You are on page 1of 49

SDI 2008 1 of 49

WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

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

SDI 2008 2 of 49
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

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

SDI 2008 3 of 49
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

1AC Waste Disposal 4 minute version
Inherency

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

Plan: The United States Federal Government should pursue a dual track approach to nuclear waste
storage allowing interim dry cask storage and developing a permanent repository.

Solvency

The plan would save the nuclear power industry.
Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A
CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis, dru

The waste storage problem in the United States is manageable. The United States
should pursue a dual-track approach: commit to developing a consensus and then opening
up a permanent repository and in parallel store as much spent fuel as possible in dry casks
that are hardened against attack at existing reactor sites. The combination of interim
storage and commitment to a permanent repository would provide the assurances needed
by the public and the investment community for continued use of nuclear power.

SDI 2008 4 of 49
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.0

Advantage 1 Global Warming

The only way to reduce greenhouse gases and nuclear energy is to use nuclear energy
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises
Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a-
4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM

The IPCC panel, which was established by the UN to assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic
information relevant for the understanding of climate change, includes a major expansion of nuclear power
as a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the world’s climate. “This is a no-
brainer: any realistic plan to reduce carbon emissions in a meaningful way must include a vast
expansion of nuclear power. The IPCC is right to include nuclear energy as a necessary part of the
climate change solution,” said Domenici, who is the author of “A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the
Promise of Nuclear Energy.”

Global warming causes disease spread, environmental damage, and escalating regional conflicts
Podesta, Stern, and Batten 2007 (John, Todd, and Kit, President, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy, and Senior
Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Capturing the Energy Opportunity, November 2007, Accessed May 15, 2008,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf)

Climate change presents the United States with multiple foreign policy challenges quite apart from those directly
connected to our nation’s deepening dependence on imported oil, which we will detail shortly. These challenges include, for
example, increased border stress resulting from the impact of climate change-induced storms and droughts in Mexico and the
Caribbean. Or consider the complications posed by ever-scarcer water supplies to political progress in the
Middle East. Perhaps the greatest climate change-induced geopolitical challenge in the shortterm, though, will
arise in the developing countries in the earth’s low latitudes. In these countries, even a relatively small
climatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, the spread of disease, and natural
resource competition. Such conditions fuel political turmoil, drive already weak states toward collapse, and
threaten regional stability. According to a recent report by 11 former Army generals and Navy admirals, climate change is
a “threat multiplier for instability” in volatile parts of the world.16 Nigeria and East Africa pose particularly acute
challenges. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, will confront intense drought, desertification, and sea-level rise in the
coming years. Already, approximately 1,350 square miles of Nigerian land turns to desert each year, forcing both farmers and
herdsmen to abandon their homes.17 Lagos, the largest Nigerian city, is one of the West African coastal megacities that the IPCC
identifies as at risk from sea-level rise by 2015.18 These conditions, coupled with rapid population growth projections, are likely
to force significant human migration and contribute to regional political and economic turmoil. The threat of regional turmoil is
higher yet in East Africa because of the concentration of weak or failing states, numerous unresolved political conflicts, and the
severe effects of climate change. Climate change will likely create large fluctuations in the amount of rainfall in East Africa
during the next 30 years—a 5 percent to 20 percent increase in rainfall during the winter months would cause flooding and soil
erosion, while a 5 percent to 10 percent decrease in the summer months would cause severe droughts.19 Such volatility will
jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of people and the economic capacity of the region: Agriculture constitutes some 40 percent
of East Africa’s GDP and employs 80 percent of the population.20 In Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya, water
shortages have already led to the desertification of large tracts of farmland and grassland. Fierce competition between farmers
and herdsmen over the remaining arable land, combined with simmering ethnic and religious tensions, helped ignite the first
genocide of the 21st century.21 This conflict has now spilled into Chad and the Central African Republic. Meanwhile, the entire
Horn of Africa remains threatened by a failed Somalia and other weak states. Beyond Africa, the IPCC warns that
“coastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East and Southeast Asia, will be at
greatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some mega-deltas, flooding from the rivers.”22 In South
Asia, this will generate political tension as displaced people traverse the region’s many contested borders and
territories, such as those between Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and China. In Bangladesh, for example, the
combination of deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, radical Islamic political groups, and dire
environmental insecurity brought on by climate change could prove a volatile mix, one with severe regional
and potentially global consequences.23

" he said.S.still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy." He will iterate that sentiment in a speech on Monday which 10.let alone the happily shopping general public . Nuclear energy leadership Nuclear Power Requires Global Cooperation To Solve Climate Change. melting ice and threatened polar bears. the weight of responsibility to solve it lies with us. August 19. The British prime minister reiterated his country's support for the proposed India-USA civil nuclear cooperation agreement. His discussions with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will centre on how both countries can work together to meet common challenges for the future at all levels . He asserted that "such international engagement is increasingly vital in reducing proliferation risks. sustainable and non-polluting source of energy. http://www. under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices. . Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)." he said. heat waves. The Washington Times. He suggested that.htm) The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers . the centrepiece of which is a decision to support the building of new nuclear power stations. including the UN and organizations related to it. radiological or nuclear weapons and their means of delivery". "The UK supports the India-USA civil nuclear cooperation initiative.countercurrents. new nuclear power stations would yield economic benefits to India in terms of carbon reduction and security of supply. multilaterally or globally. Proliferation. warming causes human extinction Henderson 2006 (Bill. "countries need to act together to have the greatest hope of solving this shared dilemma. Britain has unveiled a new energy policy. We believe that the deal can make a significant contribution to energy security. Climate change is another issue that will be high on his agenda during the visit to India. 2006. Mr Brown said that nuclear energy is non-polluting and it can make a significant contribution to limiting climate change. Mr Brown said he is looking forward to building on the very close relationship enjoyed by the UK and India during Monday's summit. high-growth model of economic development.0 Independently." he added. bc "(I) will discuss with Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh how best to take forward this reform agenda. Appreciating India's advocacy of common but differentiated responsibility. both bilaterally and through multilateral forums. Mr Brown said the UK and India are actively engaged on non-proliferation and arms control issues. "We engage with India on a full range of non-proliferation and arms control issues. 2008. And Economic Objectives Christina Bellantoni. economic growth and limiting climate change.org/cc-henderson190806. Counter Currents. economic and environment objectives for India and the international community. (I am) keen to strengthen education and trade links between the two countries. the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence. "However. the British prime minister said in the interview that developed countries should take responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to a low-carbon." Mr Brown said. which is something the United Kingdom attaches great importance to. Advantage Two U. GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states. Downing Street has said will be one of his major speeches of 2008. Economy takes focus. "We hope to conclude a number of agreements at the summit. sustainable development. along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share. biological." he said. including that of terrorists gaining access to chemical. Caused by developed countries. "Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution." Mr Brown said. Accessed May 10. A senior level delegation of UK business leaders and heads of some of the UK's top universities will accompany him to India.bilaterally. too. development. 7-7-08. Another important issue for (me) is that of development. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions. It will dwell on the need for significant modernization of the international framework of governance in order to make it representative and effective. lexis. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures. Frequent Contributor to online news source CounterCurrents. "At a bilateral level." In that context. "The UK and India agree on the potential of civil nuclear energy to be a safe.SDI 2008 5 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. which could make a significant contribution to meeting the global challenge of achieving energy security.

Ebel the Director. while keeping nuclear power as a viable option in the developed world.csis.S. At the same time. To assist these consumers. despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes. and secure sources of energy. D. Robert E. the Minister of Atomic Energy recently stated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. nuclear power leadership. through government support (it is our judgment that the market alone won't do it). Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington.csis. C. to supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization.0 ADV U.pdf Clearly. it does not. Nuclear power expansion is supported by other countries. 3/2/2000. Equally important. they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth.S. clean. .org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel. Robert E. given their high coal consumption. 6/8/2000. Ebel the Director. D. all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate.org/media/csis/congress/ts000302ebel.pdf The ability of the United States to influence the control of proliferation of nuclear weapons derives from our ability to influence the policies and practices of other nations as they develop their own nuclear power industry.SDI 2008 6 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington. does the United States have a forward-looking plan for nuclear power? No. Does Japan’s. C. AP. Does China? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by the year 2020. http://www. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. ability to decrease proliferation. AP. But our ability to influence depends very much on the state of our own nuclear industry. which undermines U. The nuclear option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option. Nuclear power leadership Having a strong nuclear industry is key to the U.S. Let me ask. nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world. http://www. it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option. the government currently plans to add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. Does Russian? Yes.

o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns. firms dominated the global market. as well as the trained construction. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual. Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental benefits offered by nuclear energy. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy leadership. industry be able to compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant. . American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. At that time. This is important. financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.” The Unites States invented nuclear energy. service and supply improves.S.S. In the ever-expanding global markets. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers and operators. but it’s not the whole story.S. The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political. U.S. and maintenance workers who will be needed to build. in dealing with global proliferation concerns.nuclearcompetitiveness. What has been missing from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can accrue if the U. No Date cited. preferred supplier position. industry. operate. 2008 Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come.S.SDI 2008 7 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.org/ VF accessed July 10.S. Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of the growing global nuclear energy market. and o greater leverage for the U.S. manufacturing. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close attention to the ability of the U. it is essential that a reinvigorated U. USFG program formed in 2005 http://www. manufacturing. The United States greatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the early 1990s.0 Invigorating the nuclear industry is key to our nuclear energy leadership and competitiveness. The renewed interest in the global use of nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U. and service new nuclear plants in the U. the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear design. service and supply industry that will result in: o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories. Therefore. our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-dollar opportunities. manufacturing. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design.

Former top public servant Peter Shergold said it would be unrealistic for any debate on global warming to neglect the nuclear option. who hold up low-carbon nuclear power as the answer to global warming. the group continues spreading fear about greenhouse gas-free nuclear power plants – the only practical alternative to burning fossil fuels for producing electricity. Kemeny. Lexis V. is finding its way into news articles featuring interviews with well-known environmentalists like Patrick Moore. Canberra Times. Australia stands exposed to hefty economic penalties as energy prices will undoubtedly escalate. Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy. Globally there is a growing consensus among energy experts and climate scientists that the only effective way to combat climate change and to maintain energy security at reasonable cost is through the comprehensive acceptance of nuclear power.05270. the coercive utopian exponents of renewables and clean coal vigorously advocate their populist causes. Without nuclear power.SDI 2008 8 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. radical green activism and the fossil fuel lobby have. Albany. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states that as global emission will be mandated to more than half by 2050. p. The term "nuclear renaissance. successfully conspired to negate such enterprise. the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit 2008 Conference in Sydney provided a central forum for its discussion. Leslie. A green paper should be available from Climate Minister Penny Wong's department a little later.0 ADV Global Warming Nuclear Energy is the best solution to carbon dioxide emissions Pamela White. AB. Sadly. His interim report will be issued today." promoted by the nuclear-energy industry. nuclear technology is a global imperative. so far. Renowned physicist Paul Davies claimed that for too long nuclear power has been "politically incorrect" in Australia but would be the fastest and most effective way of reducing the nation's carbon emission.F Australian industrial leaders and domestic consumers of energy will digest with some apprehension the economic impacts of Professor Ross Garnaut's emission trading scheme. for the risk-conscious Australian psyche it delivers a special message "the safety record of nuclear energy is better than any other major industrial technology in OECD countries".15/A. co-founder oh Greenpeace. poor education. Fifty years ago Australia was set to become the first nation south of the equator to embrace civilian nuclear power. Nuclear energy is the only way to cost effectively decrease CO2. 2008. July 4. Our energy and climate change policy-makers could well learn from Australia's uranium trading partners. These already cost Australians an estimated $8 billion a year. Meanwhile. And. Milloy 4/13/06 “Twenty Years After Chernobyl” o. Proquest) WITH NEWS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GROWING MORE alarming day by day. 5/8/08 (Metroland. 2008.org/gencon/019. some are stepping forward to suggest that nuclear energy-a form of energy that Americans had largely rejected by the 1980s-is the best and fastest way to reduce the United State's enormous carbon footprint. . staff write at Boulder Weekly.z. Nuclear power is the only practical way to solve global warming Steven J.cfm It’s quite ironic that while Greenpeace squawks about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in order to avert the much-dreaded global warming. political vacillation. While the Canberra summit essentially removed nuclear power from its agenda. http://cei.

Herald Sun. Insiders said delegates were a long way from a consensus. the product of months of negotiations. zero-emission nuclear energy.'' Mr Bush said. 9-6-07. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed to tackle climate change as a priority. chairman of retailer AGL Energy Ltd and head of a business advisory council to APEC leaders.'' he said. The fourth-generation reactors are being designed to be safer. Mr Howard recently moved to calm concerns about the nuclear industry by guaranteeing local residents a veto on the location of any reactor.then you should be supportive of nuclear power. lexis.'' Under the nuclear deal. like a lot of us -. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global warming. will be urging leaders to set a transparent and consistent policy framework to combat global warming as soon as possible. clear market-based policies are required for business so business can make judgments about where to invest. he said. 'Well. ''That's urban legend.a global body working on next-generation reactor technology. . and business is going to have to change its behaviour markedly. announcing a joint nuclear energy action plan with the US. nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases. research. like I do and John does -. Under the deal.as revealed by the Herald Sun in July -. That is preposterous. which Mr Howard hopes will be the summit's major outcome. He said business must accelerate innovation.'' Mr Bush said cutting greenhouse emissions did not require slowing of development. cheaper and more efficient. They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible. ''After all. if you take the issue seriously. comes amid intensive talks on an APEC-wide agreement. PM feels heat as nuke deal struck. since he's against Kyoto he doesn't care about climate change'.'' said Mark Johnson. Australia will also join -. ''What APEC is saying to those leaders is there is a real sense of urgency in the business community for the policy makers to set clear rules. development and investment in new technologies. US President George Bush said the PM had been an international leader on climate change. Nuclear and clean coal technology will be shared directly with the US under the pact. A government-endorsed report earlier this year found Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors up and running by 2050.'' he said.'' Mr Howard said. reduce poverty. ''For all this to work. I know some say. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies. bc JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday. saying action on climate change was ''urgently needed''. The US had managed to curb its own greenhouse emissions last year while growing its economy. Mr Bush said the power source was a vital weapon in the fight against global warming.if we take the issue seriously. ''If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority. the US will back Australia's membership of a global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. The deal. which comprises as many as three business representatives from each of APEC's 21 economies.the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. ''Now.0 Nuclear Power Is Best Weapon To Solve Global Warming While Maintaining Economic Development Ben Packham. The APEC Business Advisory Council. a US-backed initiative to expand the use of safe. and improve living standards.SDI 2008 9 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.'' Backing Mr Howard's nuclear ambitions. ''Consumers are going to have to change their behaviour in response to the cost of climate change. the US agreed to support Australian membership of the Generation IV International Forum -.

SDI 2008 10 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. .0 With nuclear power we can meet the Kyoto Treaty.3758/pub_detail.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed.asp Had we continued to build nuclear power plants over the past 30 years instead of depending increasingly on fossil plants and fickle renewables. we would most likely be meeting our Kyoto Treaty limits for carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.org/publications/id.pacificresearch. http://liberty.

Lexis VF The two cleanest means of generating power are nuclear and solar. “Nuclear energy now our only option”.000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020—enough to power 28 million American households. having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. an additional 38." McCain stated. 27 headline from Reuters: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency. The first of them could be operating by 2016 and certainly by 2020. In the OECD generally. development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies. 5-4-2007. Staff writer. "Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels. 80 per cent of electricity is generated in nuclear power stations. The solution as he sees it is a fast deployment of 25 nuclear reactors by 2050. and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. which provides about 20 percent of our electricity. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates.com o. In France. Solar doesn't. which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Switkowski expects demand for electricity to more than double by 2050. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants.100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes. Increasing nuclear power necessary just to maintain current electricity generation.0 ADV Brownouts/Blackouts Expanding nuclear power is the way to increase electicity generation and cut co2 emissions. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. as solar and wind technologies remain only marginal sources of energy. which takes 50 years to decay. so that about one third of electricity generation is nuclear. “Domenici Praises Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.gov/public/index. The world's first civilian nuclear power reactor came on stream 50 years ago. If scheduled plants come on line nuclear power will substantially increase the amount of electricity generation. There are now 440 reactors generating power in 31 countries and producing 15 per cent of the worlds electricity. the United States. they will not supply enough power to keep nuclear power at the 20 percent level. Milloy 5/15/08 “McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech” Originally published in FoxNews. Although our energy needs are ever-growing. Even if a few nuke plants are constructed during the next decades.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a- 4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1. Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants. The International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook for last year observed that the world faced the twin threats of not having adequate and secure supplies of energy together with the environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it. May 17. If anything. we are likely to be even more dependent on fossil fuels in the future as nuclear power. We agreed. CM The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. They appear to be safe. with greenhouse gas emissions down by 18 per cent. http://energy. Canberra Times. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste. it is 22 per cent. construction of nuclear power plants is not keeping pace — not one has come online in the last 30 years.SDI 2008 11 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. while at the same time pollution and emission levels must be brought down on today's levels.org/articles/mccain’s-embarrassing-climate-speech McCain lauded wind as a "predictable source of energy. but nuclear produces enough. David 2007.senate. Switkowski said.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases." The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1. p. http://cei. Barnett. 17/A. Radiation risks are very low." He must have missed this Feb. . shrinks in availability as a supply of energy. If all the proposed nuclear power plants come online. What he’s talking about is not quite clear since our current economy is about 75 percent dependent on fossil fuels and will remain that way for at least the next 25 years. Britain.z. Steven J.

secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest.com VF Moreover. The Business Secretary said he had invited energy firms to build new reactors and the first could be in place 'well before' 2020. 'Set against the challenges of climate change and security of supply. the evidence in support of new nuclear power stations is compelling. Finally. said yesterday it would submit plans to build four reactors by 2017. They said plants would be built only with taxpayer subsidies. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA. maintaining the current generation capacity of the US nuclear energy industry would also imply reducing US reliance on imports of oil to meet its energy needs – future oil imports would fall by up to $41 billion per year (assuming an oil price of $50pb in constant 2005 prices) as a result of the investment program compared to a baseline in which nuclear generation capacity fell to zero. A higher oil price would clearly increase the savings: $75pb would generate savings of $62 billion per year. Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills. nuclear energy produces electricity without the attendant carbon emissions that come from burning fossil fuels.oxfordeconomics. Oxford Economics 2007. Critics said the move would see household electricity bills rise by up to £250 a year. Westinghouse. Maintaining the current nuclear generation capacity would mean reducing future US emissions by up to 390 million tonnes of CO2 per year compared to a zero-new-nuclear- generation baseline . bc A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be in place within a decade. also expressed an interest. partly because of the cost of dealing with waste. Daily Mail.” September 2007. a French nuclear power giant. However. John Hutton said nuclear power would also mean Britain would not have to rely on oil and gas supplies from unstable regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere.0 ADV Dependency Nuclear Power Will End Our Dependence On Oil From Unstable Regimes Daniel Martin and David Derbyshire. lexis. Mr Hutton said: 'Giving the go-ahead that nuclear power should play a role in providing the UK with clean. 'With a third of our generating capacity coming offline within the next 20 years and increasing reliance on imported energy it is clear we need investment in a range of new energy infrastructure. safe and secure'.SDI 2008 12 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. MPs were told that the technology was 'tried and tested. EDF. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this important part of our energy policy.' Nuclear energy would decrease the dependence on fossil fuels and help rid the environment of harmful emissions. 'I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power stations. www. a British nuclear firm. 1-11-08. the Government promised yesterday.

And courts have affirmed that we have a legal obligation to do it. 1-28-08. 9 Oct. Portions of the bill also resemble legislation Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced in 2006 (NF. though several of its sections are in line with industry priorities. "We've passed laws and resolutions to do it.0 ADV Legal obligation The USFG has a legal obligation to open a nuclear waste repository. for instance. We've collected over $27 billion ? from electricity consumers to pay for it. lexis." Inhofe drafted the bill without input from the nuclear power industry. Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project. . 9).SDI 2008 13 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. would allow DOE to begin some non-nuclear work at the site in preparation for repository construction before NRC issues a license authorizing DOE to build a disposal facility there. bc "It's high time that we accomplish this task." he said. Nuclear Fuels. '06. The Inhofe bill.

Ian Macfarlane. July 20. But this letter talks of technical and engineering cooperation relevant to the international groupings known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and the Generation IV International Forum. reduce poverty. Australia could soon be working much more closely with the United States in developing an Australian nuclear energy industry. and economic growth Ben Packham. Reporter for ABC. That is preposterous. 2007.'' Mr Howard said. Karen Barlow reports. Herald Sun. I know some say. They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible. ABC. EXCERPT FROM LETTER: "While some areas of the action plan proposal require clarification. 'Well. EXCERPT FROM LETTER: "We are writing to seek your approval for officials to begin discussions on a joint nuclear energy action plan with the United States. and improve living standards. US President George Bush said the PM had been an international leader on climate change. living standards. 2007. A leaked draft letter from the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Resources Minister to John Howard talks about cooperating with the United States. lexis. The letter. Under the deal.solving global poverty." KAREN BARLOW: Ian Macfarlane's office says Australia and the United States have had a nuclear energy cooperation agreement since 1982. appears to be from senior Australian ministers. Alexander Downer and Ian Macfarlane. seen by AM. we believe there would be an advantage in commencing discussions with US officials. Karen. ''That's urban legend.” Lexis VF TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Government is taking steps to move Australia further down the nuclear power track. Alexander Downer. indicate they're seeking action before the end of this month. PM feels heat as nuke deal struck.SDI 2008 14 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.'' Australia and the US are currently forming a nuclear energy alliance Barlow. “Govt leak confirm Australia-US nuclear plan. The proposed action plan could help open the way for valuable nuclear energy cooperation with the United States. Nuclear and clean coal technology will be shared directly with the US under the pact. The sending of spent nuclear fuel rods to the US earlier this year could be seen as an example of that agreement. the US will back Australia's membership of a global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. It proposes that the Prime Minister announce an Australian-American plan on nuclear energy during the APEC leaders summit in September. ''Now. . The US Department of Energy has suggested Australia and the United States conclude such a plan to provide an overall framework for nuclear energy cooperation. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed to tackle climate change as a priority." . 9-6-07. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global warming. and the Resources Minister. announcing a joint nuclear energy action plan with the US.'' Mr Bush said. saying action on climate change was ''urgently needed''. bc JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday. is unsigned and undated but the Foreign Affairs Minister. KAREN BARLOW: The letter. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies. since he's against Kyoto he doesn't care about climate change'.0 ADV US-Australian relations Nuclear Power Use Strengthens US-Australian Relations-. marked confidential.

" Sokolski said. "reflects a shared vision of the future in which nuclear power plays a central role. Bush-Putin statement pledges increased effort on nuclear issues. a key part of separate but similar proposals by Bush and Putin to provide enriched uranium as an incentive to countries to refrain from pursuing indigenous enrichment programs.0 ADV US-Russian Relations Nuclear energy programs provide a framework for US-Russian cooperation but those frameworks need to be implemented.SDI 2008 15 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. after their July 1-2 meeting in Maine." . Joseph said." Analysts said the Bush-Putin statement contained little policy language that went beyond previous statements on nuclear energy and nonproliferation." The statement indicates the two presidents would be willing to provide financial support to projects that private industry would not be willing to finance. particularly in developing countries. The new initiative. and not much of markets. 7-16-07. At a July 3 briefing in Washington. The statement was issued July 3 by US President George W. the declaration suggests that Bush and Putin might be willing to interfere with the nuclear fuel market." One section that drew the attention of some analysts speaks of "facilitating and supporting financing to aid construction of nuclear power plants through public and private national and multinational mechanisms. The declaration specifically pledges support for expansion of the technical cooperation programs." The declaration. the IAEA's technical cooperation programs are sufficient to provide the needed assistance. For now. he said. he said. Bush and Putin also said they want to ensure that the IAEA "has the resources it needs to meet its safeguards responsibilities as nuclear power expands worldwide. pledging to work together to promote the global expansion of nuclear energy. US and Russian efforts will include "taking steps to ensure that the commercial nuclear fuel market remains stable and that states are assured of reliable access to nuclear fuel and fuel services for the lifetime of reactors. including international financial institutions" and of "providing assistance to states to develop the necessary infrastructure to support nuclear energy. the one part of the nuclear marketplace that "looks to be commercially viable on its own terms. US Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Robert Joseph said a "model" for the initiative is the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. Nuclear Fuels. One section of the document deals with nuclear fuel assurances." In a July 9 interview. shows how the US and Russia can "work together when our interests intersect. At the same time. According to the document. said "there is an awful lot of government in this document. safety and security programs to assist states in meeting international standards. lexis. which the US and Russia launched a year ago (Nucleonics Week. It could make more sense to provide government support for non- nuclear energy options and thus avoid the risks of nuclear proliferation. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin." Sokolski said. Henry Sokolski. Daniel Horner. A US official familiar with the issue did not dispute that point and characterized the document as a "broad statement of intent. including development of appropriate regulatory frameworks. and training of personnel. he said. 9) and now has more than 50 members. the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington. bc The US and Russia this month announced "a new format for enhanced cooperation" on nuclear energy and nonproliferation." The US official described those provisions as "down-the-road stuff" that would not require US government expenditures for at least the next several years. 27 July '06. he said. It seems "weird" to "pay extra for nuclear. while controlling proliferation. he said.

Nuclear energy expansion helps the economy – jobs and exports. · In this study. The jobs it supports will also gradually disappear. a large proportion of the jobs that would be supported by the nuclear investment program are manufacturing jobs in the production of the capital goods necessary to support the nuclear energy industry.SDI 2008 16 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.” September 2007. this opportunity will be lost. www. in each of the three phases of the project? o Induced employment and value added – how much do the direct and indirect employees of the nuclear energy industry spend in the US economy.com VF · An investment program to maintain the US nuclear energy industry’s current generation capacity into the long term would secure these vital manufacturing jobs. and would position the US economy to regain the lead in nuclear reactor technology globally. Without investment in the nuclear industry.oxfordeconomics. manufacturing and operation of the new nuclear energy industry as a result of the reinvestment program. the US nuclear energy industry could support a large number of new jobs and value added . and how much value added to they create? o Indirect employment and value added – how many jobs and how much value added are supported down the supply chain to the nuclear energy industry. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.com VF With a substantial program of new investment.· .” September 2007. Without this investment. for instance with coal power.oxfordeconomics.a peak of up to 400. · Crucially. This program would involve two overlapping phases of work: o The investment phase – the construction and manufacture of a new fleet of nuclear reactors and nuclear recycling plants o The operation phase .when the reactors and the recycling plants start generating electricity · The economic benefits of the investment program have three components: o Direct employment and value added – how many people are employed in the construction. and claim the lead in recycling technology. www. Alternative ways of meeting US electricity generation needs would be unlikely to create so many high-value-added manufacturing jobs.0 ADV Competitiveness Nuclear energy provides more jobs and secures an increase in industry Oxford Economics 2007. indirect and induced jobs and value added. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA. we assess the economic benefits of a reinvestment program for the nuclear energy industry. Of course. these benefits would be lost. These are high-tech. so generation capacity would have to be created or expanded in other ways. and the capacity of the industry could dwindle to zero by the 2050s. high-value-added jobs that reflect high spending on R&D and fixed investment: jobs that the US economy can ill afford to lose. as above. however. and that would imply an associated quantity of direct. and how many jobs and how much value added is supported by that spending? The three kinds of economic benefit (peak effects) in each of the phases are set out in the charts below. demand for electricity would be unlikely to change. both of which potentially represent major sources of export earnings into the long term. Oxford Economics 2007.000 jobs and $30 billion of value added.

S. U. and service new nuclear plants in the U. At that time. The United States greatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the early 1990s. USFG program formed in 2005 http://www. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close attention to the ability of the U. and o greater leverage for the U. our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-dollar opportunities.SDI 2008 17 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. . 2008 Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come. Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of the growing global nuclear energy market. it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. manufacturing. operate. service and supply industry that will result in: o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. and maintenance workers who will be needed to build.” The Unites States invented nuclear energy.S. industry. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy leadership. industry be able to compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant. in dealing with global proliferation concerns.S. preferred supplier position. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. This is important. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual. manufacturing. Therefore.S. o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns.nuclearcompetitiveness. the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear design. but it’s not the whole story.S. Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental benefits offered by nuclear energy. What has been missing from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can accrue if the U. service and supply improves.S. No Date cited. economy – it could create a million jobs. firms dominated the global market. manufacturing. financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored. The renewed interest in the global use of nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political.0 Reviving the nuclear industry key to the U.org/ VF accessed July 10. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design. In the ever-expanding global markets. as well as the trained construction. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers and operators.

. there are quiet informal discussions under way at DOE.000 mt cap on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository. the DOE repository was to have begun disposal operations by January 30.000 mt a year. Elaine Hiruo. Unless Congress lifts the current 70. bc The Yucca Mountain Project is bogged down in uncertainty roughly 21 years after former President Ronald Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Meanwhile. Options aren't limited to shifting the program to a government corporation. wasn't delayed by lawsuits. the existing US fleet of power reactors will have generated enough spent fuel by 2010 to fill the facility.SDI 2008 18 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. 1998. Sproat also told industry officials that the department won't meet its previous goal of having a repository ready to operate in 2017. the country's inventory of utility spent fuel tops 56. which the department has described as the "best achievable" date for repository operations. and many believe that efforts to site and build a second facility won't be easier. . and was licensed by NRC in three years. into law and nearly a decade after the department was supposed to begin disposing of utility spent fuel. But he reiterated he is "cautiously optimistic" an application can be sent to NRC sometime this calendar year (NW. Nucleonics Week. according to industry estimates. according to Sproat. he said. which Sproat described as hallway talk. DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change. 17 Jan. Meanwhile. lexis. which established the DOE repository program. could be met only if the program received adequate funding. Under standard contracts DOE signed with nuclear utilities in 1983. about what kind of changes should be made to the program to help ensure its success.000 mt limit would have to be disposed of in a second repository. DOE and industry officials have maintained that technically the Yucca Mountain site could accommodate at least twice the amount of spent fuel permitted under the existing cap. That date.0 Inherency Yucca Mountain Too Expensive With 21% Budget Shortfall—opening in 2017 will be delayed. Any spent fuel generated over the 70. which many program observers called overly optimistic. Instead.000 metric tons and grows at a rate of roughly 2. Sproat said. 3). DOE's ability to submit a repository license application by the department's self-imposed June deadline will remain up in the air until senior managers report in six to eight weeks on the impact of its fiscal 2008 budget cut. the department is wrestling with a 21% budget shortfall that threatens to delay the program further. 1-24-08.

Arizona. but under most circumstances only a small mass of radioactive fuel fragments would be scattered about a limited area. von Hippel.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel- recycling&page=5. prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.sciam." he said. a nuclear physicist. But it makes no sense now to rush into an expensive and potentially catastrophic undertaking on the basis of uncertain hopes that it might reduce the long-term environmental burden from the nuclear power industry.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel- recycling&page=5. co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials. Under its so-called "waste confidence" rule. the agency said it is confident a repository will be available to begin accepting shipments by 2025. bc Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein on Monday said his agency remains confident that at-reactor storage of spent nuclear fuel will pose no safety risk. its fuel would overheat and begin releasing huge quantities of vaporized fission products within minutes. that option would still be available. VP In the meantime. a nuclear physicist.com/article. And even after it is placed in a geologic repository. April/May 2008. So in the unlikely event that technology or economic circumstances change drastically enough that the benefits of reprocessing exceed the costs and risks.SDI 2008 19 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor sites in dry casks. professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. Dry casks are a safe storage option. Inside Energy With Federal Lands. 3-3-08. http://www.com/article. von Hippel. "Clearly. “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”. NRC still sure of waste rule: Klein. professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. an antitank weapon or the engine of a crashing aircraft. it would remain retrievable for at least a century. The 10 kilowatts of radioactive heat generated by the 10 tons of 20-year-old fuel packed in a dry storage cask is carried off convectively as it warms the air around it. lexis. say. And if the water were lost in a storage pool containing spent fuel.sciam. . prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. just a minor delay isn't significant. “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”. Seen in this light. VP Would such storage be dangerous? I would argue that keeping older fuel produced by the once-through system in dry storage casks represents a negligible addition to the existing nuclear hazard to the surrounding population. NRC has stated it believes spent fuel can be safely stored until permanent storage is available.dry storage casks best – prevent terrorism Frank N. the zirconium cladding of the fuel rods would be heated up to ignition temperature within hours. April/May 2008.Klein said later that a "significant or unusual change" in the Energy Department's repository program would need to occur to trigger a new rulemaking. In contrast. if the coolant in the nearby reactor were cut off. http://www. Terrorists intent on doing harm might attempt to puncture such a cask using. In remarks to a nuclear waste conference in Phoenix. In the rule. Klein said spent fuel stored in dry casks at many nuclear power plant sites is safe for at least 100 years and deep- geological disposal of that fuel is technically feasible. Frank N. dry storage casks look pretty benign. despite new delays in the schedule for opening a geological repository. Light.0 CA Dry Cask storage is safe Dry cask storage is safe. co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials.

11-28-2007.senate.” Domenici said.” he continued. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. “It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. .gov/public/index. As we work on policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.0 CA Companies want to build nuclear power plants There are companies interested in building nuclear power plants.SDI 2008 20 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases. we must continue to support nuclear energy just as other nations have done. with even more possible in the near future. This is an exciting time for nuclear. Nuclear power is clean. and efficient. safe. After 30 years with no action.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629- 4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa. http://energy. CM “It is clear that momentum for nuclear energy in America is continuing to grow. we have now seen three applications to build new plants in the last three months. and for those that want cleaner energy in our nation. “Domenici Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”.

A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington. Nuclear energy production is depicted by the infamous. terrorism and national security. Unlike the '90s when energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life. more and more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. in fact. nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe. Today. The Boston Globe. it certainly hasn't for the nuclear industry which is experiencing a reported "renaissance" in this country. Some speculate that the show's writers often hint that this uncontained. efficient. the more supportive they are of it. carelessly handled by-product of the nuclear facility is to blame for Springfield's idiosyncrasies. economical source of energy. with a convenience store. America. However. And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change. nuclear must have its place in the national dialogue about the animated family's movie premiere. and safe source of energy that is also kind to the environment.SDI 2008 21 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. a pub. the evolution of the nuclear industry in the public eye is a marked departure from the Simpsons' debut. as nuclear technology advances. . After a quick lesson about energy issues and nuclear's capabilities.expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States. There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity. including Marge's blue hair and the fact that Springfield's inhabitants never age. coming in behind only Iraq. Finally. It was Anywhere. belong in Anywhere. 8-2-07. we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity . It's clear that nuclear does. As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy. and a nuclear plant that would become a setting for regular and profound social commentary on American industrialism. Brown. People like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barack Obama are beginning to understand that nuclear energy needs to be part of the energy mix if we are going to meet our future energy demands safely and cleanly. the nuclear industry isn't frozen in time like it is in Springfield and the show provides a great benchmark to measure how much improvement in plant performance and in public perception of nuclear has occurred over nearly two decades. Gilbert J. Matt Groening created the perfect hometown for his satirical family . "The Simpsons" is almost 20 years old. over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again. Thankfully. environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. lexis. And. Although time may stand still in Springfield. a prison. America. 73 percent of respondents said that they felt favorably or somewhat favorably about the use of nuclear. Similarly. Energy and the Simpsons. Just as it had its place in the premise of "The Simpson's" television show. professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell. bc When "The Simpsons" first aired in 1989. A survey conducted by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition last year found that the more people learn about nuclear. Even some policy makers who have been lukewarm to nuclear seem to be coming around to its merits. and the economy.0 AT CA Public opposes nuclear power Public perception against nuclear power has changed. Nuclear perceptions are finally catching up with nuclear reality as Americans accept nuclear power as a reliable. Bisconti Research found that 86 percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important part of meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent agree that utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the next decade. gushing green ooze.Springfield.

8 per cent and produced a massive 807 billion kilowatt hours of energy at a record low cost of 1. Canberra Times.15/A. Trade and Industry has prioritised advanced nuclear power for this project. 2008. p. Some 10 years after Kyoto. The Ministry of Economy.0 AT CA Nuclear power is to expensive Nuclear power costs going down. Lexis V. July 4. Kemeny. America's 104 nuclear power stations established a high average capacity factor of 91. . the Japanese Ministry of Economy. In that year. 2008. Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy.SDI 2008 22 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Trade and Industry has published its Cool Earth 50 program. It is a detailed road map of energy related technologies that will halve the level of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.F As well it cites the remarkable performance of nuclear power in the United States in 2007. Leslie.68c per kilowatt hour.

being remote from the producer and targeted at objectives other than promoting sustainable farming practices.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x2247e/x2247e00. 2. local people. Many macroeconomic policies. we can think of incentives as signals in the producer’s environment which influence decision-making about farming practices. Knowler. In contrast. “Incentive Systems for Natural Resource Management: The Role of Indirect Incentives”. http://energy.0 AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive 1. would fit into this category. Nuclear power is clean.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.UN Food and Agricultural Organization (D. the notion of ‘active’ refers to a government’s ability to actually design or modify policies with a desire to bring about certain conservation outcomes. In contrast to incentives. counter definition – incentives must be positive. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.9 McNeely (1988) also makes the useful distinction between incentives. we will not consider disincentives as distinct from incentives per se. “Domenici Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”. What is important about such a broad definition is that it allows for incentives to be of either a passive or an active nature. whether intended or otherwise. 3. As we work on policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. superior interpretation – our interpretation substantially narrows the topic since it excludes regulation affs and prevents a bidirectional topic. While governments may be most concerned with the design of good policies aimed at improving NRM. 4. and international organizations” (p. perverse incentives incite resource users to damage or deplete the resources in question in a socially inefficient manner and are closely related to the concept of policy failure. In contrast. McNeely (1988). for example.38-39). refers to this concept of incentive when he defines incentives as “any inducement which is specifically intended to incite or motivate governments. they need to be cognizant of the sometimes counterproductive influence exerted by a poor incentive structure. in the passive sense. We draw this distinction because of the need to consider both active and passive aspects when assessing the importance of incentives for NRM. For purposes of this study. we must continue to support nuclear energy just as other nations have done. ftp://ftp. 1.senate. which is discussed in Chapter 2. disincentives are purposely designed to discourage particular behaviours and can include taxes.. and efficient. 11-28-2007. fines and various other penalties or moral suasion.gov/public/index. CM “It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. 99 . It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing nuclear power can do that. as in “everything that motivates or stimulates people to act” (Giger 1996). but it is useful to be aware of the distinction.SDI 2008 23 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.8 Incentives may be broadly defined. disincentives and perverse incentives. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to debate it.” he continued. . which we have described above. In the former case. safe. we meet the counter interpretation – industry wants waste storage before doing nuclear power.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629- 4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa.pdf) 1.

" Speaking on the Senate floor. Five other Republican senators co-sponsored the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2008 that Inhofe introduced January 24. who has supported nuclear power as a vital component of the country's energy mix.0 AT T – waste storage isn’t an incentive ext. Bush recommended that Yucca Mountain be developed as a high-level waste repository and Congress adopted that recommendation. bc Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma last week introduced nuclear waste legislation aimed at fast- tracking DOE's beleaguered repository program at Yucca Mountain.SDI 2008 24 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Waste storage key to NP Opening Yucca is an incentive to increasing nuclear power. Inhofe. 1-28-08. lexis. Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project. Nuclear Fuels. Inhofe noted that the location of the country's sole repository site was decided in 2002 when President George W. Nevada and at making DOE's obligation to dispose of utility spent fuel the basis for an NRC declaration of waste confidence. last week expressed concern that continuing delays in opening a repository at Yucca Mountain would "hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the US. .

viable alternative energy source such as nuclear would be a badly needed shot in the arm for America's energy game plan. lexis. . it is the only real large-scale alternative to fossil-fuel generated energy. Part of that means throwing away some of our preconceptions of the past. Nuclear power is the only true alternative energy Only true alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. But the current energy portfolio needs to change. bc It's back! After some 30 years. and we hope they are up to the challenge. But to what extent its pros outweigh its cons. at this point in time. A solid. if at all. Probably the biggest thing nuclear power has going for it right now is that. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since then.0 AT T ext. NRG Energy is seeking to build two new facilities in Texas. continues to be heatedly debated. Revisiting the nuke debate.SDI 2008 25 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. and quickly. as imperfect as they all are. This is a crucial crossroad for the nuclear power industry. What may be different now is that the nation is willing to take a more serious look at alternative forms of energy. 10-1-07. Waste News. applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the United States.

" The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources. A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington. including wind turbines and solar panels. 6-20-08. Russia and India are all planning to build more than a hundred new power plants among them in the coming decades. Political Editor. nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe. Unlike the '90s when energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life. Nuclear power gets go ahead.most environmentalists are skeptical of the most recent claims by advocates of nuclear energy.'' he said. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". and the economy. "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe. As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy. professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell.'' said Daniel Weiss. a liberal research group. using Nuclear Energy Now Gilbert J. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century.it is clean and far safer than at the time of the nuclear accident in 1979 at Three Mile Island. environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well. lexis.but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. The Express. we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity . Tory frontbencher Alan Duncan welcomed the commitment to nuclear power. economical source of energy. McCain sets target of 45 new nuclear reactors. Foreign energy firms including the French-owned EDF. then I assure you that the United States is more than equal to the challenge. Nuclear Impacts Inevitable—UK. German power company E.0 AT DA Generic – nuclear power expanding now Nuclear power is increasing worldwide – that’s the first card in our 1AC that says nuclear power is flourishing in Europe and Asia. government lavishly subsidizes it.'' McCain said in this pocket of Missouri that is reliably Republican.S. " Mr Brown said.expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Non-unique —197 Reactors In Europe In Squo With China. coming in behind only Iraq. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers . Nytimes media group. 8-2-07.'' U. and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. . and France Using Nuclear in Squo Macer Hall. And if all of these nations can find a way to carry out great goals in energy policy. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. EDF is hoping to build four nuclear power stations in the UK. with EDF ready to open a new generator by 2017. Although there has been a shift of opinion in the industry and among some environmentalists toward more nuclear power . Finally.On and British Gas parent Centrica have all showed their eagerness to take part. And India Building more. ''So Senator McCain wants to shower the nuclear industry with billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. They also say that no utility will put its own financing into building a plant unless the U. And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change. bc ''China. Energy and the Simpsons.S. Germany. 1-11-08. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a low-carbon form of energy. Russia. ''Across Europe. bc MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. there are 197 reactors in operation. energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable. ''Wall Street won't invest in these plants because they are too expensive and unreliable. International Herald Tribune. Brown. Industry insiders predict new atomic power stations could be under construction over the next decade. who heads the global warming program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. terrorism and national security. Elisabeth Bumiller. lexis. lexis. in Pennsylvania .SDI 2008 26 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. secure energy. cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. bc There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The Boston Globe.

We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly known elsewhere by green activism. May 17. Radiation risks are very low. an integral part of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) being attended by more than 500 participants. Britain. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. “Nuclear energy now our only option”. by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political implications. Nuclear energy inevitable. 2-11-08. Canberra Times. Spending for DOE nuclear programs up 40% in fiscal 2009 budget request. Staff writer. Switkowski said. and in education and training across a range of fields. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. 18 September: Making a strong pitch for international nuclear energy cooperation with India. bc Vienna. It is time to put it behind us. Australia can only benefit from the great impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. An India-specific safeguards agreement and changes in guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group are required to put the deal into force. "There is a need for reformation of global thinking that is necessary and consensus on closed fuel cycle has to be reached by those going to participate in the future nuclear renaissance. Kakodkar's carefully-worded comments come amidst a raging political debate on the India-US nuclear deal in India with Left parties and the opposition closely watching his approach at the IAEA. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste. Dipka Bhambhani. Lexis VF They appear to be safe. David 2007. p. lexis.SDI 2008 27 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. The Left parties have warned the UPA government of a "political crisis" if it went ahead with operationalising the deal. which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. We agreed. He was speaking at the scientific forum.0 Nuclear Energy is inevitable worldwide. rather than on their merits. Australia would need to invest in research and development. "The world has to move forward with nuclear power as an inevitable option based purely on partnership on objective. reliable and predictable basis with holistic mutual understanding and trust as a pre-requisite. 17/A. having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. Concerted effort around the world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during the past four years." Kakodkar said. Atomic Energy Commission [AEC] chairman Anil Kakodkar made it clear on Tuesday [18 September] that nuclear power was an "inevitable option" and pressed for "reformation" of global thinking on it. . Inside energy with federal lands. which takes 50 years to decay. strong nations already pursuing it Barnett. Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants." he said. Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. the United States.

000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020—enough to power 28 million American households. production tax credits. http://energy.senate. The Energy Policy Act provided loan guarantee authority. safe. it is beginning to flourish here as well and we now have more than 30 nuclear power plants on the drawing board in the United States.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases. and insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation for nuclear power projects. CM “Nuclear power is clean. Most importantly. and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. Many countries around the world have already realized this.0 AT DA Generic – Lots of incentives to do nuclear power now The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a number of incentives to increase nuclear power resulting in 30 nuclear power plants being on the drawing board.” Domenici said. an additional 38.SDI 2008 28 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a- 4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1. which is why nuclear power is flourishing in Europe and Asia. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. and efficient. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. “Domenici Praises Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”. The good news is that thanks to the Energy Policy Act we passed in 2005. If all the proposed nuclear power plants come online. . NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants. 5-4-2007.gov/public/index. its available right now.

Frank N. ignore it. It also calls for phased licensing of the repository. the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 requires the secretary of energy to report to Congress by 2010 on the need for a second storage facility. a nuclear physicist. Sproat said the next administration would have three options. Yucca Mountain Is Safe—EPA and State Of Nevada Agrees Nuclear Fuels. If NRC authorizes DOE to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain. However.com/article. with the first phase being a 300-year operations phase. In addition. 90 days later the department would have to file a license amendment request with NRC seeking authorization to receive and possess spent fuel and HLW at the site. bc In addition. the bill would eliminate the existing 70. Such a move should not be difficult. Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project. a new administration would have to convince Congress to change the federal law governing it. “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”. a repository at Yucca Mountain. VP Part of the problem is the view in Nevada that the Reagan administration and Congress acted unfairly in 1987 when they cut short an objective evaluation of other candidate sites and designated Yucca Mountain as the location for the future nuclear waste repository. lexis. prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The bill also names the US Environmental Protection Agency the permitting agency for air permits needed for work at Yucca Mountain. Given the disastrous record of the DOE in dealing with radioactive waste. Indeed. During that period. the next administration also could withdraw a repository license DOE submitted to NRC. Sproat said. DOE waste program director Edward Sproat said January 22. the bill says. DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change.000 metric ton limit on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository. Still. . cannot unilaterally kill the DOE repository project in Nevada. which has spent decades fighting the planned repository. Elaine Hiruo.SDI 2008 29 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Nucleonics Week. bc The next administration. if licensed by NRC. 1-28-08. Instead. The state of Nevada. it may be necessary to reopen deliberations for choosing an additional site. or change it. professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. especially if NRC had already deemed the application acceptable for review. http://www. Sproat later told reporters. April/May 2008. however. DOE is to site and build. DC. To overcome this perception. he added that the administration would have to show some basis for taking such action. The next administration. 1-24-08. Yucca Mountain Inevitable—No matter who wins the election. Responding to an audience question following his address at the Nuclear Energy Institute fuel supply forum in Washington. whether Democratic or Republican. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. he said.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel- recycling&page=5. co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials.0 AT DA Yucca mountain is unsafe No link – the plan creates the opportunity to reopen discussions about where waste should be stored. DOE's obligation to dispose of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste would be declared sufficient to support an NRC finding that spent fuel generated by new reactors will be disposed of in a safe and timely manner. waste would be retrievable and the facility would be "actively monitored. can comply with the law. now is the permitting entity.sciam. von Hippel." It added that new information on the site and technological innovations could be incorporated into the license through a license amendment process every 50 years. consideration should also be given to establishing a more specialized and less politicized agency for this purpose. lexis.

A spokesman for the Ukraine government’s Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine told The Guardian. Exposure to high-levels of radiation does increase cancer risk. As of mid-2005.” Putting aside the anti-nuclear movement’s track record of making wild claims and predictions in order advance its political agenda.z.000 survivors of the atomic bomb blasts that ended World War II.” produced by an international team of 100 scientists working under the auspices of the United Nations. John Gofman made the most dire forecast. built and operated in countries like the U. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island – the U.000 cancers in 5 to 50 years and cause almost 1 million people either to be rendered sterile or mentally retarded. but only slightly. the anti-nuclear mob hasn’t given up on Chernobyl scaremongering. I put more credence in the UN’s estimates because it squares with what we know about real-life exposures to high levels of radiation. But no one was harmed by the incident at Three Mile Island.S. mainly in children. half of them fatal. president emeritus of the anti-nuclear Physicians for Social Responsibility..000 cases of thyroid cancer. fewer than 50 deaths were attributed to radiation from the accident – that’s according to a report. “only” about 500 or so “extra” cancers have occurred since 1950. Soviet secrecy prevented the world from learning about the accident for days. Ukraine's government appears to be on board with the casualty inflation game.S. however.000 to 4.0 AT DA Nuclear plant meltdowns The health risks of nuclear reactor accidents are highly exaggerated claims made by fearmongers Steven J.000 people in Sweden would develop cancer over a 30-year period from the radioactive fallout. He predicted at an American Chemical Society meeting that the Chernobyl accident would cause 1 million cancers worldwide. France and Japan. according to the report..000 people to get cancer over a 20-year period within a 625-mile radius of the plant. Three days after the accident Greenpeace “scientists” predicted the accident would cause 10. Despite the UN report. University of California- Berkeley medical physicist and nuclear power critic Dr. The Guardian article quoted the deputy head of the Ukraine National Commission for Radiation Protection as touting the 500. But the reality of the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident seems to be quite different than predicted by the anti-nuke crowd. perhaps looking for more international aid for the economically-struggling former Soviet republic.05270.K. Helen Caldicott. At the same time.000-deaths figure. . nuclear plant that accidentally released a small amount radiation in 1979 – are examples of how the anti-nuclear lobby takes every available opportunity to scare the public about nuclear power. http://cei.org/gencon/019. 1986. There is no doubt that Chernobyl was a disaster. Milloy 4/13/06 “Twenty Years After Chernobyl” o. entitled “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts. or to develop radiation sickness. there have been about 4. Although the Number Four nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded just before dawn on April 26. but it was not one of mythical proportions. So far. Among the more than 86.cfm April 26 marks the 20th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. “We’re overwhelmed by thyroid cancers. Greenpeace also estimated that 2. the anti-nuclear scare machine swung into action.SDI 2008 30 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Anti-nuclear activists are still trying to turn Chernobyl into a bigger disaster than it really was. Once details began to emerge. U. According to a March 25 report in The Guardian (UK). all of those with thyroid cancer have recovered.000 people may have already died as a result of the accident. Greenpeace and others are set to issue a report around the 20th anniversary of the accident claiming that at least 500. Almost all of those 50 deaths were rescue workers who were highly exposed to radiation and died within months of the accident. Neither reflect poorly on the track record of safety demonstrated by nuclear power plants designed. predicted the accident would cause almost 300. for example. menstrual problems and other health problems. leukemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the [UN] data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago. But except for nine deaths. The Chernobyl accident can be chalked up to deficiencies in its Soviet- era design and operation.

It is time to put it behind us. Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. May 17. Radiation risks are very low. Switkowski said. which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. . 17/A. We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly known elsewhere by green activism. David 2007. Concerted effort around the world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during the past four years.0 Nuclear power plants are safe and productive Barnett. We agreed.SDI 2008 31 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. the United States. which takes 50 years to decay. Britain. and in education and training across a range of fields. having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants. Australia would need to invest in research and development. Staff writer. Canberra Times. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. p. Australia can only benefit from the great impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. rather than on their merits. “Nuclear energy now our only option”. by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political implications. Lexis VF They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste.

they recycle the fuel for even more energy. That mountain of radioactive waste will accumulate even if no additional nuclear capacity is installed in Northeast Asia. but the current energy options allowed in California are far more expensive than either coal or nuclear. lexis.org/publications/id. Nuclear power can be slightly more expensive than coal-fired power. is a national leader in recycling. New Zealand and who has been studying the back-end problem for several years. and coal has become subject of an effective ban in California as well.610 tons. The Boston Globe. Using technology we developed. we could follow the French.SDI 2008 32 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Brad Glosserman is Director of Research at Pacific Forum CSIS. Non-unique .asp Rather than dispose of spent fuel.) 3/26/2008.0 AT DA Nuclear waste is dangerous Nucler Waste is No Issue—Over 90% Can Be Recycled Gilbert J. Nuclear waste can be recycled for more energy Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC.pacificresearch. it is the product of plants already under construction or which were well in to the planning stage." . And. as nuclear technology advances.Lots of nuclear waste now. and a Contributing Editor to The Japan Times. bc As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0125. there is the fact that that waste will contain 450 tons of plutonium. http://www. however. http://liberty. Today. more and more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. "the Achilles heel of the nuclear question.pdf A half century of nuclear development has left a considerable legacy.095 tons by 2010. California. June 15.3758/pub_detail. a Honolulu-based think tank. director of defense and strategic studies at the University of Waikato. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. It is estimated that world accumulation of spent fuel will reach 341. Dealing with that waste is. Pac Net. 2001. we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity . Energy and the Simpsons. after all. Were that not sobering enough.expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Solving Asia's Nuclear-Waste Dilemma. 8-2-07. professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell. Brown. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. argues Ron Smith. Asia's share is 50. AP. That is enough material to cover a road 10 meters wide and 300 km long to a depth of one meter. over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again.csis.

prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. So this strategy is not without precedent. Frank N.sciam. Eventually.com/article. there is plenty of space for more casks at U. prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.K. separating the different elements so that some can be reused. and Japan began to operate its own $20-billion facility in 2006.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel- recycling&page=5. a nuclear physicist. Frank N. Turn Dry casks can easily be stored removing the need to reprocess. http://www. of course. but there is no need to panic and adopt a policy of reprocessing. So there is no reason to think that these storage areas are about to disappear. reprocessing is an expensive and dangerous road to take. moving toward reprocessing now.0 AT DA Reprocessing Non-unique . reactors are having their licenses extended for another 20 years. . nuclear power plants. which would only make the situation much more dangerous and costly than it is today. a nuclear physicist. But. for more than a decade.com/article. von Hippel. it will be necessary to remove the spent fuel and put it elsewhere. “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”. professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. von Hippel. and new reactors will likely be built on the same sites.S. as I discuss below. “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”. co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials. Vast reprocessing plants have been running in France and the U.sciam. the DOE has returned to an idea that it abandoned in the 1970s—to “reprocess” the spent fuel chemically. Even the oldest operating U.S. VP Is there enough physical room to keep them? Yes. April/May 2008. April/May 2008.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel- recycling&page=5.U. professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security.SDI 2008 33 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. http://www. VP Under pressure to start moving the fuel off the sites. co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials.S.

for example.400-worker estimate previously cited by the Nuclear Energy Institute. released Tuesday by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.000 new jobs could be added to the market if the 30-plus reactors are built. one of the group's two co-chairs. the report said. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA. the average salaries for plant workers are often "substantially more" than the pay for other jobs in the community near the plant. Turn . High salaries seen Overall.400 jobs would be needed to build one or two nuclear generating units.SDI 2008 34 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. an industry trade group. these induced effects are particularly pronounced for the manufacturing phase. that 36% of plant operators are 48 years old or older. and that standard reactor operators earn about $77." said Whitman. Moreover. thanks to the relatively high wages (and therefore high spending of employees) in that sector. Specifically. or CASEnergy. said the report shows that expanding nuclear energy would be a boon for the US economy. the report said that the median salary for a senior reactor operator is $85. The figure for the peak construction period is much higher than the 2. is comprised of various companies. Another concern for the nuclear industry is replacing retiring workers.581.782. The report. business and labor groups. Nuclear Construction could create thousands of jobs. general maintenance and janitorial services. providing an opportunity for hiring about 19. The jobs range from engineers to radiation protection specialists to maintenance and skilled craft workers and plant operators. Christine Todd Whitman.800 jobs. the report said. lexis. the report said. which was established in 2006.426.517. Oxford Economics 2007. on average. Booming The Economy Jenny Weil.0 AT DA Economy Nuclear Power Creates Huge Job Pool. group says.400 to 1. . bc A nuclear revival in the US could create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs if the 30 reactors that are currently on the drawing boards are actually built.Plan spurs consumer spending. according to a report released last week by a nuclear energy advocacy group. 6-23-08. CASEnergy noted. said that each of the 30 reactor projects might create jobs for as many as 4. NEI has said that building a plant would create about an average of 1.oxfordeconomics. "A renewed focus on nuclear energy will translate into tens of thousands of high-paying American jobs needed to build and operate new reactors. Support staff would be needed in areas such as recordkeeping. The report estimated that about 35% of the current workforce will be eligible to retire within five years.com VF Finally.” September 2007. each new reactor might generate between 400 and 700 permanent positions. An additional 12% might leave for other reasons. Once again. CASEnergy. and mechanical technicians are paid about $66. and elected officials who support nuclear power. But neither CASEnergy nor NEI specified whether the 4.000 or 2. a Republican who formerly served as the governor of New Jersey and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.000 highly skilled construction workers. the group said. Additionally. www. and 21% could be promoted to other jobs. and 27% will be eligible to retire in the next five years. Funding for much of the coalition's early activities was provided by NEI. Electrical technicians can earn about $67. CASEnergy estimated that as many as 21.600 workers. there are further significant benefits for the economy arising from the induced effects of spending of those directly or indirectly employed as a result of the nuclear energy investment program. Inside Energy with Federal Lands. the report said.

sciam. because they would not have incurred such expenses had the U. U. But that is not all the industry is doing. the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year. von Hippel. prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Frank N. a nuclear physicist. VP Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks. co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials. Every year a 1.com/article. each costing about $1 million. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally planned.SDI 2008 35 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”. nuclear utilities are suing the federal government.S. As a result. . each typically containing 10 tons of waste.0 AT DA Spending Failure to create a federal repository means the government has to pay $300 million per year for dry casks.S.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel- recycling&page=5. April/May 2008. professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security.000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to fill two of these casks. http://www.

thereby providing the perfect political cover for advancing her nuclear power agenda without having to fight the miners or Arab oil states. She empowered the U.S.z. Meteorological Office to begin global climate change research. So Thatcher latched onto her science adviser’s notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide warmed the planet in a harmful way. Guess whose economy takes the hit.S. The Europeans now see global warming as a means of hampering U.SDI 2008 36 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. or oil.org/gencon/019.S. electricity is produced by burning coal. her mandate was to reduce Britain’s economic decline.K. The same cannot be said for Europe. the United Nations’ group that has come to be the “official” international agency for global warming alarmism. Milloy 6/18/07 “Hold the Line on Global Warming” Originally found on Junkscience.0 AT DA Politics – Nuclear power is unpopular Global warming provides political cover for increasing nuclear power. it becomes more expensive to use coal. economic competitiveness through increased energy prices. in contrast. France. In a global warming-worried world. The Europeans also know that environmentalists and trial lawyers will ensure that greenhouse gas emissions regulations are strictly enforced in the U. a move that eventually led to the 1988 creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). for example. gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. which politically empowered the coal miner unions. Steven J.05984. About 52 percent of U.com o. England proves. which empowered Middle Eastern states. .cfm When Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister in 1979. Thatcher wanted to make the UK energy-independent through nuclear power – she didn’t like her country’s reliance on coal. http://cei.

Pennsylvania. An Obama campaign spokesman labeled the ad an "attack" and said the energy crisis can be solved only through honest debate. its first that targets Mr. keep the cost of energy affordable and secure our energy independence once and for all.or Barack's plan to provide meaningful short-term relief for our families and to make a historic investment in alternative energy development that will create millions of new jobs. Michigan and Wisconsin. No to more production." spokesman Hari Sevugan said.0 AT DA Politics – Obama will do the plan (DA turns the case) Obama Against Going Nuclear Christina Bellantoni. No to nuclear. lexis. Obama of saying "no to nuclear. . Iowa. 7-7-08. The RNC cites a December campaign stop in Newton. "Barack: just the party line.which even he admits won't lower prices this summer . The RNC plans to spend about $3 million onthe ad. Economy takes focus. McCain's proposal for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. Obama told voters." A recent McCain Web ad used a longer version of the same remark while arguing that Mr. Obama says "no" to "clean. Mr." Mr Brown will arrive in New Delhi on Sunday [20 January] for a two-day visit to India . bc But Barack Obama? For conservation. the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The Republican ad accuses Mr." a narrator says. Obama has panned Mr. but he just says no to lower gas taxes. will also engage his attention here. No new solutions.his first as the prime minister of Britain. safe nuclear energy. The Washington Times." though the senator from Illinois has been criticized by environmentalists for his qualified past support for nuclear power. Both parties have identified these states as critical battlegrounds for the Nov. Strengthening education and trade links. 4 general election." The spot will run in Ohio. "I am not a nuclear energy proponent. and both candidates have made multiple visits. "There's a real choice in this election between John McCain 's promise to continue the Bush approach of trying to drill our way out of our energy crisis . Obama. and learning from India's experience of promoting cohesion in a multicultural and multi-religious society. where Mr. GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states.SDI 2008 37 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.

0 AT CP States Failure to create a federal repository means the federal government has to pay $300 million per year for dry casks – the states counterplan doesn’t solve this because it’s a legal obligation the federal government has to energy companies. because they would not have incurred such expenses had the U. April/May 2008. a nuclear physicist. “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”.S. professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. von Hippel.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel- recycling&page=5. co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials. Frank N. prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. . But that is not all the industry is doing. the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year. Every year a 1.com/article. As a result. VP Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks. http://www.S. U.sciam. nuclear utilities are suing the federal government.000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to fill two of these casks.SDI 2008 38 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally planned. each costing about $1 million. each typically containing 10 tons of waste.

" He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC. Nuclear Energy is a consistent source of energy and more cost effective than solar. secure energy. Nuclear power.0 AT CP Solar Solar power can’t provde enough energy.org/publications/id. nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies. bc MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers . Macer Hall. Nuclear Renaissance? AP. including wind turbines and solar panels. on the other hand.but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. The Express. http://liberty. as costs are fixed year to year. Sacramento Union Op-Ed.pacificresearch.) 3/26/2008. " Mr Brown said. with potential continued price increases and volatility.3758/pub_detail.asp With the cost of money now at historic lows.SDI 2008 39 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Political Editor. . Natural gas is also expensive. cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. 1-11-08. and is available rain or shine. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a low- carbon form of energy. Nuclear power gets go ahead. lexis. comfort and health all demand power. "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources. has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning.

600 times the land usage for wind generated power! For the same or less taxpayer money. on the other hand. Last night Gordon Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". Nuclear power. Patricia A. "I said that this would be the year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that we have safe.3758/pub_detail. as costs are fixed year to year. AP http://liberty. and is available rain or shine. like a mortgage with a fixed rate." He claimed the controversial power was "safe and affordable. cannot guarantee the nation's energy supply. " Mr Brown said. including wind turbines and solar panels. Nuclear Power requires fewer acres to generate power than wind farms Dr. secure energy. bc MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century.SDI 2008 40 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. Nuclear power gets go ahead. Nuclear power is more cost effective and isn’t subject to fuel volatility. Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a low- carbon form of energy.000 acres of land for wind farms -. Political Editor. lexis. For a comparable amount of electricity output. 80. a nuclear power plant requires approximately 50 acres of land vs. Sacramento Union Op-Ed.000 MW. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century. why not put those taxpayer dollars into more nuclear power plants and protect our natural environment from the thousands of square miles of industrial wind turbines dotting the landscape? .asp With the cost of money now at historic lows. http://liberty. Nuclear plants operate at 90 percent capacity compared to 30-33 percent for wind farms (ERCOT). There's a price for subsidizing wind energy with taxpayer dollars. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be subsidised by taxpayers .pacificresearch. there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States that generate over 97. Lapoint is professor of management at McMurry University and president of P&L Consultants.but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. Natural gas is also expensive. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. The Express.org/press/theres-a-price-for-subsidizing-wind-energy-with-taxpayer-dollars Currently. 6/7/2008. has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility.1. Abilene Reporter News. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. comfort and health all demand power.0 AT CP Wind Wind power can’t provide enough energy Macer Hall. with potential continued price increases and volatility. Nuclear Renaissance? AP." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that "green" power sources. 1-11-08. nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies.pacificresearch.) 3/26/2008.org/publications/id.

Sacramento Union Op-Ed.SDI 2008 41 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. . Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC. on the other hand.0 AT CP Natural Gas Nuclear power is less expensive and isn’t subject to fuel volatility. Nuclear power. with potential continued price increases and volatility.pacificresearch.3758/pub_detail. Solar power holds great appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand. as costs are fixed year to year. has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.org/publications/id. and is available rain or shine.) 3/26/2008. like a mortgage with a fixed rate. http://liberty. Natural gas is also expensive. The wind is fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning.asp With the cost of money now at historic lows. comfort and health all demand power. nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other technologies.

geothermal. AP. Ebel the Director. and biomass inevitably arises. Robert E. Their future is always just around the corner but we have yet to turn that corner and I cannot say for certain that we ever will. 6/8/2000. And whenever an oil supply crisis emerges. The nuclear industry is far more regulated than are competing forms of energy. That leaves the nuclear option. With electricity becoming more essential to our way of life. there are pressures even today to remove hydropower dams in place because of various environmental concerns.SDI 2008 42 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. a call for greater use of solar. D. Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington.0 AT CP Hydroelectric No way to expand hydroelectric power. to give nuclear energy the benefit of a level playing field? .csis. Indeed. C. is it not time to develop a set of criteria to measure the effectiveness of the individual forms of power generation.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf The future for hydroelectric generation is rather dim. wind. Little unexploited potential remains. http://www.

z. Steven J.com o. Milloy 5/15/08 “McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech” Originally published in FoxNews. http://cei.org/articles/mccain’s-embarrassing-climate-speech This is unlikely since cap-and-trade’s economic harms have been exposed and condemned by the likes of the Congressional Budget Office. Even the Clinton administration warned of the economic harms that would be caused by cap-and-trade.SDI 2008 43 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. . the Environmental Protection Agency and renown economists such as Alan Greenspan and Arthur Laffer.0 AT CP Cap and Trade Cap and trade will hurt the economy.

announcing plans for 15 new commercial reactors. '06. bc The Yucca Mountain repository. Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project. lexis. It aims to reduce proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Portions of the bill also resemble legislation Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced in 2006 (NF.S. Nuclear Fuels.000 metric tons of waste that has been accumulating since the first reactors went online. We've collected over $27 billion ? from electricity consumers to pay for it." Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday. 9). "It's high time that we accomplish this task." he said. DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program. Inside Energy and Federal Lands. Bodman said." GNEP key to solve prolif Dipka Bhambhani. We Need To Open Yucca Mountain to revive the nuclear industry.Friends of the Earth. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump.SDI 2008 44 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. And courts have affirmed that we have a legal obligation to do it. lexis. LA Times." Inhofe drafted the bill without input from the nuclear power industry. lexis. Even though the waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury. Steve Kidd (2006) from the World Nuclear Association states: "The difficulties encountered with establishing Yucca as an operating repository have undoubtedly influenced the move towards GNEP." Speaking on the Senate floor. who has supported nuclear power as a vital component of the country's energy mix. The application "will further encourage the expansion of nuclear power in the United States.0 AT CP PIC out of Yucca Mountain Yucca key to GNEP Jim Green. 3-17-08 . although the GNEP reprocessing and transmutation plans aim to partly address this problem. located 16 miles from the California border.600 pages long. Times Staff Writer. would eventually store 70. National nuclear campaigner . Although the impetus for a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain may be greater than ever.org. jlk.foe. has obviously concentrated a lot of official thinking. The license application. it has been used in appropriations processes over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit. 1-28-08. And the amount of waste will grow at an increasing rate in future decades: In the last year. Five other Republican senators co-sponsored the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2008 that Inhofe introduced January 24. Inhofe noted that the location of the country's sole repository site was decided in 2002 when President George W. Australia. Bush recommended that Yucca Mountain be developed as a high-level waste repository and Congress adopted that recommendation. 9 Oct. http://www. which is absolutely critical to our energy security. bc GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide. was filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The likelihood of having to establish several Yuccas in the USA alone. . Yucca Mountain could be open for business by 2020 at a cost of about $70 billion. last week expressed concern that continuing delays in opening a repository at Yucca Mountain would "hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the US. utilities have launched a nuclear power renaissance. Yucca Mountain Key To Nuclear Power Expansion And National And Environmental Security Ralph Vartabedian. which is 8. U. though several of its sections are in line with industry priorities. the current legal limit for the repository is insufficient for the total projected waste output of the current cohort of reactors operating in the US. If everything goes unfettered. which has up to four years to act. State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain. bc Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma last week introduced nuclear waste legislation aimed at fast- tracking DOE's beleaguered repository program at Yucca Mountain. "We've passed laws and resolutions to do it. the legal and political hurdles for the project are vast. “US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”. if there is a significant boom in nuclear power in the 21st century. Inhofe.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energy- partnership/?searchterm=legislate Even if the Yucca Mountain repository is eventually opened. Nevada and at making DOE's obligation to dispose of utility spent fuel the basis for an NRC declaration of waste confidence. to our environment and to our national security. 6-4-08. 2007-05-29.

Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline. Natural Gas Weekly. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) vowed never to let it open ( NGW Nov. Barack Obama (D-Illinois). 6-9-08. as is done in Europe .much like Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bonneville Power Administration.p12 ). Skelly is the president of the multi-billion-dollar Horizon Wind Energy. federal officials said. also oppose opening Yucca Mountain . if the DOE exercises all options. Last month. the Democratic candidate for the gerrymandered 7th Congressional District in Houston. . one of the leading wind developers in the nation ( see p8 ). But Debate Still Raging lexis. this year's Democratic candidate for president. Sen. Yucca Mountain will actually be a fuel reprocessing facility set up as a federally-owned entity -. and could total as much as $13. bc Michael Skelly . The entity would handle all elements related to the back end of the nuclear cycle. and the earliest it could open would be 2020. told Natural Gas Week "we've got to open Yucca Mountain" before any progress can be made in the next wave of nuclear generation.5 .SDI 2008 45 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. the Department of Energy awarded contracts to Areva Federal Services and NAC International for shipping canisters to get the waste to Yucca Mountain . But Yucca Mountain has hit its share of political snags. Both contracts are for a term of up to five years. and his former opponent Sen.8 million. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review process is expected to take about three years. As such it has drawn considerable fire from environmentalists.0 Yucca needed to revive nuclear energy. and could lead the administration's efforts to rekindle nuclear fuel reprocessing under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Hillary Clinton (D-New York).

financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored. industry.org/ VF accessed July 10.S. . American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness.SDI 2008 46 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. 2008 The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political.0 AT K Discursive We create in-round education necessary to restore U. USFG program formed in 2005 http://www. nuclear leadership.nuclearcompetitiveness. No Date cited.

Domenici.senate. 6-27-2008. Increasing our use of nuclear energy is the only way for America to meet our increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. creating a funding mechanism to pay for the work and then allowing only the communities that want the economic activity that a waste recycling .gov/public/index. reliable nuclear power here at home.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e- 49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710.S. it is vital that we tear down all the roadblocks that have slowed nuclear power’s revival. “After a decade of hard work. It emits no pollutants. the issue of waste disposal has provided an argument to object to expanding nuclear power. The SMART Act will be funded by a revolving fund. I’m pleased to introduce this legislation which takes the first step toward resolving the question of nuclear waste. The SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services and for storage facility operators.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases. there can now be no doubt that a nuclear renaissance is under way. http://energy. ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The bill also establishes an economic incentive program for communities that wish to host interim storage facilities for waste.3215). This bill will finally help resolve the nuclear waste stalemate that has paralyzed U. Senator Pete Domenici. http://energy. Mary Landrieu (D-La. last night introduced bipartisan legislation that will allow America to fully realize the promise of nuclear energy by laying the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. CM WASHINGTON – U.S. the technology will not advance.” Landrieu said. The legislation promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. which will not need annual Congress appropriations United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. along with Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.gov/public/index. 6-27-2008. nuclear energy production for more than 30 years.).gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases. CM “Nuclear recycling will help us permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel while simultaneously increasing the amount of nuclear material available to generate base load power. CM “Given how important it is for this nation to cut carbon emissions. 6-27-2008.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e- 49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710. It is time the United States caught up with other nations that have demonstrated that recycling can be conducted in a safe and cost-efficient way.SDI 2008 47 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.) introduced the Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act (S.senate.for up to two spent fuel recycling facilities. In the past. “Domenici Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”.senate.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e- 49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710. and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.). and does not contribute to global warming.” Domenici said. The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy (DOE) and private industry to finance engineering and design work —and the development of license applications-. “Nuclear power is one of the most promising alternative technologies that can help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. and I’m hopeful this legislation will jump-start recycling in America – leading to more clean. But if we do not get serious about managing nuclear waste. “Domenici Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential.0 SMART Act The SMART Act will promote the establishment of nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. Setting up a program for the government to help the private sector develop nuclear waste recycling plants.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases. http://energy.” Sessions said. Nuclear recycling can permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. along with economic incentives United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. “Domenici Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”.

. which will also receive contributions from annual interest on the Nuclear Waste Fund.0 plant will produce to apply are all useful steps that will help the economics of nuclear power.” Murkowski said.SDI 2008 48 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2. It will allow for the economic recycling of fuel and help reduce waste volumes and their toxicity protecting the environment. The bill establishes a $1 billion revolving fund. The SMART Act is funded by allowing access to a small portion (around five percent) of the $20 billion Nuclear Waste Fund. The revolving fund will allow projects to proceed without the need for annual appropriations from Congress.

Leslie Kemeny. 2007. carbon free energy while stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. says the letter is timely. after a congressionally chartered panel of scientists urged DOE to abandon its plans for GNEP. ABC. One of the biggest items in the budget is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. . designed to advance clean. Australia is not part of those groups but is in discussions with a view to join. even though Congress cut that amount in half last year. Just this week the Prime Minister renewed his Government's commitment to nuclear power. DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste program. 2007. it has been used in appropriations processes over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit. The program became mired in controversy last fall. GNEP is a partnership of 20 countries that work together to spur the use of nuclear energy while ensuring that the spent fuel and other byproducts that are created in the process do not fall into the hands of terrorists. The Generation IV International Forum represents governments of nuclear powered countries. 3-17-08 . saying Australia should take advantage of its vast uranium deposits. "We're going to have to do a better job explaining to the Congress why this program is critical to the expanded use of [nuclear energy] in the US and internationally. Even though the waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury. a controversial spent-fuel recycling program. Karen. Inside Energy and Federal Lands." said Dennis Spurgeon. 2-11-08.they could well be United States. Inside energy with federal lands. Reporter for ABC.0 GNEP GNEP Dipka Bhambhani. GNEP Barlow. Spending for DOE nuclear programs up 40% in fiscal 2009 budget request. DOE requested $302 million for GNEP. . on the other hand France may be drawn into this. More money needed for GNEP Dipka Bhambhani. It aims to reduce proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. bc GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide.” Lexis VF KAREN BARLOW: The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is an American initiative. LESLIE KEMENY: It could give us the possibility of constructing nuclear power stations with the right sort of joint venture partners . bc The Energy Department called for a 40% boost in funding for nuclear energy programs in the fiscal 2009 budget it unveiled last week. Eminent nuclear physicist professor. July 20. DOE's assistant secretary for nuclear energy. and in turn we might be asked to go beyond mining uranium and exporting the yellowcake and letting other people make the fuel. lexis. lexis. “Govt leak confirm Australia-US nuclear plan.SDI 2008 49 of 49 WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 2.