You are on page 1of 27

Nuclear Power Wave 4

DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Natural Gas: Peak load.........................................................................................................................................3
Natural Gas: Peak load.........................................................................................................................................4
Natural Gas: Peak load.........................................................................................................................................5
Nuclear Replace Base Load Natural Gas.............................................................................................................6
Nuclear Waste Answers.........................................................................................................................................7
Nuclear International Ahead................................................................................................................................8
Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry................................................................................................................9
Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry..............................................................................................................10
Nuclear solves Natural Gas Prices/Chemical....................................................................................................11
Chemical Industry key Economy.......................................................................................................................12
Chemical Industry key Economy.......................................................................................................................13
Chemical Industry key Economy.......................................................................................................................14
Chemical Industry key Innovation.....................................................................................................................15
Chemical Industry key to preventing Cancer...................................................................................................16
Chemical Industry key Hegemony.....................................................................................................................17
Internals – Chemical Industry............................................................................................................................18
Internals – Chemical Industry............................................................................................................................19
Impacts – Chemical Industry key to All Things................................................................................................20
Impacts – Chemical Industry key to National Defense....................................................................................21
Impacts – Chemical Industry key to Economy.................................................................................................22
Impacts – Chemical Industry key to Economy.................................................................................................23
Windpower Nano Tech CP..................................................................................................................................24
AT: Prolif K..........................................................................................................................................................25
AT: Prolif K .........................................................................................................................................................26
AT: Prolif K..........................................................................................................................................................27

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Natural Gas: Peak load

Natural Gas is being used for both base load energy and peak load 2004 “Storage of Natural Gas”
There are basically two uses for natural gas in storage facilities: meeting base load requirements, and meeting peak load
requirements. As mentioned, natural gas storage is required for two reasons: meeting seasonal demand requirements, and
as insurance against unforeseen supply disruptions. Base load storage capacity is used to meet seasonal demand
increases. Base load facilities are capable of holding enough natural gas to satisfy long term seasonal demand
requirements. Typically, the turn-over rate for natural gas in these facilities is a year; natural gas is generally injected during
the summer (non-heating season), which usually runs from April through October, and withdrawn during the winter (heating
season), usually from November to March. These reservoirs are larger, but their delivery rates are relatively low, meaning the
natural gas that can be extracted each day is limited. Instead, these facilities provide a prolonged, steady supply of natural gas.
Depleted gas reservoirs are the most common type of base load storage facility. Peak load storage facilities, on the other hand,
are designed to have high-deliverability for short periods of time, meaning natural gas can be withdrawn from storage
quickly should the need arise. Peak load facilities are intended to meet sudden, short-term demand increases. These
facilities cannot hold as much natural gas as base load facilities; however, they can deliver smaller amounts of gas more
quickly, and can also be replenished in a shorter amount of time than base load facilities. While base load facilities have long
term injection and withdrawal seasons, turning over the natural gas in the facility about once per year, peak load facilities can
have turn over rates as short as a few days or weeks. Salt caverns are the most common type of peak load storage facility,
although aquifers may be used to meet these demands as well.

Natural gas being used as base load power needs to be replaced

Tanya Bodell, vice president in the energy and environment practice at CRA International Inc, May 2008, Electric Light and Power
“An Allegory of Uncertainty for Base Load Generation; Applying real options theory could bring salvation.”
Each project pipeline by fuel type provides deeper insight. Natural gas combined cycles experienced a significant increase in
proposed capacity from 2000 to 2002, followed by a significant number of cancellations. At the same time, proposed projects
decreased precipitously (Figure 2). Operating projects leveled off by 2006, at which point the pipeline of new projects
narrowed to less than 40,000 MW of summer capacity versus the high of 300,000 MW in 2002. The pattern corresponds to
high increases in natural gas prices that appeared to make other base load generation fuel sources more competitive.
However, the lost project pipeline capacity in natural gas combined cycles has not been replaced with equivalent
capacity in coal or nuclear projects.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Natural Gas: Peak load

Peak load energy is being used too often in the United States
Consumer Energy Education Group 2006 “Managing Your Energy Costs”
Electricity and Peak Demand. Since electricity cannot be effectively stored, electrical networks must instantaneously
balance generation and load, i.e., supply must always equal demand. Therefore, there is a need to build for the peak
because sufficient generation capacity must meet maximum instantaneous demand whenever it happens. Meeting varying
demands requires a mix of generation capacity including base-load and peak-load generation. Base-Load Generation vs.
Peak-Load Generation. A base load generation unit is one that provides a steady flow of power regardless of total power
demand by the grid. This unit runs all seasons except during the time when repairs or scheduled maintenance occur. Base-load
plants usually run on low-cost fuels such as nuclear or coal and are massive enough to provide a majority of the power used by
a grid. Therefore, these plants have high capital costs to build but low operating costs to run. In contrast, peak-load units (also
known as peakers) are power plants that generally run only when there is a high demand, known as peak demand, for
electricity. In the U.S., this occurs in the afternoon, especially during the summer months when the air conditioning load
is high. The time a peaker operates may be several hours a day to as little as a few hours per year. If a peaker is only going to
be run for a short and variable time, it does not make economic sense to make it as efficient as a base-load power plant. Peak-
load units are generally gas turbines that burn natural gas, which are more expensive than coal and nuclear. Therefore,
peak-load systems tend to have low capital costs (so it is OK if it lying idle for most of the year) but high operating costs (but
then, you don’t run it that often). High Cost of Meeting Peak Increase. Wholesale electric prices in PJM market have risen
considerably in recent years, primarily due to fast-rising natural gas prices. The jumping gas prices, however, do not fully
explain the level of wholesale electric prices in PJM market. Increased demands for electricity, especially during the summer
peak hours, is straining the market’s ability to supply electricity. In order to meet growing peak demand, power
companies run and maintain peak load units during times of peak demand. These systems go unused 90% of the time,
resulting in inefficient use of investor, consumer and capital-market resources. Ever-increasing peak demands also put a strain
on the transmission and distribution systems. Peak-Load Control and its Benefits. Compared with the supply-side option
through increasing generation capacity and upgrading transmission and distribution systems, demand-side management
including control of peak load is more cost-effective. Peak-load control is a way by which consumers modify their level and
pattern of electricity consumption to shed their peak electricity usage or shift their usage from peak to off-peak times. There are
a lot of simple actions that businesses and residents can do to shift or shed their peak electricity usage. For example, customers
can shift energy-intensive tasks—like laundry and dishwashing—to off-peak hours (mornings, nights and weekends).
Customers can also install a thermostat and set it at a higher temperature when not in the home at daytime. Customers’ peak
load control will help reduce the peak load and change the load-shape by flattening out the load curve on utility systems
(“valley-filling”). Peak-load reduction and other demand-side management options are cost-effective alternatives to the supply-
side options. It is much cheaper to create a “negawatt” (energy reduced) than to generate a “megawatt” of electricity. Peak-load
reduction is good to the consumers and the environment. Reducing electricity use helps lower a customer’s energy bill;
reducing peak energy use helps ensure reliable and affordable electricity for home and business; and reducing peak load
minimizes the need for new capacity and, therefore, the amount of pollution produced from electricity generation.

Price volatility of natural gas affects the electricity markets

2003 Energy and Environmental analysis, Inc. “Natural gas and energy price volatility”
In previous chapters of this report we have examined different concepts and measurements of energy price volatility, provided
detailed examples and analyses of specific incidences, and explored the impact of energy price volatility on market
participants. In this chapter, we examine whether and how the existence of price volatility in the natural gas and electricity
markets affects decisions regarding owning and operating emerging energy technologies -- specifically, distributed
generation (DG) equipment and combined heat and power (CHP) systems. We evaluate how volatility impacts the
perspectives and actions of end-use customer and energy services companies (ESCOs) as they relate to installation, ownership
and operation of DG/CHP systems.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Natural Gas: Peak load

Natural Gas is used in new base load power plants
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
An important consequence of EPACT92 is the boom in electricity produced by natural gas-fired units. In fact, it has become
the preferred fuel choice for new electricity generation facilities. This includes both baseload and intermediate power.
The North American Electric Reliability Council defines baseload as the minimum amount of electric power delivered or
required over a given period at a constant rate. EIA applies this concept to generating units, equating baseload to units that
produce electricity at a constant rate and run continuously. Broken down further, baseload can be expressed as a percentage of
capacity factor—the electricity actually produced compared to the potential electricity that the plant is capable of producing.
Baseload is then the power supplied by units with a capacity factor of 70 percent or more, intermediate load refers to
electricity supplied by units between plants used for only “peak” power needs—a capacity factor of 20 percent or less—
and baseload at 70 percent. The Subcommittee staff is unaware of any comprehensive, US government analysis of baseload
and intermediate power supplied by natural gas. According to EIA’s definition and Subcommittee majority staff discussions
with EIA, baseload can be assumed to be electricity that is supplied by nuclear and coal power plants.42 This assumption is
clearly flawed and discounts the largest source of new capacity. Natural gas clearly plays a large role in the country’s
intermediate and baseload power needs. Since the 1990s, almost all new plants are powered by natural gas, and the 5-year
period from 1999 saw the largest increase in generating capacity in the electricity industry’s history. From 1996 to 2000, the
use of natural gas for electricity grew 11 percent per year. According to EIA, of the 94,000 megawatts of planned additions in
electricity generating capacity through 2009, 80 percent will be fueled primarily by natural gas, 14 percent by coal, and no new
nameplate additions will be nuclear.

Natural gas prices are very volatile because it is currently being used as base load energy. This means it
cannot be used where it is needed- the chemical energy
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
At the same time as natural gas has become the preferred fuel for electricity generation— and prices have reached a new
and more expensive floor—industries that use natural gas as a feedstock or for primary energy have experienced grave
consequences. Many industrial users do not have the option of switching to other sources of fuel when natural gas
prices rise. A 2001 price spike caused some industrial users to shut down production and sell their long-term natural gas
contracts to make a profit, and it is likely that the price spike beginning in August 2005 has had the same effect. According to
the Society of the Plastics Industry, as a direct result of a three-fold increase in natural gas prices the plastics sector lost more
than 150,000 jobs and $14.6 billion in business to other countries from 2000 to 2002. As a result of high prices, America is
no longer the world’s top location for making chemicals; the US is now a net importer of chemicals. Ongoing high prices
have also helped to shutter 21 nitrogen fertilizer production facilities, and production has moved overseas.46 Natural gas
should be exploited for the uses for which it is best suited. Profligate use of natural gas for electricity generation and
other processes that can use other fuels will ultimately lead to the US being less competitive. Natural gas must not be
squandered on baseload and new electricity generation.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Nuclear Replace Base Load Natural Gas

*Nuclear Power can relieve the need for natural gas as base load power, providing the use of natural gas
in crucial industries
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
To enhance competitiveness and protect American jobs, natural gas must not be used for baseload electricity generation,
nor for new generating capacity. Natural gas should be reserved for industries that use it as a feedstock or for primary
energy—and cannot substitute for it by fuel-switching. Nuclear energy must become the primary generator of baseload
electricity, thereby relieving the pressure on natural gas prices and dramatically improving atmospheric emissions.

Nuclear power should become our base load energy source. The use of reprocessing can create less waste,
and less harmful waste
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
The early release of the Energy Information Administration’s2006 Annual Energy Outlook provides that the percentage of
electricity generated by coal-fired plants will decline slightly by 2020—to 49 from 50 percent—and then increase to 57
percent by 2030. Natural gas will increase to 22 percent by 2020 before falling to 18 percent by 2030 as a result of new coal
plants being constructed. Nuclear generation will fall from today’s level of 20 percent to 15 percent by 2030. This
lopsided ratio will generate higher prices, increase dependency upon LNG imports to supplement domestic natural gas
depletion, and perpetuate the release of more harmful emissions produced by coal plants. Realigning policies to ensure
nuclear power is the primary supplier of baseload electricity is the only sensible path forward. In addition, a revived
nuclear program should revisit the “once through” fuel cycle. Instead, the US should consider recycling nuclear materials
with the goal of achieving an innovative “closed loop” fuel cycle. This will make for more efficient use of nuclear fuel,
less volume of waste, and less harmful nuclear waste that must ultimately be disposed of in a long-term waste facility.

Nuclear energy will allow natural gas to be used for only industries that need it
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
Increased nuclear electricity production has several critical advantages over the status quo. It will, among other things,
free natural gas supplies for critical uses in manufacturing processes, reduce electricity costs to the consumer, be emission-
free, and pave the way for drastically reduced petroleum dependency should next generation nuclear technology be used to
produce hydrogen in sufficient quantities to power a critical mass of emissions-free automobiles. Nuclear technology has
steadily advanced and companies have designed standard reactor models that can be constructed anywhere in the
world, in stark contrast to the existing fleet of aging US nuclear plants that were customized according to each location
and permitting process. The switch to nuclear power as the primary source of baseload electricity will not come without a cost;
it will necessitate tremendous political support and financial investment from private institutions and the federal government
alike. This process will also require time and patience. The federal government has begun to realize this, albeit to a limited

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Nuclear Waste Answers

All of their claims about the risks of nuclear power are wrong, the benefits outweigh the chance of
minimal waste
Mr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace, Written testimony of Mr. Patrick Moore, prepared for the April 28, 2005
Subcommittee Hearing, The Role of Nuclear Power Generation in a Comprehensive National Energy Policy.
I believe the majority of environmental activists have now become so blinded by their extremist policies that they fail to
consider the enormous and obvious benefits of harnessing nuclear power to meet and secure Americas growing energy
needs. These benefits far outweigh the risks. There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to
be an environmentally sound and safe choice.

Nuclear Waste can be isolated and not harm the environment

Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
A continued focus must remain on securely storing spent fuel and resolving the situation at Yucca Mountain. The
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s Nuclear Energy Task Force reported that concern over whether nuclear waste can be
safely managed is diminishing in scientific and technical communities. Surface storage of spent nuclear fuel can be
undertaken with adequate safety for many decades. There is general agreement in the scientific and technical community
that disposal in a deep geologic repository is achievable, and that such disposal provides an effective long-term means of
isolating spent fuel from the environment—and additional options may be feasible.59

Reprocessing solves waste

Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
There are additional opportunities to address the waste situation. While a long-term storage and disposal facility must
be part of the solution, reconsideration of the “once- through” fuel cycle must be on the agenda. The reprocessing of
nuclear fuel is more efficient, decreases the volume of waste, and results in less harmful waste that must ultimately be
disposed of in a long-term waste facility. The goal should be to develop the technology to ultimately close the fuel cycle.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Nuclear International Ahead

The US is behind other countries in nuclear power
Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, “SECURING AMERICA’S ENERGY
While the US struggles with these issues, nuclear power is moving ahead in other regions of the world. A March 2005
ministerial conference convened by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that nuclear
power is a proven technology that contributes to the security of energy supply and the stability of energy prices by
reducing exposure to fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels. In that regard, countries that once rejected nuclear power—
such as Germany and Italy—are beginning to revise their policies. Even in Sweden—where a referendum in the 1980s
placed a moratorium on nuclear power—public opinion polls indicate that 77 percent favor continued nuclear generation.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry

High prices for natural gas harm the competitiveness of the chemical indsutry
CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH, staff writer, September 28, 2005, The New York Times “As Natural Gas Prices Rise, So Do the Costs
of Things Made of Chemicals”
But while the industry may have dodged these immediate bullets, a thornier problem still interferes with executive sleep:
natural gas prices that have been soaring since 2001.High prices are a double whammy for the chemical industry.
Natural gas is both its main fuel and its main raw material, the starting point for the basic chemicals from which the fibers
and compounds in shirts, eyeglasses and even the wrappers for single-serve soups are derived. "Chemical companies have been
under assault for several years," said Robert Koort, an analyst at Goldman Sachs who has an attractive rating on the chemical
sector. Diane H. Gulyas, chief marketing officer of DuPont, said that, if anything, the hurricanes "acted as a wake-up call." "It
made us all realize how shocking the underlying fundamentals of our business have become," she said. The industry has passed
along costs, and it is likely to continue doing so for now. Since Katrina, almost every chemical company has announced price
increases. The trickledown effect to retail shelves is inevitable - soda and water come in plastic bottles, computers use plastic
housings, even organic greenmarkets pack fruits and vegetables in plastic bags. "Consumers can expect to pay more for
everything, from medicines to auto parts to computers to shampoo," said Kevin Swift, chief economist for the American
Chemistry Council, a trade association. But industry specialists worry that if high gas prices curb consumer spending, the days
of passing along constant price increases may end. "The uncompetitive natural gas price in the U.S. is a long-term
problem," said Gordon E. Slack, business director for Dow energy business, who said that high gas prices had turned the
chemical industry from a net exporter to a net importer. Those rising prices have effectively wiped out the American
chemical industry's main competitive edge. Whereas most overseas chemical plants derive most of their raw materials from
oil, gas has long been the feedstock of choice here. According to Mr. Swift, natural gas accounts for about 60 percent of the
value of chemicals made here. Indeed, many chemical companies clustered their plants along the Gulf Coast, where so much
gas is produced, to take advantage of what Mr. Slack called "the best natural gas prices in the world." As recently as 2000,
natural gas was selling for $2 per million British thermal units. But since then, environmental regulations have impelled many
companies to switch from burning oil or coal to gas, even as other rules restricted drilling for new sources of gas.

Chemical Industry relies on natural gas

Glenn Hess, staff writer, October 13, 2005, Chemical and Engineering News “Natural Gas Prices To Soar Throughout Winter
Months After Gulf Coast Hurricanes”
The chemical industry is the nation’s largest industrial consumer of natural gas, using it both for heating and as a raw
material. The clean-burning fuel is also used to heat 55% of American homes. The American Chemistry Council says the
report “reinforces growing concern about U.S. natural gas prices and underscores the need for immediate remedies by
Congress and the Administration.” Natural gas is currently priced at about $14 per million Btu—compared with $2.00 six years
ago—and EIA expects prices will remain at double-digit levels for months to come. “For manufacturing industries that rely
on natural gas and compete in a global market, this is not sustainable,” ACC says. “If prices stay at projected levels, it is
likely to cause ‘demand destruction’ as industrial users are priced out of the U.S. market. What this means is that
manufacturing industries will have involuntarily curtailed output due to high production costs, putting the future of
their U.S. operations—and American jobs—at risk.”

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry

Return to balanced energy supply reduces natural gas prices and helps the chemical industry
American Chemistry Council, December 3, 2004 “Natural Gas Volatility Harming U.S. Chemical Industry”
Natural gas prices remain dangerously high and volatile and the market is extremely skittish. Before Thanksgiving, DOE
reported a higher than expected withdrawl rate and within 90 minutes prices jumped by nearly 20 percent. This week, a smaller
than expected withdrawal sent prices plummeting down. In response to recent developments, the American Chemistry Council
issued the following statement: Natural gas prices are doing great damage to the U.S. chemical industry. Over the past two
years, high and volatile natural gas prices have increased our costs by more than $10 billion. We cannot successfully
operate in this environment. Wild price swings are unhealthy, better information is needed to help market participants make
smart decisions. But, these price swings are only a symptom of a much more serious problem: there is not enough natural gas
available to meet current demand from homeowners, farmers, commercial businesses, manufacturers and power
generators. We are in a period of sustained scarcity and we are paying dearly for it. We believe that a balanced portfolio of
energy policies are urgently needed to return U.S. natural gas prices to globally-competitive levels.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Nuclear solves Natural Gas Prices/Chemical

*Nuclear power solves for the natural gas crisis, by providing base load energy generation. This helps the
chemical industry, which relies on natural gas
MARK J. PERRY, professor of finance and economics at the University of Michigan, July 29, 2008, “Nuclear Power
Key To Containing Energy Costs”,0,5033942.story
If ever there was a question about the need for nuclear power, it has certainly been dispelled now with the rising cost of
fossil fuels. The high price of oil, natural gas and coal should be a wake-up call to all regions of the country that the era of
boundless use of cheap fossil fuels is over — and that nuclear power will need to play a larger role in supplying electricity
to homes, business and industry. Although natural gas is now the fuel of choice in electricity generation, its price has
quadrupled in recent years and supplies are extremely tight. Not too long ago, the expectation of rising imports of liquefied
natural gas led many to conclude that more abundant gas supplies and greater use of alternative fuels would end the long run of
soaring gas costs. But the pause in increased gas costs proved temporary. Natural gas prices are once again rising rapidly —
93 percent since last August. Major industries that require large amounts of gas for space heating and as a feedstock in
making consumer products are once again in crisis. So now is the time to point out that one-quarter of the gas supply is
wasted on electricity generation. Since 1990, virtually all of the new electric-power capacity in the country has used
natural gas, and that has driven up the price of natural gas. Natural gas is a finite and dwindling commodity. North
American production has been at a plateau in recent years. Canada has told the United States not to expect additional shipments
of natural gas, because it now requires a larger share of its gas reserves to meet its own domestic needs. Another thing:
Congress has yet to lift the ban on drilling for oil and natural gas along 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf as well
as the Alaskan wilderness. The surge in gas prices is also being fed by increased global competition for LNG. Today, an LNG
tanker pulling into port in Japan or Spain can get almost $20 per million BTUs — far higher than the U.S. price. Most
Americans probably don't realize the effect all of this is having on some key industries. In the chemical industry, a big
natural gas user, more than 118,000 American jobs have been lost since 2000. For U.S. manufacturing overall, about 3
million jobs have been lost in that time due in large part to energy costs. Particularly in the fertilizer and chemical
industries, plants are shutting down and reopening abroad to take advantage of lower natural gas prices overseas.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key Economy

Office of Technology Competitiveness, January 1996 “National Technical Information Service Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Industry
Faces the 21st Century- The Chemical Industry”,
The U.S. chemical industry is vital to the U.S. economy. It produces 1.9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). It
is the nation's number one exporter. It supplies more than $1 out of every $10 of U.S. exports and consistently runs
large international trade surpluses. It is a high-tech, research and development (R&D) oriented industry that is awarded
about one out of every eight U.S. patents. It employs over one million people at wages well above the U.S. manufacturing
average, and it produces over 70,000 different products. Most importantly, chemicals is a "keystone" industry -- one
critical to the global competitiveness of other U.S. industries. Because so many modern products depend on chemicals, the
international competitiveness of other U.S. industries requires a high-tech, globally competitive U.S. chemical industry that can
supply new products at prices that give U.S. producers an edge.

The chemical industry is key to the economy and innovation

American Chemistry Council, Inc 2007 “Chemistry Careers – A Future of Possibilities”
For centuries, curiosity has been credited as the driving force behind American inventions. Whether it was someone’s desire to
enhance their life by creating a new product or finding a cure for a disease, inquisitiveness got the ball rolling. Yet, it is
chemistry that turns ideas into reality. From cough syrup to car seats, an inventor using chemistry made these products, and
many others, possible. Today, the business of chemistry is leading innovation in nearly every major industry and is a
crucial building block of many aspects of modern life. It is one of the largest investors in research and development,
investing $26 billion annually. An analysis by the Columbia Business School shows that every $15 billion invested in
pharmaceutical research and development saves 1.6 million lives annually. The business of chemistry also generates
more than half a trillion dollars to the United States economy each year. Because of the substantive effect the business of
chemistry has on our lives, employees of the chemical industry, such as chemists, researchers or engineers, are among some of
the most highly compensated individuals, both in terms of pay and medical benefits, in the United States. In the United States,
the business of chemistry directly generated 868,700 jobs in 2006, according to the 2007 Guide to the Business of
Chemistry, published by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). These jobs cover a wide variety of disciplines such as
chemical engineering, biochemistry, analytical, inorganic, organic, physical, theoretical and nuclear chemistries. The three
employment sectors with the highest number of chemistry employees are industry, including chemical and pharmaceutical
companies, academic institutions and government laboratories. The business of chemistry also is responsible for an
additional 5.7 million jobs in industries that directly depend on chemistry products, such as, agriculture, manufacturing,
real estate, educational services, retail trade and healthcare. In other words, one job in the chemical industry supports 4.5 jobs
in other industries. The importance of chemistry to our everyday lives and to the economy has fueled an industry with high
wages and employees with a comfortable standard of living.

The Chemical industry is key to US exports

Kendra Borja, American Chemistry Council, 2007 “Trade”
The U.S. chemical industry is the largest in the world. With sales of $516 billion in 2004, the U.S. chemical industry
accounted for nearly a quarter of the world’s total chemical output. The U.S. chemical industry is also the nation’s
largest exporting sector, with a record $109 billion in exports in 2004, far outpacing U.S. agricultural exports of $61 billion
and aerospace exports of $41 billion. With 20 percent of U.S. chemical sales destined for foreign markets, ACC works to
improve the U.S. chemical industry’s competitiveness in those markets by removing barriers to access. Specifically, ACC
supports the rules-based multilateral trading system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Doha Development
Agenda (DDA), the current round of WTO negotiations to achieve comprehensive trade liberalization. A strong and effective
WTO is essential for managing globalization and achieving the goal of increased living standards and sustainable development
around the world. As part of the DDA negotiations, ACC has called for the worldwide elimination of all chemical tariffs.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key Economy

American Chemistry Council, Inc 2007 “chemistry-dependent economy”
Not only is the business of chemistry essential to the economy for the jobs it generates through its business activities, it is
essential to the economy through its products. More than $500 billion of chemistry products flow through the economy
each year. The products of chemistry are present in some form in nearly every facet of the American economy. In fact,
over 96% of all manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry. Industries consume products made by other
industries that have large chemical inputs, i.e., plastics, rubber, synthetic textiles, and components using these materials. A
significant amount of the chemistry use in many products comes from packaging. Chemistry is also essential to the American
standard of living.

The chemical industry is important to the US workforce

American Chemistry Council, Inc 2007 “economic impact”
The economic contributions of the chemical industry are numerous, though often overlooked. The business of chemistry
directly creates over 869,000 high paying jobs. In addition to the jobs created directly by the industry, additional jobs are
supported by the purchasing activity of the chemical industry and by the subsequent expenditure-induced activity. In
total, nearly 5.7 million jobs are generated by the business of chemistry, 4% of the total US workforce. A quick rule of
thumb is: a total of 6.5 jobs in the US economy are generated for every job in the chemical industry (1 job in the business of
chemistry plus 5.5 additional jobs generated elsewhere in the economy). In addition to the 4.8 million jobs it creates in other
industries, the chemical industry contributes $2.3 billion to charitable organizations.

Every product is produced by the chemical industry

The $637 billion business of chemistry (a.k.a. the chemical industry) is one of the oldest US industries. It is a dynamic,
forward-looking innovative industry, a keystone of the “new economy” and a leader in protecting the environment. It is
also an enabling and transforming business and an essential contributor to our standard of living. The many benefits arising
from chemistry and its products greatly enhance our quality of life. Included are more than 70,000 products that enable rising
US productivity and living standards. Synthetic fibers and permanent-press clothing, life-saving medicines, health
improvement products, technology- enhanced agricultural products, improved foods, more protective packaging materials,
longer-lasting paints, stronger adhesives, faster microprocessors, more durable and safer tires, lightweight automobile parts,
and stronger composite materials in aircraft and spacecraft are only a few of the thousands of the innovative products of the
business of chemistry. In fact, innovations in chemistry helped put a man on the moon. Two everyday products transformed by
chemistry include microprocessors and automobiles. It is silicon chemistry and high-performance polymers that make the
microprocessor possible. Every automobile contains nearly $2,200 worth of chemical processing and products. From the
polyurethane seat cushions and neoprene hoses and belts to air bags, brake fluids, rust proofing and nylon seat belts,
the performance, safety and fuel efficiency depend upon thousands of products of chemistry.

The Chemical industry is the biggest exporter in the US

A success story, the $637 billion chemical industry is the largest exporting sector in the United States. In 2006, US
chemical exports totaled over $135 billion -- larger than either agriculture or aircraft/aerospace. More than ten cents out of
every dollar of exports are chemicals and related products. And 22% of the business of chemistry’s employment is from the
industry’s export activity or in support of other industries’ exports. The US chemical industry is the world’s largest
single national chemical industry, accounting for nearly a fourth of the $2.85 trillion in world sales of chemicals.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key Economy

The chemical industry is a key component to the US economy
American Chemistry Council, August 2007 “United States: Snapshot of the Chemical Industry in the United States
In addition to the jobs generated by chemical industry business activity, many other American jobs are dependent on
chemical products. These industries use chemical products or chemical-derived products as raw materials. An industry
is defined as being dependent on chemical products if 10% or more of its material inputs are derived from chemical
products. For service industries, the threshold is 20% due to the fact that these industries consume relatively little in terms of
physical products. Looking across the entire U.S. economy, these chemical dependent industries account for 28.8% of
GDP and 29.7% of jobs. Industries that use chemical or chemical-derived products include: farming, new residential
construction, plastic bottle manufacturing, upholstered furniture manufacturing, dry-cleaning services, building services and
health care, to name just a few.

The US produces a substantial amount of the chemical products for the world
American Chemistry Council, 2007 “global”
Though the business of chemistry is worldwide in scope, the bulk of the world’s $2.85 trillion chemical output is accounted
for by only a handful of industrialized nations. The United States alone produced $637 billion, 22 percent of the total
world chemical output in 2006.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key Innovation

The chemical industry is key to innovation
Composition of the business of chemistry has been changing as companies evolve to a more knowledge-intensive focus in
life sciences and other high value-added businesses such as biotechnology, high-performance polymers and elastomers,
new fibers, and other advanced materials that have applications in other industries. Companies operating in basic chemicals
and specialty (or performance) chemicals are also evolving to a more knowledge-intensive focus. This knowledge and
innovation will increasingly embrace new products, processes, services, and means of serving customers. The business of
chemistry in the US is segmented (with revenues) as follows: Investing over $26 billion dollars annually in research and
development (R&D), US companies engaged in the business of chemistry have remained internationally competitive,
constantly creating new products and processes to solve performance, safety, environmental and efficiency problems in a
number of industries and arenas. Employing over 80,000 R&D scientists, engineers, and technicians, US companies involved
in the business of chemistry account for one out of every nine patents that are issued. Their efforts create daily miracles.

Innovation in the Chemical Industry are important to the economy

American Chemistry Council, 2007 “Capital Investment”
Innovation and technology have driven the world economy for centuries. The business of chemistry is among the most
innovative industries in the world with the business of chemistry accounting for about one in nine US patents.
Investment in R&D is a commitment of resources in the present in exchange for an anticipated future stream of
benefits. This high level of research is benefiting the industry and society as a whole. The payoff is a rapid rate of
technological innovation, evidenced by a constant stream of new products and production processes.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key to preventing Cancer

The Chemical Industry gives us a chance at fighting cancer
American Chemistry Council, 2007 “Latest Chemistry Innovations Battle Against Cancer.”
Chemistry is making great strides in medical advances, including when it comes to the fight against cancer. These new
technologies and research breakthroughs are vitally important, as the disease claims 1 out of 4 lives in the United States,
according to the American Cancer Society. The following examples bring to life how American chemistry and ACC member
companies are working to improve the lives of people living with cancer. Silicon Chip Improves Patient Care. A team of
investigators at Massachussetts General Hospital has developed a revolutionary silicon-based microchip device, called
the “CTC-chip,” which provides a new and effective tool for accurately detecting, diagnosing, and monitoring cancer by
taking a simple blood test. The noninvasive “CTC-chip” will quickly determine if cancer is responding to treatment. It could
also be used to screen for people with an increased risk of cancer by examining circulating tumor cells (CTC) – cells from solid
tumors that float around in the bloodstream. Although other microchip technologies have had the ability to identify and sort
these cells, it has been difficult to obtain an adquate blood sample to analyze the cells due to their rarity and fragility. The CTC-
chip is the first tool with the ability to obtain an adequate blood sample. Researchers developed the silicon chip, which is the
size of a business card and covered with almost 80,000 microscopic posts coated with a protein antibody expressed on most
solid tumors. The posts capture and analyze these floating cancer cells using the antibody “glue.” A study published in Nature
showed that the CTC-chip successfully identified CTCs in 99 percent of the blood of patients with metastic lung, prostate,
pancreatic, breast and colon cancer. CTCs can also provide the molecular information needed to identify tumors that are
candidates for the new targeted therapies and should help researchers better understand the biology of cancer cells. Novel
Substance May Inhibit Breast Tumor Growth. Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women in North
America and Europe, with more than a million women diagnosed each year. The cause of breast cancer is still unknown and
researchers continue to search for new approaches to treating the different types of breast tumors. Bayer HealthCare
researchers have recently discovered a compound that is especially promising in suppressing the growth of breast tumors. The
substance, ZK-PRA, stands for Zentralkartei (central substance register) Progesterone Receptor Antagonist. This compound
prevents progesterone receptors from reading the genes on the hormones that promote breast tumors and then jams the path for
any other receptors. The consequences are far-reaching, because the affected cell self-destructs soon afterwards, which is a
significant advantage over previous breast cancer anti-hormone treatments. Two breast cancer studies are currently underway
to determine the effectiveness of ZK-PRA. If the studies are successful, the active ingredient would have the opportunity to
increase the number of successful treatments and provide new hope for millions of women. Cancer cannot be cured without
the help of new technology and research. Through chemistry, this constant search for new approaches will help fight—
and hopefully win—the battle against this deadly disease.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key Hegemony

Research in the chemical industry is critical to stop terror and national defense
LOIS R. EMBER, C&EN WASHINGTON, February 18, 2002 Chemical And Engineering News “CHEMISTRY FOR SECURITY;
NRC workshop confirms that chemical sciences relate to national security, homeland defense”
Ground breaking for the Pentagon took place in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 11, 1941. Sixty years later, terrorists slammed a
commercial airliner into one side of the building, injuring and killing hundreds of civilian and military employees. That
heinous attack in Virginia and the earlier, more devastating one on the World Trade Center towers in New York City have
served as a rude wake-up call to the nation. And they have galvanized scientists of every stripe who, until then, may never have
envisioned their expertise as serving the cause of national security and homeland defense. Months before Sept. 11, 2001, the
National Research Council's Board on Chemical Sciences & Technology (BCST) was busy putting together the study
"Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the 21st Century." It was envisioned as an overview document focused on basic
research needs with no mention of national security or homeland defense. That vision, of course, changed quickly. The
chairmen of the committee putting the study together--Ronald Breslow, chemistry professor at Columbia University, and
Matthew V. Tirrell, professor of chemical engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara--and Douglas J. Raber,
BCST's director, immediately realized that the "challenges" study had to contain a chapter on security. At their request, BCST
staff members hastily put together a workshop on national security and homeland defense that would, for the first time, bring
together chemists and chemical engineers. The workshop took place on the UC Irvine campus in mid-January. According to
Raber, the Irvine workshop--the third in a series of six planned workshops--had two key goals. It was "to engage the chemical
sciences R&D community in responding to the terrorism threat and to provide federal agencies with the information
they need to guide their investments in R&D" to counter terrorism. The U.S. needs to continue to educate the public about
the risks, be prepared for the unexpected, and maintain a strong technological base. THE WORKSHOP attracted more than
100 chemists and chemical engineers who heard 10 speakers "talk about subjects that are relevant to the issues of homeland
defense and national security," explained John I. Brauman, Stanford University chemistry professor. Brauman and Carnegie
Mellon University chemical engineer John L. Anderson cochaired the workshop committee. Not all possibilities could be
covered, Brauman cautioned. "The talks are designed to stimulate you, to make your imagination really work to help us
understand the kinds of things we can do." There is no question, Brauman said, "that a lot of fundamental research does have
application" to national security and homeland defense. What he and other organizers hoped would come from the
workshop was a catalog of "what we are doing and what we can bring" to the problem. And the flip side of that, he noted, is a
better understanding of "what does the government want to recognize that we are bringing so that it can be supportive of those
efforts." In addition to the speakers, the workshop had breakout sessions in which attendees could contribute their "insights and
ideas to stimulate the rest of the community in terms of the contributions all of us can make," Brauman said. These sessions
delved into four areas: national-security-related discoveries in the chemical sciences over the past several decades; the
"grand challenges" for chemistry and chemical engineering; discoveries and challenges at the interface between chemistry and
chemical engineering and other disciplines, what the workshop organizers called barriers; and research needs.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Internals – Chemical Industry

High natural gas prices destroy the chemical industry, sending the entire manufacturing industry in a
downward spiral that destroys the economy

Paul Bjacek, staff writer, 11/6/06, ICIS chemical business America, “Lost Manufacturing” pg lexis //EM

LOST MANUFACTURING or "de-industrialization" is occurring in the US and other developed countries as semifinished and
finished goods manufacturing investment shifts to countries with a cost advantage, such as China.US chemical producers, with
a total of over $180 billion in assets on US soil, are painfully aware that the country is seeing downstream industrial
development impeded by high costs. They must respond strategically, using innovation and customer collaboration.ANALYSIS
RESULTSDomestic demand for manufactured goods will outstrip domestic industrial production over the next 10 years and
imports will fill the gap, according to an Accenture Research study for the ACC (American Chemistry Council).According to
the study, which quantifies the impact of lost downstream manufacturing (of 17 selected industries) on the future chemical
industry, domestic production of finished goods (in aggregate) will still increase over the period, but imports will rise
faster.This implies that US manufacturers will lose market share and, therefore, chemical manufacturers will lose the demand
for chemicals associated with manufacturing these products. The total chemical sales opportunity losses represent just
2.4% of the expected $8 trillion total manufacturing industry sales opportunity losses (or cumulative net trade losses by
2015) caused by lost manufacturing. The estimated cumulative opportunity losses (based on trade losses) for the
chemical sector over 10 years consist of $188bn in chemical sales, including $50bn in sales from the top seven
thermoplastic resins $40bn in capital expenditures in chemicals, including $5bn for new thermoplastics capacity $30bn
in chemical research and development expenditures $43bn in US government tax revenue from chemical companies
$3bn in charitable contributions from chemical companies and 157,000 chemical industry-related jobs.The loss of these
chemical industry-related jobs by 2015 is a particularly painful blow to the US economy because nearly 50% of
chemical industry employees are "knowledge workers" with university degrees and training, whose principal tasks
involve the development or application of specialized knowledge in the workplace.The US industrial economy is
interdependent, with chemicals accounting for 5% or more of production costs in at least six other major US industries
- textiles, the business of chemistry, plastics and rubber products, semiconductor & electronic components, paper
products and nonmetallic mineral products. These industries generate nearly $1.2 trillion in total revenue. Declines in
output in any one of these corresponds to declines in chemicals potential demand. However, the volume of chemicals
decline depends on the amount of chemicals used in a downstream industry, as well as the projected change in production of
that same industry. Taking into account both of these factors, chemicals used in the production of plastics and rubber products,
petroleum and coal, food, and textile products will be subject to the largest loss of potential demand. Besides relatively higher
labor and regulatory costs in the US, high energy prices are contributing to the decline of US industrial production. High,
volatile natural gas costs and unreliable supplies affect electricity costs and, in the case of chemicals, raw material costs
as well. Volatility also causes uncertainty in production planning and volume expansion. Energy is the largest input
factor for most base chemicals, so reliable, low cost energy supplies are critical to ensuring chemical industry

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Internals – Chemical Industry

Natural gas is the principal feedstock for the US chemical industry, which is a key job provider and
essential to the US economy

ICIS, 11/13/06, Chemical Business America, “Washington News” pg lexis //EM

Chemical Workforce grows by 2%Shipments of US chemical products remain strong and sector employment is at a three-year
high, but the onset of winter weather may accelerate prices for gas feedstock, said industry economists.Latest data on rail car
loadings of chemical products show increasing cargo volumes in nine of the past 13 months, said the American Chemistry
Council (ACC).The US chemicals industry continues to take on new workers, with 2,000 added in October alone,
bringing employment in the sector to a three-year high, it said. The chemicals industry workforce, which numbered
897,800 last month, has grown by more than 18,000 jobs, or 2%, since October last year, according to Department of
Labor data. Industry economists expressed concern, however, that the early onset of North American winter weather has
triggered the first draw-downs against underground stores of natural gas and may soon begin upward pressure on gas
pricing. Natural gas is the principal feedstock for the US chemicals manufacturing sector.On the broader economy, the
ACC pointed to a continued cooling in many parts, particularly in construction and manufacturing - two crucial downstream
consuming sectors for chemicals.In addition, sales of vehicles were reported down 2.3% in September and the Institute for
Supply Management manufacturing index declined in October for the fourth consecutive month. On the plus side, personal
incomes rose by a better-than-expected 0.5% in September, extending a lengthy run of strong increases and suggesting
continuing potential for consumer spending, the principal engine of the US economy.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Impacts – Chemical Industry key to All Things

Chemical industry key to US economy, preventing disease spread, ensuring food supply and drinking
water, stopping fires, manufacturing fighter jets, satellites, space shuttles, and nanotech

Senator James Inhofe, expert on national security issues and chairman of Environmental public works committee, 8/2/06, US Fed
News, “Sen. Inhofe Issues Statement On Toxic Substances Control Act, Chemicals Management Program At Epa” pg lexis //EM

The chemical industry is a crucial part of the US economy. The United States is the number one chemical producer in
the world, generating $550 billion a year and putting more than 5 million people to work. More than 96% of all
manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry.

Chemicals are the essential building blocks of products that safely and effectively prevent, treat and cure disease;
ensure the safest and most abundant food supply in the world; purify our drinking water and put out fires. They are the
foundation for life-saving vaccines, child safety seats, bicycle helmets, home insulation, and Kevlar vests. Innovations in
chemistry have helped to increase energy efficiency and to make planes, fighter jets, satellites and space shuttles safer
and more secure. We are also on the cusp of new and exciting chemical advances in the form of nanotechnology. These
tiny chemicals have the potential to cure cancers, clean up pollution, and make cars stronger and lighter than ever
before. To say that chemicals are vital is an understatement.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Impacts – Chemical Industry key to National Defense

Chemical industry key to economy and national defense

Joe Kamalick, staff writer, 9/11/06 ICIS chemical business America, “Chemicals remain a tempting target” pg lexis //EM

FIVE YEARS after the September 11 terrorist attacks - a 21st Century Pearl Harbor - the chemical industry has by all accounts
made significant strides in antiterrorism security but remains vulnerable to what some authorities fear will be an inevitable and
perhaps devastating attack. Ever since 9/11, chemical production, storage and transit facilities have been seen as potential
targets for terrorists, targets where highly toxic compounds are stored or used in large volumes and could cause horrific
casualties if ignited or otherwise released into surrounding communities. While the potential for terrorist use of chemical
facilities as weapons of mass destruction is widely acknowledged, the question of how to deal with that risk has divided policy-
makers, Congress and the industry itself. Underlying the debate in government and within industry is this core question: How
can we protect the chemical industry without smothering it? The crucial role that chemical production plays in the US
economy and defense profile was brought into sharp relief by last year's double hurricane strikes along the Gulf Coast.
ASSESSING THE DAMAGE In assessing the damage done by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) assistant secretary Robert Stephan says, "The impact of those storms on the US refining and
petrochemical industries made it clear that those industries represent a key element in our national defense production
machine."There is no evidence that any chemical facility has been the target of a terrorist plot - at least none that US
intelligence officials will admit. Still, the risk seems palpable in the wake of continuing efforts by directed or rogue terrorist
groups to strike at vulnerable targets of opportunity overseas, such as the attacks on the Madrid and London subway systems
and the more recent UK-based plot to blow up US-bound airliners. "My instinct is that chemical facilities are probably on the
short list of vulnerable targets for Al Qaeda," says Lt. Gen.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Impacts – Chemical Industry key to Economy

Chemical industry is the world’s largest producer with over $15 billion in trade surplus and contributes
21% of GDP to the US economy

Business Wire, 5/31/07, “The US Chemical industry is the world’s largest Producer with a balance of trade surplus in excess of
$15 billion” pg lexis //EM

The US Chemical Industry is the world's largest producer by a substantial margin with a balance of trade surplus in
excess of $15 billion. It is a major player contributing 21% in GDP to the US economy. This growth has led many
theorists to conclude that the industry is a "harvester" rather than an "investor" for future growth.

Chemical Industry key to US econ, multiwarrant

Senator James Inhofe, expert on national security issues and chairman of Environmental public works committee, 4/29/08,
Congressional Documents and Publications, “Inhofe Hearing Statement on EPA Toxic Chemicals Policies” pg lexis //EM

Good morning. Today's hearing is to examine the adequacy of the mechanisms for the evaluation and regulation of chemicals
by the EPA. The subject is important because the chemical industry is a crucial part of the U.S. economy, and we have to be
mindful of what we put at risk if we over-regulate this industry and stifle its 30 year history of innovation. Here are some
statistics. The United States is the number one chemical producer in the world, generating $635 billion a year and
putting more than 5 million people to work. The U.S. chemical industry paid more than $27.8 billion in federal, state,
and local income taxes in 2006. More than 96% of all manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry.

The chemical industry is central to the economy and is only strengthening

Prime Newswire, 2/7/08, “M&A Volume in the Transportation & Logistics Industry reaches 20-year high, According to
PricewaterhouseCoopers” pg lexis //EM

Chemical Compounds, PricewaterhouseCoopers quarterly report on the state of transactions in the global chemicals
industry, highlighted a rise in deal value, which more than doubled from $53 billion in 2006 to $109 billion in 2007. This
increase was driven by a greater number of deals with transaction values over $1 billion, as well as a slight rise in deal
volume which reached 819 deals in 2007. The size of these large deals also increased significantly in 2007 with three deals
that were greater than $10 billion and three that were greater than $5 billion (but less than $10 billion), compared to
2006 when only one deal was greater than $10 billion.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Impacts – Chemical Industry key to Economy

Produced chemicals are an integral part of the US economy

Ed Zwim, staff writer, 6/11/07, ICIS chemical business America, “Survival of the Fittest” pg lexis //EM

MERGER AND acquisition (M&A) activity is making its impact on the North American chemical industry's distribution
network. The previously fragmented market by which companies distribute the chemicals needed to run the US
economy may soon give way to a more streamlined set of entities, as smaller distributors are swallowed up by larger
ones. In the past 10 years, the number of national distributors has decreased from six or seven to three -
Univar/CHEMCENTRAL, Ashland and Brenntag, says Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the National Association of Chemical
Distributors (NACD), an industry group that he says accounts for 80-90% of industry revenues and has lost 48 members over
the past 14 years, due to M&A activity alone. Not surprisingly, large and small companies involved in distribution are
putting their best feet forward to operate in this changed environment. The larger ones tout the synergistic
opportunities involved in M&A, while small and medium-sized enterprises say they welcome the competition.

Chemical industry is an essential contributor to the US economy

EPA, 4/17/07, Environmental Protection Agency Documents and Publications, “Chemical Industry Expands Work with EPA in
Solving Environmental Problems” pg lexis //EM

The chemical industry is an essential contributor to the U.S. economy, with about $555 billion in annual revenues. There
are approximately 13,500 chemical manufacturing facilities in the United States, owned by more than 9,000 companies. The
sector is one of the nation's largest exporters, accounting for 10 cents of every U.S. export dollar.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

Windpower Nano Tech CP

Their own author endorses using nanotechnology as wind energy
Dr. Pradeep Haldar, professor of nanoengineering at the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science and engineering, chair
of the Clean Energy Alliance – created by the US Department of Energy, 7/13/07, “The ‘Power’ of Nanotechnology”
Perhaps the most mainstream acceptance of renewable technology has come in the form of wind energy, which is
approaching complete cost competitiveness with traditional energy sources. Countries such as Germany, Spain and Denmark
are already beginning to utilize substantial amounts of wind energy to meet their growing electricity needs, but there remains
enormous potential for worldwide expansion in the wind industry. Nanotechnology helps to realize the wind's enormous
potential through various improvements in the efficiency of wind turbines. New lubricants that contain nanoparticles that
act like mini ball-bearings help reduce the friction generated from the rotation of the turbines, decreasing wear-and-
tear on the machine throughout its life cycle. Advancements in nanocoatings, such as de-icing and self-cleaning
technologies, also help improve efficiencies, rendering ice and dirt buildup on the turbines virtually nonexistent. The
most promising contributions of nanotechnology come from the integration of advanced materials technology in wind
blades in the form of nanocomposites, which provide lighter and substantially stronger blades. Nanotechnology impacts
the wind industry in general, by improving turbine performance and reliability to allow for longer lifetime, less fatigue
failure, and lower costs of generation. Clearly, the pursuit of cleaner and more efficient ways of generating power is of
critical importance to our future. Through innovation, we can improve the efficiencies of the technologies we have and
discover new ways by which we can prosper. Nanotechnology provides us with the opportunity to attain sustainable
development - and to overcome one of the greatest challenges of our time - by using some of the simplest and smallest means
at our disposal.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

AT: Prolif K
On the Mutimer Link we don’t intervene and force other countries to follow our standards, our evidence
indicates that other organizations and countries model our nonproliferation efforts not that we force
people to sign treaties.

We also solve what Mutimer is saying, because he talks about how we only want to control other
countries when we are the source. However, we stop prolif and the spread at the starting point which
Mutimer claims to be the West [“the image hides the fact that nuclear weapons do not spread, but are spread—and in fact are
spread largely by the western states.”]

Mutimer says prolif discourse prevents the beneficial tech of nuclear power because it groups nuke power
with prolif. This is our point with the prolif advantage that we are modeled as using nuclear energy for
power rather than bombs and prolif.

No Link- We never claim that we are trying to control third world prolif, we just want to be modeled by
any country or organization

Perm: Do Both. Reframing our policy option with the alternative solves for all of Gusterson’s discourse
Hugh Gusterson prof @ MIT Antrhopology Department, 1996, “Nuclear Rites” ix
I am often asked why an anthropologist would study a nuclear weapons laboratory. The risk of being labeled deviant by
colleagues in anthropology and irrelevant by arms control specialists is high, and the difficulties in carryoing out fieldwork are
substantial: nuclear weapons scientists are very busy people who do not suffer fools gladly; because their work is top secret,
most of their daily life is inaccessible to participant observation, traditionally the cultural anthropologist’s principa research
technique and their work is not only virtually impossible to observe but also, for the person lacking several years of training in
physics, virtually impossible to understand. Despite these obstables, I chose to do an ethnographic study of a nuclear weapons
laboratory for three reasons. First, I believe the American public debate on defense policy in general- and on nuclear
weapons policy in particular- has been sorely in need of a cultural perspective. Discussions have hitherto been dominated
by scientists, political scientists, and politicians, who construe defense policy questions as problems that, like those in
mathematics, have one correct answer. I belive that policy problems are rarely like math problems and my own interest is
less in finding the one true answer to the conundrums of nuclear policy than in understanding how people become so
profoundly convinced tha their answer is the only one. It is my belief that if more people looked at defense policy in this
light, our public discussions might be more generous and imaginative.

No Link- Gusterson is talking about using military expansion to control other countries nuclear weapons
Michael Sandlin, 16 November 2004, Reviews- PopMatters “Nuclear Waste”
Although Gusterson's description of his book as an "ambitiously polyglot offering" is certainly valid, his arguments
often fall into one of two categories: anthropological "fieldwork," or Foucault-influenced studies of the deceptive
language used in building a dominant discourse on American militarism -- and the means by which holes in the "official
story" can be punctured. Gusterson argues that American military dominance is often successfully sold to the public as
self-evident, humanitarian, or arising from providential destiny, not conscious political decisions.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

AT: Prolif K
US attempts at nuclear energy are unrelated to fears of nuclear proliferation
Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Research Assistant and Research Fellow Institute for Economic Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 7/2/08, The Heritage Foundation, “Nuclear Energy: What we can
learn from other countries”
This myth relies on creating an illusion of cause and effect. This is why so much anti-nuclear propaganda focuses on
trying to equate nuclear weapons with civilian nuclear power. Once such a spurious relationship is established, anti-nuclear
activists can mix and match causes and effects without regard for the facts. Furthermore, this "argument" is clearly irrelevant
inside the United States. As a matter of policy, the United States already has too many nuclear weapons and is
disassembling them at a historic pace, so arguing that expanding commercial nuclear activity in the United States would
somehow lead to weapons proliferation is disingenuous. The same would hold true for any other state with nuclear weapons.
As for states without nuclear weapons, the problem is more complex than simply arguing that access to peaceful nuclear
power will lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and
producing either material requires a sophisticated infrastructure. While most countries could certainly develop the
capabilities needed to produce these materials, the vast majority clearly have no intention of doing so. For start-up
nuclear powers, the preferred method of acquiring weapons-grade material domestically is to enrich uranium, not to separate
plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Uranium enrichment is completely separate from nuclear power production. Furthermore,
nothing stops countries from developing a nuclear weapons capability, as demonstrated by North Korea and Iran. If prolifera-
tion is the concern, then proper oversight is the answer, not stifling a distantly related industry.

Plan solves the alt by moving away from the militaristic discourse around proliferation and instead using
nuclear energy as an example for the world; Gusterson’s proliferation discourse is inevitable unless we
make this shift in policy
Michael Sandlin, 16 November 2004, Reviews- PopMatters “Nuclear Waste”
And today, more than ever, Livermore nuclear scientists are flush with taxpayer dollars. The Bush administration is still
pining for the warped Reagan dream of militarizing space, while "mini-nukes" are being developed to smoke out state-less,
spiderhole-dwelling warlords. Gusterson leaves us with the idea that US nuclear dominance-as-defense has become the
reconstructed "natural" order of the day. The utopian dreams of anti-nuclear critics like Gusterson, Jonathan Schell and
many others, advocate worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons as the only truly fail-safe policy. Although realistically,
unless there's an unexpected Green Party putsch in Washington, this country's dominant discourse on nukes and militarism
will probably be, at best, limited to whether nuclear weapons should function as deterrents or as pre-emptive instruments
of global restructuring. Any heretical dovish discourse calling for peacetime economic conversion of military industries,
or faith-based multi-lateral nuclear abolition, will likely be relegated to chicken-wired "free speech zones" and academic
echo chambers.

Nuclear Power Wave 4
DDI ‘08
Peter Vale

AT: Prolif K
The US will allow give technology to China, which helps solve the alternative and begins to move away
from proliferation discourse
Radio Australia, January 7, 2008 “US provides China with nuclear energy technology”
American company Westinghouse, however, has been allowed to deliver its newest third-generation nuclear plant to
China. Radio Australia's Adam Connors reports that the need for energy over the coming few decades is reaching a fever pitch
in red-hot economies like China. Energy analyst with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Alan McDonald, told Radio
Australia that China and India will be the most veracious about the most controversial energy source of all. "China and India
have booming economies, booming populations, growing energy demand; they basically need to develop all the energy
sources they can," he said. "Right now, nuclear electricity is only a small percentage - two per cent in China, three per cent of
electricity in India but China plans a five-fold increase by 2020 and India plans an eight-fold increase by 2022." US nuclear
cooperation 'remarkable' Nuclear energy, along with its massive hydroelectric schemes, are the centrepiece of tough
pollution and energy consumption targets in China. China's 11 nuclear plants are a combination of homegrown, French,
Canadian and Russian technologies. For the first time, however, China is developing nuclear energy technology through
agreements with the United States - four new reactors with American firm, Westinghouse. The World Nuclear Association's
Ian Hore-Lacy told Radio Australia the cooperation is remarkable, given US reluctance to help in the past. "It's generally
believed that that's because of technology transfer aspects and they were wanting a high level of technology transfer and the
right to be able to then adapt and sell that technology by way of exports from China," he said. "The Westinghouse deal is
presumed to have come closer to that objective than the others and also of course there is the actual intrinsic virtue of the three
technologies being offered and by some accounts the Westinghouse was the most advanced."

The US would share the nuclear power technology with other countries
Mark Clayton, Staff writer May 30, 2007, The Christian Science Monitor “China, nuclear technology, and a US sale”
China has its heart set on buying a cutting-edge US design for a nuclear-power reactor, and the Bush administration has
said it is willing to sell because the transaction will mean jobs for Americans and pave the way for a "nuclear [power]
renaissance in the US."