767-400, relatively large plan, one that constitutes more than 80
percent of the aircraft flying in this country, and had it hit containment structures where the fuel is, had it hit spent fuel pool
structures and had it hit dry cask storage.
And they did it as an analysis to maximize the impact. And what we found was we wouldn't get a release of radiation with
that particular scenario. Now, the National Academy of Science has looked at things and said, well, if the plane was bigger
or the plane flew faster, you'd get a different outcome, no question. If the plane doesn't hit it just right you get a different
outcome.
So what we concluded was the robustness of the structures is really pretty good unless you have a really marvelous hit on a
structure. A very, very bad day at the plant with a lot of people dead that work there. But as far as a release, we didn't get it
from a relatively sophisticated analysis. This was $1 million worth of engineering and computer runs.
You weren't here for the first panel, Congressman, but Commissioner McGaffigan and others talked about the actions they
have taken. They've taken actions with NORAD and with the military to do a number of things as far as trying to protect the
airspace around nuclear plants, imminent threat procedures at all of Mr. Crane's plants.
His control room has been trained on basically shutting the plant down if they're told by NORAD something happens or a
plane is of course. They don't have to know it's a terrorist plane. They've also been trained on other actions they could take
to try and put the plant in the safest condition it could be in if there was something that happened.

Aircraft impacts into reactors will be contained
Klein 8
, Chair, Nuclear Regulator Commission, (Dale, Federal News Service HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS; SUBJECT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OVERSIGHT:
SECURITY OF OUR NATION'S NUCLEAR PLANTS; February 28, L/n, rday)

Mr. Chairman, my written testimony also addresses the issue of possible aircraft impacts.
As part of a comprehensive review of security the NRC license facility, the NRC conducted detailed, specific, engineering
studies at each site, which confirm that the likelihood of both managing the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that
could affect public health and safety is low.
Nevertheless, in response to the orders from the NRC, operating owners have implemented mitigating strategies that further
reduce any effects of an aircraft impact on public health and safety.

Michigan 7 weeks

228

Nuclear power good / bad disads

AT: AIRCRAFT STRIKES

Current plants can withstand airborne attacks – and additional NRC regulations ensure safety
Power Engineering 7
(NRC will make hard "targets" harder; Startup; United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
improve designs of nuclear power plants to thwart terrorist activities; April 1, L/n, rday)

Although the U.S. nuclear industry and those who regulate it have long believed that the nation's nuclear power plants
could probably withstand a September 11-style attack, future reactors will be specifically designed to survive a crash by a
large aircraft.
A year after the 9/11 attacks, a report commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute determined that an attack against any
of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors would likely not cause radiation releases, although generating capability would likely be
affected. The study wasbased on $1 million in computer modeling analyses.
Now, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner says such a terrorist incident is considered highly
unlikely. But with plans for as many as 30 new U.S. nuclear power plants in the works, the NRC says it will work with
nuclear plant designers to enhance durability.
Brenner expressed confidence that existing plants are strong, robust and would perform well if subjected to a deliberate
attack. But he added that the NRC is looking at ways that the new designs can be modified to further improve their
survivability after an attack.

Nuclear facilities are isolated from air attacks and radiation release- even then, status quo solves their indicts
Fertel, 4
– Marvin, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at NEI (“Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety”, May 20, //www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/ussenatecmtefertelextended)

It is highly unlikely that attackers could successfully breach security at a nuclear power plant and produce a release of
radiation that would endanger the residents near the plant. NRC Chairman Nils Diaz on May 15 said that facilities that shield reactor
fuel—the containment building, spent fuel pools or dry storage containers—are protected from scenarios as extreme as an aircraft
crashing into a nuclear power plant. “The NRC has conducted an extensive analysis of the potential vulnerability of nuclear power plants to
aircraft attacks,” Diaz said. “While the analysis is classified, the NRC remains convinced that nuclear power plants are the most
heavily protected civilian facilities in the United States.” Diaz noted that the possibility that such an attack would result in
a radiological release is low.
Even so, we recognize that the security programs at our nuclear power plants must not be static. We are constantly
reviewing and reevaluating our security programs. In that regard, the industry is ready to work with this subcommittee to help you and the
American public better understand our industry’s strong commitment to security and protecting public safety.

New designs solve air attacks
Fertel, 4
– Marvin, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at NEI (“Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety”, May 20, //www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/ussenatecmtefertelextended)

It should be recognized that nuclear power plants are massive structures with thick exterior walls and interior barriers of
reinforced concrete. The plants are designed to withstand tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes. As a result,
the structures inherently afford a measure of protection against deliberate aircraft impacts. In addition, the defense-in-depth
philosophy used in nuclear facility design means that plants have redundant and separated systems in order to ensure safety.
That is, active components, such as pumps, have backups as part of the basic design philosophy. This provides a capability
to respond to a variety of events including aircraft attack.

Michigan 7 weeks

229

Nuclear power good / bad disads

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLVES BETTER THAN NUCLEAR POWER

Renewable energy solves better than nuclear power – greater energy production
Caldicott, 6
– Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
(Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 161-163)CP

The good news is that there is no need to build new nuclear power plants to provide for the projected energy needs of the
future. Indeed, it would be possible, using other forms of electricity generation, to close down most of the existing nuclear
reactors within a decade. There is enough wind between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River alone to supply
three times the amount of electricity that America needs
. Many kinds of alternative solutions are currently on the
drawing board because of the extreme urgency of countering global warming. For instance, the conversion of coal to a
synthetic fuel, which can be used for transportation and which would contribute much less to global warming than
petroleum, is actively being championed by Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana. 1 This chapter, however, concentrates
exclusively on renewable sources of power for the generation of electricity. The most commonly cited figures show that
currently in the United States, just over 2% of the electricity is provided from renewables, whereas nuclear power provides
20%.2 These figures, however, exclude hydropower electricity. If this is taken into account, 2004 figures show 9.06% of
U.S. electricity came from renewables, and 18.60% came from renewables worldwide.
But American politicians lack the political will, at least at the federal level, to resist the coal, oil, and nuclear industries'
demands and to shift their focus from these tired and dangerous technologies to explore the alternatives. Vice President
Cheney devised the 2005 energy bill behind closed doors, consulting exclusively with top executives of the coal, oil, and
nuclear industries (including Ken Lay from Enron who is currently under indictment), all of whom had contributed
significant funds not only to the Bush campaign, but also to the campaigns of most of the important Republican players in
the House and Senate. Thus, American politicians are bought and sold, and global warming continues unabated."
However, the world at large has already begun to shift over to alternative energy sources, as is documented in several recent
studies. A 2005 Rocky Mountains Institute report by Amory Lovins titled "Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-
Protection Potential," uses industry and government data to show that globally, nuclear power is being outstripped by other,
better sources of electricity production. Globally, more electricity is now produced by decentralized, low-carbon or no-
carbon competitors than from nuclear power plants-about one-third from renewables (wind, biomass, solar) and two-thirds
through a very efficient form of energy production in which electricity is made from waste heat emanating from industry in
a process called fossil-fuel combined-heat-and-power CHP, or cogeneration.s
Even without the subsidies enjoyed by the nuclear industry, worldwide , decentralized electricity generators provided
almost three times as much output
and six times as much capacity as nu clear power by 2004.6 (Output is the actual
amount of electricy generated, whereas capacity is the potential output of an electricity generator. These two numbers are
different whenever generators are not operated at top capacity.) And decentralized capacity is pro jected to increase 177
times by 2010, at the same time that orders for new nuclear reactors decline and aging reactors shut down. Nuclear power
plants take years to build, they are energy intensive, and they are extremely expensive. Lovins contends that even the
relatively inefficient use of decentralized electricity generation in today's market supersedes nuclear electricity in cost,
speed, and size by a large and rising margin.?
Lovins ultimately concludes that none of the centralized thermal power generators (coal, gas, oil, or nuclear) can compete
economically with wind power and certain other renewables, let alone the t"10 cheaper alternatives (cogeneration and
energy efficiency)." He finds it interesting that most of the studies that examined the energy future, such as the oft-quoted
2003 MIT study, fail to examine the feasible economic alternatives to nuclear and large centralized generation." And, as
stated above, the U.S. administration and Congress apparently have no intention of seeking the obvious economic and
ecological alternatives to coal, oil, and nuclear power.
According to Lovins, the oft-made claim by nuclear energy proponents that "we need all energy options" has no analytical
basis and is simply not true. Quite the contrary, society cannot afford all options. Because the disastrous economics of
nuclear power mitigate against private investment, all new orders for nuclear reactors are to be heavily subsidized by
taxpayers-$13 billion is allocated to the nuclear industry in the 2005 U.S. energy bill, for example. Although a bonanza for
nuclear power plant owners, this money is directly diverted from investment in cheaper, cleaner, greener options-
cogeneration, renewables, and efficiency-that wo uld ultimately serve consumers and the environment infinitely better.

Michigan 7 weeks

230

Nuclear power good / bad disads

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLVES BETTER THAN NUCLEAR POWER

Wind technology is comparably superior and easier to access than solar energy
Caldicott, 6
– Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
(Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 167-168)CP

Wind power, already used extensively in Europe, is rapidly becom ing the energy of the future . It is cheap, fast to produce,
and attrac tive to farmers and U.S. rural communities . In 2004, wind power globally outpaced nuclear power six fold in
annual capacity additions and threefold in annual output additions. Wind power is very attractive because it is benign, its
development has short lead times, its mass production is economically very efficient, its technological development is
rapid, and it is easy to site windmills on available land. Furthermore, the speedy deployment and lack of regulatory fuss
will always support the growth of wind power compared to the long lead time and delay-prone, complex, and contentious
technology of nuclear power, which could experience a meltdown or terrorist attack at any time.22
A recent study, which collated more than 8,000 wind records from every continent, found a potential global wind power
resource of 72 terawatts-forty times the amount of electricity used by all countries in 2000. If just 20% of this wind energy
were to be tapped, all energy needs of the world could be satisfied (one terawatt of electricity would power 10 billion
100-watt light bulbs).23 (This analysis of global available wind power performed by Christina Archer and Mark Jacobson
of Stanford University is probably somewhat conservative in scope because many continents lack the specific data for wind
over large unmapped areas.)

There is plenty wind in the united states to be the only source of electricity for all Americans.
Caldicott, 6
– Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
(Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 169)CP

Wind power has enormous potential in the United States. The land between the Rockies and the Mississippi is referred to as
the Saudi Arabia of wind because of the relentless gales that consistently batter this huge American prairie. Texas, Kansas,
and North Dakota together could provide 100% of America's electricity . The offshore potential for wind energy is
incalculable, and the wind potential of the Great Lakes and the northwest and northeast areas of the States has hardly been
tapped. Wind power from readily available rural land in just several Dakota counties could produce twice the amount of
electricity that the United States currently consumes.
In Minnesota, since the mid-1990s, hundreds of wind turbines have been generating electricity through this windswept
region. Constructed by large corporations who pay farmers $2,000 to $5,000 per machine to rent their land, wind power
machines have produced enormous benefits to cash-strapped farmers. Some farmers have even developed their own
commercial-scale, giant wind turbines on wind-farms called "combines in the sky ," making even more money from this
new, green energy crop.

Federal and state government subsidies for wind energy empirically solve
Caldicott, 6
– Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
(Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 170)CP

It is imperative that the federal and state governments subsidize these important and critical new energy sources. Some
states are al-ready offering worthwhile subsidies. For instance, the Minnesota state Legislature is currently providing a
production incentive to small wind farms, and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will purchase another 400
megawatts of wind capacity, having decided that wind power is the "least-cost alternative" for new electricity
generation in the state.

Wind can provide 100 percent of electricity needs
Shrader-Frechette, 08 -
teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths
About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884)

Despite the problems with atomic power, society needs around-the-clock electricity. Can we rely on intermittent wind until
solar power is cost-effective in 2015? Even the Department of Energy says yes. Wind now can supply up to 20 percent of
electricity, using the current electricity grid as backup, just as nuclear plants do when they are shut down for refueling,
maintenance and leaks. Wind can supply up to 100 percent of electricity needs by using “distributed” turbines spread over a
wide geographic region—because the wind always blows somewhere, especially offshore.

Michigan 7 weeks

231

Nuclear power good / bad disads

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLVES BETTER THAN NUCLEAR POWER

There is ample space and materials for solar energy in the US.
Caldicott, 6
– Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
(Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 171-172)CP

Hypothetically 10 trillion to 20 trillion watts of solar power pro vided by photovoltaics could take the place of all
conventional en ergy sources currently in use . Consequently, it has been estimated that a rather inefficient photovoltaic array
covering half a sunny area measuring 100 square miles could meet all the annual U.S. electricity needs. Although this is a
vast amount of electricity , there are probably enough feedstocks adequate and appropriate materials to meet this
gigantic challenge.

Photovoltaic cells are becoming both more efficient to pro duce and more efficient solar collectors . However, fossil-fuelled
energy is necessary to create photovoltaic cells. A solar roof collec tor would therefore take one to four years to recover the
amount of energy that produced it, but because it has a life expectancy of thirty years,87% to 97% of the electricity it
produces will not be plagued by pollution-greenhouse gases or resource depletion. There is ample space available to locate
these solar arrays, including rooftops, alongside roadways, or on unused desert landcapes bathed in sun. The future
production of massive numbers of solar collectors will require certain specialized materials, all of which are readily
available
, including even the rare minerals-indium and tellurium. The reliability, technological improvements, and market
penetration of concentrated photovoltaics have all advanced considerably in the last twenty years

Solar energies are comparatively more competitive economically than nuclear
Caldicott, 6
– Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
(Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 163-164)CP

The 2003 MIT study on the future of nuclear power demonstrates that each ten cents spent to buy a single nuclear kilowatt
hour (kWh) of electricity could instead be used to generate 1.2 to 1.7 kWh of gas-fired electricity, 2.2 to 6.5 kWh of
cogeneration from large industries, an infinite number of kilowatt hours of waste heat cogeneration, or 1 0 kWh of saved
energy through efficiency measures. 12
The New Scientist, a well-known scientific journal published in the United Kingdom and the United States, recently
editorialized that although renewable electricity technologies are heavily criticized by the nuclear, coal, and oil industries
and by many politicians who listen to the industry propaganda, the combination of wind power, tidal power, micro-
hydro, and biomass make renewable power ever more practical. Windpower and biomass are now almost as cheap as coal,
and wave power and solar photovoltaics are rapidly becoming competitive.
A report from the New Economics Foundation reinforces the conclusions of the New Scientist. Renewable energy is quick
to build, abundant, and cheap to harvest, and it is safe, flexible, secure, and climate friendly. Surplus electricity can be fed
back into the grid. Furthermore, renewable electricity generation produces electricity at the point of use, making large-scale
grid connections unnecessary. Thus, from an economics standpoint, renewable sources of energy make a great deal of
sense.

Renewables can provide more power than nuclear energy by 2020
Shrader-Frechette, 08 -
teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths
About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884)

Myth 3. Nuclear Energy Is Necessary to Address Climate Change
Government, industry and university studies, like those recently from Princeton, agree that wind turbines and solar panels
already exist at an industrial scale and could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, and the vast majority of
U.S. electricity by 2050—not just the 20 percent of electricity possible from nuclear energy by 2050. The D.O.E. says wind
from only three states (Kansas, North Dakota and Texas) could supply all U.S. electricity needs, and 20 states could supply
nearly triple those needs. By 2015, according to the D.O.E., solar panels will be competitive with all conventional energy
technologies and will cost 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Shell Oil and other fossil-fuel companies agree. They are
investing heavily in wind and solar.

Michigan 7 weeks

232

Nuclear power good / bad disads

You're Reading a Free Preview

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