Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

Scholars

1 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***NP DA***.................................................................................................................................................................7 NP Good DA – Shell.......................................................................................................................................................8 NP Good DA – Unq – NP High Now..............................................................................................................................9 NP Good DA – Link – ↑ Alt. Energy ↓ NP...................................................................................................................10 NP Bad DA – Shell........................................................................................................................................................11 NP Bad DA – Link – ↑ Alt Energy ↑ NP.......................................................................................................................12 NP Bad DA – Link – Cap and trade ↑ NP.....................................................................................................................13 NP Bad DA – Link - Carbon Tax ↑ NP.........................................................................................................................14 NP Bad DA – Link - CO2 Emission Restrictions ↑ NP................................................................................................15 NP DA – Unq – Alt Energy Low Now..........................................................................................................................16 NP DA – N/U – Alt Energy Increasing Now...............................................................................................................17 ***NP Good***............................................................................................................................................................18 ***Electricity***..........................................................................................................................................................19 NP Good - Electricity Scenario 1/2...............................................................................................................................20 NP Good - Electricity Scenario 2/2...............................................................................................................................21 NP Good – Electricity - Demand Risks Blackouts.......................................................................................................22 NP Good – Electricity - Blackout=Economic Collapse................................................................................................23 NP Good – Electricity - NP Solves Blackouts.............................................................................................................24 AT: Electricity – No Blackouts.....................................................................................................................................25 AT: Electricity – No Impact - Blackouts ......................................................................................................................26 ***Warming***............................................................................................................................................................27 NP Good - Solves Warming .........................................................................................................................................28 NP Good - Warming - A/T: NP produces greenhouse gases.........................................................................................31 NP Good - Global warming outweighs.........................................................................................................................33 AT: Warming – No Solvency - Timeframe....................................................................................................................34 AT: Warming – No Solvency – GHG Emissions.........................................................................................................37 AT: Warming – No Solvency – Requires 1500 Plants..................................................................................................39 AT: Warming - No solvency – Transportation Overwhelms.........................................................................................40 AT: Warming – No Solvency – capacity.......................................................................................................................41 AT: Warming – No Solency – cost................................................................................................................................42 AT: Warming - Impact Calculus: NP Risks o/w Warming............................................................................................43 ***Energy Independence***........................................................................................................................................44 NP Good - Energy Independence Scenario...................................................................................................................45 NP Good – Energy Independence – US Dependent SQ................................................................................................46 Energy Independence – Impact – Wars.........................................................................................................................47 Energy Independence – NP Solves...............................................................................................................................48 AT: Energy Independence ...........................................................................................................................................50 ***Hegemony***.........................................................................................................................................................51 NP Good – Heg Scenario 1/2.......................................................................................................................................52 NP Good – Heg Scenario 2/2........................................................................................................................................53 NP Good – Heg – NP Key to Leadership......................................................................................................................54 NP Good – Heg – Technical Leadership.......................................................................................................................56 AT: Technical Leadership – US Leader SQ..................................................................................................................57 ***Space***.................................................................................................................................................................58 NP Good – Space Scenario 1/2.....................................................................................................................................59 NP Good – Space -Uniqueness.....................................................................................................................................60 NP Good – Industry Expansion key to Space...............................................................................................................61 NP Good – Space - Key to Colonization.......................................................................................................................62 NP Good – Space – Colonization O/W.........................................................................................................................66 NP Good – Space – AT: Solar Solves............................................................................................................................67 NP Good - Space - militarization inevitable................................................................................................................68 NP Good – Space - Militarization key to Heg..............................................................................................................69 AT: Space – Exploration = Militarization.....................................................................................................................70 AT: Space – Militarization = extinction........................................................................................................................72 ***Coal***...................................................................................................................................................................73 NP Good - Coal Scenario.............................................................................................................................................74 NP Good – Replaces Coal.............................................................................................................................................75

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

2 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Coal Hurts Environment.............................................................................................................................76 AT: Coal - No Tradeoff.................................................................................................................................................77 ***Medical Isotopes***...............................................................................................................................................78 NP Good – Medical Isotopes Scenario 1/2...................................................................................................................79 NP Good – Medical Isotopes Scenario 2/2...................................................................................................................80 NP Good – Medical Isotopes - Shortage.......................................................................................................................81 NP Good – Medical Isotopes – Key US Health System...............................................................................................82 NP Good – Medical Isotopes -Solves AIDS.................................................................................................................83 NP Good – Medical Isotopes - Solves AIDS- Diagnosis 1/2........................................................................................84 NP Good – Medical Isotopes - Solves AIDS- Diagnosis 2/2........................................................................................85 NP Good – Medical Isotopes - Solves AIDS- Diagnosis Ext. .....................................................................................86 NP Good – Medical Isotopes – Cancer.........................................................................................................................87 AT: Medical Isotopes – No Shortage............................................................................................................................88 AT: Medical Isotopes – AT: AIDS Impact.....................................................................................................................89 ***NP Bad***..............................................................................................................................................................90 NP Bad – Laundry List..................................................................................................................................................91 ***Terrorism – Attacks***...........................................................................................................................................92 NP Bad – Attacks Scenario...........................................................................................................................................93 NP Bad – Attacks – NP Plants Targeted........................................................................................................................94 NP Bad - Attack - NP Plants High Risk.......................................................................................................................95 NP Bad – Attacks – Impact - Extinction.......................................................................................................................96 NP Bad – Attacks - Impact- 100,000s people..............................................................................................................97 NP Bad – Attacks – Impact - Radiation........................................................................................................................99 NP bad – Attacks – Impact - Economy.......................................................................................................................100 NP bad – Attacks – Impact - Econ Internal link..........................................................................................................101 NP bad – Attacks – Impact - Econ Internal link..........................................................................................................102 NP Bad – Attacks - Fuel pools ..................................................................................................................................104 NP Bad – Attacks – AT: Plants Secure........................................................................................................................105 NP Bad – Attacks - A2: Attack Impacts Exaggerated.................................................................................................107 NP Bad – Attacks - A2: Facilities won’t explode........................................................................................................108 AT: Attacks – Low Risk..............................................................................................................................................109 AT: Attack – Plants Secure..........................................................................................................................................110 AT: Attack – No Impacts.............................................................................................................................................111 ***Terrorism – Theft***.............................................................................................................................................112 NP Bad – Theft - Scenario...........................................................................................................................................113 NP Bad – Theft – Link Ext..........................................................................................................................................114 AT: Theft – Security Solves........................................................................................................................................115 AT: Theft – No Technical Expertise............................................................................................................................116 AT: Theft – No Impact – Dirty Bombs........................................................................................................................117 AT: Theft – No Impact – Suitcase Nukes....................................................................................................................118 ***Proliferation***.....................................................................................................................................................119 NP Bad – Prolif Scenario............................................................................................................................................120 NP Bad – Prolif - Link Ext.........................................................................................................................................121 NP Bad – Prolif - Link - Breeder Reactors...............................................................................................................124 AT: Prolif – No Link...................................................................................................................................................125 AT: Prolif - Leadership Solves....................................................................................................................................126 AT: Prolif - Inevitable.................................................................................................................................................127 ***Organized Crime***.............................................................................................................................................128 NP Bad - Organized Crime Scenario 1/2....................................................................................................................129 NP Bad - Organized Crime Scenario 2/2....................................................................................................................130 AT: Organized Crime..................................................................................................................................................131 AT:Organized Crime – No Economy Impact..............................................................................................................132 ***Accidents***.........................................................................................................................................................133 NP Bad - Accidents.....................................................................................................................................................134 AT: Accidents..............................................................................................................................................................138 ***Natural Disasters***.............................................................................................................................................140 NP Bad - Natural Disasters ........................................................................................................................................141

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

3 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Natural Disasters..................................................................................................................................................142 ***Environment***....................................................................................................................................................143 NP Bad - Water Pollution Scenario.............................................................................................................................144 NP Bad – Water Pollution – Link Ext.........................................................................................................................145 NP Bad – Ocean Pollution Scenario...........................................................................................................................146 NP Bad – Species Scenario.........................................................................................................................................147 AT: Pollution...............................................................................................................................................................148 ***Human Health***.................................................................................................................................................149 NP Bad - Radiation - Extinction ................................................................................................................................150 NP Bad - Radiation = Cancer......................................................................................................................................151 NP Bad - Radiation = Mutation .................................................................................................................................152 NP Bad - Mutations = Extinction................................................................................................................................153 AT: Radiation – Radiation Good.................................................................................................................................154 AT: Radiation - Very small amounts...........................................................................................................................156 A2: Plutonium Dangerous for Health.........................................................................................................................157 ****Nuclear Waste****.............................................................................................................................................159 Waste Impact – Radiation = Death..............................................................................................................................160 AT: Waste – Impacts Exaggerated...............................................................................................................................161 AT: Waste Impacts - Radioactivity natural..................................................................................................................162 AT: Waste Impacts – small quantities.........................................................................................................................163 AT: Waste Impacts – ≠ Death......................................................................................................................................164 AT: Waste Impacts – No Transport Risk.....................................................................................................................165 No New Plants w/o Waste Plan [1/2]..........................................................................................................................166 No New Plants w/o Waste Plan-Social Acceptance [1/2]...........................................................................................168 New Plants w/o Disposal Plan [1/4]...........................................................................................................................170 New Plants w/o Disposal Plan-Social Acceptance [1/1].............................................................................................174 Yucca Bad DA – Shell [1/3]........................................................................................................................................175 Yucca Bad DA-1NC [2/3]...........................................................................................................................................176 Yucca Bad DA-1NC [3/3]...........................................................................................................................................177 Yucca Bad-Uniqueness-Won’t Open [1/2]..................................................................................................................178 Yucca Bad-Uniqueness-Won’t Open-Obama .............................................................................................................180 Yucca Bad-Link-New Plants.......................................................................................................................................181 Yucca Bad-Link Ext/AT: Won’t open till 2010...........................................................................................................182 Yucca Bad-Internal-Plan’s Dumped At Yucca [1/1]....................................................................................................183 Yucca Bad-Transport-Terrorism..................................................................................................................................184 Yucca Bad-Earthquakes-Plutonium Leaks..................................................................................................................185 Yucca Bad-Waste Leak Inevitable..............................................................................................................................186 Yucca Bad-Geologically Unstable-Floods..................................................................................................................187 Yucca Bad-Water Contamination-Ground Water........................................................................................................188 Yucca Bad-Water Contamination-Water Table...........................................................................................................189 Yucca Bad-Transportation-Accidents.........................................................................................................................190 Yucca Bad-Transportation-Radiation..........................................................................................................................191 Yucca Bad-Volcanoes..................................................................................................................................................192 Yucca Bad-Won’t Solve-Rainwater............................................................................................................................193 Yucca Bad-Won’t Solve-Rock fall & Microbes..........................................................................................................194 Yucca Good-Uniqueness-Will Open [1/2]..................................................................................................................196 Yucca Good – AT: DA - Link Turn.............................................................................................................................198 Yucca Good-Nuclear Leadership................................................................................................................................199 Yucca Good-Stops Reprocessing-GNEP [1/1]............................................................................................................200 Yucca Good-Stops Reprocessing-GNEP-Prolif..........................................................................................................201 Yucca Good-k2 Solve Waste.......................................................................................................................................202 Yucca Good-Terrorism................................................................................................................................................203 Yucca Good –Better than Dry Cask Storage...............................................................................................................204 Yucca Good – TAD Storage solves.............................................................................................................................205 Yucca Good-Environmentally Neutral........................................................................................................................206 Yucca Good-Stops Interim Storage.............................................................................................................................207 Yucca Good-Stops On Site Storage............................................................................................................................208

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

4 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-AT: Volcanoes.........................................................................................................................................209 Yucca Good-AT: Earthqukes.......................................................................................................................................210 Yucca Good-AT: Water Contamination.......................................................................................................................211 Yucca Good-AT: Rainwater........................................................................................................................................212 Yucca Good-AT: Transport=Accidents/Terrorism......................................................................................................213 Yucca Good-AT: Waste Ingestion Type Args..............................................................................................................214 Yucca-Yucca Storage Inevitable..................................................................................................................................215 Reprocessing Bad-Oceans...........................................................................................................................................216 Reprocessing Bad-Won’t Solve-Cost & Hazards........................................................................................................217 Reprocessing Bad-Leaks-Water Supply......................................................................................................................218 Reprocessing Bad-Air Pollution.................................................................................................................................219 Reprocessing Bad-Prolif.............................................................................................................................................220 Reprocessing Bad-Terrorism.......................................................................................................................................221 Reprocessing Bad-More Waste...................................................................................................................................222 Reprocessing Bad-Radioactive Pollution....................................................................................................................223 Reprocessing Bad-Nuclear Leadership.......................................................................................................................224 Reprocessing Bad-AT: Solves Waste..........................................................................................................................226 Reprocessing Good-Energy Security..........................................................................................................................227 Reprocessing Good-Solves Waste...............................................................................................................................228 Reprocessing Good-Heg-Weapons Production [1/2]..................................................................................................229 Reprocessing Good-Weapons Production ext.............................................................................................................230 Reprocessing Good-Prolif-Nuclear Leadership .........................................................................................................231 Reprocessing Good-Nuclear Leadership vs. Heg/AT: Heg Bad ................................................................................232 Geological Disposal-More Than One Site [1/1].........................................................................................................233 Geological Disposal Good-Solves..............................................................................................................................234 Geological Disposal Good-Terrorism-Theft [1/3]......................................................................................................235 Geological Disposal Good-Terrorism Internal-Theft..................................................................................................237 Geological Disposal Good-Terrorism-Imp Calc card.................................................................................................238 Geological Disposal Good-Environmental Ethics .....................................................................................................239 Geological Disposal Good-AT: Turns-No Uniqueness...............................................................................................240 Geological Disposal Bad-Timeframe..........................................................................................................................242 Geological Disposal Bad-Earthquakes........................................................................................................................243 Geological Disposal Bad-AT: No Turn Uniqueness...................................................................................................244 Geological Disposal Bad - Obligation To Future Generations...................................................................................245 Sea Based Disposal Bad-Filter Feeders-Leaking Canisters .......................................................................................246 Sea Based Disposal-Subductive Good-Solves Waste.................................................................................................247 Sea Based Disposal-Subductive Good-Terrorism-Theft.............................................................................................248 Sea Based Disposal-Subductive Good-Prolif Cred.....................................................................................................249 Ion Exchange Good – US Uses It ..............................................................................................................................250 Ion Exchange Good – Best Method............................................................................................................................251 Ion Exchange Good - Tech Feasible ..........................................................................................................................252 Ion Exchange Bad - Not Tech Feasible.......................................................................................................................253 Transmutation Good - Solves Waste...........................................................................................................................254 Transmutation Good - U.S. Prefers.............................................................................................................................255 Transmutation Bad .....................................................................................................................................................256 Sun Disposal Bad........................................................................................................................................................257 ***Reactors***...........................................................................................................................................................258 ***PBMRs Good***..................................................................................................................................................259 PBMRs Solve- Generic ..............................................................................................................................................260 PBMRs Feasible- Location/Power..............................................................................................................................261 PBMRs Feasible- Maintenance/Operation..................................................................................................................262 A2: PBMRs Dangerous- Don’t Overheat ..................................................................................................................263 A2: PBMRs Dangerous- No Second Chernobyl ........................................................................................................264 A2: PBMRs Dangerous- No Toxic Byproduct............................................................................................................265 A2: Cost High- Cost Efficient.....................................................................................................................................266 A2: Cost High- Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels/Alt Energy..............................................................................................267 ***PBMRs Bad***.....................................................................................................................................................268

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

5 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Don’t Solve- No Real World Data.................................................................................................................269 PBMRs Incentives Don’t Solve- Lack of Profit.........................................................................................................270 PBMRs Don’t Solve- CO2..........................................................................................................................................271 PBMRs Not Feasible...................................................................................................................................................272 PBMRs Dangerous- Chernobyl/Terrorist Attacks.......................................................................................................273 PBMRs Dangerous- Toxic Byproduct.........................................................................................................................274 PBMRs Dangerous- Overheating................................................................................................................................275 PBMRs Cost High.......................................................................................................................................................276 ***Breeder Reactors Good***...................................................................................................................................277 Breeder Reactors Solve- Long Term Solution............................................................................................................278 Breeder Reactors Solve- Other Countries...................................................................................................................279 Breeder Reactors Solve- Fuel.....................................................................................................................................280 Breeder Reactors Scientifically Feasible....................................................................................................................281 A2: Breeder Reactors Dangerous- No waste..............................................................................................................282 A2: Breeder Reactors Dangerous- No Terrorist Attack..............................................................................................283 A2: Cost High- Cheapest Form of Energy..................................................................................................................284 ***Breeder Reactors Bad***......................................................................................................................................285 Breeder Reactors Don’t Solve- Empirically...............................................................................................................286 Breeder Reactors Don’t Solve- Lack of Fuel..............................................................................................................287 Breeder Reactors Don’t Solve- Fuel/Terror................................................................................................................288 Breeder Reactors Dangerous- Nuclear Weapons........................................................................................................289 Breeder Reactors Dangerous- Prolif...........................................................................................................................290 Breeder Reactors Cost High........................................................................................................................................291 ***Sodium Cooled Reactors Good***.......................................................................................................................292 SCRs Solve- Generic..................................................................................................................................................293 SCRs Solve- Empirically............................................................................................................................................294 Incentives Solve..........................................................................................................................................................295 SCRs Feasible.............................................................................................................................................................296 A2: SCRs Dangerous-Generic....................................................................................................................................297 A2: SCRs Dangerous- No Prolif.................................................................................................................................298 A2: SCRs Dangerous- No Sodium Leakage...............................................................................................................299 ***Sodium Cooled Reactors***.................................................................................................................................300 SCRs Don’t Solve- Empirically..................................................................................................................................301 SCRs Dangerous- Empirically....................................................................................................................................302 SCRs Cost High..........................................................................................................................................................303 ***High Temp Gas Cooled Reactors Good***..........................................................................................................304 HTGRs Solve- Energy Needs.....................................................................................................................................305 HTGRs Solve- Efficient..............................................................................................................................................306 HTGRs Feasible..........................................................................................................................................................307 A2: HTGRs Dangerous- No Over Heating/Terror......................................................................................................308 ***High Temp Gas Cooled Reactors Bad***.............................................................................................................309 HTGRs Don’t Solve....................................................................................................................................................310 ***Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors Good***........................................................................................................311 PHWRs Solve- Energy Dependence...........................................................................................................................312 PHWRs Solve- Energy Efficiency..............................................................................................................................313 PHWRs Feasible- GSE Expanding.............................................................................................................................314 ***Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors Bad***..........................................................................................................315 PHWRs Dangerous- Radioactive Leaks.....................................................................................................................316 ***Boiling Water Reactors Good*** .......................................................................................................................317 BWRs Solve- New Technology .................................................................................................................................318 BWRs Solve- Empirically...........................................................................................................................................319 BWRs Feasible- US Approval....................................................................................................................................320 A2: BWRs Dangerous- Safety Features......................................................................................................................321 A2: BWRs Dangerous- Empirically Safe...................................................................................................................322 BWRs Cost Low.........................................................................................................................................................323 ***Boiling Water Reactors Bad***............................................................................................................................324 BWRs Don’t Solve- Public Opinion...........................................................................................................................325

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

6 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Dangerous- Safety Issues................................................................................................................................326 BWRs Dangerous- Degradation..................................................................................................................................327 BWRs Cost High.........................................................................................................................................................328 ***Fusion***..............................................................................................................................................................329 Fusion Reactors Solve- Generic..................................................................................................................................330 Fusion Reactors Solve- Warming/Safety....................................................................................................................331 Fusion Reactors Feasible- Commercially...................................................................................................................332 Fusion Reactors Feasible- Scientifically.....................................................................................................................333 A2: Fusion Reactors Dangerous- Not Weapons Grade...............................................................................................334 Fusion Reactors Can’t Solve- Generic........................................................................................................................335 Fusion Reactors Not Feasible- Commercially............................................................................................................336 Fusion Reactors Dangerous- Hydrogen Bomb...........................................................................................................337 Fusion Reactors Dangerous- Terrorists.......................................................................................................................338

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

7 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***NP DA***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

8 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good DA – Shell
A. Spending on renewable energy low now Sachs 8 (Jeffrey, professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, The Korea
Herald, April 24) The situation is even more discouraging when we look at the particulars. U.S. government funding for renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, ocean, and bio-energy) totaled a meager $239 million, or just three hours of defense spending. Spending on carbon capture and sequestration was just $67 million, while spending for energy efficiency of all types (buildings, transport, and industry) was $352 million.

B. Zero – sum tradeoff - Increased renewable energy incentives decrease nuclear power Nuclear Information and Resource Service 8
(http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/cdmnukesnirsbackground.htm, date page info) Further investment in nuclear would also keep funds away from renewable energy development. This trade-off is exactly what has happened in the U.S. over the past 50 years. When comparing U.S. government subsidies for nuclear, solar, and wind, the nuclear power industry has received the majority (96.3%) of $150 billion in investments since 1947; that’s $145 billion for nuclear reactors and $5 billion for wind and solar. Nuclear subsidies have cost the average household a total amount of $1,411 [1998 dollars] compared to $11 for wind. The more money we spend on nuclear power, the less greenhouse gas reduction benefit we receive, while we hurt sustainable technology investment.

C. NP Good (Choose favorite scenario)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

9 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good DA – Unq – NP High Now
There is a push for nuclear power right now – caused by incentives. CBS News 8 [June 13, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/national/main4181049.shtml?Source
=RSSattr=U.S._4181049] The current push is being driven by soaring demand for electricity nationwide - about 25 percent more electric-generating capacity will be needed by 2030, according to industry experts. And utility companies say environmental and regulatory hurdles have stalled their efforts to build more coal-fired plants. Economic incentives included in a 2005 energy bill passed by Congress are another factor, encouraging utilities to build new, advanced nuclear reactors that produce no greenhouse gases but cost billions to build.

There are already plans to build some 30 new plants. McCarthy 8 [John, AP, June 20, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/06/20/ap5139497.html]
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received applications to build 15 new reactors in eight states. Later this year, plants in seven other states plan to seek permits for a dozen more reactors.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

10 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good DA – Link – ↑ Alt. Energy ↓ NP
Incentives for alt energy trade off with nuclear power Business Green 8 [Andrew Charlesworth, July 4, http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2220758/darling-urges-faster-nuclear]
The government and some eminent environmentalists, such as Gaia-theorist James Lovelock, argue that nuclear power is the only viable short-term replacement for coal- and gas-fired plants. Alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power are not developing quickly enough to provide reliable supplies, they say. However, many environmental experts reject this logic and say that if the huge sums of money required for nuclear development were invested in alternative energy sources then they could become viable much more quickly.

Government subsidies are the only way for the NP industry to revive, absent subsidies the high capital and construction costs will prevent investment Roques, Nuttal, Newberry, and Neufville 5 (Fabien A, William J, David M, and Richard de, Judge Business School,
University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics, Cambridge, Engineering Systems Division, MIT, 08 November, http://ardent.mit.edu/real_options/Real_opts_papers/Roques%20Energy%20Journal%20final.pdf)

Despite recent revived interest in nuclear power, the prospects for merchant nuclear investment in liberalised industries without government support do not seem promising. The reason is relatively simple: quite apart from overcoming any regulatory and public opinion difficulties, the economic risks of nuclear power have been adversely affected by liberalisation. High capital cost, uncertain construction cost, potential construction and licensing delays, and economies of scale are the main features that make nuclear power technology unattractive to private investors in liberalised electricity markets. Couching the debate over the economics of nuclear power in terms of the expected levelised cost fails to capture these concerns adequately. Recent cost estimates reveal both the large underlying nuclear cost uncertainties and different interpretations of the impact of liberalisation on the cost of finance and hence investment choices.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

11 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad DA – Shell
A. Spending on alternative energy low now Sachs 8 (Jeffrey, professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, The Korea Herald, April 24)
The situation is even more discouraging when we look at the particulars. U.S. government funding for renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, ocean, and bio-energy) totaled a meager $239 million, or just three hours of defense spending. Spending on carbon capture and sequestration was just $67 million, while spending for energy efficiency of all types (buildings, transport, and industry) was $352 million.

B. Plan boosts nuclear power - its an alternative energy Lindsay`2 (Heather E. Lindsay, Environmental Policy Issues Nuclear Energy Issues, Released March
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/02mar/overview.php)

Nuclear energy has long posed a dilemma for environmentalists. As a cheap, clean source of power that does not use fossil fuels or add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, it offers an appealing alternative to power from traditional coal-fired plants. Yet nuclear energy is associated with troubling environmental issues, including the problem of
radioactive waste disposal.

C. Np Bad (Choose your favorite scenario)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

12 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad DA – Link – ↑ Alt Energy ↑ NP
Nuclear power is considered to be alternative energy Mccord`7 (Micheal, writer for Seacost online December 04, /www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NEWS/712040393)
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain wants America to get serious about nuclear power. "How can you possibly talk about alternative energy sources without nuclear power?" said McCain, who will take part in a candidate forum Thursday hosted by Seacoast Media Group, the parent company of the Portsmouth Herald. "It can have a real impact on decreasing greenhouse gases." At the forum, the Arizona senator will talk to voters about his energy security and global climate change policies. He said that facilities such as Seabrook Station nuclear power plant will be a vital component of his energy proposals, which he believes will enhance the country's long-term energy security and help reverse the effects of global warming.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

13 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad DA – Link – Cap and trade ↑ NP
Cap-and-trade incentives boost the nuclear industry—two warrants Wall Street Journal, 8 (Carbon Caps May Give Nuclear Power a Lift, May 19, pg A 4, Proquest)
As Congress debates whether to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, one of the most vocal supporters of such legislation -- the nuclear-power industry -- is poised to reap a multibillion-dollar windfall if restrictions take effect.Some nuclear operators are already forecasting how much their profits could increase under various versions of greenhouse-gas legislation that are under consideration. Among the nuclear operators that stand to profit most are Exelon Corp., FPL Group Inc., Constellation Energy Group, Entergy Corp., FirstEnergy Corp., NRG Energy Inc. and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. Carbon limits could usher in a period of "supernormal profits" for nuclear operators in markets where rates are deregulated and have more ability to rise, says Hugh Wynne, utilities analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. But he warns that profits, if perceived as excessive, run the risk of inciting a public backlash, perhaps including calls for a windfall-profits tax. Congress is considering several measures that would impose a so- called cap-and-trade system, which would limit the amount of carbon dioxide companies are allowed to emit. Lawmakers this summer are expected to take up a bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and John Warner (R., Va.) that initially gives the power industry about half the allowances it needs and requires generators to purchase the remainder on an open market or cut emissions. Nuclear operators stand to gain from greenhouse-gas legislation in two ways. For starters, their plants don't spew carbon dioxide, so they would not have to buy emissions allowances, giving them a competitive advantage over competitors that burn fossil fuels. In addition, a cap-and-trade system would probably push up wholesale electricity prices in deregulated markets, as coal- and natural-gas- burning utilities jack up prices to recover the additional cost of allowance purchases. In deregulated markets, generators with the highest costs set the market price, so lower-cost nuclear operators could enjoy the higher prices charged by coal- and gas-burning utilities without the higher costs. In states that didn't deregulate their electricity markets, nuclear plants mostly are part of regulated utilities and furnish electricity to utility customers at prices tied to their underlying costs, eliminating the opportunity for such profit. Chicago-based Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear-plant operator by output, could reap as much as $2 billion a year in added earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, says Mr. Wynne. His calculation assumes that the cost of carbon emissions would be $25 per million metric tons of emissions, an allowance price typical in Europe.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

14 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad DA – Link - Carbon Tax ↑ NP
Federal government carbon taxes would encourage the production of nuclear power plants Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.365-366)
By mid-century, the world's need for energy is expected to increase by 160 percent. A simultaneous expansion of global nuclear capacity to around 1,3 50 reactors would cut the predicted increase in carbon emissions by a quarter. Additional, smaller reductions could be obtained by renewables, conservation, and cleaner fossil-fuel technology. The Future ofNucZear Power, the 2003 MIT-Harvard study that called for a tripling in the number of American nuclear plants, recommends an increase in government support for their construction as a means of not only delivering emission-free electricity and but also of achieving a reduction in the number of coal-fired plants. The authors propose a tax on carbon emissions to support nuclear expansion. Control of carbon output through emissions trading or taxation would raise the cost of electricity from fossil-fuel plants considerably. Nuclear power, once established, is not intrinsically more expensive than other means of electricity generation. France sells cheap electricity to other countries from its nuclear plants. Over the long run, uranium is and will continue to be inexpensive. We have enough of it to last indefinitely, as well as the technology to keep recycling uranium fuel and to burn useless residues in reactors.

Carbon tax makes NP cost competitive

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

15 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad DA – Link - CO2 Emission Restrictions ↑ NP
CO2 Emission Restrictions will increase reliance on nuclear power

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

16 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP DA – Unq – Alt Energy Low Now
Current alternative energy subsidies low Krupp 8 (Fred, Environmental Defense Fund, , Earth: The Sequel The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming, p. 11)
Venture capitalist Doerr observes that each year the federal government devotes just $1 billion to research on renewable sources of energy—less than ExxonMobil earns in a single day.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

17 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP DA – N/U – Alt Energy Increasing Now
Increased investment in alternative energy Richardson 8 (Bill, Governor of New Mexico, , Leading by Example: how we can inspire energy and security
revolution, p. 39) Companies are changing, too. Not every company, but business in general is embracing energy efficiency and energy alternatives. Investment capital is flowing into new energy alternatives at an unprecedented rate, partly as a function of higher energy prices but also because some investors are truly visionary and committed to a new energy future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

18 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***NP Good***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

19 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Electricity***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

20 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Electricity Scenario 1/2
A. Rising Electricity demand risks blackouts. Wall Street Journal 7 (June 20, Rebecca Smith, http://publicutilities.utah.gov/archive/uselectricitydemandisoutpacingnewresources.pdf)
demand for electricity is increasing three times as fast as resources are being added in the U.S., a trend that could shake electric-system reliability in the coming decade. In its first report since the organization's duties were expanded by Congress, the grid organization, known as NERC, said U.S. demand will increase by about 20% from 2006 to 2015, outstripping investment in new electrical supply. The pace of growth in Canada, while slower, also is cause for concern. NERC counts 67,000 megawatts of
A report by the North American Electric Reliability Council warns resources in the works in the U.S. versus 141,000 megawatts of expected demand growth by 2015, leaving a shortfall of about 81,000 megawatts, an amount equivalent to 160 large power plants. One megawatt can power 500 to 1,000 homes. Increasingly, it is left to a deregulated market to determine whether and when new resources get built. Available resources are expected to fall below safe levels in many parts of the U.S. and Canada, such as New England, the Rocky Mountain region and Texas, in the next two to three years. As the system drifts closer to its physical limits, it is even more important that energy regulators and utilities promote conservation and use of the most energy-efficient equipment, said Rick Sergel, chief executive of the grid reliability organization. He added conservation programs will need to at least double their reach and effectiveness to help close the gap between supply and demand. The report said

50,000 megawatts of generating plants are poorly utilized -- either aged units taken out of service or newer plants that have been unable to line up contracts, making them nearly useless. "We've got a problem,"
Mr. Sergel said. "We can't continue this 'just-in-time' planning much longer. It works in manufacturing but it does not work in the power sector." Mr. Sergel said NERC, a nonprofit industry organization with some powers granted by Congress, is pushing for morecomprehensive resource planning and it is attacking tools that it considers flawed. For example, grid officials create annual forecasts that are built around "normal weather" patterns. Mr. Sergel said warmer winters and hotter summers are challenging

conventional notions of normalcy. This past summer, consumer demand set records in most parts of the U.S., reaching levels not expected for several years and worrying grid officials. The increase came on top of unusual demand during the summer of 2005 that was 6% higher than in 2004, according to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration.

B,

Nuclear power can provide electricity
The cost of failing to meet these needs will be steep. The

Whitman 7 (Christine Todd, EPA Administrator, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20730356/)
global economy relies on world-class power grids to trade stocks, to communicate instantly, and to buy and sell around the clock. If anything points to the frustrating effect that a failed power grid can have on profits, it's the San Francisco power outage that took down Silicon Valley enterprises like Craigslist and Netflix in July. Although it only cost them two hours of online business, that minor power blip illustrates how a lack of electricity can render even a tech-savvy company impotent. Nuclear power also provides a valuable tool for businesses: cost stability. Unlike other power suppliers, nuclear plants buy their uranium at set prices three years in advance. And uranium prices comprise just 26 percent of production costs at nuclear plants; by comparison, coal accounts for 78 percent of costs at coal-fired plants. So despite big increases in uranium prices over the past three years, industry production costs have remained low, at
less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (a quarter of those at gas-fired plants).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

21 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Electricity Scenario 2/2
C. Even a short term blackout would wreak havoc on the economy Leopold 5 (Jason, ormer Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Leopold0901.htm, September 1)
Two years ago this month, a blackout plunged 50 million people in Northeastern U.S. and the Canadian province of Ontario into total darkness for more than a day, wreaking havoc on the U.S. economy. Now, it’s the devastation in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi wrought by Hurricane Katrina that has killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. The common thread in both disasters is that energy and environmental experts sounded early alarms about the potential for catastrophes like this unless the White House immediately took the necessary steps to upgrade the country’s aging power grid to stave off widespread power failures, and in the case of Hurricane Katrina, backed the Kyoto protocol, which aims to curb the air pollution blamed for severe climate changes that is no doubt the reason Katrina turned from a relatively small hurricane to a destructive monstrosity, due to high sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the National Weather Service. While supporting the Kyoto treaty would not have done anything to prevent an act of God like Hurricane Katrina or the destruction left in its aftermath, it would have been a step in the right direction. Global Warming isn’t some harebrained scheme cooked up in a laboratory by mad scientists. It’s an issue that is as real as terrorism. And it’s just as deadly.

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

22 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Electricity - Demand Risks Blackouts
Electricity demand on an aging power grid is increasing costs and blackouts. American Society of Civil Engineers July 4 (2008, http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=25)
In 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy was equally blunt: "There is growing evidence that the U.S. transmission system is in urgent need of modernization. The system has become congested because growth in electricity demand and investment in new generation facilities have not been matched by investment in new transmission facilities. Transmission problems have been compounded by the incomplete transition to fair and efficient competitive wholesale electricity markets. Because the existing transmission system was not designed to meet present demand, daily transmission constraints or `bottlenecks' increase electricity costs to consumers and increase the risk of blackouts." Those fears were realized in August 2003, when the grid failed during the blackout that hit the Midwest, Northeast and portions of Canada. A series of power plants and transmission lines went offline because of instability in the transmission system in three states. The loss of these plants and transmission lines led to greater instability in the regional power transmission system; within four hours, there was a rapid cascade of additional plant and transmission line outages and widespread power outages. The blackout affected as many as 50 million customers in the United States and Canada, as well as a wide range of vital services and commerce. Air and ground transportation systems shut down, trapping people far from home; drinking water systems and sewage processing plants stopped operating, manufacturing was disrupted and some emergency communications systems stopped functioning. The lost productivity and revenue have been estimated in the billions of dollars.

Electricity usage is growing fast. We must improve our power grid. North American Electric Reliability Corporation 7 (Oct 16, http://tdworld.com/customer_service/nerc-2007reliability-assessment/)

Electricity usage in the United States is projected to grow more than twice as fast as committed resources over the next 10 years, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. announced in its annual 2007 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. Unless additional resources are brought into service, some areas could fall below their target capacity margins within two or three years. In parts of western Canada, demand is projected to outpace resource growth within about two years. "We are at the stage where emergency situations are becoming more frequent," said Rick Sergel, president and CEO of NERC. "Though some improvements have been made, we are requiring our aging grid to bear more and more strain, and are operating the system at or near its limits more often than ever before. As operating margins decrease, we are limiting our ability to manage unplanned events like equipment failures and extreme weather," Sergel said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

23 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Electricity - Blackout=Economic Collapse
Blackouts would destroy the economy Astyk 8 (Sharon [http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45600] Is electricity really the lifeblood of civilization?/
June 26, 2008) “The permanent blackout of electricity is crippling. Without oil to continue to fire up our industrial society we will be without: public electricity, transport, industry’s processed products (food, clothing, packaging, and machinery), communication and computer services. A little bit of brainstorming shows that the society and its systems would come eventually to a standstill. A totally paralyzing set of circumstances with hunger and deprivation on an unprecedented worldwide scale.”

Financial damage to companies occurs from blackouts. Mi2g 5 (July 22, News Alert, http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/220705.php)
The assumption behind the ETH economic damage model is that Internet availability and reliability can be drastically reduced within minutes by large-scale Internet attacks. Consequently, many companies may suffer direct and indirect financial damage. The core questions are: Who suffers what financial damage? and When does that damage occur? The Approach and Goals of ETH include developing a System model (based on systems engineering); Categorization of financial damage; Qualifying damage over time; Quantifying economic damage; Assuring the applicability of the model and its methodology through scenarios. ETH's economic damage model calculates total financial damage as the sum of the costs for: 1. Downtime Loss (as the sum of Productivity Loss and Revenue Loss) 2. Disaster Recovery 3. Liability 4. Customer Loss Productivity Loss - employees have to use less efficient ways to fulfil their duties; Revenue Loss certain tasks have to be postponed; lost transactions by customers that cannot access a service due to the company's inability to fulfil customer requests; Disaster Recovery - cost of time that employees spend on recovery from an incident; Liability - compensation payments for not being able to fulfil a service level agreement (SLA); Customer Loss - lost revenue due to dissatisfied customers quitting a service; and opportunity costs of potential customers lost. ETH's qualitative analysis demonstrates that economic damage usually does not have the same characteristics over time as technical problems have. Economic damage can still grow when technical problems have been resolved and the attack has been stopped. Three time intervals are considered: During the attack; shortly after the attack has been stopped; and a much longer time after the incident such as weeks and months. Temporal overlap of different damage types is possible.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

24 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Electricity - NP Solves Blackouts
Expanding nuclear power would have a significant effect on our electricity supply US Department of Energy March 31 (2008, Press Release,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press295.html) The U.S. nuclear industry supplied a record 806.5 billion kilowatthours of electricity in 2007. The largest increase came in Tennessee, with 4 billion kilowatthours more nuclear-provided electricity in 2007 than in 2006, an increase of 16 percent, according to preliminary Energy Information Administration (EIA) data released today. National total nuclear generation was 2.4 percent higher than in 2006, and 2.3 percent higher than in the previous record year, 2004. The capacity factor (the amount of power actually generated compared with the maximum amount that could be generated) for 2007 was 91.8 percent, exceeding the previous record capacity factor of 90.3 percent in 2002. The total number of operating commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. increased from 103 to 104 in 2007 with the return to service of the Brown’s Ferry 1 reactor, which had been shut down in 1985. The total number of operating U.S. commercial reactors remains well below the peak level of 112 in 1990. However nuclear power generation in 2007 was 40 percent above the 577 billion kilowatthours produced in 1990, largely reflecting a major improvement in utilization rates.

Nuclear power is key to meeting future energy needs- the NRC is the way to go Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.362)
As the IPCC has indicated, any pragmatic plan must include more nuclear power. The American Wind Energy Association hopes that by 2020 wind farms will be supplying as much as 6 percent of our electricity. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the figure will be closer to 0.5 percent. Regardless of whose predictions are accurate, the DOE projects electrical demand to grow by half by 2025. Even with increased conservation of energy, the need for baseload electricity will still have to be met by either fossil-fuel or nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has made licensing of nuclear plants simpler through new regulations and through advance approval of the location and design. This should prevent long delays and cost overruns. Some estimates indicate that a plant of standardized, streamlined design, with many more built-in passive safety features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other components, could be built in five years, as is already the case in France. The price per plant comes to about $3 billion- the cost of maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq for one week. Reactors could make hydrogen for fuel cells as well as electricity while burning up waste residues. Although meeting baseload demand means that new nuclear plants are likely to be large, designs now come in different sizes: smaller reactors can supply electricity to local consumers or feed supplementary power to the grid during peak demand. Toshiba is now offering to provide and maintain a nuclear power plant about the size of a spruce tree; it features an underground, replaceable, sealed reactor core that can electrify a remote village-say, a small settlement way off the grid in Alaska, where diesel-fired generators are the norm-and supply all of a town's heat for thirty years.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

25 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Electricity – No Blackouts
US grid 99% reliable Little 2k (Arthur D. An Arthur D. Little White Paper, http://www.encorp.com/dwnld/pdf/whitepaper/ADLittleWhitePaperReliabilityandDG.pdf.)

The US electric power system is among the most dependable in the world, delivering to the vast majority of its customers a nearly uninterrupted flow of power with over 99 percent reliability. High reliability is a central guiding principle for the US electric power system and a key requirement for efficient commerce and industry as well as a high national standard of living.

Electricity grid is safe, no chance of a blackout Plain Dealer 4 (July 16, lexis)
The chances of a widespread power failure this summer like the blackout of last August are slim, the nation's top federal energy regulator said Thursday. "I do feel more confident," Patrick Wood, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said in an interview during a daylong conference in Cleveland to review what has been done to protect the nation's electric power grid.The high-voltage grid, which connects individual utility service areas and entire regions, grew in a patchwork fashion rather than through one design. Last summer, after three of FirstEnergy Corp.'s big lines shorted out on overgrown trees, a power failure cascaded out of control throughout eight states and two Canadian provinces. In the last 11 months, industry "peer pressure" and a series of government directives have changed the way utilities are addressing potential reliability problems, Wood said. FirstEnergy, for example, has spent $17 million more on tree trimming on top of $80 million already budgeted, said Chuck Jones, a vice president at the Akron utility. The company also has replaced the computer system in its control centers that failed last August. And a vice president of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, the region's nonprofit grid manager, said the MISO has upgraded its computers and improved procedures to communicate with utilities in its 15-state area.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

26 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Electricity – No Impact - Blackouts
Blackouts are not a relevant economic statistic. Uchitelle 3 (August 16, International Herald Tribune,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E2DB1530F935A2575BC0A9659C8B63)

''Blackouts are economically like snowstorms,'' said Mark M. Zandi, the chief economist at Economy.com, referring to the 1965 and 1977 power failures, as well as this latest one. ''They are a nuisance, but not a measurable one in the statistics that record the year's economic activity.'' Airlines, restaurants and retail stores have clearly been hurt. But for the economy as a whole, blackouts and snowstorms mostly delay economic activity and rearrange it, taking from one sector and giving to another, economists say. For every suit not sold at Saks, a generator may be sold at Lowe's to someone newly interested in protection from the next blackout. The lost power closed retail stores and halted Internet shopping, canceling purchases or delaying them until next week or next month. The same thing happened after the blizzard in the Northeast on Feb. 17, which was the Washington's Birthday holiday, one of the biggest shopping days of the year. The lost business was enough to make national retail sales for February dip by $4.3 billion. But in March they rebounded, rising by $6.3 billion. Much of the revenue from canceled airline flights is recovered; the disappointed ticketholders eventually travel. Their tickets are mostly ''prebooked and nonrefundable,'' said Robert W. Mann, an aviation industry consultant based in Port Washington, N.Y. What the airlines do not recover, though, are the considerable sums for hotel rooms and meals for passengers whose flights are canceled, Mr. Mann said. Restaurants and theaters forced to close suffer a similar loss in revenue. It may be partly offset in several ways. Thousands of police officers, for example, will get handsome overtime checks, which they will spend, said Lee Price, director of research at the Economic Policy Institute. Spending is also likely to rise for flashlights and batteries, and for improvements to the nation's power grid. ''It is a wash, and you really cannot see it in the aggregate statistics,'' Mr. Price said. Or as Chris Varvares, the president of Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis consulting and forecasting firm, put it: ''The blackout is going to be lost in the rounding.''

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

27 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Warming***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

28 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Solves Warming
Nuke power solves warming-Reduces fossil fuels and doesn’t emit any GHG’s itself Llanos`5 (Miguel, MSNBC, Hot idea: Fight warming with nuclear power Bush takes message to Group of 8; some activists
listening, July 7, 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/)

When it comes to global warming, President Bush's refusal to endorse mandatory action means he is largely isolated on the world stage. But when the curtain rose at the Group of Eight summit on Wednesday, he was poised to
tout a climate strategy shared by some peers, and more surprisingly, by a few environmentalists: nuclear power. Nuclear power's downsides are well known: the potential for meltdowns, the question of how to safely store radioactive waste and the dangers of plutonium reaching terrorists' hands. But Bush, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, host of the G8 summit, has been

stressing a positive quality of nuclear power: the fact that it doesn't burn fossil fuel and therefore produces no carbon dioxide emissions, a key greenhouse gas that many scientists tie to global warming.
"It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," the president said in a televised appearance in June at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland. Nuclear power still produces 20 percent of the total U.S. electricity, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that 100 new reactors would be needed over 20 years just to maintain that share. "Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy," Bush added, all "without producing a single pound of air pollution and greenhouse gases. The president has made similar pitches in recent months, and the message appears to be getting

some traction. "The growing pressure to confront global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions has breathed new life into zero-emissions nuclear power like nothing else," says Dan Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, which commissions an annual survey on Americans' energy attitudes. Now, even some environmentalists are breaking the ranks that formed after the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. They say that the warming threat is so serious and so widespread that nuclear power should be reconsidered. A few venture even further, saying it's time to ramp up nuclear power.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

29 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Solves Warming
Nuclear power k2 solve warming-It’s the only way to sustain usage while reducing emissions Thurow`1 (Lester C., USA Today, Time for Nuclear Power, January 11, 2001, Lexis)
But this is in direct conflict with desires to do something about global warming. Global warming has reached the point where a scientific consensus is rapidly emerging. The globe is getting warmer, and human activities -- the burning of fossil fuels -- are the principal cause. There are two principal places fossil fuels are used: the burning of oil in cars and trucks, and the burning of gas and coal in the generation of electricity. In both instances, if the green movement wants to solve the

problem of global warming, it is going to have to embrace new technologies rather than reject them -its standard operating procedure for the past decade. Solving the problems by changing behavior simply isn't an
option. Americans are not going to go without electricity, and they aren't going to quit driving. American politicians are not going to force Americans to drive smaller cars by putting higher taxes on gasoline, or to use less electricity by charging more for it. In the

case of electricity, we already have a technical solution at hand. It is called nuclear power -- a clean way to generate electricity that does not cause global warming. Yet there is nothing the green movement likes less than nuclear power. In Europe, closing nuclear power plants is at the center of Green Party political platforms. This ugly choice is going to confront the green movement with a moment of truth. What does it like less: global warming or nuclear power? There isn't any third way. Solar power simply cannot do what is necessary. There isn't enough sunshine
available to provide the electricity needed during the night, during the winter and during cloudy weather. Solar power also takes enormous amounts of space devoted to ugly collectors. One can wait for fuel cells to be perfected for autos at some point in the future and then hope that they also can be used in the home to generate electricity, but that means doing nothing about global warming today.

Nuclear power is one of the few examples in which human sociology has completely dominated hard science. Serious studies consistently show that, to generate the same amount of electricity, more people will die if coal is used than if nuclear power is the energy source. Remember a year ago when two workers died in a
nuclear power plant in Japan? Their deaths were in the headlines of every newspaper in the world. How many people do you think die every day in the coal mining industries of the world? In America, we kill about 36 per year. In China, they reportedly kill 10,000 per "normal" year. The July 1976 Tangshan earthquake is believed to have killed 200,000 coal miners. Together, China (the world's biggest producer of coal) and America (the world's second-biggest producer) mine half of the world's coal. We don't know the exact death rates elsewhere, but we do know how many millions of tons of coal are produced in different countries. If we assume that the developed world has a death rate per million tons mined equal to that of the United States and that the Third World (India is the world's third-largest producer of coal) has a death rate per million tons mined equal to that of China, 55 people per day die in the world's coal mining industries. Few of those deaths make headlines. The problem with

nuclear power is not that it kills people; it kills very few. Its problem is that humans have a fear of something they cannot see, hear, feel and smell. Humans are used to the idea that a rock can fall on your head and kill
you. They have not been able to get used to the idea that an invisible particle they cannot sense can kill them. Nuclear radiation is the ultimate ghost. But there is another, perhaps more important, dirty little reality about nuclear power that the green movement would rather not talk about. Most of us know with certainty that we will not be the ones killed in a coal mining accident. We don't work in the world's coal mines. Someone else does. They are the ones risking their lives to give us electricity. We don't want to risk our own lives with nuclear power to give ourselves electricity -- no matter how small the probabilities may be. Having spent a few college summers working in an underground copper mine in Montana, my sympathies are with the coal miners. But for most Americans, it swings the other way: It is OK for them to risk their lives to give me the electricity that I want. My death and his death are not equivalent. The fatality equation is clear. Nuclear power is much safer than coal. It is also safer than natural gas; the number of American deaths in oil and gas exploration is more than twice that in coal mining. The environmental side effects are equally clear. Coal

piles are slightly radioactive. Millions of tons of fly ash have to be dumped somewhere. Burning coal causes global warming. Nuclear power is cleaner. This leaves members of the environmental movement between a rock and a hard place. They don't like global warming, and they don't like nuclear power. But if they want to prevent global warming, they are going to have to embrace nuclear power. Like most
of us who face such dilemmas, the green movement's forces will end up choosing to be hypocrites. They will talk about non-existent third ways to solve global warming. But since none of these ways is politically viable, they will end up living with global warming. Reversing themselves and admitting that they are wrong on nuclear power would be just too difficult psychologically.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

30 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Warming - NP Solves
Nuclear power is critical to reducing global warming emissions. American Nuclear Society, 03 (Use of Nuclear Energy for the Production of Process Heat Position Statement
1, Nov., http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps14.pdf) Heat for industrial processes and for space heating, together with fuel for transportation, account for more than 60% of the primary energy consumption in industrial societies. Burning large quantities of fossil fuels is currently necessary to produce most of this energy. However, it is expected tha t projected climate changes will require a shift toward energy technologies that generate less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Furthermore, future energy systems will have to meet considerably stricter requirements with regard to atmospheric pollution and other aspects of environmental degradation (such as the emission of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, heavy metals, and particulates). Nuclear reactors can meet these requirements in many locations at a lower or competitive cost. Fossil fuel resources are finite and have appropriate and essential uses such as feedstock for the production of chemicals. They should, therefore, be used sparingly as fuel. The use of these valuable resources should be minimized in a future globally sustainable regime and gradually replaced by clean energy sources that are either renewable or have a very large supply base, including uranium. Currently, the use of nuclear reactors—for other than for electricity generation—is limited primarily to small desalination projects and other heat applications such as space heating for close-in towns and villages as well as for fishery farms and agricultural greenhouses. To achieve the objective of a higher contribution by clean energy sources, it is essential that the use of nuclear reactors for producing heat be increased and extended to a wider spectrum of industrial applications. (The application of nuclear energyfor the generation of hydrogen is addressed in Position Statement 60, “Nuclear Energy for Hydrogen Generation,” issued in June 2003.) Hydrogen and hydrogen-rich fuels are expected to become valuable energy carriers with applications in industry and transportation. Expanding the use of nuclear reactors for desalination projects will also become increasingly important in view of the growing world population and already existing local shortages of fresh water. The use of nuclear energy for industrial purposes will greatly reduce atmospheric pollution.

Nuclear power decreases emissions resulting in a reduction in warming. MSNBC 5 (7/705, Miguel Llanos http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/)
When it comes to global warming, President Bush's refusal to endorse mandatory action means he is largely isolated on the world stage. But when the curtain rose at the Group of Eight summit on Wednesday, he was poised to tout a climate strategy shared by some peers, and more surprisingly, by a few environmentalists: nuclear power. Nuclear power's downsides are well known: the potential for meltdowns, the question of how to safely store radioactive waste and the dangers of plutonium reaching terrorists' hands. But Bush, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, host of the G8 summit, has been stressing a positive quality of nuclear power: the fact that it doesn't burn fossil fuel and therefore produces no carbon dioxide emissions, a key greenhouse gas that many scientists tie to global warming. "It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," the president said in a televised appearance in June at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland. Nuclear power still produces 20 percent of the total U.S. electricity, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that 100 new reactors would be needed over 20 years just to maintain that share.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

31 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Warming - A/T: NP produces greenhouse gases
Despite claims that nuclear energy produces greenhouse gases, it’s still the cleanest. Peterson, 2007 (Scott Peterson, Vice President of the Nculear Energy Institute, BusinessWeek,
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/05/nuclear_power_a.html) At a time when global decision-makers are trying to reduce greenhouse gases, we should be increasing our reliance on nuclear energy and taking advantage of the most widely expandable clean-air electricity source on the list of options. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions would drop far lower. In the U.S., safe and efficient nuclear power produces electricity for one of every five homes and businesses, and it ranks as the largest source of electricity that emits no greenhouse gases. In fact, electric-sector carbon emissions would be approximately 30% higher without nuclear energy. But is nuclear power really as emissions-free as supporters contend? One of the most common claims is that nuclear power emits greenhouse gases during the entire life cycle, from mining uranium for fuel to building the power plants. Using such a life-cycle approach to calculating emissions, one could say that all energy sources produce greenhouse gases. Research from the University of Wisconsin shows life-cycle emissions from nuclear energy are lower than those from renewables such as solar and hydropower and dramatically lower than those for power plants fueled by coal or natural gas. For this and other reasons, many environmentalists and organizations such as the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Pew Center for Climate Change support an expanded role for nuclear energy. No single greenhouse gas mitigation measure can reduce carbon dioxide to the levels contemplated by emerging state and regional programs or international agreements. Nor can a comprehensive regime like the Princeton University “stabilization wedge” theory—a concept for halting the proliferation of CO2 emissions—succeed without nuclear energy. Nuclear power is the only energy source that combines the attributes of large-scale electricity production, high reliability, and zero greenhouse gas emissions during the electricity production process. It should remain an essential part of our diverse energy portfolio to meet fast-growing electricity demand, increase energy security, and protect the environment in which we live.

Nuclear Energy does not harm the environment and is abundant. Miller, 04 (Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD, “Advantages of Nuclear Power”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller13.html) Nuclear energy (that uranium 235 and uranium 238-derived plutonium produce) emits no harmful gases or toxic metals into the environment. And, unlike hydroelectric dams, it does not alter a region’s ecosystem. Furthermore, despite what activists and the media say, the wastes nuclear power create are far less of a problem than those produced by coal, or the silt that builds up behind dams. One pound of uranium produces 20,000 times more energy than one pound of coal. A nuclear power plant generates (high-level) radioactive wastes the size of one aspirin tablet per person per year (a plant’s yearly wastes fit comfortably under a dining room table). Coal-fired plants generate 320 lbs. of ash and other poisons per person per year, of which 10 percent is spewed into the atmosphere. Disposal personnel encapsulate nuclear waste in (fireproof, water-proof, and earthquake-proof) boron-silicate glass or ceramic and then bury these now effectively non-radioactive artificial rocks. In the U.S., these "rocks" will (in 2010) be buried deep in extremely arid ground in a remote part of Nevada, in a repository at Yucca Mountain (where nuclear weapons tests were once conducted). The chance that this encapsulated waste will ever harm anyone is virtually zero (especially given that the linear no-threshold hypothesis now disproved). Waste disposal is not a disadvantage of nuclear power; it is one of its advantages. Yet another advantage of nuclear power is the relative abundance of its fuel, as this illustration, put together by Petr Beckmann, shows. Uranium is the heaviest of all naturally occurring elements and is present in most of the earth’s crust. There is enough uranium 235 (box C), the fuel for current-day U.S. nuclear reactors, to keep them operating through most of this century. But uranium 238 (99 percent of natural uranium), fuels breeder reactors. Breeder reactors turn uranium-238 into plutonium. As Bernard Cohen points out in his book, The Nuclear Energy Option (in Chapter 13, which is available online), the supply of uranium 238 on the planet to run breeder reactors will last thousands of years.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

32 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Warming - A/T: NP produces greenhouse gases
Nuclear reactors do not produce greenhouse gases Democracy Now 4 (Media collaboration 6/24 http://www.democracynow.org/2004/9/24/is_nuclear_power_the_solution_to)
Well it’s not the answer. It’s one of the answers that we’re going to need to—if we plan to meet the electricity demands that we’re going to have in the near future, and that’s a 40% increase in electricity demands over the next 20 years. It’s also the largest clean air source of electricity that we have in the United States, producing electricity already for one of five homes and businesses. So, to meet the electricity demand that we know we’re going to have over the next 20 years and to make sure that we have sources of electricity that are clean air sources, including renewables, hydropower, and nuclear, we have to maintain the nuclear energy supplies that we have today and we have to start on a fairly robust expansion program for nuclear energy, making sure that we build reactors that continue to be safe, and continue to provide affordable electricity for consumers, but also continue to provide clear air benefits that have led to really an improvement in our air quality over the past several years in the United States.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

33 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Global warming outweighs
Global warming outweighs a nuclear accident or a terrorist attack on magnitude and probability. Hickey 6 (James E, Professor of Law at Hofstra, Hofstra Law Review, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425)
Second, since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the 1987 Chernobyl plant meltdown in the Ukraine, there are concerns about plant safety and harm from accidents. Since those accidents, many industry and government measures have been undertaken to improve safety margins at nuclear plants in the United States. In addition, nuclear plant technology has changed greatly and is continuing to change to produce safer plants. In any event, the old Chernobyl type technology has never been used in the United States. n47 There is also a new concern about the possibility of terrorist strikes against nuclear power plants and those safety concerns must be taken into consideration. n48 In weighting safety concerns, it must be appreciated that global warming from GHG emissions can potentially produce far more catastrophic harms to the planet than local significant releases of radiation from a nuclear plant accident or terrorist strike for that matter. n49

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

34 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming – No Solvency - Timeframe
NP can’t solve climate change, the timeframe’s too long Ferguson 7 (Charles D., , Fellow for Sci and Tech, CFR, April 18,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13125/nuclear_power_will_not_play_major_nearterm_role_in_countering_climate_change_concludes_new_coun cil_report.html)

Nuclear energy is unlikely to play a major role in the coming decades in countering the harmful effects of climate change or in strengthening energy security, concludes a new Council Special Report authored by Charles D. Ferguson, Council fellow for science and technology. To significantly combat climate change in the near term, the “nuclear industry would have to expand at such a rapid rate as to pose serious concerns for how the industry would ensure an adequate supply of reasonably inexpensive reactor-grade construction materials, well-trained technicians, and rigorous safety and security measures,” says the report. There are currently 103 nuclear reactors operating in the United States. Even with twenty-year extensions of their planned lifespan, all existing reactors will likely need to be decommissioned by the middle of the century. To replace them, the United States would have to build a new reactor every four to five months over the next forty years. “However, based on the past thirty years, in which reactor orders and construction ground to a halt, this replacement rate faces daunting challenges. For this reason alone, nuclear energy is not a major part of the solution to U.S. energy insecurity for at least the next fifty years,” says the report, Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks. Ferguson also argues against the United States increasing funding and subsidies for nuclear energy. While it is true that nuclear energy emits fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the conventional wisdom “oversells the contribution nuclear energy can make to reduce global warming and strengthen energy security while downplaying the dangers associated with this energy source,” he says. The report further warns that “the United States and its partners face the daunting challenge of preventing the diversion of nuclear explosive materials into weapons programs and controlling the spread of potentially dangerous nuclear fuel-making technologies and materials.” Nuclear waste is a particular cause for concern. “If nuclear power production expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal will also significantly increase,” says Ferguson, noting that “no country has begun to store waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories.”

Nuclear power emits greenhouse gases. And takes too long to build. Beyondnuclear.org, no date
(“The Nuclear Power Danger” Beyond Nuclear http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html) Nuclear power cannot address climate change. Greenhouse gases are emitted throughout the nuclear fuel chain, from the mining of the necessary fuel - uranium - to its enrichment, transportation and the construction of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants take too long to build - up to a dozen years or more. The planet is already in crisis with experts pointing to rapid climate change already underway and less than ten years left to pre-empt disaster. There is no time to wait for nuclear plant construction.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

35 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming - No Solvency - Timeframe
It will take too long to build all the new plants. Nuclear Monitor, 5.
(“Nuclear Power: No solution to climate Change” A new report from NIRS/WISE International. http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf, feb) To reduce the emissions of the public energy sector according to the targets of the Kyoto Protocol, 72 new medium sized nuclear plants would be required in the 15 current European nations. These would have to be built before the end of the first commitment period: 2008- 2012. Leaving aside the huge costs this would involve, it is unlikely that it is technically feasible to build so many new plants in such a short time, given that only 15 new reactors have been built in the last 20 years. In the U.S, as many as 1,000 new reactors would be required-- none have been successfully ordered since 1973.

More ev… Carr and Fernandes, 8.
(False Promises, Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, adapted by the staff of Nuclear information and resource center, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf) Currently, around 440 nuclear power stations provide approximately five percent of the global primary energy mix. Even if the number of reactors was doubled, nuclear energy’s contribution to the primary energy mix would not have a large enough impact to warrant the associated expense. A 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the future of nuclear power determined that approximately 1500 new nuclear reactors would have to be constructed worldwide by mid-century for nuclear power to have even a modest impact on the reduction of GHG’s.18 A similar study concluded that a GHG emission reduction of 20 percent could be accomplished by 2100 if all projected coal power were displaced by 4900 GW of nuclear energy.19 Likewise, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research estimates that it would be necessary to build some 2,000 nuclear power plants of 1,000 MW each in the next few decades for nuclear power to make a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions.20 In the UK, the government’s advisory panel, the Sustainable Development Commission, found that if the country’s existing nuclear capacity were doubled, it would only yield an eight percent cut in CO2 emissions by 2035, and none before 2010. Indeed, the Commission concluded that the risks associated with nuclear power greatly outweigh its minimal contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.21 Therefore, expert analyses all agree that nuclear power would require an infeasible schedule, as new reactors would have to come online every few weeks for the next fifty years to have even a modest impact on GHG emissions—new nuclear reactors cannot be built fast. enough to address climate change. Indeed, outside of Russia, whose capacity is perhaps one reactor per year, there currently is only a single forging factory worldwide capable of producing reactor pressure vessels— and this Japanese factory can produce only 12 vessels per year at maximum capacity. To be able to build sufficient reactors to make a difference in emissions would first require construction of large new forging factories—an expensive and financially risky endeavor and one that further delays the nuclear industry’s physical ability to build reactors. Thus, a fundamental flaw in the argument that nuclear power can mitigate global climate change is that the technology simply takes too long to deploy. Moreover, in an age of terrorism, the large number of reactors necessary for nuclear power to meaningfully address climate change would only exacerbate proliferation risks and the perils of a nuclear accident or attack.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

36 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming - No Solvency - Timeframe
NP is too little too late for climate change, renewable enrrgy like solar and wind will be efficient and cost-competitive by the time the first reactor could be built Mariotte 7 (Michael, executive director, Nuclear Info and Resource Service, Nov 6
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html) Environmental advocates considering “reconsidering” nuclear power in light of climate change are too late. The accelerating pace of the climate crisis and the dawning realization that we no longer have the luxury of a few decades to address the crisis already have made nuclear power an irrelevant technology in terms of climate. Even if the nuclear industry had solved the safety, radioactive waste, proliferation, cost, and other issues that ended its first generation—and it hasn’t solved any of those problems—it wouldn’t matter. What nuclear power can offer for climate is simply too little, too late. The major studies that have looked at the issue—MIT, the National Commission on Energy Policy, etc.— generally agree that for nuclear to make a meaningful contribution to carbon emissions reduction would require reactor construction on a massive scale: 1,200 to 2,000 new reactors worldwide, 200 to 400 in the United States alone. And that would have to be done over the next f40 to 50 years. Pity poor Japan Steel Works, the world’s major facility for forging reactor pressure vessels (there is one other, small-capacity facility in Russia): working overtime it can produce twleve pressure vessels per year. Do the math: That’s less than half of what is needed. Even if someone put in the billions of dollars and years necessary to build a new forging facility, it’s still not enough, not fast enough. There are 104 operable reactors in the United States today. In November 2017, no matter how much taxpayer money is thrown at the nuclear industry, there will be 104—or fewer. Even with streamlined licensing procedures and certified reactor designs, it will take ten, twelve years or more to license, build and bring a single new reactor online. And since most of the reactor designs being considered are first or second of a kind, count on them taking even longer. Our energy future ultimately will be carbon-free and nuclear-free, based primarily on solar and wind power, energy efficiency, and distributed generation. What is perhaps less obvious is that the future is now. In the years we’d be waiting for that first new reactor to come online, we can install ten times or more solar and wind capacity, and save twenty times or more that much power through increased efficiency while building the mass production that reduces costs, especially for photovoltaics. By the time that first reactor could come online, solar could already be cost-competitive, while wind and efficiency already are cheaper than nuclear. We no longer have ten years to begin reducing carbon emissions. Waiting around for a few new reactors won’t help our climate, but it would waste the funds needed to implement our real energy future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

37 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming – No Solvency – GHG Emissions
Nuclear power uses fossil fuels in production process. Charman, 6
(Karen , editor of the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism. Questia database, Magazine article; World Watch, Vol. 19, May-June “Brave Nuclear World? the Planet Is Warming, and Proponents of Nuclear Power Say They've Got the Answer. Are Nuclear Plants the Climate Cavalry? First of Two Parts.”) A growing chorus of nuclear advocates, government officials, international bureaucrats, academics, economists, and journalists is calling for nuclear power to save us from devastating climate change. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]) and other greenhouse gases when they split atoms to create electricity. But it's inaccurate to say that nuclear power is "carbonfree"--on a cradle-to-grave basis, no currently available energy source is. (Even wind turbines are guilty by association: the aluminum from which they are built is often smelted using coal-fired electricity.) In the case of nuclear power, fossil

fuel energy is used in the rest of the nuclear fuel chain--the mining, milling, and enriching of uranium for use as fuel in reactors, the building of nuclear plants (especially the cement), the decommissioning of the plants, the construction of storage facilities, and the transportation and storage of the waste. In fact, the gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant at Paducah, Kentucky, is one of the single biggest consumers of dirty coal-fired electricity in the country.

Turn-Nuclear power increases Green House Gas emissions. Caldicott, 5.
(Helen, the Australian, April 15. “Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution” http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm, founder and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute) In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming. Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste. In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.

Nuclear Energy doesn’t solve global warming. Riccio, 2007 (Jim Riccio, Nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace USA “Nuclear Power:A Bad Reaction”
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/05/nuclear_power_a.html) The unproven assertion that atomic energy can solve global warming has helped further the collective amnesia about the past business failures of nuclear energy. In February, 1985, Forbes magazine declared that “[t]he failure of the U.S. nuclear power

program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale. The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power, with an additional $140 billion to come before the decade is out, and only the blind, or the biased, can now think that most of the money has been well
spent.” Nonetheless, more than 20 years later, the very biased are indeed trying to keep us blind to the fact that nuclear energy

is still a money pit that can have little or no impact on oil consumption or our ability to abate catastrophic climate change.
Last month, the Oxford Research Group found that contrary to industry claims, nuclear power does not qualify as a carbon-free technology and cannot be promoted as an environmental panacea (see BusinessWeek.com, 3/26/07, “New Debate Over Nuclear Option”). Nuclear scientists at MIT also have acknowledged that nuclear is “arguably a CO2-emitting energy source” and that the Bush Administration scheme for spreading nuclear power around the planet constitutes “a goofy idea.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

38 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming – No Solvency – GHG Emissions
Nuclear energy doesn’t stop global warming. Nuclear Monitor, 5.
(“Nuclear Power: No solution to climate Change” A new report from NIRS/WISE International. http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf, feb) However, in various stages of the nuclear process huge amounts of energy are needed, much more than for less complex forms of electricity production. Most of this energy comes in the form of fossil fuels, and therefore nuclear power indirectly emits a relatively high amount of greenhouse gases. Emissions from the nuclear industry are strongly dependent on the percentage of uranium in the ores used to fuel the nuclear process, which is expected to decrease dramatically. Recent studies estimate that nuclear power production causes the emission of just 3 times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural gas power stations.

More ev… Carr and Fernandes, 8.
(False Promises, Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, adapted by the staff of Nuclear information and resource center, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf) While atomic reactions do not emit CO2 or other GHGs, the full fuel cycle of nuclear power generation is fossil fuel intensive and emits large amounts of these gases. The mining, milling, processing and transportation of uranium fuel for reactors are all carbon-intensive industries and must be included in fuel-cycle accounting. In fact, the total emissions of the nuclear fuel cycle are not typically assessed when compared with other energy alternatives, leading to this common misconception.

Electricity production only accounts for 9% of Greenhouse Gas emissions and nuclear energy would divert resources from other projects that address climate change. Nuclear Monitor, 5.
(“Nuclear Power: No solution to climate Change” A new report from NIRS/WISE International. http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf, feb) Switching the entire world's electricity production to nuclear would still not solve the problem. Moreover, by diverting the world’s resources from sustainable energy production to nuclear power, it would only exacerbate the problem by diverting scare resources away from those technologies which offer real hope for addressing climate change.This is partly because the production of electricity is only one of many human activities that release greenhouse gases. Others include transport and heating, agriculture, the production of cement and deforestation. The CO2 released worldwide through electricity production accounts for only 9% of total annual human greenhouse gas emissions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

39 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming – No Solvency – Requires 1500 Plants
Nuclear power would require 1,000 and 1,500 new plants. Charman, 6
(Karen , editor of the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism. Questia database, Magazine article; World Watch, Vol. 19, May-June “Brave Nuclear World? the Planet Is Warming, and Proponents of Nuclear Power Say They've Got the Answer. Are Nuclear Plants the Climate Cavalry? First of Two Parts.”) Still, it seems impossible to pin down exactly how carbon-intensive the nuclear fuel chain is, and there is disagreement within the environmental community about nuclear energy's potential contribution to global warming. Tom Cochrane, a nuclear physicist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says nuclear power is not a large greenhouse gas emitter compared to other conventional sources of energy. But in order for nuclear energy to make a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions, we would need a huge increase in the number of nuclear power plants now operating worldwide, which he does not support. Just how huge? A widely quoted 2003 report by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers, "The Future of Nuclear Power," calls for the construction worldwide of 1,000-1,500 new 1,000-megawatt reactors by 2050, an expansion that would potentially displace 15-25 percent of the anticipated growth in carbon emissions from electricity generation projected over that time. A 2004 analysis in Science by Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow, co-directors of Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative, says 700 gigawatts of new nuclear generation--roughly double the number and output of the world's 443 operating reactors--would be needed to achieve just one-seventh of the greenhouse gas emission reductions (at current emission rates) required to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at 500 parts per million (ppm).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

40 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming - No solvency – Transportation Overwhelms
Nuclear Power won’t solve transportation emissions. Carr and Fernandes, 8.
(Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, staff of Nuclear information and resource center, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf) The nuclear industry claims that nuclear power is the only energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels. But, building new nuclear facilities does nothing to address the transportation sector, which is responsible for a large part of GHG emissions. For example, electricity generation in the US is responsible for only 40 percent of the country’s total CO2 emissions.25 Likewise, transportation is the primary sector responsible for global oil consumption (corresponding to more than half of the oil consumed worldwide everyday), generating a full 40 percent of global CO2 emissions. As oil accounts for only seven percent of worldwide electricity generation, the transportation sector is a major source of GHGs and would not be affected by any changes in nuclear power generating capacity.26

No Solvency- France proves emissions will still increase. Nuclear Monitor, 5.
(“Nuclear Power: No solution to climate Change” A new report from NIRS/WISE International. http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf, feb) In 2003 France generated 75% of its electricity in nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry likes to use France as a shining example of the advantages of nuclear power. However, France's greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 were still increasing, largely because it has lost control of energy consumption in other sectors, e.g. transport. Furthermore, studies of future energy scenarios carried out by the French Government Central Planning Agency show no evident correlation between CO2 emissions and nuclear power. In fact the scenario with the lowest emissions was not the one with the greatest use of nuclear power, but the one in which the growth in demand was minimised (Boisson, 1998 & Charpin et al., 2000). In another study, a comparison was made between the results of investments in wind energy and the same amount of investment in nuclear energy. The results were clearly favorable for wind energy. With the same investment much more energy could be generated with wind. Moreover, with investments in wind energy more new jobs were generated than with investments in nuclear energy (Bonduelle & Levevre, 2003).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

41 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming – No Solvency – capacity
NP could only decrease emissions by 5%, renewables are more efficient Green, ‘06
(Jim, Phd, Department of Science & Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, Australia. Nov 2006, http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS03%20Nucl%20Power%20Clmt%20Chng.pdf) Nuclear power is used almost exclusively for electricity generation. (A very small number of reactors are used for heatco-generation and desalination.) Electricity is responsible for less than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Uranium Institute, the figure is “about 30%”.2 That fact alone puts pay to the simplistic view that nuclear power alone can‘solve’ climate change. According to a senior energy analyst with the International Atomic Energy Agency, AlanMcDonald: “Saying that nuclear power can solve global warming by itself is way over the top”.3 Ian Hore-Lacy from the Uranium Information Centre (UIC) claims that a doubling of nuclear power would reduce greenhouse emissions in the power sector by 25%.4 That figure is reduced to a 7.5% reduction if considering the impact on overall emissions rather than just the power sector. The figure needs to be further reduced because the UIC makes no allowance for the considerable time that would be required to double nuclear output. Electricity generation is projected to increase over the coming decades so the contribution of a fixed additional input of nuclear power has a relatively smaller impact. Overall, it is highly unlikely that a doubling of global nuclear power would reduce emissions by more than 5%. Moreover, that modest climate dividend assumes that coal is the reference point. But compared to most renewable energy sources and to energy efficiency measures, nuclear power produces more greenhouse emissions per unit energy produced or saved, in addition to its legacy of nuclear waste and the weapons proliferation risks.5

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

42 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming – No Solency – cost
Limited resources are better spent on wind or solar instead of nuclear; it’s more costeffective given the six billion it takes to build one reactor Kerekes 7
(Michael, senior director of media relations, Nuclear Energy institute, Nov 7 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html) Steve is unable to refute either of the central theses of my first posting: 1) no matter how many billions of dollars we throw at nuclear power, there will be no new atomic reactors in the United States in the next ten years; 2) the industry cannot build the number of reactors needed to make a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions. So, given nuclear power’s well-known and unsolved safety, radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation and economic problems, why bother building any? Steve’s argument essentially breaks down to: the technology exists, so let’s use it. One reason not to bother is cost. The world has limited resources; we need to apply them effectively. If nuclear reactors could be built for $1500 kilowatts, as the Nuclear Energy Institute claimed a couple years ago, nuclear could potentially make an economic case for itself. But a funny thing happened when utilities started looking at actual cost projections rather than engaging in wishful thinking. Even before the first shovelful of construction dirt has been turned, costs for new reactors have skyrocketed. NRG and Constellation Energy, the two earliest license applicants, project costs on the order of $2,500$3,000/kw and they are certainly low-balling. The experience in Finland, where Areva is building an EPR reactor (PDF) is instructive. After thirty-six months of construction, the project is already twenty-four months behind schedule and 50 percent over budget: costs for the single reactor are expected to reach $6 billion, or almost $4,000/kw. (U.S. utilities have said they intend to build 7 EPRs; Areva is hoping to sell EPRs globally.) Six billion dollars for one reactor: that’s more than four times the U.S. Department of Energy’s annual spending on all renewable energy programs—no wonder renewables continue to lag behind their potential. Moody’s Investors Service is even less optimistic. Their October 2007 projection is that new U.S. reactors will cost on the order of $5,000-6,000/kw. At those prices, even solar begins to look competitive —and its costs are trending down worldwide, not up. That’s why Google and other Silicon Valley entrepreneurs see solar power as the next Internet in terms of financial potential, and why they’re investing heavily in the technology. Even under current inadequate federal energy policies, Steve notes that wind expects to reach 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation by 2030—the same percentage nuclear holds now. Taking the hundreds of billions of dollars we could spend on nuclear power to achieve minor carbon emissions cuts and investing that in solar, wind and energy efficiency would be far more effective, and ultimately cheaper. And the emissions cuts could begin now, not in a decade or more.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

43 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Warming - Impact Calculus: NP Risks o/w Warming
The risks of nuclear power greatly outweigh solving global warming. Winfield et al 06 [Mark, Director Environmental Governance The Pembina Institute, Alison Jamison, Senior Project Manager, Rich
Wong, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Paulina Czajkowski, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, December, http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf]

While the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear power are less than those that would be associated with conventional fossil fuel energy use, no other energy source combines the generation of a range of conventional pollutants and waste streams – including heavy metals, smog and acid rain precursors, and water contaminants – with the generation of extremely large volumes of radioactive wastes that will require care and management over hundreds of thousands of years. The combination of these environmental challenges, along with security, accident and weapons proliferation risks that are simply not shared by any other energy source, place nuclear energy in a unique category relative to all other energy supply options. In essence, reliance on nuclear power as a response to climate change would involve trading one problem – greenhouse gas emissions – for which a wide range of other solutions exist, for a series of other complex and difficult problems for which solutions are generally more costly and difficult and for which the outcomes are much less certain.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

44 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Energy Independence***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

45 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Energy Independence Scenario
A. Global war over dwindling oil supplies inevitable without the transition to an alternative energy future Lauber 5 (Volkmar, professor political science, University of Salzburg, Switching to Renewable Power: a
framework for the 21st century, ed. V. Lauber, p. 7-8) In any case, the matter is not likely to rest there. One of the foreseeable results of oil depletion is that the OPEC countries, and particularly those of the Middle East, will gain in importance as their reserves are the largest, and their demand comparatively modest. They will thus be in a better position to dominate the market than they have been in decades. The temptation to “secure” continued access to – or control over – oil by military means will increase. In the early years of the 21st century, some US neoconservatives (who as a group dominated foreign policy making at that time) argued well before the Iraq War of 2003 that the United States should secure a strong position in the Middle East so that it could control the distribution of the oil resource—not just to guarantee its own supplies, but because this would give it a handle over its “friends” (and competitors—Europe and Japan) as well as its opponents. Experience shows that intense conflict can hardly be averted in such a situation. The only alternative is to bring about a decisive change in energy policy, one that prepares the world for the decline of oil and gas. For the European power sector, natural gas is of decisive importance. Even though its regional distribution is not identical to that of oil, the structure of the conflict in case of gas depletion is likely to be similar. And those regions that are able to reduce their dependence on hydrocarbons are likely to be at an advantage.

B. Nuclear power is critical to end oil dependence. All other renewable sources fail. Hickey 6 (James E, Professor of Law at Hofstra, Hofstra Law Review, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425)
Nuclear power is one of the most readily available domestic energy sources that can be used to achieve energy independence. It has a fifty-year record of safe operational experience with over one hundred power plants. n29 There are an estimated 498 million tons of uranium ore reserves in the United States n30 to fuel a revived nuclear power industry. In addition, Australia and Canada, two close U.S. allies, have most of the world's uranium reserves. Unlike fossil fuel electric power, nuclear electric power does not produce any GHGs. In 2005, over 200 million barrels of oil were used directly for electric generation. n31 This consumption can be replaced by nuclear generation, which would help to reduce U.S. foreign oil dependence. In addition, the heavy reliance on the automobile in the United States is a major source of both oil consumption and of GHG emissions. The movement to introduce electric and electric hybrid cars to the U.S. automobile market is an attempt to reduce oil use and GHG emissions. However, if electric batteries used in these cars are recharged with fossil fuel generated [*431] electricity, little is achieved to reduce GHG emissions because the source of those emissions is simply moved from the tailpipe to the smokestack. In a revived nuclear power industry, additional GHG emission reductions could be achieved by recharging electric car batteries with electricity produced from nuclear power plants. Despite these advantages, the growth of the nuclear power industry has been moribund since the late 1970s because of domestic concerns about cost, accidents, and waste disposal. n32 As a result, the nuclear energy contribution to meet the nation's total electric demand hovers at about twenty percent. n33 If nothing changes in the calculus of the benefits and costs of nuclear power production, the contribution of nuclear energy to meet the rising energy needs of the United States will decline in the future. Existing nuclear plants are operating at top efficiency and they are near the end of their useful lives, with no new plants on the horizon. n34 In turn, U.S. electric demand is expected to increase by forty-three percent over the next twenty years requiring between 1300 and 1900 new power plants. n35 Without nuclear power plants, the primary fuel source for those plants will be fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil), which are the major contributors of GHG to the atmosphere from electric generation. n36 Renewable energy sources presently contribute little more than two percent of the nation's total electric generation, excluding hydroelectricity (i.e. wind, solar, geothermal).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

46 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Energy Independence – US Dependent SQ
US is dependent on Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq for fuel Marsh 7
(Gerald E, former DoD consultant on strategic nuclear tech and policy, USA Today Vol. 135, January.) IN THE SUMMER of 1993, Samuel Huntington published an article in Foreign Affairs that introduced an apt phrase into the lexicon of futurologists: "The Clash of Civilizations." Huntington maintained that the fundamental source of conflict in this century would be cultural rather than economic or ideological. While the clash that is developing between the Muslim world and the West is indeed cultural, it is driven by the economics of energy and, in particular, oil. The use of oil is widespread in industry and will be irreplaceable in the transportation sector for decades. It also will be in short supply soon, according to Claude Mandil, executive director of the International Energy Agency, who warns that "the world's energy economy is on a pathway that is plainly not sustainable," and is one that will lead from "crisis to crisis." The IEA predicts that many of the oil fields the U.S. and Europe depend on will peak in the next five to seven years--and this includes those of Russia, the U.S., Mexico, and Norway. It is estimated that world energy demand will increase at least 50% by 2030. To meet this demand, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), where most of the world's remaining readily accessible oil is found, practically will have to double its production. Most of that increase must come from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

47 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Energy Independence – Impact – Wars
Without reducing US dependence on oil, we will continue to support repressive and militant regimes, inevitably leading to the clash of civilizations and war. Marsh 7
(Gerald E, former DoD consultant on strategic nuclear tech and policy USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Vol. 135, January) These repressive governments, such as the former dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Assad family in Syria, and even the more friendly dictatorship of Pres. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, are due to failed early attempts to modernize these societies, followed by the disastrous introduction of the centralized Nazi and later Soviet models of governance. Traditional Islamic or Arab societies were quite different. The conflict within Islam is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. There also is little hope that the nations of the world will act in concert to prevent the rise of Iran to power and hegemony over the Gulf--or its probable development of nuclear missiles. If the U.S.'s dependency on Gulf oil is not reduced, the nation must expect to pay the price in blood in addition to dollars.

Nuclear Energy will help us win the War on Terror. Miller 4 (Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD, http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller13.html)
The many billions of dollars our government is spending occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, to ensure a continued supply of fossil fuels, would be much better spent building nuclear reactors. Our country needs to bring the troops home and start building third (and fourth) generation nuclear power plants, like China and other Asian nations are doing. The War on Terror will not be won, with our adversary employing fourth-generation-warfare suicide attacks on civilians in one’s homeland, until our country pulls its stick out of the hornet’s nest. The only way Muslim terrorists are going to leave us, and our soon-to-be former allies like Spain alone is if we pull all of our troops out of the Middle East, and leave them alone. This is perhaps the greatest advantage of nuclear power, coupled with new technologies like thermal depolymerization. It will better enable our country to follow the advice its first President gave us in his Farewell Address – to conduct dealings with other nations in the marketplace, not on the battlefield. Building nuclear power plants can help end the War on Terror, in addition to keeping our lights and computers on.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

48 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Energy Independence – NP Solves
NP could fill the total US energy need, provide energy independence and a trade surplus Robinson and Robinson 8 (Arthur B and Noah E, profs, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, The New
American. Jan 7, Vol. 24, Iss. 1; pg. 21, 4 pgs, Proquest) Consider, for example, one practical and environmentally sound path to U.S. energy independence. At present, 19 percent of U.S. electricity is produced by 104 nuclear power reactors, with an average generating output in 2006 of 870 megawatts per reactor, for a total of about 90 GWe (gigawatts). If this were increased by 560 GWe, nuclear power could fill 100 percent of our current U.S. electricity requirements with an additional 230 GWe left over for export as electricity or as hydrocarbon fuels replaced or manufactured. This is illustrated by Chart #3. Thus, rather than a $300 billion trade loss, the United States would have a $200 billion trade surplus and installed capacity for future U.S. requirements. Moreover, if heat from additional nuclear reactors were used for coal liquefaction and gasification, the United States would not even need to use its oil resources. The United States has about 25 percent of the world's coal reserves. The heat from nuclear reactors could also be used to liquefy biomass, trash, or other sources of hydrocarbons that might eventually prove practical. The Palo Verde nuclear power station near Phoenix, Arizona, was originally intended to have 10 nuclear reactors with a generating capacity of 1,243 megawatts each. As a result of public hysteria caused by false information - very similar to the human-caused global warming hysteria being spread today - construction at Palo Verde was stopped with only three operating reactors completed. This installation is sited on 4,000 acres of land and is cooled by wastewater from the city of Phoenix, which is a few miles away. An area of 4,000 acres is equivalent to a square 2.5 miles on a side. The power station itself occupies only a small part of this total area. If just one station like Palo Verde were built in each of the 50 states and each installation included 10 reactors as originally planned for Palo Verde, these plants, operating at the current 90 percent of design capacity, would collectively produce 560 GWe of electricity. Nuclear technology has advanced substantially since Palo Verde was built, so plants constructed today would be even more reliable and efficient. The delivered cost of this electricity would be between 3 and 5 cents per kilowatt hour, which is substantially lower than most current U.S. prices. Assuming a construction cost of $2.3 billion per 1,200 MWe reactor and 15-percent economies of scale, the total cost of this entire project would be $1 trillion - the equivalent of four months of the current federal budget or eight percent of the annual U.S. gross domestic product. Construction costs could be repaid in just a few years by the capital now spent by the people of the United States for foreign oil and by the change from U.S. import to export of energy.

Investment in NP solves FF dependency, reduces FF price risks and supply shocks Roques, Nuttal, Newberry, and Neufville 5 (Fabien A, William J, David M, and Richard de, Judge Business School,
University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics, Cambridge, Engineering Systems Division, MIT, 08 November, http://ardent.mit.edu/real_options/Real_opts_papers/Roques%20Energy%20Journal%20final.pdf)

The increase in the share of gas in the electricity fuel-mix has raised concerns among policy-makers about the growing gas-import dependency and the resulting increased foreign exchange rate exposure to gas price fluctuations.26 The literature investigating the optimal national degree of generation diversity (Awerbuch and Berger 2003, Stirling 2001) argues that a diverse fuel and technologymix has two macroeconomic benefits. First, non-fossil fuel technologies reduce fossil fuel price risk and help avoid costly economic losses. Awerbuch and Sauter (2005) assert that the observed negative relationship between fossil fuel price changes and economic activity justifies subsidies for renewable energy, nuclear power and demand side management. Second, a diverse system is intrinsically more robust to supply shocks and therefore fuel-mix diversity benefits security of supply (Stirling, 2001).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

49 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Energy Independence – NP Solves
NP solves the supply, importation, cost and environmental problems of fossil fuels; cheaper than coal Sikkema and Savage, ’07 (Linda and Melissa, experts, National Conference of State Legislatures, State
Legislatures, Vol. 33, March) Most do agree, however, that meeting the current and future energy needs in the United States is approaching a crisis. Our demand for energy is expected to jump by 50 percent in the next 25 years. Some experts say the United States will have to import 65 percent of its oil and 30 percent of its gas by 2015. Domestically, fuels will get harder to get to and be located far from where they are needed. A limited foreign oil supply and competition from growing needs in China and India will make it more difficult and more expensive to depend on foreign imports. At the same time, there is an increasing demand for clean energy. States are implementing stricter environmental and air quality standards and the federal government is expected to do the same. Nuclear energy is a possible solution to this growing dilemma. As a clean energy source, it meets environmental standards. It is cheaper than coal. Development costs for a nuclear plant are less than that of a coal plant. Thirty-one states have already incorporated nuclear power into their energy portfolios and have been able to safely meet energy demand for consumers. Arizona, Vermont, New Jersey, South Carolina, Connecticut and Illinois use it the most.

Despite drawbacks, NP is the only way to solve FF dependency, fill US energy need Sikkema and Savage, ’07 (Linda and Melissa, experts, National Conference of State Legislatures, State
Legislatures, Vol. 33, March) While there continues to be some disagreement over the safety of nuclear power, the energy issues facing the United States are genuine. Energy experts agree that the United States needs to find a balanced mix of resources to lessen dependency on foreign oil. For many the direction is clear: nuclear-generated power. "If becoming independent from foreign oil truly is a national priority, we need to begin developing alternatives that will reduce our reliance on other nations," says New Mexico's Representative Heaton. "Over the next 50 years, the gap between projected energy demand, and projected energy production in the United States will need to be bridged. In order to remain competitive in the global economy, we will have to find a way to fill in this shortfall."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

50 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Energy Independence
Nuclear power does not solve oil dependence Zubrin 7 (Robert, President Pioneer Astronautics, PhD Nuclear Engineer, Energy Victory)
Nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and solar power have all been offered as solutions to the energy problem. These all have various issues associated with them. However, the bottom line is that discussion of these technologies misses the point. It is true that, to the extent they can be done economically, these technologies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal or natural gas for electricity generation. But the central issue of energy independence is not electricity. The United States has plenty of coal, and if necessary it could generate all of its electric power in this way. No, the key issue in energy independence concerns the availability of liquid fuels to power cars, trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes. These systems are not merely conveniences that have become dear to our way of life; they are the sinews of the economy and the fundamental instruments of military strength. During World War 11, when the fuel supplies of the Axis nations collapsed, so did their war efforts. A modern war cannot be run-a modern economy cannot be sustained-without liquid fuels. There is no prospect whatsoever of the large-scale economic generation of liquid fuels from nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, or solar power sources in the near future. Thus the discussion of these technologies is largely irrelevant to the immediate strategic problem we face. In the long run, however, when combined with the switch to alcohol fuels, they can play a key role in enabling an open human future of worldwide economic development and rising living standards, without the threat of global warming. This will be discussed in chapters 10 and 1 1

Nuclear Power won’t make us energy independent. Carr and Fernandes, 8.
(False Promises, Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, adapted by the staff of Nuclear information and resource center, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf) Increasing the share of nuclear power in the US energy mix would do nothing to reduce our nation’s dependency on foreign sources of oil. The US is importing more oil each year—most of it from the world’s most unstable regions—increasing the country’s economical and political vulnerability and making oil dependency among the largest threats to our economy and national security. In 2005, the US spent some $250 billion in oil imports, which is about $20 billion per month or $25 million per hour.226 The US imports almost 60 percent of the 20 million barrels of oil it consumes daily, and these numbers are projected to go up to 70 percent by 2025.227 Moreover, with only five percent of the world’s population, and two percent of the world’s oil reserves, the US consumes about 25 percent of global oil production.228 As staggering as these numbers may be, they would not be affected by an expanded reliance on nuclear power because only some three percent of the electricity produced in the US is from petroleum.229 As noted by Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford, “Nuclear power’s only substantial contribution to oil displacement in the US comes in regions in which natural gas displaced by nuclear power can penetrate further into oil’s share of the markets, such as space heating in New England.”230 Indeed, transportation is the sector that accounts for most of US oil consumption—about two-thirds of the country’s oil consumption is used by vehicles, which corresponds to roughly 13 millions barrels a day.231 Thus, possible nuclear power development would not have any influence over these statistics.

NP won’t solve oil dependency, it can’t replace car oil Ferguson, Fellow for Sci and Tech, CFR, ‘07 (Charles D. “Fight Fire With Fire?”, April 30, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042701463.html)
First, what can nuclear energy really do to free the United States from the clutches of corrupt oil-producing countries? The United States generates about twenty percent of its electricity from nuclear energy and only three percent from oil. Oil mainly fuels cars and trucks. Presently, the United States imports about two-thirds of its oil. While nuclear energy is now used for electric power generation and not for transportation, perhaps over many decades, it could power vehicles through production of hydrogen for fuel cells or electricity for plug-in hybrid cars and trucks. But until transportation is overhauled away from gasoline powered internal combustion engines, nuclear energy cannot wean the United States off oil from unstable parts of the world.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

51 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Hegemony***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

52 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Heg Scenario 1/2
A. The lack of action on climate change and continued dependence on oil hurts US international standing in the wake of Iraq. Hickey 6 (James E, Professor of Law at Hofstra, Hofstra Law Review, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425)
In the absence of international law justifications for the invasion, the perception persists in some quarters, rightly or wrongly, that the United States invaded Iraq primarily to secure long term foreign sources of oil. After all, the United States depends mostly on foreign oil for much of the country's energy needs. n12 "In 2005, total U.S. demand for petroleum was 20.8 million barrels per day, of which 12.5 million barrels per day, or 60 percent, was from net imports." n13 Domestic oil production is mature, is increasingly under environmental constraints, and is not expected to rise significantly in the future. n14 Under the present growth energy policy of the United States, grounded in fossil fuel use, secure foreign sources of oil must be found. In this regard, Iraq is estimated to have up to 216 billion barrels of untapped oil reserves in the ground, the third highest reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Canada. n15 The second perception of international law illegality is that the United States is acting contrary to the letter and spirit of the emerging international law regime to deal with climate change, in particular, efforts to reduce GHG emissions that contribute to global warming that are found in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ("Climate Change Convention") n16 and later in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the Climate Change Convention ("Kyoto Protocol"). n17 [*429] The United States is a party to the Climate Change Convention along with 188 other nations. n18 The Climate Change Convention establishes an administrative mechanism for governments to cooperate in stabilizing and ultimately reducing man-made GHG emissions to stop global warming. It establishes a largely aspirational framework to address the problem of climate change by urging cooperation among nations, by calling for the gathering of data on GHG emissions, by the launching of strategies to facilitate needed financing and technologies, and by articulating principles (like equity, sustainable development, and the precautionary principle) to guide more substantive rules. n19 An overall goal of the Climate Change Convention is to have developed nations reduce GHG emissions to their 1990 levels and to have them assist developing countries in dealing with GHG. n20 While still a party to the Climate Change Convention, the United States, in 2001, withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. n21 The Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force in February 2005 and has 169 parties to it, imposed binding international law obligations on industrialized nations to cap GHG emissions. n22 If the United States had not withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, it would have been obligated to reduce its GHG emissions seven percent below 1990 levels. n23 Just the opposite happened. From 1990 through 2000, for example, total GHG emissions by the United States rose from 1647 million metric tons annually to 1885 million metric tons. n24 In 2005, GHG emissions from the United [*430] States were seventeen percent higher than in 1990. n25 The United States alone produces roughly one quarter of all the world's energyrelated carbon emissions. n26 Forty percent of that total comes from electric power plants burning coal, oil, and natural gas. n27 In addition, the United States domestically has refused to regulate GHG emissions from automobiles under the Clean Air Act. n28 By any measure, this is a domestic energy policy position out of step with the international law regimes emerging to deal with climate change.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

53 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Heg Scenario 2/2
B.Nuclear power is critical to changing perceptions of US Hickey 6 (James E, Professor of Law at Hofstra, Hofstra Law Review, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425)
Two perceptions, right or wrong, of international law illegality on the part of the United States have arisen in the last few years with regard to both the use of military force in Iraq and to global warming. The first perception is that the United States invaded Iraq illegally to secure a significant source of foreign oil. The second perception is that the United States ignores the letter and spirit of the evolving international climate change regime to reduce greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. Both perceptions of international law illegality directly reflect the domestic growth energy policy of the United States that is anchored by a present and future reliance almost exclusively on fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas), which both emit GHG and contribute to the dependence [*426] of the United States on foreign oil. n1 Those perceptions of illegality could be fully cured by an aggressive use of existing domestic law to revive the nuclear power industry in the United States to replace its fossil fuel-based electric supply. This would put the United States in compliance with the climate change regime (whether or not it ever participates in it) and would help both to greatly reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign oil as a factual matter and to eliminate the perception that it uses force to secure foreign oil sources as a policy matter. In turn, the benefits of removing perceptions of international law illegality ought to play a significant and positive role in weighing the benefits and costs of future domestic nuclear energy production.

C. Leadership is key to preventing nuclear war. Khalilzad ’95 (Zalmay, Ambassador to the U.N., Spring, The Washington Quarterly, “Losing the Moment? The
United States and the World After the Cold War.” Lexis) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

54 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Heg – NP Key to Leadership
Global NP development inevitable, only question is US role Marsh, former DoD consultant on strategic nuclear tech and policy, ‘07
(Gerald E, “Can the Clash of Civilizations Produce Alternate Energy Sources?”, USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Vol. 135, January 2007. It is a matter of national security that these sources of oil be developed. In the long run, however, we need to ask ourselves whether it makes sense to burn billions of barrels of oil. Even if the slight warming the world is experiencing should prove to be only minimally related to the carbon dioxide produced by human activities, the burning of such vast quantities of fossil fuel is bound to have an environmental impact. The developed world cannot legislate how the developing world will use these fuels, and history has shown that commercialization likely will be at the lowest cost to the producer, with the concomitant release of vast quantities of pollutants. China is a perfect contemporary example. Yet, if the grinding poverty that most people in the developing world are living under is to end through development along the Western model--and no alternative model has been shown to be viable--the required energy has to come from somewhere. There is only one practical answer that is known today: nuclear power coupled with the long-term development of a hydrogen economy based on nuclear energy. Despite longstanding public concern, nuclear power is by far the most ecologically sound way to generate large amounts of electricity. The environmental impact of nuclear power since its inception (and this includes the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters) has been far less than that from the burning of fossil fuels for an equivalent amount of energy. Nuclear power is going to expand globally whether the U.S. plays a role or not. China brought six new reactors on-line between 2002-04, and plans at least another 30 in the next 15 years. India is planning for 30, with seven due to come on-line by 2008. For nuclear power to spread through the developing world beyond these two countries without the threat of additional proliferation of nuclear weapons, we need a new model, hopefully one fashioned by the U.S. with its ability to structure the necessary international framework. A somewhat promising start has been made with the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative, under which the world's leading nuclear exporters would guarantee that all countries have access to a reliable source of fuel for civilian reactors at a reasonable cost. The spent fuel would be returned for recycling and waste disposal. In return, the non-nuclear weapons nations would renounce enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel. To win acceptance, the supplier nations' fuel and waste-disposal services must be guaranteed by a global entity such as the International Energy Agency or the International Atomic Energy Agency. The technical part of the new model already exists: Under an arrangement known as "hub-spoke," selfcontained reactors, sometimes called "nuclear batteries," would be available in a variety of sizes. Sealed and failsafe, they would be manufactured at a central location and rented to nations needing more energy. Running them would not require advanced nuclear expertise. At the end of their 15- to 30-year life, the exhausted reactor cores, still sealed, would be traded for rejuvenated ones. In fact, Toshiba has developed a nuclear battery and, to demonstrate it, the company has offered to install one at Galena, Alaska (population 650) for free. The reactor would put out 10 megawatts of electricity--just right for Galena--although much larger modular units can be produced. The combination of hub-spoke with a secure, internationally guaranteed fuel recycling and waste disposal arrangement for all nations having conventional nuclear reactors would permit the inevitable spread of civilian nuclear power without making the proliferation of nuclear weapons any more likely. If the IEA is correct, the time we have to formulate an appropriate policy and begin investment is a mere five to seven years. We need to act now.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

55 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Heg – NP Key to Leadership
Empirically, US nuclear leadership increases foreign policy agenda setting Krige 8 (John Krige, School of History, Technology and Society, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332. The Peaceful Atom as Political Weapon:
Euratom and American Foreign Policy in the Late 1950s, February 21, 2008., Caliber, Journals of the University of California Press http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/hsns.2008.38.1.5)

The U.S. emerged from World War II as the world's leading scientific and technological nation, consolidating its advantage for the next two or three decades. This paper describes how the State Department used the nation's dominance in the nuclear field, inherited from the Manhattan Project, to divert the resources of Western European states, notably France and Germany, into a civilian nuclear power program undertaken by a new supranational organization, Euratom. The determination on the continent to re-launch the European integration process in 1955, the Suez crisis in 1956, and the launch of the Sputniks in 1957 were opportunities ably exploited by officers in the State Department to use America's scientific, technological, and industrial depth in nuclear power as a political weapon. To this end they withheld the supply of enriched uranium for as long as possible from nations that wanted the fuel through bilateral agreements with the Atomic Energy Commission. In parallel they offered nuclear materials and know how, along with economic and political incentives, to encourage nations to commit to Euratom. This policy was strongly opposed by senior officials in the AEC and in the fledgling International Atomic Energy Agency, as well in Britain and in some continental countries, but to no avail. Though the State Department's efforts eventually bore little fruit, the paper clearly shows how U.S. leadership in science and technology was mobilized to promote America's foreign policy agenda in Western Europe in the early Cold War.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

56 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Heg – Technical Leadership
US technological superiority is declining. CSIS 4 (5/25, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/040521_globalization_impacts.pdf)
Preserving our ability to innovate is more important than keeping manufacturing or call-center jobs. Innovation of new ideas, goods and services is the key to economic growth and crucial for military strength. In relative terms, other nations will increase their share of innovation compared to the U.S. Additionally, financial, pressures, government policies and the shift from manufacturing may result in an absolute decline in the pace and scope of innovation in the U.S. Technological superiority is crucial to the U.S. global position and we cannot contemplate its loss lightly.

Lack of technological innovation hurts US economic dominance: It’s more important than our current problems. Malpass July 3 (2008, David, http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0721/025.html)
A third issue, technological

advance, is also likely to have more impact on our economic prospects than the current woes. Technology has taken a backseat to the financial crisis, yet it remains a key shaper of the economy and U.S. value creation. Which was more important to the 1990s, the savings-and-loan crisis or the expansion of the Internet? Clearly, the latter. Similarly, today's mortgage crisis will more than likely be overshadowed in the next decade by a technology that doesn't yet have a popular following.

Nuclear power is critical to encouraging technological innovation for the future. ElBaradei 6 (Director General Dr. Mohamed, http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n011.html)
With rising expectations for nuclear power expansion, technological

innovation has become a strong focus as the nuclear industry looks to the future. Current R&D projects on new reactor and fuel cycle technologies are focused on enhancing nuclear safety, reducing proliferation risks, minimizing waste generation and improving economic performance. The IAEA´s International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) works to ensure that the future needs of all countries, including developing countries, are considered when innovative nuclear systems are evaluated. Many developing countries have been particularly interested in efforts to develop
small and medium-size reactor designs. These designs allow a more incremental investment than is required for a big reactor, and provide a better match to grid capacity in countries with smaller grids.

Nuclear power encourages innovation in new technologies in a critical sector of the economy: alternative energy. ElBaradei 2007 (November 30, IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed,
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n021.html) The future of nuclear power will also be greatly impacted by technological innovation - the development of new reactor and fuel cycle technologies. As might be expected, current nuclear R&D projects are focused on enhancing nuclear safety, reducing proliferation risks, minimizing waste generation and improving economic performance. The IAEA´s International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) works to ensure that the future needs of all countries, in particular developing countries, are understood and taken into account when innovative nuclear systems are evaluated and developed. Many developing countries have been particularly interested in efforts to develop small and medium-size reactor designs. These designs allow a more incremental investment than is required for a large reactor, and provide a better match to grid capacity in many developing countries. They are more easily adapted to applications such as district heating and seawater desalination. Many countries are currently working on developing new reactor designs in this size range, which may well be in high demand in the future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

57 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Technical Leadership – US Leader SQ
The US is still first in science and technology: Scientists and engineers prove. Reuters June 12 (2008, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=us-retains-global-science)
The United States retains its global preeminence in science and technology, with a big boost from foreign students, scientists and engineers, a RAND Corporation report issued on Thursday said. RAND researchers said their conclusions contradict perceptions among some Americans that the nation was losing its competitiveness in these crucial fields. In fact, the United States remains ahead of its main competitors in Europe and Japan, according to the report from the nonprofit research organization requested by the Pentagon. "Although developing nations such as China, India and South Korea showed rapid growth in S&T (science and technology), these nations still account for a small share of world innovation and scientific output," the report added. The report looked at government, corporate and academic science and technology activities. It did not provide a country-by-country ranking but cited the United States as the world's leader based on a number of measures. The United States accounts for 40 percent of the global spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the world's Nobel Prize winners and boasts three quarters of the world's top 40 universities, the report said. "We find that the crisis that everybody is talking about does not seem to really be there," Titus Galama, one of the report's authors, said in a telephone interview. "There's lots of things changing in the world. The United States seems to be adapting fairly well to it," Galama added. Foreign students, scientists and engineers are playing a vitally important role, RAND said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

58 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Space***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

59 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space Scenario 1/2
A. Nuclear power key to space colonization Britt 1 (Robert Roy, Senior Science Writer http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_space_010625-1.html)
While nuclear power can improve the efficiency of a rover, some say it is imperative for more ambitious missions. An increasingly vocal group of space enthusiasts argues that the post-Apollo space program is stagnant due to the lack of a major goal. Many think that what's needed is a firm plan to set up permanent human colonies on the Moon or Mars. Peter Eckart, of the Institute for Astronautics at the Munich University of Technology in Germany, says that if a lunar base is to be built anywhere except at the poles, where sunlight is constant, then "the only reasonable engineering solution is to go with nuclear power." Likewise, others say, any future colonization of Mars will likely depend not just on nuclear electric propulsion, but nuclear power generation on the surface. Most engineers question whether even the most perfectly situated site can be sustained by solar power. And at best, these sites would not necessarily be located where researchers would want to explore.

B. Space colonization is key to prevent extinction Falconi 8 (Oscar, BS Physics M.I.T, physicist and consultant http://www.nutri.com/space/)
If man can populate the universe to a density of just one person per cubic light year, then, over the next 100 billion years, we can enjoy some 10-to-the-40th-power man-years. This is very conservative. From energy considerations the universe may be able to support as many as 10-to-the-60th man-years. We have used up about a trillion so far, leaving us over 9.99 x 10-to-the-59th man-years of productivity and happiness. So, that is what may be at stake. If it were possible to know, it's certain that every yet-unborn

person would appeal to us that we must, at all costs, assure his existence by immediately taking steps to prevent our self-destruction. Life on earth will certainly cease to exist some day, but can we predict how soon?
Unfortunately, every science (except mathematics) is based upon laboratory and field observations of the world as it's handed to us. The experimentalists are usually far ahead of the theorists who spend the great majority of their time trying to explain what has been observed. It's clear, since we're almost always one step behind in our understanding of the facts, that no advance warning of our imminent demise can be expected from the theorists. Since our scientists can't enlighten us, what about our politicians? Can they somehow control the geometrically increasing indicators (population, energy, etc.) and peacefully level them out to a stable plateau? Or will there be some sort of earthly "big bang"? One might only predict from the manner in which world leaders have solved their problems in the past, and by judging the caliber of our leadership in the world today. It may be that the only way we can have of predicting the time by which we should set up our colony is to look at the curves that depict these geometrically increasing indicators of impending disaster. These rates of increase surely cannot be maintained for many years - and so we must get on with the construction of space colonies - Now! For many present-day decision makers, the argument that immediate space colonization may save 10-to-the-60th man-years in the future may not be as persuasive as an argument that space colonization can solve problems of the moment and that taxpayers and constituents will be benefited now or in the near future. Well, space colonization CAN solve other problems here on Earth, and can actually save a far greater amount of money than the amount required for this project.

C. Only revival of domestic nuclear power industry solves Britt 1 (Robert Roy, Senior Science Writer http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_space_010625-1.html)
It's a possibility made more likely by recent shifts in U.S. energy and military policies. It's also a move anticipated by antinuclear activists, who are already planning their opposition to any effort to use nuclear power in space. Fueled by the desire to go farther and faster with fewer dollars, managers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory -- where many of the agency's robotic missions are conceived and carried out -- are analyzing how to justify the use of nuclear power in space, both technically

and in terms of the benefit to science." We've been thinking about this, and trying to raise it as a question that warrants some consideration, for a couple of years," says Firouz Naderi, a longtime JPL manager and newly appointed leader of the Solar System's Exploration Programs Directorate. "I think we are going to raise it again and see if the [political] system is amenable to it." In an interview at his JPL office, Naderi said any such political balloon would have to be floated in Washington by NASA headquarters. "I believe that if a good case can be made, not only for the science return but for safety, then I could see that [nuclear power] could be in our future," he said. Others think Naderi may be right. And support could come from the top. President Bush's recently released energy plan features increased reliance on nuclear power back here on Earth. In several interviews, scientists and mission planners said they were hopeful this might put space-based nuclear power generation back on the table after suffering from years of what they call misinformation. "The fact that the country is willing again to consider use of nuclear energy for commercial power may improve the prospects of applying this technology to space exploration," said George Schmidt, deputy manager of the
Propulsion Research Center at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

60 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space -Uniqueness
There is lack of action on space exploration now. Mills June 2 (2008, Jim, The Hill, http://thehill.com/jim-mills/space-exploration-on-the-cheap-america-misses-its-moment-2008-0602.html)

Sure, there are “plans” to establish a base on the moon, and maybe someday send a crew to Mars, but we don’t really have our hearts in it. We are going through the motions, doing it on the cheap, and without any articulated vision of why we should explore the heavens in the first place. I don’t think most Americans, space buffers or not, are yet quite aware that for all intents and purposes our manned space program will go dark between 2010 and 2015, the period of time between the shuttle’s final flight and the day we get our next generation of rockets built.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

61 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Industry Expansion key to Space
Nuclear energy expansion on earth leas to nuclear power in space Britt 1 (Robert Roy, Senior Science Writer http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_space_0106251.html) Given that the Bush administration has put Earth-based nuclear power back on the table, do you think this stands to renew interest and support for using nuclear power in space? SCHMIDT: The potential benefits of using
nuclear fission for space power and propulsion have been recognized for some time. The United States and former Soviet Union/Russia have conducted many research and development programs focused on this technology since the late-1950s. Although the former Soviet Union/Russia has placed over 30 reactors in Earth orbit to support sophisticated

. The fact that the country is willing again to consider use of nuclear energy for commercial power may improve the prospects of applying this technology to space exploration. However, it is important to note that the rationale and context for space nuclear systems are very different from those for ground-based applications. For one, space fission systems do not begin operating until they are deployed safely in space. Before then, radiation levels in these devices are extremely low and are at least four orders of magnitude less than the power sources used on current deep space probes. Space nuclear systems also benefit by circumventing the issues of waste handling and disposal. NASA's current interest is in power systems to propel sophisticated scientific probes into the outer solar system and deep space. For these applications, the reactor would never return to Earth. Admittedly, some ground-based nuclear testing will be necessary to develop these systems for flight. However, the size of these reactors is considerably smaller than most university research reactors in use today, and their power levels are roughly
high-power spacecraft, the U.S. has flown only one – SNAP-10A in 1965, which was shut down after only 43 days of operation 10,000 times lower than commercial power reactors. In addition, much of the development testing will employ high-performance electrical heaters in the cores to simulate fission heat release, thus minimizing use of nuclear materials.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

62 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space - Key to Colonization
Nuclear Power is the only technology we have to get humans to mars Clark 00 (Greg http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nuclearmars_000521.html Staff Writer
Space.com) When it comes to attracting interest in new mission plans to far-out places in the solar system, it is often the wildly futuristic concepts that get the attention. Antimatter propulsion, solar and magnetic sails all make great stories, but such futuristic concepts don't do anything to get humans out to the moon, or Mars, or to various local comets or asteroids within the foreseeable future. With these futuristic technologies barely out of their conceptual phases, practical use of such far-out concepts for human space transportation is decades away at best. So when planners at NASA begin to examine space-travel goals beyond low Earth orbit, beyond 2005 when the International Space Station is scheduled to be complete, they are faced with making bigger, brawnier and incredibly more expensive versions of the chemical rockets in use today. Either that, or consider a demonstrated technology that was abandoned almost 30 years ago: nuclear rocket engines. "It's continually talked about. Whenever you start seriously contemplating human missions back to the moon and Mars in an economical way with reuse potential, nuclear always comes to the foreground," said Stanley Borowski, a nuclear and aerospace engineer at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. In the past few months, several NASA notables, including associate administrators Joe Rothenberg and Gary Payton, have mentioned publicly that nuclear power in space transportation deserves a closer look. The comments indicate that if public relations efforts can gain acceptance for the possibility, future interplanetary missions may include nuclear-power options. Meanwhile, engineers at NASA centers and various other research institutions, including Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico, have been working quietly in the background to design several such missions. One system that holds promise is a concept for a Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket, a mission design that uses nuclear reactors to produce thrust and electricity for a human-crewed mission to Mars. It was developed during the past three years by Borowski and Leonard Dudzinski, also an aerospace engineer at the Glenn Research Center.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

63 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space – Key to exploration
Nuclear Propulsion key to Space Exploration Bromley 7 (Dr. Blair P, Advance Council Member College Of Engineering, Chalk River Laboratories
http://www.ne.uiuc.edu/alumni/caiab.php) For those who are interested in the exploration and development of space by humans, nuclear propulsion technology is a very attractive option. Why? Compared with the best chemical rockets, nuclear propulsion systems (NPS's) are more reliable and flexible for long-distance missions, and can achieve a desired space mission at a lower cost. The reason for these advantages in a nutshell is that NPS's can get "more miles per gallon" than a chemical rockets. If NPS's were analogous to a 1998 Honda Civic, then your best chemical rocket would be a gas-guzzler from the 1950's.

Nuclear power key to space exploration Britt 1 (Robert Roy, Senior Science Writer http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_space_0106251.html) Few debate the potential benefits of nuclear power in space. The life of a Mars rover could be extended from days to years. Maneuverability would be measured in miles instead of feet. And many engineers agree that a human trip to Mars would go from highly impossible to practical. Further, if humanity is ever to leave this planet permanently and set up colonies on the Moon or Mars, a nuclear power station would be nearly indispensable, most space industry experts agree.

Nuclear power is the best energy source for space Britt 1 (Robert Roy, Senior Science Writer http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_space_0106251.html) Nuclear power affords several advantages to space exploration. All of these stem from its unique ability to provide large quantities of energy from a relatively small compact source, and to do so in virtually any extraterrestrial environment. The latter feature is particularly important when we consider applications involving high power in deep space, beyond the orbit of Mars. At this location, the energy flux available for solar-based power systems is too low to support anything other than small space vehicles and low-power scientific experiments (e.g., Pathfinder). Radioisotope sources (e.g., Galileo and Cassini) are effective for power levels below 100 Watts to 1 kilowatt, but fuel cells and batteries are severely restricted in terms of the amount of energy they can store relative to their mass. The most immediate and attractive application of nuclear power is in the area of propulsion. Power systems based on nuclear fission could provide ample power to extended operation of high-performance electric propulsion thrusters. The concept of nuclear electric propulsion has been around for some time, and the supporting technologies (e.g., small lightweight reactors, power conversion, electrostatic and electromagnetic thrusters) have matured to a point that such a system can be seriously considered for flight development. Assuming that proper resources are placed in this area, it is reasonable to assume that missions using this technology could be initiated by the latter part of this decade.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

64 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space – Key to exploration
Nuclear propulsion key to deep space exploration Schmidt 3 (George R. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/
COSPAR02/03135/COSPAR02-A-03135.pdf) Nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) holds considerable promise for deep space exploration in the future. Research and development of this technology is a key element of NASA’s Nuclear Systems Initiative (NSI), which is a top priority in the President’s FY03 NASA budget. The goal is to develop the subsystem technologies that will enable application of NEP for missions to the outer planets and beyond by the beginning of next decade. The high-performance offered by nuclear-powered electric thrusters will benefit future missions by (1) reducing or eliminating the launch window constraints associated with complex planetary swingbys, (2) providing the capability to perform large spacecraft velocity changes in deep space, (3) increasing the fraction of vehicle mass allocated to payload and other spacecraft systems, and, (3) in some cases, reducing trip times over other propulsion alternatives. Furthermore, the nuclear energy source will provide a power-rich environment that can support more sophisticated science experiments and higher speed broadband data transmission than current deep space missions. This paper addresses NASA’s plans for NEP, and discusses the subsystem technologies (i.e., nuclear reactors, power conversion and electric thrusters) and system concepts being considered for the first generation of NEP vehicles.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

65 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space – Key to exploration
Nuclear Power is key to space exploration. Pike 8 (John, worked for nearly two decades with the Federation of American Scientists, where he directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy,
Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource and Intelligence Resource project http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c07sei_1.htm)

- One architecture proposed by the Synthesis Group will be "nuclear rich" because nuclear is probably safer and cheaper (and faster). "3 - There has been a discussion about improving the overall system reliability by using multiple engines, i.e., rather than trying to put all of the reliability in one engine, have "engine-out" capability so that the overall system reliability is high. "4 - Chemical/Aerobrake will probably cost tens of billions of dollars to develop and prove out and doesn't provide much gain. It was described as "disappointing.""(1) General Stafford has testified that: "Today it looks like technology has advanced so that in the year 2010 or 2020 a nuclear thermal rocket would certainly be feasible, assuming that you added all the safety criteria and had political acceptance... We are convinced that nuclear rocket propulsion can make an important contribution to the Space Exploration Initiative if it proves feasible and safe and can gain public acceptance. For example, a nuclear thermal rocket can reduce the travel time to Mars by 6070%."(2) Following receipt of the NASA 90-Day study, Vice-President Quayle requested a review of this study by a number of organizations, including the National Research
Council (the policy research arm of the National Academy of Sciences). Consequently, the Council empaneled a Committee on Human Exploration of Space, a group over a dozen senior space experts, chaired by H. Guyford Stever. Their report was released on 2 March 1990.(3) A number of the Stever Committee findings pertain to space nuclear propulsion.

"A major advantage of nuclear propulsion is its ability to enable transfer between Earth and Mars in one-half to one-third the time required with single-stage chemical propulsion systems. This advantage could be critical, pending the outcome of research on human performance in space for long periods. The use of nuclear technology in space faces formidable barriers of public acceptance, however, especially if employed in Earth orbit. Therefore, issues of safety are paramount in research and development. "If careful systems studies, using thrust-to-weight ratios and specific impulses known to be feasible, show a significant advantage for nuclear rockets in trip time or in weight to orbit, an in-space demonstration of this technology should be done as soon as possible -- taking into account requirements for crew, ground personnel, and
The committee's report noted that: public safety covering all phases of launch and flight, including mission abort. It will not be feasible to select the nuclear rocket as a baseline in a system architecture until such a demonstration has been conducted. "A number of gaseous-core reactor concepts were carefully evaluated in the years between 1959 and 1970, but none was found to be technically feasible. Unless a new idea has appeared, which is always a possibility, the committee believes the gaseous-core nuclear rocket technology is too speculative at this time and should be dismissed as a possibility." The Office of Exploration is the lead NASA activity for implementation of the President's Space Exploration Initiative. This Office was initially established at the Associate Administrator level in 1987, but was downgraded to an office subordinate to the Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Technology in early 1990. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Augustine Committee on the future of NASA, this Office is being restored to the Associate Administrator level in early 1991. The most detailed assessment of SEI technical requirements prepared by this office was released in December 1988.(4) Although this study focused on baseline chemical + aerobrake architecture, it

"Old SC/NTR (solid core nuclear thermal rocket) technology can provide "new" highleverage capability for human expeditions to Phobos and Mars. For the all-propulsive split mission to Phobos, reductions in IMEO on the order of 40 to 50 percent appear possible. For split mission to Mars, the NTR (operating all-propulsively) can still provide a 5 to 15 percent savings in IMEO over that of the aerobraked chemical system. With comparable propellant loadings, the SC/NTR could travel faster, higher delta-V transfer orbits than its chemical counterpart, resulting in further reductions in crew trip time.... By appropriately sizing the engine, a single NTR stage could function as a lunar shuttle; by clustering, several NTR stages could be used to support human expeditions to Phobos and Mars."
concluded that: Exploration Technology Program Manager John Mankin has noted that: "we want to be able to provide a nuclear propulsion program for the nation in the next 10 to 15 years that can allow us to reach Mars, but whether it's nuclear thermal or nuclear electric, today we don't have the information to say which is the way to go."(5) A recent NASA report to the

"Nuclear propulsion, therefore, is considered a critical major technology alternative to more conventional space transportation technologies for exploration. The Exploration Technology Program strategy with regard
Congress concluded that:(6) to nuclear propulsion is to conduct parallel development in several major technologies, within the areas of nuclear thermal propulsion and nuclear electric propulsion, with down-

We believe more sophisticated, advanced technologies in nuclear propulsion are very, very advantageous to the longer range of this HEI (Human Exploration Initiative) program and should be explored in depth as we go forward; and we think that we can achieve beneficial systems and also systems that are environmentally safe to utilize... The nuclear propulsion is primarily beneficial to the Mars phase, by providing increased efficiency in propulsion for those
selection on promising concepts for further development as research and testing warrant." And in testimony in early 1990, Associate Administrator Arnold Aldrich noted that: missions, thereby making those missions much more practical to do, in the later phases of the HEI planning. However, because nuclear propulsion is still not an advanced technology,

we feel we need to begin now to find ways to proceed in this area so that such a technology can be available in the timeframe that we would be able to use it.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

66 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space – Colonization O/W
Space colonization is the only way to preserve life and must be evaluated first Falconi 8 (Oscar, BS degree in Physics from M.I.T. and over the years has been a physicist and consultant in the
computer and electro-optical fields http://www.nutri.com/space/) In the 1960s America was committed to a manned moon landing. This commitment will forever be remembered as resulting in man's greatest accomplishment through the 20th century. But since those glorious years we've lost something. The American space program presently doesn't seem to have any particular goal and certainly isn't oriented toward space colonization. So it will be necessary to redirect our energies and talents toward the colonization of space, and this booklet is trying to do just that - by using arguments that demonstrate the urgency of commencing immediately. Just a few years ago man became capable of colonizing space. And a few years from now man will doubtlessly destroy himself on earth. The time between these two events will probably be well under 100 years - a tiny instant in all time, and the only time we'll ever have in which to construct a self-sufficient colony with our backup civilization. As mentioned in the introduction, billions of years from now space colonization could well be seen as the best investment in all history. This statement isn't made lightly. It's only necessary to take a far-sighted view of what's at stake - the choice may just be between, (1) an advanced civilization, happily residing throughout the universe for tens of billions of years, or, (2) no intelligent life, anywhere, anytime, starting in the 20th or 21st century! The choice for space colonization, then, is clear. What, after all, could possibly be more important than preventing the demise of possibly the universe's only intelligent life?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

67 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space – AT: Solar Solves
Nuclear Power better than solar power for space missions Britt 1 (Robert Roy, Senior Science Writer http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_space_0106251.html) But for robotic exploration, especially on the surface of a planet far from the Sun, with nighttime darkness and changing seasons thwarting solar collectors, nuclear power would be an indisputably more powerful exploration tool. A stark example of solar power's shortcomings was provided by the successful Mars Pathfinder mission in 1997, which worked in tandem with the Sojourner rover to beam back pictures of the surface of Mars. While outlasting its 30-day life expectancy, the craft's batteries died just shy of three months after landing. Researchers expected the batteries to die, because they required constant recharging from the solar panels. Solar energy cannot be used directly, because it fluctuates so much. And solar panels are heavy, not to mention complicated to unfurl in space or on a planet. Bob Anderson, a geologist and mission planner, said in a recent interview at JPL that the weight of solar panels and their poor performance compared to nuclear power severely constrain the amount of science that can be done for a given mission's price tag. "Two things will kill a mission," Anderson says. "Power and mass." And future Mars missions will require more of both. A pair of missions in 2003 will send the most advanced and capable rovers
ever designed to study Martian geology and search for signs of water. If there, this water could provide the trail to any past life that might have existed on the Red Planet. The craft may be sent inside giant craters, where orbiting spacecraft have spotted signs of water. But to ensure safety, the spacecraft will land in flat areas, likely near the crater center. "But the best information is probably in the rim," Anderson says. Anderson is helping engineers design rovers that will allow the geologist to remotely drill into rocks and figure out what

. Nuclear power could turn short, daytimeonly missions into long, 24/7 operations, Anderson said. He notes, however, that rovers would have to be redesigned to make all their parts capable of sustaining such a long mission. Naderi, the JPL manager, worries that Americans have been jaded into assuming that going to Mars is a relatively simple operation nowadays. But given that favorable planet alignments limit Mars missions to launching every 26 months, he laments solar-powered rovers die before the next one can be launched." People think [landing on Mars] is like driving to Grandma's on Sunday," Naderi said. "But it is expensive and it is horribly difficult to land on Mars. Once you do, you want to last more than 90 days."
they're made of. It is a critical science tool, but also a tremendously power-draining activity, he said

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

68 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Space - militarization inevitable
Space militarization is inevitable- The U.S. must prepare now David 3 (Leonard Senior Space Writer http://www.space.com/news/china_dod_030801.html)
In reviewing the DoD report, some Western China watchers don't see anything startling or new in the assessment of Chinese space interests. But the report does wave a cautionary flag, according to one expert. "Still lots of speculation of what the Chinese might be developing," said Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the Naval War Colleges National Security Decision Making Department in Newport, Rhode Island. "Regarding space specifically, both countries see space as so vital to their futures," Johnson-Freese told SPACE.com. "Actions by one are seen as nearly zero-sum to the other," she said. Johnson-Freese said that the Chinese have read the 2001 Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization as suggesting the inevitability that space will become a battleground. Therefore, the U.S. would be remiss not to prepare.

China militarizing space is inevitable David 3 (Leonard Senior Space Writer http://www.space.com/news/china_dod_030801.html)
China appears to be sharpening its war fighting space skills, from creating anti-satellite weaponry, building new classes of heavy-lift and small boosters, as well as improving an array of military space systems. That judgment comes courtesy of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) which earlier this week released its annual report to Congress: The Military Power of the People's Republic of China. The report focuses on the current and probable future course of that country's growing military-technological prowess, including the use of space to assure military advantage. Flagged in the report is China's work in electronic warfare. In particular, the country is procuring state-of-the-art technology to improve its intercept, direction finding, and jamming capabilities. A possible target for the jammers: receivers utilized in the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite constellation. The report also underscores China's "robust" research and development program for laser weapons. In 1999, the Chinese displayed a portable laser weapon, advertised for blinding human vision and electro-optical sensors. In addition, a radiofrequency weapons program is likely in place. "Beijing may have acquired high-energy laser equipment that could be used in the development of ground-based anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons," the DoD report says. This year's report cites a comment from Captain Shen Zhongchang from the Chinese Navy Research Institute. He envisions, according to the DoD, a weaker military defeating a superior one by attacking its space-based communications and surveillance systems. "The mastery of outer space will be a requisite for military victory, with outer space becoming the new commanding heights for combat," Shen is quoted as saying. He also is quoted in the report as observing that "lightning attacks and powerful first strikes will be more widely used in the future." In future wars, Shen highlights radar, radio stations, communications facilities, and command ships as priority targets vulnerable to smart weapons, electronic attack, and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons. Improving space-based reconnaissance and surveillance technologies is high on China's agenda. "These systems, when fully deployed, will provide a robust and versatile space reconnaissance capability with regional coverage," the just released DoD report explains. "Publicly, China opposes the militarization of space and seeks to prevent or slow the development of U.S. anti-satellite (ASAT) systems and space-based missile defenses," the DoD reports states. "Privately, however, China's leaders probably view ASAT systems -- and offensive counterspace systems, in general -- as well as spacebased missile defenses as inevitabilities." Meanwhile, the report adds, China is said to be acquiring a variety of foreign technologies that could be used to develop its own satellite-killing capability.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

69 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Space - Militarization key to Heg.
Space Militarization is inevitable- we must get there first to preserve US hegemony Brookes 5 (Peter, Senior Fellow, National Security Affairs and Chung Ju-Yung Fellow for Policy Studies
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060705a.cfm) Fretting and fearmongering aside, the fact is that the "final frontier" is critical to our national defense. We'd better make darn sure we maintain our competitive edge there. Space is the ultimate military high ground — and critical to maintaining the supremacy (in communications, reconnaissance and so much else) of our GIs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that whoever holds the upper hand there will hold the upper hand on Earth. If we don't maintain our space superiority, others, such as the Chinese and the Russians, will gladly replace us — guaranteed. The "militarization" of space? Already a fact. Hundreds of military-related communications, navigation and intelligence satellites are in orbit, from a number of nations. The question turns on "weaponizing" space — that is, deploying offensive and defensive space weapons that would protect a nation's Earth- and space-based interests and assets or strike Earth-based targets. Such Star Wars-like weapons might include ground- or satellite-based lasers or kinetic-energy weapons able to incapacitate (kill) hostile satellites and ballistic missiles en route to their targets. It might also involve space-based hypervelocity metal rods — "Rods from God" — designed to strike ground targets at 7,200 mph (120 miles per minute) with the strength of a nuclear weapon but without the radioactive fallout.

Space Militarization now is a necessity to maintain leadership Brookes 5 (Peter, Senior Fellow, National Security Affairs and Chung Ju-Yung Fellow for Policy Studies
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060705a.cfm) Opponents of the new policy clamor that a space arms race will result from even that policy shift: China, Russia, Japan and even the European Union will surely be provoked into following our lead. But if we leave the high ground open, what's to stop others from seizing it? The critics' answer: another U.N. arms control treaty. Arms controllers also argue that space-based weapons are inefficient and expensive relative to conventional weapons. All these arguments are weak — at best. A new weapon system will cause an arms race? It ain't necessarily so. Case in point: For decades, the arms controllers railed against ballistic missile defense, warning that it would grossly destabilize relations with China and Russia and spark an arms race such as the world has never seen. Yet the Bush administration's initial deployment of missile defense hasn't caused an arms race or made relations with Beijing and Moscow any tougher than they already were. It has, however, improved our national security by providing the first protection against ballistic missiles — ever. Space weapons more expensive than conventional weapons? Sure, a satellite costs more than a tank. And a tank costs more than a cavalry horse, a rifle more than a rock. The most expensive weapon is the one that doesn't do the job. What price are the opponents of a more forwardleaning space policy willing to put on U.S. national security? As for the idea of any treaty preventing the deployment of weapons into space . . . well, tell that to North Korea and Iran — nations undeterred by the likes of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. More, the current U.N. (draft) treaty to prohibit the weaponization of space was introduced by China and Russia — the two nations most active in space today. Only the naive would argue that Beijing and Moscow wouldn't deploy space weapons today if they could. The treaty is merely their diplomatic gambit to buy time to develop their own programs. That work continues apace. Last year's Pentagon report on Chinese military power says that China, in addition to improving its satellite intelligence and reconnaissance capability, is "clearly working on, and plans to field, ASATs [anti-satellite systems]." Space is critical to American national security. No nation relies more on space than the United States — and our potential enemies know this. Failure to protect our space infrastructure would only invite a Pearl Harbor in space, leaving us deaf, dumb and blind — and at war. Maintaining America's military pre-eminence — in space as on land, at sea and in the air — is a necessity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

70 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Space – Exploration = Militarization
Space exploration leads to space militarization Clark 00 (Greg http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nuclearmars_000521.html Staff Writer
Space.com) Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, based in Gainesville, Florida is active in the movement to keep space free of nukes. He argues that nuclear power is dangerous to the health and safety of workers in the nuclear industry, and to people around the world. Moreover, Gagnon warns, the so-called "peaceful" uses of nuclear power in space such as nuclear Mars rockets are merely a cover to develop power systems that can be used for space-based weapons. Once developed under the guise of space exploration, he said, nuclear reactors could be used to drive dangerous space-based laser weapons. "These rockets are the foot in the door, the Trojan horse, if you will, for the militarization of space," Gagnon said.

Nuclear space exploration leads to an international space race Smith 3 (Wayne Smith is a CIP Senior Fellow and directs the Cuba Program and is a contributor to the National
Security Program http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03d.html) How will other nations react to this startlingly bold new objective? The nuclear initiative was first announced over a year ago with NASA requesting a billion dollar funding over five years for nuclear space research and development. Little response was generated overseas as nuclear power in the form of RTG's (Radioisotope Thermionic Generators) for space probes and satellites is nothing new. However, the latest announcement places nuclear power at the forefront of future space development. Spacefaring nations such as the European Union and Russia cannot ignore this challenge. In particular the newest emerging superpower, China, will closely watch how events unfurl. In just over three years, China has gone from Satellite launches to planning a human spaceflight in October of this year. This remarkably rapid advancement was spurred by the realization of the strategic importance of space. Space will be central to tomorrow's world order and national security dictates that a space presence is a sign of strength. Huang Chunping, commander-in-chief of the chinese Shenxhou space launch program has said, "Just imagine, there are outer space facilities of another country at the place very, very high above your head, and so others clearly see what you are doing, and what you are feeling. That's why we also need to develop space technology." Clearly the Chinese have more on their minds than national prestige in attempting to become the third nation to ever have launched a man into space. Manned aerospace is the epitome of space technology. National prestige is clearly an important consideration, and one which westerners can easily relate to as they fondly reminisce about the moon landings. However, the military implications are just as important, if not greater, a consideration. China has already invested too much money into developing a space launch capability to consider pulling back now. In past interviews, they have announced the intention to build space stations, reach the moon and build bases there, and even boasted they will beat the United States with a manned mission to Mars.

Nuclear power in space causes space militarization Clark 00 (Greg, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nuclearmars_000521.html)
Moreover, Gagnon warns, the so-called "peaceful" uses of nuclear power in space such as nuclear Mars rockets are merely a cover to develop power systems that can be used for space-based weapons. Once developed under the guise of space exploration, he said, nuclear reactors could be used to drive dangerous space-based laser weapons." These rockets are the foot in the door, the Trojan horse, if you will, for the militarization of space," Gagnon said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

71 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Space – Exploration = Militarization
Nuclear power in space leads to space militarization Gagnon 2003 (Bruce, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03b.html)
space nukes initiative represents the Bush administration's covert move to develop power systems for space-based weapons such as lasers on satellites. The military has often stated that their planned lasers in space will require enormous power projection capability and that nuclear reactors in orbit are the only practical way of providing such power. The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space maintains that just like missile defense is a Trojan horse for the Pentagon's real agenda for control and domination of space, NASA's nuclear rocket is a Trojan horse for the militarization of space. NASA's new chief, former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe said soon after Bush appointed him to head the space agency that, "I don't think we have a choice, I think it's imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA. Technology has taken us to a point where you really can't differentiate between that which is purely military in application and those capabilities which are civil and commercial in nature."
Critics of NASA have long stated that in addition to potential health concerns from radiation exposure, the NASA

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

72 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Space – Militarization = extinction
Nuclear Rockets lead to space militarization and will destroy the planet Gagnon 3 (Bruce K., Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03b.html) Critics of NASA have long stated that in addition to potential health concerns from radiation exposure, the NASA space nukes initiative represents the Bush administration's covert move to develop power systems for space-based weapons such as lasers on satellites. The military has often stated that their planned lasers in space will require enormous power projection capability and that nuclear reactors in orbit are the only practical way of providing such power. The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space maintains that just like missile defense is a Trojan horse for the Pentagon's real agenda for control and domination of space, NASA's nuclear rocket is a Trojan horse for the militarization of space. NASA's new chief, former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe said soon after Bush appointed him to head the space agency that, "I don't think we
have a choice, I think it's imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA. Technology has taken us to a point where you really can't differentiate between that which is purely military in application and those capabilities which are civil and commercial in nature." In the end hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars will be wasted on plans for the nuclearization and weaponization of space. In order to fund these missions Bush and Congress will have to cut programs like social security, education, health care, child care, public transit and environmental protection. In the name of progress and security the lives of future generations will become more insecure. For the third year in a row the Global Network (GN) will organize two days of protests on February 3-4, 2003 in Albuquerque, N.M. at the 20th Annual Symposium on Space Nuclear Power & Propulsion. This event draws the top players from NASA, DoE, DoD, nuclear academia and nuclear aerospace each year to plan the push of nuclear power into space. Hundreds of middle and high school students are brought to the symposium for indoctrination and the GN has been able to speak to many of these young people at our protests. NASA, DoE, and the Pentagon are not asking the tax paying public if we want to suffer the risk and costs of nuclear power in space. Their corporate and military interests make it necessary to push

. Scientists and technologists are out of control. Their plans now literally threaten the life of the entire planetary ecosystem. The time has come for vigorous global public debate around the space nuclear power issue.
ahead without real citizen input

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

73 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Coal***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

74 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Coal Scenario
A. Coal causes complete destruction to the environment The American Prospect 2 (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-856754/King-coal-guess-who-s.html, December 16, 2002)
In the eastern states, Bush's environmental agenda is focused on coal. West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania are the center of coal production in the East. Coal is a cheap and plentiful fuel, but it's also a major source of environmental degradation and air pollution. Coal mining destroys streams and wildlife and can cause flooding; coal-burning power plants emit carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warmling, and sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and soot particulates, which cause respiratory illnesses. With "clean coal" technology promising only marginal improvements, rigorous enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts would result in a gradual shift away from coal and toward natural gas. Yet in his search for coal-state electoral votes, Bush has discouraged antipollution efforts aimed at coal.

B. Environmental destruction causes extinction Environmental collapse means human extinction. Irish Times 02 (7/27, LN)
Such pleasure is probably the least important reason why biodiversity is a good thing: human survival is more to the point. Conservationists insist that biodiversity is basic to the Earth's life-support system and that the progressive loss of species - as in the current destruction of natural forest - could help destabilise the very processes by which the planet services our presence and wellbeing. Most ecologists, probably, go along with the idea that every species matters. Like rivets in an aeroplane, each has its own, small importance: let too many pop and things start to fly apart. But some are now arguing that since so many species seem to do much the same job, mere "species richness" may not be essential: so long as "keystone species" are identified and cared for, their ecosystems will probably still function.

C. Nuclear power replaces the need for coal Physics World 1 ([http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128] Do We Need Nuclear Weapons/ June 5, 2001)
Can nuclear provide the energy we need? It already generates about 20% of the world's electricity, including 50% in Western Europe and 80% in France. It is reliable, having high "load factors" typically more than 90% - with nearly all of the remaining time spent on planned maintenance. Its longterm costs are similar to those of coal. It has little harmful effect on the environment and it is safer than all other sources, apart from natural gas. Nuclear power only differs from other energy sources in that it emits nuclear radiations. The interior of a nuclear reactor is highly radioactive, and the spent fuel has to be removed periodically for reprocessing. However, the techniques for doing this are well developed and can be carried out safely. The relatively small volumes of highly radioactive residues (nuclear waste) are first stored above ground for several decades to allow the short-lived isotopes to decay, the rest being fused into a insoluble ceramic blocks, encased in stainless-steel containers and buried far below ground in a stable geological formation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

75 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Replaces Coal
Nuclear power solves all the harms of coal energy Rhodes 0 (Richard [http://www.nci.org/conf/rhodes/] More Energy, Not Less/ 2000)
Among sources for electric power generation, coal is the worst environmental offender. Recent studies at the Harvard School of Public Health indicate that particulates from coal burning are responsible for about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the U.S. alone. [Wilson and Spengler (1996), p. 212.] To generate about a quarter of world primary energy, coal burning liberates a burden of toxic wastes too immense to bury in secure repositories. Such waste is either dispersed directly into the air or solidified and dumped or even mixed into construction materials. Besides noxious particulates, sulfur and nitrogen oxides (components of acid rain and smog), arsenic, mercury, cadmium, selenium, lead, boron, chromium, copper, fluorine, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, zinc [Swaine (1990).], carbon monoxide and dioxide and other greenhouse gases, coal-fired power plants are also the major world source of radioactive releases to the environment. Uranium and thorium, mildly radioactive elements ubiquitous in the crust of the earth, are both released when coal is burned. Radioactive radon gas, a decay product of crustal uranium normally confined underground, is also released when coal is mined. A 1,000 megawatt-electric (MWe) coal-fired power plant releases into the environment about one hundred times as much radioactivity as a comparable nuclear plant. [Gabbard (1993), p. 7.] The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission actually investigated using coal as a source of uranium for nuclear weapons in the early 1950s when richer ores were believed to be in short supply; burning the coal, the AEC concluded, would concentrate the mineral, which could then be extracted from the resulting coal ash. [Lehman (1996), p. 20, citing Bisselle and Brown (1984).] Worldwide releases of uranium and thorium from coal burning total about 37,300 tonnes (metric tons) annually (the annual U.S. share of those releases is about 7,300 tonnes). [Alex Gabbard, personal communication.] More radioactive heavy metal is released into the environment every two years by coal burning than the total spent fuel waiting to be buried from all U.S. nuclear power production and most U.S. nuclear weapons production. [Calculated from Lehman (1996), p. 141.] Since uranium and thorium are potent nuclear fuels, burning coal also wastes more potential energy than it produces. [Gabbard (1993), p. 8.]

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

76 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good - Coal Hurts Environment
Coal harms ecosystems on a micro-ecological level Boston Globe 5 (Jehangir, Staff writer Chronicle foreign service, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/07/MNGFPDJUQ61.DTL) For miles in every direction from this dusty coal-mining village, the soil, plants and trees are gray with soot, as if a light fall of black snow has just fallen. The air is heavy with eye-stinging fumes, and the land is rutted. This is the dark underbelly of modern China, the industrial reality that everyone knows exists, but no one wants to see. China's miracle economy -- the world's fastest-growing, at about 8 percent -- is largely fueled by coal, which provides roughly three-fourths of its energy. Villages just like this one in Shanxi province produce a quarter of the 2 billion tons of the coal China will burn this year. That's almost 20 percent more than last year -- and China's demand for energy is expected to double over the next decade. Over the last 10 years, reckless mining by two massive, rusty, smoke- spewing state-owned coal companies has fill the air here with particulates. As the companies have dug into the earth, they have damaged underground water supplies that have drained away, depleting the local water table. "The gap this left in the earth has caused the topsoil to crack and collapse," said Guo Ai Mi, 43, a local farmer. Lengths of highways and entire fields have fissures running through them, and more appear all the time. Since Shanxi is one of the driest places in China, and the Fen River, a local tributary of the mighty Yellow River, ran dry years ago, farming here is now almost impossible, Guo said. As a result, many people here have done the only thing they could to survive -- they've begun mining illegally for coal themselves.

Coal has a negative impact on the environment Science Daily 7 (May 6, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070504151722.htm)
In a new briefing paper released today to coincide with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) meeting about the economic impacts of climate change, WWF shows that the short-term economics which are driving the use of coal to generate cheap power have created a “fool’s paradise” that will lead to profound long-term problems. The report — Are the costs of using coal higher than the cost of cleaning it up? — outlines the fact that in the last four years, coal use around the world grew by 22% (BP, 2006) – a major factor behind the record 3% per year rise in global CO2 emissions (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2006). According to the IEA, CO2 emissions from energy sources may grow by up to 90% by 2030 unless governments act rapidly (World Energy Outlook 2006, BAU scenario). This potential increase in global coal use is driven by its increasing use in China, India and Russia for power stations, as well as a fresh rush for coal in countries like the United States and European Union nations resulting from higher natural gas prices and power plant replacements. “Coal is an extremely dirty source of power, and imposes huge costs on people’s health, the environment and the economy," said Keith Allott, head of WWF-UK’s climate change programme.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

77 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Coal - No Tradeoff
Coal and nuclear power can coexist, creating innovation and competition Moniz 4 (Ernest, Director of tech-MIT
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:yp_HqTrpqLcJ:www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Moniz.pdf+Nuclear+Power+coal+tradeoff+does+not&h l=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us)

A mid-century growth scenario on a scale that substantially impacts GHG emissions would be realized with thermal reactors operated principally in a once-through mode [2], with economic criteria being crucial in driving this technology pathway. A merchant plant model of costs shows that, if nuclear power is to be competitive with coal and natural gas, industry must demonstrate reactor capital cost reductions that are plausible but as yet unproved, and the social costs of GHG emissions need to be internalized. For the United States, overcoming the “first mover” problem is key to determining the role of nuclear power. We recommend electricity production tax credits for “first movers”, modeled after those in place for wind. First mover demonstration of the economics and safety of new nuclear plants must occur within the next decade or so if nuclear power is to make a significant contribution to mitigating climate change in the first half of this century.

NP-coal tradeoff impossible—plant construction costs, failed subsidies, investor scare Ferguson, Fellow for Sci and Tech, CFR, ‘07
(Charles D. “Fight Fire With Fire?”, April 30, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042701463.html)

Can nuclear energy, which emits very few greenhouse gases, at least further clean up the atmosphere and reduce global warming by displacing coal-fired power plants? Coal-fired plants produce half of the U.S.'s electricity.
It is no surprise that the United States relies so heavily on coal. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal reserves with an estimated supply of 250 years based on current demand. Still, nuclear power plants' operating costs compete favorably with coal and

other power sources. But nuclear power's construction costs are much higher than coal's capital costs. With the financial deck stacked against construction of new nuclear reactors, industry representatives have lobbied for and received billions of dollars of additional subsidies to try to stimulate growth. These subsidies have yet to trigger the long-awaited nuclear renaissance. A new economic approach, however,
might stimulate some growth in nuclear energy. Faced with an American awakening to the catastrophes that could stem from climate change, many senators and congressmen are expressing interest in enacting regulatory controls on greenhouse gases. Five bills now before Congress favor a cap-and-trade system that would cap the amount of allowable emissions of greenhouse gases and encourage electrical power producers to trade emissions permits to stay below the cap. While a similar approach begun in 1990 has successfully curtailed power plant emissions that cause acid rain, the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is far more massive. Many economists are concerned that a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system could become riddled with loopholes, and they instead prefer a greenhouse gas consumption tax. Talk of new taxes, however, is a third rail of politics. To make the consumption tax palatable, Congress could make it revenue neutral. For instance, proceeds from the tax could alleviate the financial burden on the poor and stimulate research in innovative energy technologies.

Either a cap-and-trade system or a greenhouse gas tax would begin to set a price on the environmental damage from climate change. Such a price would leverage market forces to make low- or nogreenhouse gas emission energy sources such as nuclear, wind and solar cost competitive with highgreenhouse gas emission sources such as coal and oil. But even the proper greenhouse gas price would not allow nuclear energy primarily to pull humanity's feet from the global fire. Nuclear energy would probably show some growth but not on the scale needed to displace hundreds of coal-fired plants throughout the world. In the coming years, China, India, and the United States plan to build more than 800 coal-fired plants. If these plants do not capture greenhouse gases, they would swamp by more than five times the greenhouse gas savings from the Kyoto Protocol. As a practical matter, building nuclear plants at the rapid pace required to match construction of the coal plants would initially tend to drive up costs and scare off investors. Also, only a few companies in the world can now make reactor-quality steel, concrete, and other vital components. And a rush to build would aggravate shortages in skilled workers and qualified engineers to safely run the plants.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

78 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Medical Isotopes***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

79 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes Scenario 1/2
A. Medical isotope shortages now – US must build reactors ot solve New York Times`7 (Ian Austen, Writer at the New York Times, Reactor Shutdown Causing Medical Isotope Shortage,
December 6, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/business/worldbusiness/06reactor.html?ex=1354597200&en=d3539eba0e00c330&ei=5088 &partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Medical treatments are being delayed or deferred at hospitals worldwide because of the extended shutdown of a Canadian reactor. The reactor, the Atomic Energy of Canada reactor at Chalk River, Ontario, near Ottawa, is North America’s only source of the base isotope for technetium-99, a workhorse of modern medical diagnostic systems. It is injected into patients 20 million times a year in the United States to create images used in the diagnosis and treatment of a wide variety of illnesses including heart ailments, cancers and gallbladder problems. The reactor closed on Nov. 18 for maintenance. It was scheduled to open five days later but remained closed “to complete the installation of safety-related equipment,” the company said. On Wednesday, Atomic Energy’s wholesaler, MDS Nordion, said it did not expect full production to resume until mid-January. Because the isotopes created by the reactor decay rapidly, they cannot be stockpiled, which is leading to growing shortages of the material at medical centers. Adding to the problem is the fact that the Atomic Energy reactor produces 50 to 80 percent of the world’s supply of molybdenum-99, the isotope that breaks down into technetium-99. The shortfall has renewed decades-old calls for the United States to develop its own medical isotope reactors rather than continuing to rely on imported products from a limited number of producers.

b) Medical isotopes solve HIV/AIDS PLOS `6 (PLOS Medicine, A peer reviewed journal by the public academy of sciences, Targeted Killing of Virally Infected
Cells by Radiolabeled Antibodies to Viral Proteins, 2006, http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=getdocument&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030427&ct=1)
In a person infected with HIV, the symptoms of AIDS can be delayed or controlled with drug combinations such as highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). However, at the moment there is no cure for HIV infection or AIDS; HAART has to be taken for life and has unpleasant side effects, and the HIV virus can become resistant to some of the drugs. Even in people for whom HAART is successfully controlling disease, HIV remains at very low levels in white blood cells, and is capable of infecting more cells if treatment is stopped for some reason or becomes ineffective because the virus has developed resistance. One possible approach that

could potentially eradicate HIV in an infected person is to inject antibodies, targeted against elements of the HIV particle, joined to a radioactive “tag.” The idea is that the antibodies would bind to HIV particles at the surface of infected white blood cells, and the radioactivity would then kill the infected cell. This strategy, called “radioimmunotherapy,” has been successfully used to develop treatments for certain cancers. Why Was This Study Done? The researchers wanted to find out whether radioimmunotherapy had any potential for treating HIV infection. As the first step, they needed to find out whether radioactive antibodies targeted against HIV proteins could kill HIV infected cells in animals, and also whether the animals suffered any serious side effects as a result. This is an early step in developing new treatments that would need to show promising results before the approach would be tried in humans. What Did the Researchers Do and Find? The researchers first did some experiments on HIVinfected white blood cells in vitro (i.e., test tube experiments), and second in vivo on HIV-infected PBMCs in the spleens of mice. They found that in vitro, HIV-infected white blood cells were successfully killed by radioactive antibodies that had been developed against specific proteins in the HIV particle that are routinely displayed at the surface of infected cells. Two different types of antibody, and two different types of radioactive tag, were tried. Both antibodies were very effective in targeting HIV infected cells,
but one type of radioactive tag (bismuth 213) was better than the other (rhenium 188). Then, SCID mice were infected intrasplenically with HIV-infected PBMCs and treated with the radioactively tagged antibodies (these particular mice had a deficient immune system, which means that they tolerate transplanted HIV-infected human PBMCs that serve as in vivo targets for the radioactive antibodies.

The number of HIV-infected human PBMCs was reduced in the treated mice compared with control animals, which were treated with antibodies not joined to a radioactive tag. The greater the antibody dose, the greater the proportion of HIV-infected human PBMC that were killed. Finally, the researchers also
looked at whether the antibody treatment damaged platelets in the infected mice, and they saw a drop in platelet numbers only for the mice receiving the highest dose of antibodies.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

80 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes Scenario 2/2
c) AIDS=Extinction Mathiu`2k (Mutuma, Africa News, July 15, lexis) July 15,
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:6tm_9OIp4c8J:www.healtoronto.com/mbeki/Kommentare.rtf+Every+age+has+its+killer.+ But+Aids+is+without+precedent.+It+is+comparable+only+to+the+Black+Death+of+the+Middle+Ages+in+the+terror+it+evoke s+and+the+graves+it+fills.+But+unlike+the+plague,+Aids+does+not+come+at+a+time+of+scientific&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&g l=us)
Every age has its killer. But Aids is without precedent. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it evokes and the graves it fills. But unlike the plague, Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration, the manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. The Black Death - the plague, today easily cured by antibiotics

and prevented by vaccines - killed a full 40 million Europeans, a quarter of the population of Europe, between 1347 and 1352. But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen and exterminated. With Aids, the vector is humanity itself, the nice person in the next seat in the bus. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And whereas
death by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim. The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust, but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide (24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise - unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. Last year alone, 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact, 6,000 Africans will die today. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. During the First World War, more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common, in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams - even the mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification. It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is difficult to

remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

81 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes - Shortage
Medical isotope shortages coming now-The DOE has to cut production Cary`8 (Annette Cary, Trinity Herald, Report criticizes loss of medical isotopes, June 5, 2008, http://www.tricityherald.com/901/story/203876.html)

Department of Energy plans to dispose of uranium 233 could rob the nation of an important source of isotopes for medical and scientific research, according to a report by the DOE Office of Inspector General. "Should the department elect to proceed as planned, it may dispose of a national resource that is irreplaceable," the report said. "The potential for isotopes produced from uranium 233 to help save the lives of thousands of American cancer patients is widely accepted." DOE has uranium 233 at the Idaho National Laboratory and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee that can be used to produce actinium 225 and bismuth 213 by first producing thorium 229. "Both actinium and bismuth are extremely rare isotopes that are now being used in clinical trials and cancer research at organizations such as the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York," the report said. "Early research results have been promising, showing improved cancer survivability rates." The materials also could have applications in developing proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactor fuel cycles and as an alternative to plutonium 238 for powering flights deep into space, the report said. Uranium 233 also is used in a national nuclear security program. However, Congress has directed DOE to end the practice of extracting thorium 229 from uranium 233, which allows the production of actinium and bismuth. DOE plans to begin preparing the Tennessee inventory for disposal in 2012. In addition, DOE began shipping the Idaho inventory of uranium 233 to the Nevada Test Site for disposal as waste in January, according to the report. "Once the planned disposal of uranium 233 is complete, the department will not have the means to increase isotope production to meet the dramatic projections of future needs for actinium and bismuth," the report said. About 650 millicuries per year of actinium 225 is produced now in the United States. However, the National Institutes of Health projects a demand for 1,700 millicuries this year and 6,000 millicuries in 2009. Security and proliferation concerns prohibit DOE from making the source material directly available to universities or industry to permit the development of a private sector source of isotopes, the report said. Although the private sector is pursuing some other options to create the isotopes, it is not known if the technologies will prove viable, the report said. "At present, no viable alternative methods of production of actinium and bismuth have been demonstrated or proven," the report said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

82 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes – Key US Health System
The U.S. Health System is Dependent Upon Medical Isotopes U.S. Department of Energy 1 (Office of Nuclear, Energy, and Science Technology, Report to Congress,
March 2001, http://www.nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/U233RptConMarch2001.pdf) Nuclear medicine offers one of the safest ways to diagnose and treat several types of cancer, leukemia, heart disease, and other serious, life-threatening diseases. It does so without noticeable adverse effects on normal organs and without the debilitating side effects and extended hospital stays associated with more common treatments. Each year, about one-third of the 30 million Americans hospitalized are diagnosed or treated with one or more nuclear medicine techniques, representing a $7-10 billion per year industry. Radioisotopes and radiopharmaceuticals, which are at the heart of nuclear medicine, are used in the United States alone for almost 40,000 procedures every day and in more than 100 million laboratory tests each year. The use of medical isotopes also reduces health care costs by improving the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of patient care. Medical research using isotopes continues to promise new applications for fighting other diseases such as Huntington’s and Alzheimer’s. Adequate supplies of medical and research isotopes are essential to maintain U.S. effective diagnosis, treatment, and research capabilities.

Securing Radioisotope Supplies Within the United States Is Key to The Future of Nuclear Medicine U.S. Department of Energy 1 (Office of Nuclear, Energy, and Science Technology, Report to Congress,
March 2001, http://www.nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/U233RptConMarch2001.pdf) Primarily due to the Department’s support, and in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, the United States has become the world leader in the application of radioisotopes and radiopharmaceuticals for biomedical research. As a result, the benefits to patient healthcare have been immense. Despite our pioneering leadership, however, we have recently become dependent upon sources outside the United States for all of the technetium-99m and for many For the United States to continue contributions in the application of radioactive materials for biomedical investigations, it is essential that we establish a reliable source and supply of radioisotopes. Because of the uncertain supply of radioisotopes in the United States, many nuclear medicine researchers have become dissuaded from pursuing their ideas for new medical advances, threatening the future of nuclear medicine in the United States. To correct this gradual decline, the Department must continue to invest in dedicated, state-of-the-art facilities in order to reliably supply existing radioisotopes in use and develop new radioisotopes in sufficient quantity and year-long availability to support clinical research. Alpha-emitting radioisotopes are an example of this investment.

Medical Isotopes Support the U.S. Health Industry and Save Lives U.S. Department of Energy 1 (Office of Nuclear, Energy, and Science Technology, Report to Congress,
March 2001, http://www.nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/U233RptConMarch2001.pdf) Medical isotopes save lives and reduce health care costs. Some of the more frequent uses of medical radioisotopes include diagnosis and treatment of several major diseases, sterilization of medical products, tissue grafts, nutrition research, and biomedical research into cellular processes. The Department of Energy supports the U.S. health care industry and medical research by producing these isotopes and through the support of fundamental isotope research. A class of medical isotopes -- alphaemitting radioisotopes -- is of growing interest in the cure of cancer. To understand this interest, the Department sponsored a workshop on “Alpha-Emitters for Medical Therapy” in May 1996. As a result of the workshop, the Department, through the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, undertook significant efforts and expended several million dollars in order to establish a domestic supply of the alphaemitting radioactive isotopes actinium-225 (Ac-225) and bismuth-213 (Bi-213). Because of these efforts, researchers have made tremendous advances in the diagnosis and treatment of cancerous tumors in the human body using monoclonal antibodies and their molecular subunits in various forms as carriers for these radioactive isotopes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

83 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes -Solves AIDS
Medical isotopes solve AIDS Dadachova et al 6 (Ekaterina Dadachova1*, Mahesh C. Patel1,2, Sima Toussi1, Christos Apostolidis3, Alfred Morgenstern3,
Martin W. Brechbiel4, Miroslaw K. Gorny5, Susan Zolla-Pazner5,6, Arturo Casadevall1, Harris Goldstein1, Targeted Killing of Virally Infected Cells by Radiolabeled Antibodies to Viral Proteins,PLOS Medicine, http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030427&ct=1)

Background The HIV epidemic is a major threat to health in the developing and western worlds. A modality that targets and kills HIV-1-infected cells could have a major impact on the treatment of acute exposure and the elimination of persistent reservoirs of infected cells. The aim of this proof-ofprinciple study was to demonstrate the efficacy of a therapeutic strategy of targeting and eliminating HIV-1-infected cells with radiolabeled antibodies specific to viral proteins in vitro and in vivo. Methods and Findings Antibodies to HIV-1 envelope glycoproteins gp120 and gp41 labeled with radioisotopes bismuth 213 (213Bi) and rhenium 188 (188Re) selectively killed chronically HIV-1-infected human T cells and acutely HIV-1-infected human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (hPBMCs) in vitro. Treatment of severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice harboring HIV-1-infected hPBMCs in their spleens with a 213Bi- or 188Re-labeled monoclonal antibody (mAb) to gp41 resulted in a 57% injected dose per gram uptake of radiolabeled mAb in the infected spleens and in a greater than 99% elimination of HIV-1-infected cells in a dose-dependent manner. The number of HIV-1-infected thymocytes decreased 2.5-fold in the human thymic implant grafts of SCID mice treated with the 188Relabeled antibody to gp41 compared with those treated with the 188Re-control mAb. The treatment did not cause acute hematologic toxicity in the treated mice. Conclusions The current study demonstrates the effectiveness of HIV-targeted radioimmunotherapy and may provide a novel treatment option in combination with highly active antiretroviral therapy for the eradication of HIV.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

84 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes - Solves AIDS- Diagnosis 1/2
A. Nuclear medicine is crucial to HIV/AIDS diagnosis Africa News`7 (Africa News, Namibia; Nuclear Energy for Medicine, June 15, 2007, Lexis)
Nuclear medicine is a special branch of medical science. It uses nuclear tools like radioisotopes (radioactive isotopes) to diagnose and treat diseases. In 1935, Enrico Fermi began to use radioactive elements (radioisotopes) to identify and treat a number of diseases. His initial efforts immensely contributed to the development of nuclear medicine.
As a part of the Manhattan Nuclear Project of World War 11, the United States of America constructed a few nuclear reactors at Ork Ridge. These reactors produced the above-mentioned medical radioisotopes at a cheaper price for the use of nuclear medical applications. In 1946, the US Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act that permitted the production of medical isotopes at the Ork Ridge nuclear reactor complex. Those initiatives hastened the progress of nuclear medicine. Radioisotopes Radioisotopes are produced by nuclear reactors. They are used in agriculture and industry, research, medicine and other fields. The Department of Energy (DOE)'s Office of Nuclear Energy of the USA is one of the well-established isotope producers in the world which cater for international customers. Creating a radioisotope means changing the nucleus (centre) of an atom. This change can be done by striking the nucleus with a sub-atomic particle (e.g. neutron, proton or an alpha particle). The aforesaid strike makes a reaction in the atom and begins to release radiation. In the healthcare field, radioisotopes are used in medical diagnostics, imaging and cancer therapy, heart diseases and other medical problems. For instance, Germanium-25 is a radioisotope that is used in scanners to detect cancer and Rhenium-188, which prevents arterial blockage in heart surgeries. HIV/AIDS As with other areas of healthcare, nuclear medicine is playing a critical role in HIV/AIDS management. In addition, in the follow-up of HIV/AIDS patients,

nuclear medical applications help to diagnose HIV infection very precisely. Nuclear medical scanning (e.g. Aerosol and Gallium-67 scanning) is used to diagnose patients exposed to Pneumocystis Carnini Pneumonia (PCP). It is simple, rapid and accurate. For example, "a 42-year-old homosexual male represented with a 3-week history of fever and
sweat. He was diagnosed as HIV-positive 5 years earlier, but had not manifested with opportunistic infections (OI).

b) Early detection key to AIDS treatment and prevention Morgan`8 (Sunshine, Fayetteville Weekly, AIDS Still challenging, but not the death sentence it once was
Posted on 24 January 2008 http://www.freeweekly.com/2008/01/24/aids-still-challenging-but-not-the-death-sentence-it-oncewas/)
Things have changed in recent years for those infected with HIV. Many are living fulfilling lives and are turning the disease around. The mortality rate of HIV positive patients has dropped significantly in recent years as a result of improved medication and treatment.

Early detection also plays an important role in controlling the disease. Doctors say that awareness, education and early dectection are the keys to the prevention and successful treatment of HIV and AIDS. The HIV virus is most commonly found in those who share needles in intravenous drug use, those who have multiple sex
partners and have homosexual or bisexual contact, and tragically, children who are born to mothers who are infected with HIV. But new safeguards are in place to help curb the spread of the disease in the U.S. To try and help reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS among intravenous drug users, some pharmacies sell syringes to customers at the pharmacist’s discretion. In addition to recent advancements in treatment and care, there are changes in other arenas as well. Laws have been enacted to curb the spread of this disease by making it a crime to infect another person with HIV. This is important for those who are unknowingly infected. A 66-year-old woman who is treated at the Washington County HIV Clinic, who wanted to remain anonymous, has had HIV for 10 years. She said she believes that she caught HIV from her ex-husband who had an affair. “People love sex and they’re not going to change what they do,” she said. “It’s the cheating. Young girls are the worst. They don’t use birth control because they don’t want their boyfriends to think they’re whores, but they are. If you play, you pay,” she said. Dr. Linda McGhee is the only physician on staff at the Washington County HIV Clinic. One of McGhee’s patients described McGhee as compassionate and ultra-professional. “I adore her,” the patient said. “She doesn’t cross that line.” When this patient discovered she had HIV, she went home and said to her sons: ‘Don’t baby me. If I need something, I’ll ask you. Don’t be afraid.’ AIDS has killed more than 25 million people around the world. The United States was the first country to recognize AIDS as a distinct condition in 1981. Currently there is an estimated one million plus cases of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. according to the White House website. It is estimated that one-fourth of that number have not yet been diagnosed and are unaware that they are infected. POZ magazine, a publication for those living with HIV, reported that the south is the country’s new epicenter for AIDS. Fifty percent of the newly diagnosed AIDS cases in the U.S. occured in the south. Testing Testing and early detection are crucial to the prevention and treatment of HIV. Primary care doctors can administer the test for HIV. In Washington County, after a patient tests positive for the virus, he or she is referred to the Washington County HIV Clinic or to Dr. Stephen Hennigan, an Infectious Diseases and Internal Medicine specialist in Fayetteville. Many of Hennigan’s patients are women or homosexual men who have acquired HIV from bisexual men. Hennigan said that anyone who is not in a monogamous relationship or who uses intravenous drugs and shares needles is at risk. Dr. Paul Daidone, an Internal Medicine specialist at Bingham-Bledsoe Clinic in Springdale was a resident at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, and at St. Michael’s Medical Center in Newark, N.J. While a resident, Daidone saw around 200 patients with HIV from 1994 to 1997. He said that the majority were intravenous drug users, many of them from the inner city. Living with HIV Hennigan and Daidone both stressed the importance of being testing because the sooner a patient can receive treatment,

the better their chances of living normal lives without suffering.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

85 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes - Solves AIDS- Diagnosis 2/2
c) Treatment stops the progression to AIDS Hoy, Chen & Lewin`7 The Medical Journal of Australia New Drugs, Old DrugsTen years of highly active antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection Luke F
Chen, Jennifer Hoy and Sharon R LewinMJA 2007; 186 (3): 146-151 eMJA Luke F Chen, MB BS(Hons), FRACP, Clinical Research Fellow1Jennifer Hoy, MB BS, FRACP, Head, Clinical Research Unit,1 Associate Professor2Sharon R Lewin, MB BS(Hons), PhD, FRACP, Director,1 Professor21 Infectious Diseases Unit, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.2 Department of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_03_050207/che10490_fm.html 7/9/07

Over the past 10 years, the management of HIV infection has been transformed by an increased number of effective antiretrovirals (ARVs), with more convenient dosing and improved tolerability. * Optimal management of HIV infection includes at least three effective ARVs; from at least two different drug classes.* Current strategies and drugs can effectively control HIV and significantly reduce morbidity and mortality. However, no cure is yet possible. *Appropriate use of ARVs leads to suppression of virological replication (to below the limit of detection using commercial assays to measure HIV in plasma) and an increase in CD4+ T cells with few adverse effects. * Greater than 95% adherence to drug therapy is required for effective viral suppression and immunological improvement. * Monotherapy, two-drug combinations, sequential ARVs, drug “cycling”, and treatment interruptions are ineffective management strategies and lead to earlier disease progression and emergence of drug resistance. *Drug–drug interactions are common and caution is required when prescribing ARVs that inhibit or induce the cytochrome P450 pathway. Last year marked the 10-year anniversary of the widespread use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) for treating HIV infection. HAART — a combination of three antiretrovirals (ARVs) from at least two drug classes1,2 — has led to significant reductions in HIV-related morbidity and mortality and is a highly cost-effective medical intervention.3-7 The goal of combination ARV therapy is firstly to suppress HIV viral load in plasma to below the limit of detection and secondly to restore immune function, as demonstrated by an increased number of CD4+ T cells.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

86 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes - Solves AIDS- Diagnosis Ext.
Nuclear medicine improves AIDS early diagnosis capability Silvestri et al 94 (Silvestri M, Tarchi R, Ambu S, Leoncini F, Mennuti A; International Conference on AIDS Nuclear
medicine and AIDS 1994. A review.NML Gateway.http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102210010.html)

The aim of this work is to stigmatize the actual role of Nuclear Medicine in the management of patients affected by HIV infection. Nuclear Medicine offered its contribution in the clinical evaluation of immunodeficiency patients since 1982. Sensibility and specificity of these examinations were and remain variable according to the clinical question; nevertheless we can confirm that they are now better than in the past. The improvement of the accuracy is due, for the same tracers, to the technological evolution of gammacameras and the better knowledge of the tracer's biodistribution. Very important results are due to the new radiopharmaceuticals that are disposable for detection of various pathologies in HIV seropositive patients. Remarkable results were obtained in the evaluation of the opportunistic infections in AIDS: the first experiences with Gallium were followed from an in vivo evaluation of Human Immunoglobulin 99mTc marked that showed a good accuracy in the detection of pulmonary infections and in their follow-up, giving important informations about differential diagnosis. Now are available a new radiopharmaceutical: monoclonal antibodies against white cells (granulocytes), that allows to mark the granulocytes in vivo, preventing from the manipulation of large quantity of infected blood. We will be able, using this tracer, to give informations even on the abdominal infections that were difficultly detectable with Nuclear Medicine techniques till now. The evaluation of infections is only one of the procedures available in these patients, in fact every organ may be detected for his function with Nuclear Medicine examinations and we remember that no preparation is requested, no adverse reactions are usually described and the scintigraphy may be performed in every patient's clinical condition.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

87 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Good – Medical Isotopes – Cancer
Medical Isotopes Diagnose and Treat Cancerous Tumors U.S. Department of Energy 1 (Office of Nuclear, Energy, and Science Technology, Report to Congress,
March 2001, http://www.nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/U233RptConMarch2001.pdf) A class of medical isotopes -- alpha-emitting radioisotopes -- is of growing interest in the cure of cancer. To understand this interest, the Department sponsored a workshop on “Alpha-Emitters for Medical Therapy” in May 1996. As a result of the workshop, the Department, through the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, undertook significant efforts and expended several million dollars in order to establish a domestic supply of the alpha-emitting radioactive isotopes actinium-225 (Ac-225) and bismuth-213 (Bi-213). Because of these efforts, researchers have made tremendous advances in the diagnosis and treatment of cancerous tumors in the human body using monoclonal antibodies and their molecular subunits in various forms as carriers for these radioactive isotopes. Specifically, because alpha-particles deposit their energy over microscopic dimensions, antibodies “tagged” with this radioactive isotope deliver a potent dose of radiation directly to the cancer with minimal or no exposure of healthy tissue. In June 2000, former Secretary of Energy Richardson directed the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to increase the supply of the isotopes Ac-225 and Bi-213 available to researchers through the processing of more uranium-233 (U-233) currently in storage at the Department's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

88 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Medical Isotopes – No Shortage
Eurpean and South African sources can cover demand The Star 8 (March 1, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/308320)
Says a Nordion spokesperson: "None of the other commercial isotope reactors have the ability to do more than increase their collective production capacity by 10 to 15 per cent in this type of an unplanned event. These producers collectively cannot mitigate this type of a precipitous event." But this latest Nordion claim also is false, according to a definitive accounting of global isotope production capacity presented at an international conference in 2005 by Belgian scientists from one of the world's largest isotope producers, Institut National des Radioéléments. The report documents that European and South African reactors typically operate well below capacity, which is why they together produce less than 60 per cent of world demand, while Nordion produces almost as much at a single reactor. But at peak operation, the non-Canadian reactors are capable of producing a collective 160 per cent of world demand. In other words, these foreign sources can increase production not by a mere 10 to 15 per cent, as Nordion claims, but several-fold, sufficient to fully satisfy global demand even during a temporary Canadian shutdown.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

89 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Medical Isotopes – AT: AIDS Impact
AIDS can’t be solved medically; root economic and social causes must be addressed Washington Post 2k  (7/5/)
AIDS was not merely another infectious disease, Mann argued. It seemed to flourish in--and reinforce-conditions of poverty, oppression, urban migration and social violence. It therefore could not be solved as a biomedical problem. Women who feared a beating would not ask their husbands to use condoms. Street children and widows without rights of inheritance could not reduce the number of their sexual partners if they depended on sex for subsistence. In an interview with filmmaker Robert Bilheimer before Mann's Sept. 3, 1998, death in the crash of Swissair Flight 111, Mann said discrimination "isn't just an effect, it's actually a root cause of the epidemic itself."

AIDS will not cause extinction Sullivan 98 (Andrew, editor of The New Republic, p.7)
So I do not apologize for the following sentence. It is true- and truer now than it was when it was first spoken, and truer now than even six months ago- that something profound in the history of AIDS has occurred these last two years. The power of the new treatments and the even greater power of those now in the pipeline are such that a diagnosis of HIV infection in the West is not just different in degree today than, say, in 1994. For those who can get medical care, the diagnosis is quite different in kind. It no longer signifies death. It merely signifies illness. This is a shift as immense as it is difficult to grasp. So let me make what I think is more than a semantic point: a plague is not the same thing as a disease. It is possible, for example, for a plague to end, while a disease continues. A plague is something that cannot be controlled, something with a capacity to spread exponentially out of its borders, something that kills and devastates with democratic impunity, something that robs human beings of the ability to respond in any practical way. Disease, in contrast, is generally diagnosable and treatable, with varying degrees of success; it occurs at a steady or predictable rate; it counts its progress through the human population one person, and often centuries, at a time. Plague, on the other hand, cannot be cured, and it never affects one person. It affects many, and at once, and swiftly. And by its very communal nature, by its unpredictability and by its devastation, plague asks questions disease often doesn't. Disease is experienced; plague is spread. Disease is always with us; plagues come and go. And some time toward the end of the millennium in America, the plague of AIDS went.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

90 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***NP Bad***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

91 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Laundry List
Problems with Nuclear Energy- Can’t afford it, nuclear waste, not enough uranium, terrorist attacks. Rifkin 06
(Jeremy Los Angeles Times, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm) First, nuclear power is unaffordable. With a minimum price tag of $2 billion each, new-generation nuclear power plants are 50% more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants. The cost of doubling nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation — which currently produces 20% of our electricity — could exceed half a trillion dollars. In a country facing record consumer and government debt, where is the money going to come from? Consumers would pay the price in terms of higher taxes to support government subsidies and higher electricity bills. Second, 60 years into the nuclear era, our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world. In the United States, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material. The vault was designed to be leak-free for 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency concedes that the underground storage facility will leak. Third, according to a study conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2001, known uranium resources could fail to meet demand, possibly as early as 2026. Of course, new deposits could be discovered, and it is possible that new technological breakthroughs could reduce uranium requirements, but that remains purely speculative. Fourth, building hundreds of nuclear power plants in an era of spreading Islamic terrorism seems insane. On the one hand the United States, the European Union and much of the world is frightened by the mere possibility that just one country — Iran — might use enriched uranium from its nuclear power plants for a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, many of the same governments are eager to spread nuclear power plants around the world, placing them in every nook and cranny of the planet. This means uranium and spent nuclear waste in transit everywhere and piling up in makeshift facilities, often close to heavily populated urban areas. Nuclear power plants are the ultimate soft target for terrorist attacks. On Nov. 8, 2005, the Australian government arrested 18 suspected Islamic terrorists who were allegedly plotting to blow up Australia's only nuclear power plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that more than half of the nuclear power plants in this country failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities. We should all be very worried. Finally, nuclear power represents the kind of highly centralized, clunky technology of a bygone era. In an age when distributed technologies are undermining hierarchies, decentralizing power and giving rise to networks and open-source economic models, nuclear power seems strangely old-fashioned and obsolete. To a great extent, nuclear power was a Cold War creation. It represented massive concentration of power and reflected the geopolitics of a post-World War II era. Today, however, new technologies are giving people the tools they need to become active participants in an interconnected world. Nuclear power, by contrast, is elite power, controlled by the few. Its resurrection would be a step backward. Instead, we should pursue an aggressive effort to bring the full range of decentralized renewable technologies online: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass. And we should establish a hydrogen storage infrastructure to ensure a steady, uninterrupted supply of power for our electricity needs and for transportation. Our common energy future lies with the sun, not with uranium.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

92 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Terrorism – Attacks***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

93 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks Scenario
A. Each new plant increases risk of a terrorist attack. Kostadinov 7(Venceslav, Nuclear Energy International, March 17)
Prior to 11 September 2001, when nuclear power plants were designed, vulnerability and terrorist risk assessments were not adequately taken into account. After that point, the overall risk picture dramatically changed. Now engineers, management, decision makers and politicians are more aware of the very real possibility of internal and external terrorist threats to critical nuclear infrastructure, especially to nuclear power plants and research reactors. All nuclear facilities could be potential targets for threats or attack. Due to the real likelihood of terrorist sabotage and attack to critical nuclear infrastructure assets, there is an urgent need for reassessing the effectiveness of current protective measures and countermeasures for safe nuclear power plant operation.

B. Terrorist attack will risk survival of the planet – even if a nuclear terrorist attack fails, it could cause a third world war and threaten humankind Sid-Ahmed 04 [Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, Extinction!
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm] A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

94 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks – NP Plants Targeted
Nuclear power plants are major terrorist targets. PRN, 2. (http://www.pro-resources.net/nuclear-terrorism.html, "How to Protect Yourself and Your Family in
Nuclear Emergencies" Professional Resource network) In the United States both before and after 9/11/2001, we have had many many warnings of potential deliberate attacks on Nuclear Power facilities. There have been over 160 news headlines this year - stating that very
thing. This article from the BBC (England) states that the prime target on 9/11 was a Nuclear Power plant, not the towers. Let's look at other warnings: News agencies in this country and in other countries, like the BBC in Britain have reported many times that Nuclear Power facilities were prime terrorist targets. Talking to a government official in Germany, he indicated that we were very much in danger of this very thing - seems other countries know this and watch us with expectations of it happening President Bush announced the possibility of a nuclear power plant attack this year in his "State of the Union" speech. Diagrams and locations of Nuclear Power facilities were found in the Al-Qaeda caves. Now, really, why else would they be there? Why worry about trying to smuggle enough radioactive material for a "dirty bomb" into the US? There are TONS of unprotected spent fuel rods (which are more radioactive and deadly than when new fuel) that are at easy access for a trained group terrorist attack. The Council on Foreign Relations in its report on this issue has this Question: "Could Terrorists Target US Nuclear Power Plants?" The answer? - YES and then quoted the President reminding US citizens in the "State of the Union" address of the specific danger of Nuclear Power plants as terrorist targets. Ask yourself this question: IF the government did NOT think that nuclear facilities were in danger of being terrorist targets, then WHY did 14 states with Nuclear Power facilities mandate (this year) to stockpile and hand out free anti-radiation pills AND (again) why would the President of the United States include that information in his speech? Eight governors have independently ordered the National Guard to protect nuclear reactors in their states.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an advisory to the nation’s 103 nuclear power plants that terrorists might try to fly hijacked planes into some of them.

Terrorists target plants. cfr.org, 6. (“Targets for Terrorism: Nuclear Facilities” council on foreign relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10213/targets_for_terrorism.html) Yes. In his January 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush said that U.S. forces “found diagrams of American nuclear power plants” in al-Qaeda materials in Afghanistan. An al-Qaeda training manual lists nuclear plants as among the best targets for spreading fear in the United States. The government is taking the threat seriously: in February 2002, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an advisory to the nation’s 103 nuclear power plants that terrorists might try to fly hijacked planes into some of them. And eight governors have independently ordered the National Guard to protect nuclear reactors in their states.

Nuclear Plant Attacks Likely- They are Al Qaeda Targets Knox 7(Robert, Boston Globe Correspondent, sept 16)
Plymouth resident Brian Sullivan, a retired military police colonel who says he is not opposed to nuclear power, said he employed at Pilgrim the same analytical approach he used in evaluating airport security for the Federal Aviation Administration. He notes that

Plymouth, tagged by some as "America's hometown," has high symbolic value as a target, and that published accounts show that terrorists connected with Al Qaeda have regarded nuclear power plants as targets. The 9/11 Commission's final report stated that planner Mohammed Atta considered targeting plants near New York. The NRC responded to 9/11 by doubling the threat level that nuclear plant security must be able to defend
against. But it is still less than the number of terrorists that took part in the 9/11 attacks, Sullivan points out. And while plants do have their own security forces, these guards "test themselves" for readiness, a practice Sullivan said is unlikely to be reliable. "They set the bar too low," says Sullivan. NRC officials will not discuss the calculation, a spokesman said, because it could provide information for potential attackers. But they point out that any large attack would be countered not just by plant security, but by the military.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

95 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Attack - NP Plants High Risk
Nuclear energy is at high risk to catastrophic terrorist attacks. Berry 1
(Dr. Nicholas, CDI, Terrorism Project, “Keeping Nuclear Power Plants Safe From Terrorists, Oct. 1, http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/nuclear-plants.cfm) The vulnerability of nuclear power plants to an aerial attack — whether from powerful munitions or a suicide airplane — has been known for some time.1 A direct hit by a penetrating 1,000-pound explosive (or equivalent) would likely inflict damage that would disperse tons of radioactive material. "Destruction of the main feed pump or steam lines," says David Rossin, a nuclear expert at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, "could create problems of decay heat and produce the release of fission products." Perhaps the most vulnerable nuclear material is in the spent fuel storage pool, according to Rossin, where unloaded core material does not have the same degree of protection as does the reactor core.2 After the Sept. 11 terrorist airliner assault, concern about the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to aerial attack has resurfaced — or for some, surfaced for the first time. David Kyd, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed the risk factor. "Reactors have the most robust engineering of any buildings in the civil sector — only missile silos and nuclear bunkers are built to be tougher," Kyd said. "They are designed to be earthquake-proof, and our experiences in California and Japan have shown them to be so. They are also built to withstand impacts, but not that of a wide-bodied passenger jet full of fuel. A deliberate hit of that sort is something that was never in any scenario at the design stage. These are vulnerable targets and the consequences of a direct hit could be catastrophic." In fact, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had not before Sept. 11 even considered the danger of an aerial attack on nuclear reactors. Its still-current fact sheet, "Nuclear Plant Security," reports that the NRC "decided in 1997 that, although there was no known threat directed against nuclear power reactors, it would be prudent to have security programs in place. Since then, the programs have matured, technology has improved, and licensees have become more proficient in achieving security program goals." The NRC fact sheet describes how the 1993 World Trade Center bombing provoked measures to protect reactors from land vehicles. All such measures were in place by 1996. Enhanced security storage for spent fuel rods was completed in 1998. In addition, security personnel received advanced training, anti-sabotage procedures were implemented, and new plant-monitoring devices installed. Tests of these security systems by penetration teams have produced mixed results, although the NRC believes overall plant protection has steadily improved. Sept. 11 has undoubtedly provoked the NRC to look upward. Kyd recommends "that it would be prudent to consider installing anti-aircraft positions around plants, particularly those in urban areas, as has already been done in the Czech Republic." Others, undoubtedly, would favor jet fighters patrolling America's 103 nuclear reactors. A far less intrusive and expensive measure — and one far more effective — would involve the erection of steel poles about 100 feet apart laced with steel cable approximately 300 feet from and surrounding the reactor building. Any cruise missile, warplane, or airliner would be shredded, its fuel ignited, and any explosive on board either detonated early or dispersed. In addition, threats could emerge from adjacent bodies of water (since virtually all reactors and many other assets are located next to rivers, lakes, and harbors). Producing crude, ship-launched cruise missiles requires relatively elementary technological capabilities. It is now urgent that the NRC take actions to protect reactors and other assets from threats from above and afloat.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

96 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks – Impact - Extinction
( ) Terrorist attack risks extinction. Alexander 3 (Yonah, Terrorism Myths and Realities, Washington Times, Prof and Director of
Inter-University For Terrorism Studies) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements (hudna). Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism (e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber) with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

Studies show hundreds of thousands would die. Lyman, 4.(“Chernobyl on the Hudson?: The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian
Point Nuclear Plant” Edwin S. Lyman, PhD Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/ nuclear_ terrorism/impacts-of-a-terrorist-attack-at-indian-point-nuclear-power-plant.html) Since 9/11, the specter of a terrorist attack at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, thirty-five miles upwind from midtown Manhattan, has caused great concern for residents of the New York metropolitan area. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ordered modest security upgrades at Indian Point and other nuclear power plants in response to the 9/11 attacks, the plants remain vulnerable, both to air attacks and to ground assaults by large terrorist teams with paramilitary training and advanced weaponry. Many question whether the NRC’s security and emergency planning requirements at Indian Point are adequate, given its attractiveness as a terrorist target and the grave consequences for the region of a successful attack. This report presents the results of an independent analysis of the health and economic impacts of a terrorist attack at Indian Point that results in a core meltdown and a large radiological release to the environment. We find that, depending on the weather conditions, an attack could result in as many as 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation syndrome or as many as 518,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within fifty miles of the plant. These findings confirm that Indian Point poses a severe threat to the entire New York metropolitan area. The scope of emergency planning measures should be promptly expanded to provide some protection from the fallout from an attack at Indian Point to those New York area residents who currently have none. Security at Indian Point should also be upgraded to a level commensurate with the threat it poses to the region.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

97 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks - Impact- 100,000s people
Just one successful attack would kill over 100,000 people. PRN, 2 (http://www.pro-resources.net/nuclear-terrorism.html, "How to Protect Yourself and Your Family in
Nuclear Emergencies" Professional Resource network) While a Nuclear Plant is unlikely to explode like a bomb it can be extremely dangerous. A Nuclear Plant houses more than a hundred times the radiation of an atomic bomb blast that can be released as fallout in a Nuclear accident or because of a successful terrorist attack. If terrorists successfully attacked just one of the 100+ reactors in the US, the losses could reach well beyond 100,000 deaths from fallout radiation poisoning and thousands of homes that must be evacuated.

If 9/11 were nuclear the impact would be hundreds of thousands. Sublette 2 (last updated, Federation of American Scientists, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/New
s/TerroristBombIntro.html) The trauma of September 11, 2001 provides an intimate yardstick to judge the enormity of the catastrophe that would have resulted if the attack had instead been conducted with a nuclear bomb. By New York City official count, as of 18 April 2002, 2825 people perished in the destruction of the World Trade Center. There were perhaps 30,000 people in the twin towers at the time of the first collision. At peak occupancy the two buildings have had held up to 60,000 people. Even a crude nuclear explosive, with an explosive force of a few hundred tons, would have left no survivors in either building, would have killed similar numbers elsewhere in the surrounding area, and injured hundreds of thousands more. Though such a device is small by nuclear weapon standards, there is no urban megastructure in the world that can withstand the explosion. High rise urban centers throughout the world remain equally vulnerable to such attacks, just as the rest of Lower Manhattan remains today.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

98 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks - Impact- 100,000s people
The impact is 100,000 people dead. Dolley 6 (Steven, Washington Correspondent, sept 4)
A report on nuclear terrorism issued last week prompted a quick and pointed response from Commissioner Edward McGaffigan. The report by Physicians for Social Responsibility, an advocacy group of physicians and others which opposes nuclear weapons and nuclear power, said that five years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, "the United States remains dangerously

unprepared to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack involving nuclear weapons, dirty bombs or explosions at nuclear power plants." In its report, PSR said it had evaluated "the medical consequences of three hypothetical nuclear and radiological attack scenarios: a 12.5 kiloton nuclear weapon explosion in New York
City, an attack on a nuclear power plant near Chicago, and a dirty bomb explosion in Washington, DC," and "then examined steps that should be taken to try to minimize the deaths and injuries these events would cause." "Each of the nuclear terrorism

scenarios generates a need for emergency medical care for hundreds to hundreds of thousands of victims," but "the US does not have adequate plans for establishing field medical care, for mobilizing medical personnel or deploying additional medical supplies to the site of an attack," PSR said in its report, which is available on the group's web site (http://www.psr.org). In the report's summary, PSR said that "well-funded and rigorously enforced programs aimed at keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists should be considered mainstays of prevention of nuclear terrorism. These should include securing the facilities that house this dangerous material and reducing and ultimately eliminating US reliance on nuclear weapons and nuclear power." In its nuclear power scenario, PSR considered the effects of a hypothetical attack on Exelon's Braidwood plant near Chicago by terrorists who crash a hijacked jetliner into the plant. "Exposure of the reactor core, a containment breach, would release the reactor's superheated radioactive fuel into the air," the group said in its report. PSR calculated that more than 7.5 million people would be exposed to radiation, more than 200,000 would receive "high enough doses to develop radiation sickness," and 20,000 people "might receive
a lethal dose." At an August 31 press conference in Washington, DC, the report's lead author, Ira Helfand, an emergency physician from Massachusetts and a member of the PSR board of directors, said that "we have to look at nuclear power plants as pre-

positioned weapons of mass destruction" which are "available to terrorists who might attack in the future." To propose building new nuclear plants is "preposterous," because they are "profoundly and inherently dangerous," Helfand said. "We need to move as quickly as we possibly can" to non-nuclear, renewable energy sources,
he said. McGaffigan fires back In an interview later that day, McGaffigan said that PSR is "clearly doing ultra-worst case analysis . . . using often-times absurd assumptions [and] outdated reports. It amounts to sort of fear-mongering at its worst." The NRC has modeled and analyzed terrorist scenarios involving a jetliner crash into a power reactor, McGaffigan said. Using "ultra-conservative assumptions" such as a 1-meter breach in containment by the crash and "no emergency planning or notice given out," NRC's evaluations "came to very small numbers of casualties," he said. In these analyses, "we have a hard time generating prompt casualties in any significant number," and they usually amount to "less than 10," McGaffigan said. PSR's casualty estimates are "off by many, many orders of magnitude, based on our understanding," McGaffigan said. Referring to the report's radioactive dispersal device, or "dirty bomb," scenario, McGaffigan said that "the people who fear-monger an RDD event become allies of the terrorists. They're using their antinuclear zealotry to try to build an event that should be a trivial event or a relatively modest event into a major event." Responding to PSR's recommendations for improved power reactor security, McGaffigan said "They're fairly clear in their goal: their goal is to get rid of nuclear power. Then [they] try to maximize the cost of nuclear power, however trivial the benefit of their presumed solution might be," McGaffigan said. Helfand said in a follow-up telephone interview that he found McGaffigan's remarks to be "pretty extraordinary." "This is not fear-mongering. We're dealing with very real threats that have been recognized by the US government," Helfand said. "Where there's a real danger, fear is an appropriate response, because that's what motivates you to take action to protect yourself." Regarding McGaffigan's description of NRC evaluations of the jetliner attack scenario, Helfand said, "I don't know what planet he's living on. We're not talking about a small [1-meter] breach of containment if a plane plows into a reactor." Helfand cited statements from both the IAEA and NRC spokesmen in the weeks following the September 11 attacks which said, as Helfand put it, that "current

reactors are not designed to withstand that kind of attack and would not withstand that kind of an attack." Doug Walters of the Nuclear Energy Institute said in an August 31 interview that the Electric Power Research Institute in
2002 had analyzed the effects of a 767 jetliner hitting a power reactor containment, concluding that there would be some "fracturing of the containment" but no radiation release (INRC, 30 Dec. '02, 1). "There will be no entry [of crash debris] into the containment building. Based on that, we didn't see any radiation leaks from the structure. None," Walters said. The same would be true of a "direct hit" on a spent fuel pool, he said. Neither the NRC assessment McGaffigan discussed nor the full EPRI report has been made public. This means "the public's at a disadvantage" in considering such risks, Edward Lyman, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said last week. Lyman has previously analyzed a hypothetical jetliner attack on Entergy's Indian Point plant outside New York City (Nucleonics Week, 9 Sept. '04, 4). "The studies are classified, so the public has no access to what they've actually done," Lyman said. The NRC's position, he said, is essentially, "We've done these vulnerability assessments. We're finding these results that are really reassuring, but we can't tell you because it's classified." However, "all the information in the public domain contradicts that," Lyman said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

99 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks – Impact - Radiation
Terrorist attacks on nuclear plants would have a devastating effect due to highly likely spread of radioactive materials. Beyondnuclear.org, no date (“The Dirty Bomb in Our Backyard” Beyond Nuclear
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html) Every nuclear reactor represents a security threat since each contains a large inventory of radioactive materials that could be released to the environment. In today’s political climate, the threat of deliberate attack to create mass casualties and widespread economic dislocation must be added to the list of known dangers of nuclear-generated electricity. Thirty-two of this country’s 104 reactors are especially vulnerable to air attack because their General Electric Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) design includes irradiated fuel pools containing hundreds of tons of high level nuclear waste, situated outside of the steel and concrete containment structure on the upper story of the reactor building. A typical BWR has more than 400 metric tons of extremely hot radioactive fuel submerged in its elevated storage pool. Should the storage pool be drained of its cooling water the nuclear waste would overheat and catch fire releasing catastrophic amounts of radioactivity outside containment into the environment. For comparison, the reactor core in a typical BWR contains about 100 metric tons of fuel. These reactors, along with the remaining 72 operating U.S. reactors and all pre-certified new designs, have been exempted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from demonstrating a capacity to withstand aircraft attack and penetration. This comes despite the fact that an NRC technical document states there are no significant structures that would prevent the penetration of the irradiated fuel storage pool from three sides by aircraft or high explosive projectiles. Consequently, each of the 32 Boiling Water reactors represents a potential dirty bomb in our backyard, capable of releasing enough radiation, if successfully attacked, to cause tens of thousands of cancer deaths and render vast areas uninhabitable for centuries. In addition, there would likely be hundreds of billions of dollars in property and economic damages. In addition, in 2006 the National Academy of Sciences delivered to Congress a publicly redacted version of its report “Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Fuel Storage,” identifying the BWRs as the most urgently in need of better protective security measures. However, the NRC, industry and Congress have failed to take effective action. Despite assertions to the contrary, security at U.S. reactors has been only minimally upgraded since the attacks of 9/11. Governmentevaluated mock terrorist exercises at nuclear power plants formerly involved three external attackers and one passive insider. The results of these tests revealed that close to 50% of the time the mock attackers were successful and could have destroyed enough equipment to cause “an American Chernobyl.” It must also be noted that none of the pre-9/11 mock attacks featured the irradiated fuel pool as a target – each targeted the more robustly defended reactor core. Although never tested, it can be reasonably assumed that the less well defended fuel pool is equally, or perhaps even more, vulnerable to ground assault. Post-9/11 tests do include the irradiated fuel pools as targets, but none of the test results are now made public. Since 9/11, upgrades and test results have been kept secret but a TIME magazine cover story in June 2005 (Are These Towers Safe?) revealed that the mock attack team has been increased to “less than double the old figure”; far fewer than the 19 men coordinated in four teams who were successfully deployed on 9/11. (A further security scandal was uncovered when Wackenhut was awarded the contract to conduct the mock tests while at the same time supplying the guard force at close to 50% of the country’s nuclear power facilities. That number has since been reduced to 19 plant sites as the result of guards caught sleeping in the “ready room.”) Furthermore, provisions to defend reactors from waterborne attacks, for example by placing floating barriers at cooling water intake systems, have by and large not been implemented. Indeed, as TIME reported, “whereas the U.S. has spent $20 billion improving aviation security since 9/11, it has spent $1 billion enhancing nuclear-plant security.” Beyond Nuclear’s campaign – The Dirty Bomb in our Backyard – will serve to highlight these dangers, educate the public, media and elected officials, and campaign vigorously to hold operators of the most vulnerable reactors and their regulator, the NRC, accountable to actions that would significantly reduce the threat posed by the vulnerability of these reactors. Should the NRC and nuclear operators fail to comply, the 32 Boiling Water Reactors should be promptly closed down.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

100 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP bad – Attacks – Impact - Economy
Just one attack would crash economy. Vergano 1 (Dan, USA today news writer, http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010924attack04.htm, September 24, 2001) A 1982 study found that a reactor catastrophe near New York would cause 50,000 deaths and $ 314 billion in damages. * "Force on force" mock terrorist attacks on plants conducted by the NRC since 2000 showed that reactors would have been damaged in 6 of 11 attempts. * Regulations allow newly hired employees to work inside nuclear power plants while their background security clearance checks are still underway.

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

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

101 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP bad – Attacks – Impact - Econ Internal link
Not only is there instant death, but the attack costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Beyondnuclear.org, no date (“The Dirty Bomb in Our Backyard” Beyond Nuclear
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html) Every nuclear reactor represents a security threat since each contains a large inventory of radioactive materials that could be released to the environment. In today’s political climate, the threat of deliberate attack to create mass casualties and widespread economic dislocation must be added to the list of known dangers of nuclear-generated electricity. Thirty-two of this country’s 104 reactors are especially vulnerable to air attack because their General Electric Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) design includes irradiated fuel pools containing hundreds of tons of high level nuclear waste, situated outside of the steel and concrete containment structure on the upper story of the reactor building. A typical BWR has more than 400 metric tons of extremely hot radioactive fuel submerged in its elevated storage pool. Should the storage pool be drained of its cooling water the nuclear waste would overheat and catch fire releasing catastrophic amounts of radioactivity outside containment into the environment. For comparison, the reactor core in a typical BWR contains about 100 metric tons of fuel. These reactors, along with the remaining 72 operating U.S. reactors and all pre-certified new designs, have been exempted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from demonstrating a capacity to withstand aircraft attack and penetration. This comes despite the fact that an NRC technical document states there are no significant structures that would prevent the penetration of the irradiated fuel storage pool from three sides by aircraft or high explosive projectiles. Consequently, each of the 32 Boiling Water reactors represents a potential dirty bomb in our backyard, capable of releasing enough radiation, if successfully attacked, to cause tens of thousands of cancer deaths and render vast areas uninhabitable for centuries. In addition, there would likely be hundreds of billions of dollars in property and economic damages. In addition, in 2006 the National Academy of Sciences delivered to Congress a publicly redacted version of its report “Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Fuel Storage,” identifying the BWRs as the most urgently in need of better protective security measures. However, the NRC, industry and Congress have failed to take effective action. Despite assertions to the contrary, security at U.S. reactors has been only minimally upgraded since the attacks of 9/11. Governmentevaluated mock terrorist exercises at nuclear power plants formerly involved three external attackers and one passive insider. The results of these tests revealed that close to 50% of the time the mock attackers were successful and could have destroyed enough equipment to cause “an American Chernobyl.” It must also be noted that none of the pre-9/11 mock attacks featured the irradiated fuel pool as a target – each targeted the more robustly defended reactor core. Although never tested, it can be reasonably assumed that the less well defended fuel pool is equally, or perhaps even more, vulnerable to ground assault. Post-9/11 tests do include the irradiated fuel pools as targets, but none of the test results are now made public. Since 9/11, upgrades and test results have been kept secret but a TIME magazine cover story in June 2005 (Are These Towers Safe?) revealed that the mock attack team has been increased to “less than double the old figure”; far fewer than the 19 men coordinated in four teams who were successfully deployed on 9/11. (A further security scandal was uncovered when Wackenhut was awarded the contract to conduct the mock tests while at the same time supplying the guard force at close to 50% of the country’s nuclear power facilities. That number has since been reduced to 19 plant sites as the result of guards caught sleeping in the “ready room.”) Furthermore, provisions to defend reactors from waterborne attacks, for example by placing floating barriers at cooling water intake systems, have by and large not been implemented. Indeed, as TIME reported, “whereas the U.S. has spent $20 billion improving aviation security since 9/11, it has spent $1 billion enhancing nuclear-plant security.” Beyond Nuclear’s campaign – The Dirty Bomb in our Backyard – will serve to highlight these dangers, educate the public, media and elected officials, and campaign vigorously to hold operators of the most vulnerable reactors and their regulator, the NRC, accountable to actions that would significantly reduce the threat posed by the vulnerability of these reactors. Should the NRC and nuclear operators fail to comply, the 32 Boiling Water Reactors should be promptly closed down.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

102 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP bad – Attacks – Impact - Econ Internal link
Terrorism is the best internal link to economy. International Review, 02 (Jan. 29, http://www.int-review.org/terr25a.html)
Terror Attack on Global Economic Progress The repercussions trickle down through every layer of the global economy. In the era of globalization, the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have had worldwide economic consequences, felt even in those countries that are not likely to become terrorist targets themselves. Ultimately, some of the weakest Third World economies could suffer the worst
fallout from the September attacks. The necessary preoccupation with counter-terrorism measures is also diverting attention and resources away from economic development throughout the world. The Group of Seven (G-7) top industrial countries is concerned about panic in the banking sector. On September 13, the U.S. Federal Reserve made US$50 billion available to stabilize European banking systems. Many G-7 central banks have cut interest rates to boost consumer confidence and funnel more money into the ailing global economy. Macro-Economic Realities The U.S. Treasury concedes that a recession may well result from the September 11 horrors. A decline in gross domestic product is likely to continue into at least the first quarter of 2002. Before September 11, U.S. gross domestic product was expected to increase by 2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2001. In the days following the attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. employers cut more than 248,000 jobs. The transportation sector was especially hard hit, with more than 96,000 lay-offs. The attacks have also curbed consumer spending, which normally accounts for about two thirds of U.S. economic activity. European Impact Reduced consumer confidence is evident in most member states of the European Union. Even Britain, which enjoyed the strongest economic position prior to the terrorist attacks, was forced to revise downward its modest expectations of GDP growth for this year. Concerns about further terrorist designs on air travel have sent Europe's airline industry into a tailspin. The Belgian carrier Sabena filed for bankruptcy. Government bailouts were necessary for airlines in France and Switzerland. Major carriers in Britain, Italy, the Netherlands and Scandinavia cut flight capacity, scrapping certain routes and layed off

tens of thousands of employees. Some European airlines are adding "crisis" or "war" surcharges -- to help defray the soaring insurance costs -- to ticket prices. Stock markets throughout Europe have wobbled, not only because of investor uncertainty. The very integrity of G-7 stock markets has been under assault, as financial investigators in Germany, Italy and Switzerland explore evidence that al-Qaida, the Afghanistan-based Middle Eastern terrorist network behind the September 11 attacks, engaged in insider trading. Aware that the attacks would devastate the airline and insurance industries in
Europe, al-Qaida members reportedly profited from "put options," negotiable bids speculating that the price of certain airline and insurance stocks would decline within a short time frame. East Asian Impact Japan, already in a recession, is likely

to face deeper economic challenges. The decline in U.S. consumer spending will hurt, among other things, the Japanese auto industry. Japan, Asia's sole G-7 member, has seen its economic difficulties multiply since the September terrorist attacks. Since the United States buys about 40 percent of Japanese exports, reduced U.S. consumption means declines in Japanese exports, production, employment and capital investment. Tourism has also
dropped off since September 11. In Okinawa alone, 78,000 tourist trips were canceled between mid-September and mid-October. Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways have been forced to cut flights since September 11. Similar cuts have been made by Malaysian Air and Korean Air, which is considering hundreds of layoffs. Carriers in Thailand and China have added surcharges to air ticket prices. Cambodia, which nets about US$120 million a year from tourism, reported that 30 percent of foreign tourists canceled

bookings in the second half of September. Cambodia is also worried about textile exports, 75 percent of which are sold to the U.S. market. Some cash-starved Asian firms may fail because of growing concern among international
investors about taking commercial risks. About US$3.5 billion worth of debt refinancing is already in question in East Asia. The most imperiled country in the region is the Philippines, where the government will probably increase deficit spending to cushion the domestic impact of the global recession. Impact on Latin America and Caribbean Latin America, as a whole, had been expected to realize modest economic growth, about 1.3 percent, in 2001. Since the September terrorist attacks, economists now believe that regional GDP may not grow at all. The post-attack economic climate is drying up the tourism industry in Latin America and the Caribbean. Aeromexico and Mexicana Airlines have already laid off thousands of workers. Hotel reservations in El Salvador were half the normal volume in late September. Export industries in Mexico and Central America are reeling from reduced consumption in the United States and from the post-attack plunge in many commodity prices. By early October 2001, Guatemalan employers had laid off 250,000 workers, mostly in the textile industry. That number could grow by another 15 percent in the coming months. Even countries whose economies are less interwoven with the U.S. market are hurting. Speculation born of economic uncertainty devalued Brazil's currency by more than 8 percent. This will translate into increased government debt. Global risk aversion in the wake of the terrorist attacks will deepen the difficulty of attracting foreign investors so badly needed in Argentina, where debt default was already a possibility before September 11. Impact on Muslim Countries Muslim countries are experiencing the same post-attack losses in their tourism and travel sectors. By early October 2001, eight foreign carriers had suspended flights into Pakistan, while freight insurance surcharges were driving up the costs of imports to that country. Masood Ali Khan, head of Pakistan's Tourism Development Corporation, predicts a decline in tourism of between 80 and 90 percent for the coming months. In Egypt, hotel occupancy rates dropped by nearly 50 percent in the second half of September. Tourism is Egypt's top hard-currency earner. During an October meeting of tourism ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representatives from Iran's Supreme Tourism Council pleaded for joint action to overcome terrorism-related obstacles to tourism development. The post-attack difficulties of the global aviation industry have also hurt the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. By early October, the price of crude oil had declined to US$20.44 a barrel, well below OPEC's target range of US$22 to US$28. Demand for jet fuel is particularly

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars
depressed, because of air safety concerns

103 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

General Problems for Developing Countries Increased freight insurance costs since the September attacks may put some basic imports beyond the capabilities of the world's poorest countries. Some panic buying of food staples has already been reported, in an apparent attempt to stock up
before transportation costs go higher. World Bank analysts predict that the post-attack economic uncertainty will deepen poverty in Africa in particular. The World Bank believes the Third World will feel the impact of the post-attack recession through 2002. Development Focus Blurred Numerous conferences addressing economic development have been postponed or derailed since the September attacks. Concerns about further terrorist attacks delayed gatherings of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Association and a summit of francophone countries. The World Trade Organization decided to relocate its November summit, originally planned for Qatar, worried about the security of the Middle Eastern venue. Beijing implemented tight security for the late October conference of the 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. The participants had planned to focus on new development initiatives, such as the "Human Capacity Building Promotion Program," a campaign to promote the region's information technology industry. But development concerns were given less attention than the threat of terrorism -- and the need to regain economic ground lost since the September attacks. Insurance Industry Insurers from many countries have had to cover unparalleled losses from the World Trade Center attack. Lloyd's of London expects its insurance syndicates to cover claims amounting to US$1.9 billion. Swiss Re, a major reinsurer (a business that insures regular insurance companies against an unanticipated spike in claims) expects to cover US$1.24 billion in claims resulting from the U.S. attacks. The overall cost of insurance claims resulting from the September 11 horrors could amount to US$35 billion. As a result, insurance prices are rising, while demand for insurance increases in anticipation of additional acts of terror by Osama bin Laden's network. The price hikes are passed along to other companies, to governments and ultimately to the individual taxpayer and consumer. Food and other basic consumer items could become more expensive as freight insurance costs increase. In anticipation of higher freight prices down the line, Egypt made unusually large purchases of U.S. wheat following the attacks. Pakistan is already struggling with price increases for certain imports, because of rising freight insurance costs. Air travelers are encountering new surcharges to cover higher insurance costs. On October 1, Thai Airways International began adding a US$1.25 surcharge to most of its flights. The Chinese government authorized domestic air carriers to levy surcharges of up to US$2.50 per passenger on international routes. Alitalia imposed a "crisis surcharge" of US$5.50 for each leg of an air journey. The Airline Industry More expensive airline insurance costs, heightened security expenditures and public fears about the safety of air travel translate into huge losses for airlines throughout the world. The airline industry is a major factor in the health of an industrialized economy. In the United States, for example, that industry contributes 10 percent to the gross domestic product, directly and indirectly. Following the September 11 attacks in the United States, the global civil aviation industry plunged into its worse crisis in more than 50 years, costing the sector 400,000 jobs around the world. The International Labor Organization reported in January 2002 that the attacks affected every segment in the industry - carriers, airports, aircraft manufacturers, services, parking lots and rented vehicles. In the aftermath of September 11, the Italian airline, Alitalia, considered cutting 2,500 jobs, while the Belgian carrier Sabena filed for bankruptcy. The Swiss government bailed out Swissair after the carrier grounded its planes for lack of cash in late September. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines plans to reduce capacity by 15 percent and ask its workers to take a "substantial" pay cut. Scandinavia's SAS, suffering a 20 percent drop in business-class traffic since September 11, will reduce flight capacity by 12 percent in 2002 and cut about 1,100 jobs. Malaysian Airlines System has cut 12 international flights. Korean Air has suspended flights on five international routes and reduced four others temporarily, while another Korean airline, Asiana, may slash 1,200 jobs. Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways are also scrapping some international flights

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

104 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks - Fuel pools
Fuel pools outside plants are more vulnerable.
Amy Zalman, 08 (Ph.D. “Nuclear Terrorism- Types of Nuclear Terrorism” http://terrorism.about.com/od/n/a/NuclearTerror.htm) In addition to the reactors themselves, nuclear power plants harbour enormous quantities of radioactive materials in spent fuel pools. On average these spent fuel pools contain five times as much radioactive material as the reactor core, and they are housed in simple corrugated steel buildings even more vulnerable to attack than the reactor containment buildings. The vulnerability of nuclear power plants is highlighted by reports that 47% of US nuclear power plants failed to repel mock terrorist attacks conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the 1990s. The results of an attack on either a reactor or a spent fuel pool could equal or exceed the effects of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which led to 30 acute deaths from radiation sickness, at least 1800 excess cases of childhood thyroid cancer, the evacuation of 100 000 people, and the radioactive contamination of vast tracts of land in several countries.

The spent fuel pools at reactor sites are vulnerable to terrorist-The NRC down plays the threat Gronlund, Lochbaum, & Lyman`7 (Lisbeth, co-director and senior scientist of the UCS Global Security Program.
David, director of the nuclear safety project in the UCS Global Security Program and Lyman senior staff scientist in the UCS Global Security Program, Dec, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Nuclear-Power-in-a-Warming-World.pdf)

Spent fuel pools are highly vulnerable to terrorist attack. Unlike reactors, the pools used to store spent fuel at reactor sites are not protected by containment buildings, and thus are attractive targets for terrorist attacks. Such attacks could lead to the release of large amounts of dangerous radioactive materials into the environment. The NRC gives less consideration to attacks and deliberate acts of sabotage than it does to accidents. This lack of attention is manifested in emergency plans that do not take terrorist attacks into account, the agency’s refusal to consider terrorist attacks as part of the environmental assessments during licensing proceedings, and its failure to adequately address the risk of an attack on spent fuel pools at reactor sites. NRC assumptions about potential attackers are unrealistically modest. The NRC’s Design Basis Threat (DBT) defines the size and abilities of a group that might attack a nuclear facility, and against which an owner must be able to defend. Although not publicly available, before 9/11 the DBT was widely known to consist of three attackers armed with nothing more sophisticated than handheld automatic rifles, and working with a single insider whose role was limited to providing information about the facility and its defenses. The DBT has been upgraded post-9/11, but it still does not reflect real-world threats. For example, it excludes the possibility that terrorist groups would use rocket-propelled grenades—a weapon widely used by insurgents around the world.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

105 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks – AT: Plants Secure
Nuclear Plants Extremely Unprepared and Vulnerable to Attack Agence French Press 5 (CommonDreams.org, June 13, 2005,
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0613-06.htm) The US government may have set its security standards for nuclear power plants too low, and guards say they may not be ready to stop a terrorist attack of September 11 magnitude, a US magazine reported. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) document "raises serious questions about whether the government has set security requirements for nuclear plants too low and allowed nuclear plant operators to provide security on the cheap," Time reported. Even plant guards worry they would be unable to thwart a big terrorist operation, saying they lack the necessary training and weapons, the magazine said. The plants could also be vulnerable to an attack on foot, it said. "Our training has increased, but I don't think it's increased enough to deal with that," a veteran guard, who was not named, told Time. Another guard said: "We don't have the weapons or training to stop an attack of that magnitude. ... Everyone feels that way. It's a consensus of opinion." "I don't think they could handle a 9/11-size attack," David Orrik, a senior NRC official who retired in February after a 20-year career probing power-plant vulnerabilities, was quoted as saying. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the government has spent one billion dollars to boost nuclear power plant security, compared to 20 billion for aviation security, Time reported. "The NRC and the nuclear power industry are today where the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and airlines were on Sept. 10, 2001," a senior US anti-terrorism official was quoted as saying by the magazine. NRC-commissioned studies say a plant's concrete and steel infrastructure could withstand a suicide airplane attack, making the risks of a major release of radioactivity low. But other experts, including a recent National Academy of Sciences panel, say the particular design and vulnerabilities of each plant make such blanket assurances meaningless, Time said.

Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to terrorist attack Lazaroff 1 (Cat, Director of communications D.C. area http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/092601.htm) The nation's 103 nuclear power reactors are vulnerable to attack by terrorists, two watchdog groups warned today. The groups charge that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other government entities have failed to impose the security measures needed to prevent a successful attack and avert a potential catastrophe. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is located on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, just 45 miles southeast of Washington DC (All photos courtesy NRC) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) admitted Friday that it "did not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s" - the types of planes used to destroy the 110 story World Trade Center towers and heavily damage the recently fortified Pentagon on September 11. While the containment buildings that shelter nuclear reactors are able to withstand severe events including hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, "nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes," the agency said in a statement. "Detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed." In a report released today, the Washington based Nuclear Control Institute (NCI) and the Los Angeles based Committee to Bridge the Gap released a recent exchange of letters with NRC chair Richard Meserve. The organizations cited "the extraordinary and unprecedented threat that now exists inside the United States in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

106 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks – AT: Plants Secure
Terrorists can successfully attack nuclear power plants Lazaroff 1 (Cat, Director of communications D.C. area http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/092601.htm) It is prudent to assume, especially after the horrific, highly coordinated attacks of September 11, that bin Laden's soldiers have done their homework and are fully capable to attack nuclear plants for maximum effect," Leventhal warned. Dr. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and NCI's scientific director, pointed out that a direct, high speed hit by a large commercial passenger jet "would in fact have a high likelihood a penetrating a containment building" that houses a power reactor. "Following such an assault," Lyman said, "the possibility of an unmitigated loss of coolant accident and significant release of radiation into the environment is a very real one." David Kyd of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN last week that a if a fully fueled large jetliner hit a nuclear reactor, "which is a very extreme scenario, then the containment could be breached and the cooling system of the reactor could be impaired to the point where radioactivity might well be set free." Such a release, whether caused by an air strike, or by a ground or water assault, or by insider sabotage could result in tens of thousands of cancer deaths downwind of the plant. A number of these plants are located near large cities, Lyman noted. Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, underscored the immediate danger by noting that nearly half of the plants tested in NRC supervised security exercises have failed to repel mock terrorist attacks. "These exercises involve small numbers of simulated attackers compared with the large cell of terrorists now understood to have waged the four sophisticated attacks of September 11," said Hirsch. "The NRC's mock terrorist exercises severely limit the tactics, weapons and explosives used by the adversary, yet in almost half the tests they reached and simulated destruction of safety systems that in real attacks could have caused severe core damage, meltdown and catastrophic radioactive releases."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

107 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks - A2: Attack Impacts Exaggerated
Worst Case Scenarios are precisely the ones terrorist will cause. Lyman, 4. (“Chernobyl on the Hudson?: The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian
Point Nuclear Plant” Edwin S. Lyman, PhD Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/impacts-of-a-terrorist-attack-at-indian-point-nuclearpower-plant.html) In the post-9/11 era, the possibility of a jumbo jet crashing into the Superbowl—or even a nuclear power plant—no longer seems as remote as it did in 1982. Nonetheless, NRC continues to argue that the 1982 Sandia report is unrealistic because it focused on "worst-case" accidents involving the simultaneous failure of multiple safety systems, which are highly unlikely to occur by chance. But when the potential for terrorist attacks is considered, this argument no longer applies. "Worst-case" scenarios are precisely the ones that terrorists have in mind when planning attacks.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

108 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Attacks - A2: Facilities won’t explode
Meltdown and radiation leaks cause the impacts. cfr.org, 6 (“Targets for Terrorism: Nuclear Facilities” council on foreign relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10213/targets_for_terrorism.html) Experts say that an attack on a nuclear power plant, all of which are guarded by private security forces hired by the plants and supervised by the NRC, couldn’t lead to a nuclear explosion. The danger, they say, is that attackers could cause a meltdown or a fire or set off a major conventional explosion, all of which could spew radiation into nearby cities and towns.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

109 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Attacks – Low Risk
There is very little risk that terrorists will attack a nuclear power plant. cfr.org, 2006 (“Targets for Terrorism: Nuclear Facilities” council on foreign relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10213/targets_for_terrorism.html) How vulnerable are U.S. nuclear weapons sites? Not very, most experts say. Nuclear weapons production and storage sites are guarded by security forces supervised by the Department of Energy. John Gordon, the administrator of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, has called such sites “one of the last places a terrorist would think about attacking and having hopes of success; the security basically bristles.” But a watchdog organization, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), charged that security at U.S. nuclear weapons complexes was inadequate and that hundreds of tons of weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium could be stolen, sabotaged, or even detonated. The Department of Energy dismisses such criticism, adding that security has been stepped up since September 11. Experts note that a terrorist looking to steal nuclear weapons or weapons-grade material would have a much easier time in Russia or Pakistan than in the United States.

There have been no specific threats found against nuclear power plants. cfr.org, 6 (“Targets for Terrorism: Nuclear Facilities” council on foreign relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10213/targets_for_terrorism.html) In January 2002, former NRC chair Richard Meserve said that “since September 11, there have been no specific credible threats of a terrorist attack on nuclear power plants.” But he added that in light of “the high general threat environment, nonetheless, we and our licensees have maintained our highest security posture.” On October 18, 2001, there was what was initially called a “credible threat” to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, the site of America’s worst nuclear accident, which occurred in 1979. The threat closed down two nearby airports for four hours, and military aircraft were sent to patrol the area. But by the next morning, the threat was dismissed and the alert canceled.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

110 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Attack – Plants Secure
Nuclear plants are safe from aerial attacks CNN 7 (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/29/reactor.security/)
Dale Klein, chairman of the NRC, said that nuclear plants are already adequately defended against such attacks." Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane," he said in a written statement. "The NRC has also taken actions that require nuclear power plant operators to be able to manage large fires or explosions -- no matter what has caused them." The NRC says the military and other agencies are able to protect the facility from airborne attacks." The NRC is actively involved with other federal agencies, including the military, to protect all this nation's infrastructure against such attacks," Klein said

Nuclear plants are secure from terrorist attacks Kaplan 6 (Eben, Associate Editor Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10450/
antiterror_measures_at_us_nuclear_plants.html) Even prior to the 9/11 attacks, nuclear plants had extensive security measures in place. Each plant has a trained security force and a series of physical barriers. Security personnel undergo thorough background checks and submit to lengthy personal searches when entering and exiting the plant. The physical barriers consist of an "owner-controlled" buffer zone of land around the facility, a restricted-access "protected area," and a further restricted "vital area." Double fences, barbed wire, and surveillance systems are common. The containment vessels for nuclear reactors are among the world's sturdiest man-made structures. The vessel at the Indian Point plant, for instance, is made of three-and-a-half-foot thick concrete reinforced by three-inch thick steel bars. After 9/11, the NRC began a top-to-bottom review of its security requirements, and in 2003, issued new orders to tighten security. Some $1.25 billion was spent on these measures, which included adding security barriers and detection equipment, creating more rigid access control, and increasing the number of security personnel by 60 percent. The NRC also revised the DBT to include what it claims is "the largest reasonable threat against which a regulated private guard force should be expected to defend." While details are classified, experts say this covers an assault by multiple armed attackers.

All nuclear facilities in the U.S. meet stringent NRC guidelines for terrorism prevention and national disaster response. USNRC 7 ( October 31, United States Nuclear regulatory commission general report http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness.html)
Good planning leads to good response. Our emergency preparedness programs enable emergency personnel to rapidly identify, evaluate, and react to a wide spectrum of emergencies, including those arising from terrorism or natural events such as hurricanes. Our incident response program integrates the overall NRC capabilities for the response and recovery of radiological incidents and emergencies involving facilities and materials regulated by the NRC or an Agreement State. Under the National Response Plan, the NRC will coordinate with other Federal, State, and local emergency organizations in response to various types of domestic events. The NRC emphasizes the integration of safety, security, and emergency preparedness as the basis for the NRC’s primary mission of protecting public health and safety. Our review of the emergency preparedness programs reaffirmed that our emergency planning bases remain valid under the current threat environment. The NRC's Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) has the primary responsibility for these essential agency functions. For more information Contact Us.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

111 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Attack – No Impacts
Attacks against a Nuclear power plant would not cause radiation leaks. Australian Uranium Association 7
(sept, http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm, “Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors” Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 14)
Since the World Trade Centre attacks in New York in 2001 there has been concern about the consequences of a large aircraft being used to attack a nuclear facility with the purpose of releasing radioactive materials. Various studies have looked at similar attacks on nuclear power plants. They show that nuclear reactors would be more resistant to such attacks than virtually any

other civil installations - see Appendix 3.. A thorough study was undertaken by the US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) using specialist consultants and paid for by the US Dept. of Energy. It concludes that US reactor structures "are robust and (would) protect the fuel from impacts of large commercial aircraft".
The analyses used a fully-fuelled Boeing 767-400 of over 200 tonnes as the basis, at 560 km/h - the maximum speed for precision flying near the ground. The wingspan is greater than the diameter of reactor containment buildings and the 4.3 tonne engines are 15 metres apart. Hence analyses focused on single engine direct impact on the centreline - since this would be the most penetrating missile - and on the impact of the entire aircraft if the fuselage hit the centreline (in which case the engines would ricochet off the sides). In each case no part of the aircraft or its fuel would penetrate the containment. Other studies have confirmed these findings.

Penetrating (even relatively weak) reinforced concrete requires multiple hits by high speed artillery shells or specially-designed "bunker busting" ordnance - both of which are well beyond what terrorists are likely to deploy. Thin-walled, slow-moving, hollow aluminum aircraft, hitting containment-grade heavily-reinforced concrete disintegrate, with negligible penetration. But further (see Sept 2002 Science paper and Jan 2003 Response & Comments), realistic assessments from decades of analyses, lab work and testing, find that the consequence of even the worst realistic scenarios - core melting and containment failure - can cause few if any deaths to the public, regardless of the scenario that led to the core melt and containment failure. This conclusion was documented
in a 1981 EPRI study, reported and widely circulated in many languages. by Levenson and Rahn in Nuclear Technology. In 1988 Sandia National Laboratories in USA demonstrated the unequal distribution of energy absorption that occurs when an aircraft impacts a massive, hardened target. The test involved a rocket-propelled F4 Phantom jet (about 27 tonnes, with both engines close together in the fuselage) hitting a 3.7m thick slab of concrete at 765 km/h. This was to see whether a proposed Japanese nuclear power plant could withstand the impact of a heavy aircraft. It showed how most of the collision energy goes into the destruction of the aircraft itself - about 96% of the aircraft's kinetic energy went into the its destruction and some penetration of the concrete, while the remaining 4% was dissipated in accelerating the 700-tonne slab. The maximum penetration of the concrete in this experiment was 60 mm, but comparison with fixed reactor containment needs to take account of the 4% of energy transmitted to the slab. See also video clip. The study of a 1970s US power plant in a highly-populated area is assessing the possible effects of a successful terrorist attack which causes both meltdown of the core and a large breach in the containment structure - both extremely unlikely. It shows that a large

fraction of the most hazardous radioactive isotopes, like those of iodine and tellurium, would never leave the site. Much of the radioactive material would stick to surfaces inside the containment or becomes soluble salts that remain in the damaged containment building. Some radioactive material would nonetheless enter the
environment some hours after the attack in this extreme scenario and affect areas up to several kilometres away. The extent and timing of this means that with walking-pace evacuation inside this radius it would not be a major health risk. However it could leave areas contaminated and hence displace people in the same way as a natural disaster, giving rise to economic rather than health consequences.

Looking at spent fuel storage pools, similar analyses showed no breach. Dry storage and transport casks retained their integrity. "There would be no release of radionuclides to the environment". Similarly, the massive structures mean that any terrorist attack even inside a plant (which are well defended) and causing loss of cooling, core melting and breach of containment would not result in any significant radioactive releases.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

112 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Terrorism – Theft***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

113 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Theft - Scenario
A. Increasing NP enough to make a difference on climate change would pose a massive security risk; it’d produce enough plutonium for 70,000 nuclear bombs Green 6 (Jim, Phd, Department of Science & Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, Australia. “Nuclear Power & Climate
Change”, energysciece.com, Nov 2006, http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS03%20Nucl%20Power%20Clmt%20Chng.pdf)

A very large increase in nuclear power, of the scale necessary to make a significant dent in greenhouse emissions, would create an enormous security and non-proliferation challenge. Feiveson calculates that with a ten-fold increase in nuclear output, 700 tonnes of plutonium would be produced annually – sufficient for about 70,000 nuclear weapons (or 3.5 million weapons over a 50-year reactor lifespan). The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has considered a scenario involving a ten-fold increase in nuclear power output over this century, and calculated that this could produce 50-100 thousand tonnes of plutonium.7 The IPCC concluded that the security threat would be “colossal.” Former US Vice President Al Gore said in May 2006 that: “For eight years in the White House, every weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal ... then we’d have to put them in so many places we’d run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale.”8

B. When they get the bomb they will use it. Milhollin 02 (Gary, Director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Febuary,
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/articles/2002/terror-bomb.htm)

This in turn underlines the cardinal importance of remaining faithful to our determination to pursue terrorists everywhere, and never leave them in peace. Allowing any group of terrorists to set up shop anywhere puts everyone at risk. The terrorists' only hope is that we tire of the chase. Then, if they could obtain the bomb, they could deliver it, and anywhere on the globe could become ground zero.

C. Extinction
Beres`87(Louis Rene Beres, Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue, 1987 (Terrorism and Global
Security, p. 42-43)

Nuclear terrorism could even spark a full scale war between states. Such a war could involve the entire spectrum of nuclear conflict possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a nonnuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. How might such far reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists hosted in another state. For example, consider the following scenario: Early in the 1990s, Israel and its Arab state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude
a comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already many years old, only the interests of the

half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one kiloton range detonate in as many Israeli cities. Public grief in Israel over the many thousand dead and maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response to the public mood, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon, whereupon Lebanese Shiite forces and Syria retaliate against Israel. Before long, the entire region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all countries of the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. Of course, such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that a chain
Palestinians, as defined by the PLO, seem to have been left out. On the eve of the proposed signing of the peace agreement,

reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue, one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear weapon state on the planet.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

114 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Theft – Link Ext.
There’s no official storage site-Any waste from the reactors is just waiting for terrorist Burns & Choppin`8 Peter C Burns
Henry Massman Chair in Civil Engineering, Professor, Notre Dame University. Gregory Choppin professor of chemistry, Florida State University. Nuclear power's future: Reprocessing returns?, 28 FEBRUARY 2008The Why files http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/ High-level radwaste -- the yuck Yucca is slated to receive -- is spent fuel from nuclear reactors,

and it's roughly one million times more radioactive than fresh uranium fuel. High-level waste is extremely carcinogenic, even lethal, and must be handled by remote control or under heavy shielding. Spent fuel can also provide the basis for good ol' explosive nuclear bombs and dirty bombs (which spew radiation without that familiar mushroom cloud). So to prevent nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and a cancer epidemic, spent fuel must be contained virtually forever. The goal at Yucca is to safely store 70,000 tons of radwaste for 1 million years. Over those 10,000 centuries, the radioactive isotopes will gradually cool
and be converted into stable, non-radioactive isotopes. (Isotopes are versions of an element with a different number of neutrons. Different isotopes decay at different rates; with many elements, some isotopes are stable, others will decay and release radiation.) For the repository at Yucca, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would love to follow GambleVille's marketing mantra ("What radiates near Vegas stays near

But the giant repository is unlikely to open for at least another 10 years, and in the meantime, spent fuel will continue stacking up at reactors across the country, making a splendid target for terrorists eager to release a deadly cloud of radiation or even trigger a nuclear meltdown.
Vegas").

Terrorist can steal poorly deposited waste to make a bomb Digges`2 Bellona Stanford Database Tracks Lost Radwaste to Stem Nuclear Terrorism02/05-2002Charles Digges,
http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke-weapons/nonproliferation/24099 Their Database on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft and Orphan Radiation Sources documents some 850 incidents from the past decade — everything from radioactive trash carelessly tossed out by a cancer clinic to weapons-usable plutonium and uranium smuggled out of the former Soviet Union. Sept. 11 accelerated the project. Although most experts think Osama bin Laden's boast of nuclear capability is a bluff, they think there might be some truth to al Qaeda field commander Abu Zabaydah's claim

that the group can build a "dirty bomb" out of the kind of radioactive material available in clinics, colleges and poorly guarded nuclear waste storage facilities in Russia and worldwide. Rigged with ordinary explosives and then detonated, such a device could shower an area with radioactive contamination — not so much a weapon of mass destruction as mass disruption and hysteria. Radioactive materials are not just up for grabs in the former Soviet Union either. In the United States itself, disappearing radioactive material is almost a daily occurrence. "Within the United States, you're losing track of radioactive material literally every other day. Every other day. And controls there are among the highest in the world," said nuclear physicist Fritz Steinhausler — who fostered the database as a visiting professor at Stanford — in a telephone interview from Austria with Bellona Web. He said that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lists an average of 200 radiation sources that are stolen, lost or abandoned within the United States every year. Nonetheless, with Russia's comparatively lax
controls and accounting procedures, Steinhausler said that annual figures for stolen or lost radioactive material is "impossible to assess, but certainly higher," than figures posted by the NRC. Many countries in the database either do not even have a central register of radioactive materials or, like Russia, have registries that are often years out of date, which causes difficulties in tracking radiation sources. At Stanford, Kazakstan-born researcher Lyudmila Zaitseva pours over databases, government records, technical journals and newspapers to identify cases and assess their credibility. She then enters them into the Stanford database and categorizes incidents by three ratings of veracity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

115 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Theft – Security Solves
Low grade uranium and lack of access to facilities makes terrorism impossible Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.366-367)
After the accident at Three Mile Island, the NRC required every American nuclear plant to improve training of operators and to institute upgrades, multiple backup systems, redundancies, and fail-safe controls. Since September 11, 2001, security at all plants has been considerably enhanced. Uranium for most nuclear power plants is not sufficiently enriched to make a fission bomb. To do that a rogue state would have to build a reprocessing plant or a uranium enrichment facility-both are detectable. For physical reasons, plutonium from spent fuel is highly inadequate for a national military program and, as Harold McFarlane of Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has said, "such plutonium would pose substantial technical challenges for a subnational organization without access to extensive national resources." Turning weapons stockpiles into low-enriched, proliferation-resistant fuel reduces the chance of these materials being diverted into weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency vigilantly patrols nuclear facilities around the world to prevent weapons production while fostering the long-range goals of controlling technology and resources and supporting the spread of responsibly operated nuclear power. It makes no sense for countries to spend their treasure making reactor fuel when they can lease it from a central source in a secure nation that would recycle it. This arrangement already exists informally and ought to be regulated and strengthened by international agreement

Terrorists Won’t Steal Nuclear Materials- Too Difficult to Obtain Center For International Security and Cooperation 4 (Institute For International Studies,
Standford University, April 13, 2004, http://cisac.stanford.edu/nuclearterrorism/index.html) Fortunately, the materials for making nuclear explosives -- plutonium and a rare isotope of uranium -- are difficult to obtain. Plutonium must be made in a nuclear reactor. Uranium must be highly enriched in the needed isotope in a highly specialized set of facilities. A number of countries have carried out these activities and more could, but it would be difficult or impossible for a terrorist group to carry out these activities, at least without host government support. Even with government support, such activities are likely to be detected from abroad.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

116 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Theft – No Technical Expertise
Terrorists don’t have access to technical expertise to make a bomb Rand Project Air Force 5 (RAND Corporation, 2005,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB165/index1.html) Acquiring a nuclear weapon requires access to specialized material and a high level of technical expertise that has historically been beyond the reach of terrorist groups. Throughout the 1990s, Aum Shinrikyo tried without success to hire Russian nuclear experts, to purchase Russian nuclear technology and data, to mine uranium, and to steal sensitive nuclear power plant information. These efforts were thwarted by Russian officials’ refusal to cooperate and by the lack of technical expertise within the group. Similarly, al Qaeda has been exposed to numerous scams involving the sale of radiological waste and other nonweapons-grade material. These difficulties may lead terrorists to conclude that nuclear acquisition is too difficult and too expensive to pursue.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

117 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Theft – No Impact – Dirty Bombs
Dirty Bombs Causes Property Damage Not Extinction CDC 6 (May 10, 2006, Emergency Preparedness and Response,
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/dirtybombs.asp) The main danger from a dirty bomb is from the explosion, which can cause serious injuries and property damage. The radioactive materials used in a dirty bomb would probably not create enough radiation exposure to cause immediate serious illness, except to those people who are very close to the blast site.
However, the radioactive dust and smoke spread farther away could be dangerous to health if it is inhaled. Because people cannot see, smell, feel, or taste radiation, you should take immediate steps to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Dirty Bombs Harm Only a Small Population Connor 6 (a, Shane, CEO of nukalert.com consultation for civil defense with the military, World Net Daily, August 24, 2006,
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51648) What possible good news could there ever be about nuclear destruction coming to Americ

whether it is dirty bombs, terrorist nukes or ICBMs from afar? In a word, they are all survivable for the vast majority of American families, if they know what to do beforehand and have made even the most modest preparations. Tragically, though, most Americans
today won't give much credence to this good news, much less seek out such vital life-saving instruction, as they have been jaded by our culture's pervasive myths of nuclear un-survivability. Most people think that if nukes go off, then everybody is going to die, or will wish they had. That's why you hear such absurd comments as: "If it happens, I hope I'm at ground zero and go quickly." This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any alternatives to their agenda. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the '60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke. With the supposed end of the Cold War in the '80s, most Americans neither saw a need to prepare, nor believed that preparation would do any good. Today, with growing prospects of nuclear terrorism, we see emerging among the public either paralyzing fear or irrational denial. People can no longer envision effective preparations for surviving a nuclear attack. In fact, though, the biggest surprise for most Americans, if nukes are really unleashed, is that they will still be here! Most will survive the initial blasts because they won't be close enough to any "ground zero," and that is very good news. Unfortunately, few people will be prepared to survive the coming radioactive fallout, which will eventually kill many times more than the blast. However, there is still more good news: Well over 90 percent of the potential casualties from fallout can be avoided if the public is pre-trained through an aggressive national Civil Defense educational program. Simple measures taken immediately after a nuclear blast, by a trained public, can prevent agonizing death and injury from radiation. The National Planning Scenario No. 1, an originally confidential internal 2004 study by the Department of Homeland Security, demonstrated the above survival odds when they examined the effects of a terrorist nuke going off in Washington, D.C. They discovered that a 10 kiloton nuke, about two-thirds the size of the Hiroshima bomb, detonated at ground level, would result in about 15,000 immediate deaths and another 15,000 casualties from the initial blast, thermal flash and radiation release.

Radiation From Dirty Bombs Is Not a Health Risk American Institute of Physics 2 (Inside Science News Service, March 12, 2002,
http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2002/038.html)
Rochester, NY (March 12, 2002)-The latest post-9/11 disaster scenario making news headlines is the "dirty bomb." The theoretical situation occurs when terrorists get hold of radioactive material from a hospital or food-irradiation plant, attach it to an explosive, and detonate the bomb in an urban area. The explosion spreads the radioactive material all over a city and exposes the population to radiation. Yet according to a health physicist,

the biggest health risk from a dirty bomb would not, reassuringly, be cancer, but something more preventable: panic. A dirty bomb "would probably not lead to many, if any, cancer deaths," says Andrew Karam, radiation
safety officer of the University of Rochester in Rochester, NY. But if the public receives unreliable or exaggerated information about dirty bombs, Karam worries that "the use of a radiological weapon would result in many deaths in traffic accidents as people flee the

scene, and possibly stress- and anxiety-induced heart attacks." The radiation dose from a dirty bomb would likely be relatively small, says the Rochester health scientist. Even a potent dirty bomb, consisting of a radioactive cobalt-60 rod used for food
irradiation, for example, would deliver an average dose of a few tenths of a rem for people within a half-mile radius, he says. (A rem is a unit of radiation dose.) This compares to the 0.3-0.4 rem average dose per year that a person receives from natural sources, and 5 rem, the typical annual dose limit for nuclear and radiation workers (most radiation workers receive less than 1 rem of exposure annually). Some recent news

accounts have predicted that dirty bombs would cause a small amount of additional cancer cases. However, Karam says these estimates are all based on a faulty assumption. "They are based on the use of a concept called 'collective dose,' the concept that exposing a large number of people to very low levels of radiation will result in a certain number of cancer deaths," he explains. "By analogy, we can say that throwing one small stone at each of a million people will result in
crushing one or two people because the combined weight of all the stones adds up to a ton, which is enough to crush someone." Karam notes that the Health Physics Society, a professional organization comprised of over 6,000 radiation safety professionals, has advised against calculating risk from exposure to low levels of radiation (less than10 rem)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

118 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Theft – No Impact – Suitcase Nukes
Suitcase bombs arent a threat – they’re small, difficult to build, and easily detectable CISAC 6 (“Nuclear Terrorism: Risks and Realities” Center for International Security and Cooperation, Institute for International Studies,
Stanford University. iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20770/Nuc_explosion_facts.pdf

At the same time as it generates its explosive power, a nuclear explosive generates radiation and also makes very large amounts of radioactive materials that will last from seconds to years. A typical nuclear explosion creates from one hundred to over one thousand times as much radioactive material as could be loaded in a dirty bomb. Nuclear weapons have been made small and light enough to be delivered by airplanes and missiles. They would also fit in a truck and some would fit in the trunk of a car. What is a suitcase bomb? The US and possibly other countries have made weapons that might fit in a large suitcase. They would be rather heavy, however, and it is quite unlikely that a terrorist group could make such a bomb. Can a nuclear explosive be detected? All nuclear weapons give off a low level of radiation that would be detectable by suitable instruments if the weapon were in a suitcase, the trunk of a car, or other unshielded location. Shielding this radiation so it could not be detected would involve surrounding it with a considerable amount heavy of material such as lead. Most first responders are now equipped with simple radiation detectors that can warn of radiation. More sophisticated detectors used to identify nuclear explosives are becoming more widespread. These detectors are being installed at ports of entry and other locations in several countries, but putting together an effective system will take time.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

119 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Proliferation***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

120 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Prolif Scenario
A. Expanding nuclear power increases risks of proliferation Winfield et al 06 [Mark, Director Environmental Governance The Pembina Institute, Alison Jamison, Senior
Project Manager, Rich Wong, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Paulina Czajkowski, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Nuclear Power in Canada: An Explanation of Risks, Impacts, and Sustainability, December 2006, http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf] Nuclear energy’s shared origins with nuclear weapons programs raises the potential for -- and reality of -links between technologies and materials used for energy production and for nuclear weapons development. Concerns about these connections have grown in the past few years as a result of nuclear programs in North Korea, Iran, India and Pakistan. Any large-scale expansion of reliance on nuclear energy would carry significant risks of the proliferation of materials and technologies that could be applied to weapons development. India’s 1974 nuclear bomb test, a project developed in part using Canadiansupplied technology and uranium, demonstrated this problem clearly. B. Prolif is the most realistic recipe for extinction

Miller`2 James D. Miller, professor of economics, Smith College, NATIONAL REVIEW, January 23, 2002, p.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-miller012302.shtml

The U.S. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us. We should demand that countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of
mass destruction. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders. True, the world's cultural elites would be shocked and appalled if we took preventive military action against countries that are currently doing us no harm. What is truly shocking, however, is that America is doing almost nothing while countries that have expressed hatred for us are building weapons of mass destruction. France and Britain allowed Nazi Germany's military power to grow until Hitler was strong enough to take Paris. America seems to be doing little while many of our

foes acquire the strength to destroy U.S. cities. We can't rely upon deterrence to prevent an atomic powered dictator from striking at us. Remember, the Nazi's killed millions of Jews even though the Holocaust took
resources away from their war effort. As September 11th also shows, there exist evil men in the world who would gladly sacrifice all other goals for the opportunity to commit mass murder. The U.S. should take not even the slightest unnecessary chance that some dictator, perhaps a dying Saddam Hussein, would be willing to give up his life for the

opportunity to hit America with nuclear missiles. Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U.S., or perhaps even a European city, with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach. Our conventional forces might even be made
impotent by a nuclear-armed foe. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons, for example, we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait. What about the rights of those countries I have proposed threatening? America should not even pretend to care about the rights of dictators. In the 21st century the only leaders whom we should recognize as legitimate are those who were democratically elected. The U.S. should reinterpret international law to give no rights to tyrants, not even the right to exist. We should have an ethically based foreign policy towards democratic countries. With dictatorships, however, we should be entirely Machiavellian; we should deal with them based upon what is in our own best interests. It's obviously in our self-interest to prevent as many dictators as possible from acquiring the means to destroy us. We shouldn't demand that China abandon her nuclear weapons. This is not because China has proved herself worthy to have the means of mass annihilation, but rather because her existing stockpile of atomic missiles would make it too costly for us to threaten China. It's too late to stop the Chinese from gaining the ability to decimate us, but for the next ten years or so it is not too late to stop some of our other rivals. If it's politically impossible for America to use military force against currently non-hostile dictators then we should use trade sanctions to punish nations who don't agree to our proliferation policy. Normal trade sanctions, however, do not provide the punishing power necessary to induce dictators to abandon their arms. If we simply don't trade with a nation other countries will sell them the goods that we used to provide. To make trade sanctions an effective weapon the U.S. needs to deploy secondary boycotts. America should create a treaty, the signatories of which would agree to: • only trade with countries which have signed the treaty, and • not trade with any country which violates our policy on weapons proliferation. Believe that if only the U.S. and, say, Germany initially signed this treaty then nearly every other country would be forced to do so. For example, if France did not sign, they would be unable to trade with the U.S. or Germany. This would obviously be intolerable to France. Once the U.S., Germany and France adopted the treaty every European nation would have to sign or face a total economic collapse. The more countries which sign the treaty, the greater the pressure on other countries to sign. Once most every country has signed, any country which violated America's policy on weapons proliferation would face almost a complete economic boycott. Under this approach, the U.S. and Germany alone could use our economic power to dictate the enforcement mechanism of a treaty designed to protect against Armageddon. Even the short-term survival of humanity

is in doubt. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic, biological, and chemical weapons.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

121 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Prolif - Link Ext.
Nuclear energy leads to proliferation of nuclear weapons. Lawson 4
(Richard , USAF, Ret., is a former President and CEO of the National Mining Association,” http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/nuclear.htm#NCo2)

Since conventional nuclear fission can make only a short lived and minor contribution to world energy supply, advocates of nuclear energy look to "breeder" technology as the solution. Here uranium fuel is "burned" in such a way as to produce plutonium which can itself be burned. It is claimed that this could extend the contribution of NP by a factor of 50 (that is, satisfy 70% of 2000 electricity demand at current levels for 1000 -1500 years). In contrast to conventional stations, this sounds as if it could be a significant contribution to global energy needs. Unfortunately, there is a problem in that plutonium is the material for nuclear weapons. Some of the vast amounts of plutonium which would be created in a breeder programme of the scale contemplated would inevitably leak into the hands of terrorists and politicians who, like our own leaders, would seek an illusory form of security in the possession of nuclear weapons. In a breeder energy economy, the hope of curtailing the proliferation of nuclear weapons would be gone forever. In the face of this prospect, nuclear apologists can only answer that a bomb made out of reactor grade plutonium would be "inefficient". Nevertheless, they cannot deny that it would be able to convert matter into energy - that is, it would work. Its inefficiency would guarantee that the unburnt plutonium would simply be spread as fallout, making it a dirtier bomb than average which would be very much to a terrorists' liking. It is amazing that one year after the disastrous war on Iraq, fought ostensibly because of a perceived threat that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear weapons, that people should be seriously contemplating opening up a technology that would put plutonium within the grasp not just of Iran and North Korea, but of any state anywhere who has a perceived need for high-technology electricity. We should stop for a moment and remember the deep (if mistaken) sincerity with which Tony Bliar spoke of his fears that Saddam Hussein would get nuclear weapons and would lend one to Osama Bin Laden. He was misled, or misleading, but the fact remains that this was for him a major threat. A generalised plutonium economy would be even more of a threat. Faced with this challenge, pro-nuclear apologists can only aver that the plutonium can be kept under surveillance. Unfortunately we have to accept that surveillance even at present relatively low levels of material fall far short of perfection. Leakage of plutonium from a large breeder programme would be inevitable. A breeder programme would therefore inevitably lead to widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. We shall return to the consequences of this later. It should also be noted that the Breeder development programme of the late 20th century ended in catastrophically expensive failure everywhere it was tried. It should be noted that even without breeder technology, nuclear energy can be used to produce nuclear weapons. In fact, all nuclear weapons states have started with nuclear power programmes

And, independently long-term waste disposal makes proliferation very likely. Winfield et al 06 [Mark, Director Environmental Governance The Pembina Institute, Alison Jamison, Senior
Project Manager, Rich Wong, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Paulina Czajkowski, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Nuclear Power in Canada: An Explanation of Risks, Impacts, and Sustainability, December 2006, http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf] Concern has also been raised that long-term waste disposal sites could become the “plutonium mines of the future,” raising longer-term proliferation issues. Plutonium in fresh spent fuel is “protected” by the high radioactivity of the material. This radioactivity decays after some decades, whereupon separation of plutonium from the fuel would become relatively simple.71

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

122 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Prolif - Link Ext.
Countries will use commercial nuclear as an excuse for a program and it causes high risk of war. NEIS, 06(Nuclear Energy Information Service, Aug. 7, http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm)
If one were to imagine for a moment that commercial nuclear power no longer existed, it would be obvious that the only use a country would then have for its uranium mining, milling, fuel fabrication and reactors would be to produce nuclear weapons. But because

commercial nuclear power does exist, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a country is using its reactors for research, or for weapons production. It is precisely this ambiguity which makes the proliferation of nuclear weapons from so-called "peaceful research" a certainty, and the proliferation of commercial nuclear reactors worldwide a Trojan Horse for nuclear weapons production. Since World War II there have been several instances where countries have pieced together nuclear weapons from the fuel from "peaceful research reactors." France, China, and India have done so. Recently, it was
feared that Iraq and North Korea would do likewise, a prospect which was lessened only through the direct threat or actual use of military intervention as an option. Examination of the list of countries currently building or desiring "peaceful" nuclear reactors and the leaders of those nations does not inspire confidence for curtailing nuclear proliferation, either. It is not just having nuclear weapons which is a threat to peace. In some instances the mere possession or attempted construction of research reactors and commercial nuclear plants has been enough to bring on the threat of war. This "provocation" was enough to justify the Israeli bombing of Iraq's French-built Osirik reactor in 1981, and was one of the alleged reasons for the Gulf War in 1991. The mere inkling that your neighbor might have the capability to make nuclear weapons

suddenly becomes the justification for "pre-emptive strikes," and perhaps even full- fledged warfare.
To be sure there are international agreements and agencies set up to monitor the use of nuclear reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency is such an entity. However, not all countries have signed agreements allowing inspections by the IAEA. The IAEA itself admitted that even if inspections were allowed, it would not be able to tell if a country was using its commercial reactors to produce weapons. It takes about 15 pounds of plutonium-239 or uranium-235 to fashion a crude nuclear device. The technology to enrich the isotopes is available for about one million dollars. It is clearly possible that terrorists could acquire both the isotopes and the technology needed to enrich them. This possibility has surfaced in the news since the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent revelation of a thriving "black market" in such materials. But even the most

technically advanced nations cannot keep track of their materials and technology. In an inventory taken between October, 1980, and March, 1981, the U.S. government could not account for about 55 pounds of plutonium and 159 pounds of uranium from its weapons facilities. The explanation given for this Missing material was "accounting error" and that the materials were "stuck in the piping."1

Nuclear energy opens the doors to weapons proliferation. Beyondnuclear.org, no date
(“Nuclear Weapons and the Link to Nuclear Power” Beyond Nuclear http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html) The U.S. and Russia continue to maintain at least 26,000 nuclear weapons between them, with close to 5,000 ready to launch within minutes. The consequences of such a launch, whether full scale or partial, could still result in a nuclear winter, ending most life on earth as we know it. However, new studies have shown that even a smaller-scale regional nuclear war could still change the climate dramatically, decimating modern agriculture and starving billions. Such a war would affect populations far away from the conflict and the climatic effects would be long-lasting. Although there are only five recognized nuclear weapons states (the U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K.), and four unacknowledged ones (India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea), there are at least 32 additional countries that could develop nuclear weapons from their substantial supplies of uranium and plutonium produced by civilian nuclear programs. Indeed, all four of the unofficial nuclear weapons states developed their weapons from civilian nuclear programs. The continued insistence on supplying the technlogy, materials and know-how for civilian nuclear programs perpetuates the danger that nuclear weapons may also be developed - with speculation over Iran a case in point.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

123 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Prolif - Link Ext.
Proliferation is highly probable. Carr and Fernandes, 8. (False Promises, Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, adapted by the staff of Nuclear information and resource center,
http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf)

There is an inextricable link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The technology for producing nuclear fuel is the same technology used to produce nuclear weapons materials. Proliferationresistant technologies provide some barriers to proliferation, but there is no proliferation-free nuclear technology. Reprocessing and enrichment activities cannot be safeguarded and international treaty obligations are clearly not enforceable. The associated dangers cannot be overstated. In fact, a high level panel of international experts convened by the United Nations Secretary General, identified nuclear proliferation as the number one threat to the international community, warning of “a real danger that we could see a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the near future.”214 The panel recommended the
implementation of firm and urgent measures to reduce the risk of a nuclear attack, whether by State or non-State actors, and recommended States to “forego the development of domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities.”215 Likewise, former Vice-President Al Gore has also expressed his concerns regarding proliferation risks associated with civilian programs: “For

eight years in the White House, every weaponsproliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where
we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal —which is the real issue: coal—then we’d have to put them in so many places we’d run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale.”216 The cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), leaves non-nuclear weapons states free to use and develop sensitive technology such as uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing.217 Article IV of the NPT allows signatories to develop nuclear technology for “peaceful purposes”, calling it an “inalienable right.” The NPT constitutes a Faustian bargain by which non-nuclear weapons states agree not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons in return for access to nuclear technology. However, the NPT established the right of States parties to withdraw from the Treaty, providing only a 3-month advance notification to the Security

this regime allows non-nuclear weapons States to benefit from the transfer of sensitive nuclear technology while parties to the Treaty and then withdraw in possession of such technology. North Korea, which withdrew from the Treaty in 2003, is a case in point. Nuclear weapons use either enriched uranium
Council. Therefore,

or plutonium to create an explosion of huge magnitude, equivalent to thousands of tons of TNT. Natural uranium must be enriched to increase the concentration of uranium-235 (the isotope essential for nuclear weapons), either in low concentrations to produce low enriched uranium, the fuel for power

The enrichment process constitutes the main barrier to producing weapons grade uranium and as the technology spreads around the world, so does the risk of state and non-state actors to overcome the technical barriers to producing uranium suitable for use in nuclear weapons. Indeed, the A. Q. Khan global proliferation network, which began with Khan’s
reactors, or in higher concentrations to produce high enriched uranium that can be used for weapons. employment at the European uranium enrichment firm Urenco (which is now building a uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico) transferred sensitive nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and other countries, demonstrating the proliferation risks associated with civilian nuclear programs.

Plutonium

exists only in trace amounts in nature and it is generated as a by-product of nuclear reactor operations as part of the spent fuel mix. Under normal operating conditions, reactors produce low concentrations of plutonium-239, the isotope most useful for nuclear weapons. However, even if reactorgrade plutonium is not the most convenient isotope to effectively build a nuclear bomb, it can nevertheless be used to make weapons.

“Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes… can be used to make a nuclear weapon. […] In short, reactor-grade plutonium is weapons-usable, whether by unsophisticated proliferators or by advanced nuclear weapon states.”218
According to the DOE, Plutonium can be separated from the rest of the reactor spent fuel by a chemical process called reprocessing. This separated plutonium is then mixed with other transuranic waste in a combination called mixedoxide fuel or MOX. This mix can then be used again in a reactor. But plutonium is also the preferred material to build a nuclear weapon and thus separating it from

the rest of the spent fuel increases the risks of proliferation.

While plutonium reprocessing technology is simpler than uranium enrichment (because it involves separating different elements rather than different isotopes of the same element), this process requires highly advanced technology as remote-handling equipment because of the high radioactivity of the spent fuel. In contrast, separated plutonium is not highly radioactive and is an easy target for theft. As noted by the MIT report, “Radiation exposure from spent fuel that is not reprocessed is a strong, but not certain, barrier to theft and misuse.”219 Some eight kilograms of reactor grade plutonium are needed to make a bomb, while with weapons-grade plutonium that amount is reduced to five kilograms. The

there are roughly 1,700 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 500 tons of separated plutonium in the world, enough for more than 100,000 nuclear weapons.220 Most of the HEU and about half of the plutonium is a legacy of the Cold War nuclear arms race; the other half of the
International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), a group of independent nuclear experts from 15 countries, estimates that plutonium has been separated from spent nuclear power-reactor fuel—mostly in the UK, France and Russia. Two other countries, Japan and India, also have commercial reprocessing facilities. The IPFM acknowledges that one of the critical obstacles to reducing these stocks is precisely the uncertainty regarding the amounts of these weapons-grade materials held

The planned “nuclear renaissance” raises serious proliferation concerns in an age of terrorism. If 2,000 new nuclear power plants were built over the next several decades, the stockpiles of commercial plutonium would increase to some 20,000 metric tons by 2050, presenting uncalculated proliferation risks.221 Moreover, the Bush Administration plans to start developing a major international nuclear initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
by various countries. (GNEP), which involves the reprocessing of the spent fuel from nuclear reactors and thus the separation of plutonium from other nuclear waste contained in the spent fuel mix. These plans should be regarded with extreme skepticism as they fly in the face of the conventional wisdom, as stated by the British Royal Society, that “the chance that the stocks of [civil] plutonium might, at some stage, be accessed for illicit weapons production is of extreme concern.”222 Likewise, the IPFM, in its recently released report, acknowledged that the growing global stockpile of civilian plutonium separated from power reactor spent fuel is a worsening problem because of the Bush Administration’s endorsement of reprocessing as part of the GNEP program, ending 30 years of US opposition to reprocessing because of proliferation concerns.223 There are two main proliferation concerns regarding reprocessing and the separation of plutonium. On one hand, reprocessing increases the risk of plutonium being stolen by non-State agents and used for terrorism. On the other hand, States with access to reprocessing technology can use the separated plutonium to develop nuclear weapons in very short time periods. The atomic test by North Korea in 2006 brought to nine the number of countries in the nuclear weapons club (US, Russia, UK, China and France are the five recognized nuclear weapons states, and are also the permanent members of the Security Council; India, Pakistan and Israel also possess nuclear weapons and are the only states which were never parties to the NPT). But, as the IAEA’s Director General has restated just recently, it is believed that as many as 40 countries have the capability to produce nuclear weapons.224 So how far has the technology spread? Nobody knows for sure, but the British counter intelligence agency identified over 360 private companies, university departments and government organizations in eight countries as having procured goods or

Companies and Organisations of Proliferation Concern”, was compiled in an attempt to prevent British companies from inadvertently exporting sensitive goods or expertise to organizations covertly involved in weapons of mass destruction programs and identified connections with Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel, Syria, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.225
technology for use in weapons programs. The MI5 report, entitled “

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

124 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Prolif - Link - Breeder Reactors
Breed Reactors massively increase the chance of nuclear terrorism by making plutonium available; proliferation and alternative energy debates are inseperable Shackelford 6
(Scott, PhD Candidate, Cambridge, Issues in Political Economy, Vol. 15, August 2006 ) With worldwide nuclear energy use on the increase especially in the developing world where security precautions are more lax, experts at the United Nations have cited three primary growing security threats related to this area. Among them, theft by terrorists of weapons-grade plutonium stripped out from radioactive waste during reprocessing; an attack on a nuclear installation or transport convoy; and, as suspected with Iran and North Korea, an attempt by countries developing a nuclear power sector to build weapons with the same technology. “If you have more nuclear material in the world, you have a higher proliferation risk—it's a truism,” said Alan McDonald, a nuclear expert at the IEA (Bennhold 2004). Yet, with demand for electricity increasing across the globe, he added, nuclear energy remains important despite the risks. It has always been true that nuclear technology can be used to make weapons as well as electricity, and one of the main ways that it does this are through breeder reactors. So-called ‘breeders’ were invented in the 1970’s to make reprocessing nuclear waste a 700 year problem instead of a million-year waste impasse. However, the process was found to be hazardous and was boycotted in the US for a number of base environmental and security concerns. Specifically, the processes involved taking the spent nuclear fuel of Uranium 238, a fissionable material with only roughly half of its energy production capacity spent, and through a refining process changing it in to Plutonium 239 (Brabsen 2005). This new material is then used to power a different type of reactor, thus creating a full-loop and eliminating the need to store nuclear waste. Of course, when commercial nuclear power plants are engineering large amounts of plutonium, there are nuclear weapon proliferation concerns that arise. “Let us not forget that plutonium is the chief ingredient for basic nuclear weapons, and thus countries involved in making it in mass quantities could intentionally or inadvertently lead to the spread of this technology,” said Brabsen (Brabsen, 2005). Perhaps the greatest worry circulating in national defense departments and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels is the development of nuclear weapons on the back of civilian energy programs. This dilemma goes to the heart of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), of which the International Atomic Energy Agency is the guardian. The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force 35 years ago and has been successful at defying predictions that today there would be as many as 50 nuclear-weapon states in the world. With 188 countries signing up, it is the most universally supported international treaty in history. In addition to nuclear disarmament, the treaty also controls the proliferation of nuclear material and at the same time obliges nuclear powers to offer nuclear technology to other countries for electricity generation. Given the grave perils that nuclear proliferation poses for all states, the NPT has been a true cornerstone of global security (M2, 2005). On the contrary, as one senior diplomat at NATO put it: “You cannot artificially separate the civilian from the military aspect -- everyone here is aware of that. As such, you also cannot separate the debate on nuclear proliferation from the debate on alternative sources of energy,” (Bennhold, 2004). To exemplify the dangers involved in nuclear proliferation, China and Pakistan signed a joint contract to supply a reactor pressure vessel for the second phase of the Chashma Nuclear Power Station in Pakistan. China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation Deputy General Manager Huang Guojun said Pakistan had pledged that technology would be used solely for peaceful purposes with no transferal to a third parties. Though, he also admitted that “It is difficult to ignore the fact that nuclear technology has benefits in addition to its primary function of electricity generation,” (Mihailescu, 2004). Thus, although there is a growing recognition as to the dangers of non-proliferation, there could also be a willingness on the part of several countries to fully exploit their burgeoning nuclear programs. Of course, in addition to non-proliferation concerns, with an increasing number of nuclear power plants in the world the problem of nuclear waste also takes on a new and pressing dimension. Some 600,000 tons of depleted uranium sits outside in aging steel cylinders at the two inactive uranium enrichment plants at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Portsmouth, Ohio, and the still active plant at Paducah, Kentucky. Every year some 2,000 pounds of radioactive material is added to this total, most of which is dangerously radioactive radium-226 derived from spent fuel rods.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

125 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Prolif – No Link
There’s no true causation between civilian nuclear power and global prolif Spencer`7Jack Spencer, Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic
Policy Studies. The Nuclear Renaissance: Ten Principles to Guide U.S. Policy September 26, 2007 http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1640.cfm
Recognize that nuclear

weapons are not the result of peaceful nuclear energy programs.

Nuclear energy critics often argue that the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation outweighs any potential benefits of nuclear power. While civilian nuclear power has been used to clandestinely pursue

nuclear weapons programs in the past, there is no causal link between the two. As has been demonstrated consistently throughout history, states act in their interests and generally behave according to agreed norms only to the extent that doing so advances their national objectives. Therefore, limiting the technology development of peaceful nations will not serve to limit the threatening behavior of other nations. With very few exceptions, law-abiding countries do not divert their energy programs for weaponry.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

126 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Prolif - Leadership Solves
Only U.S. leadership can solve proliferation. Einhorn 7 [Robert J., Senior Advisor for National Security Advisory Group, International Security Programs,
CSIS, “Reducing Nuclear Threats and Preventing Nuclear Terrorism,” October, http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/news_11_07/NSAG_NuclearThreats_Oct07.pdf] A world of increasing numbers of nuclear weapon states is not inevitable. Neither is a nuclear attack by terrorists. Both can be prevented. But if we are to avoid today’s nuclear nightmares – as we avoided the nuclear nightmare of the Cold War – the prevention of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism will have to be an overriding U.S. national priority, and strong American leadership in mobilizing the sustained, concerted efforts required of the international community will be indispensable.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

127 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Prolif - Inevitable
No impact – increasing the number of plants does not increase the risk of proliferation. It is already inevitable. Walsh 5 [Jim, Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, “Learning from Past Success: The NPT and the Future
of Non-proliferation,” http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/no41.pdf While this position represents the extreme end of non-proliferation thinking, much of the underlying logic is widely accepted, i.e., that the diffusion of technological know-how and the persistence of security threats make proliferation inevitable, and no treaty can stop it. This is the same reasoning that provided the premise for 1960s predictions of widespread proliferation. Even the Director General of the IAEA has reportedly declared that “30 countries could have nuclear weapons within the next 10 to 20 years if efforts do not improve.”16

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

128 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Organized Crime***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

129 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Organized Crime Scenario 1/2
Nuclear Waste dumping fuels international crime organizations NIRS`7(Nuclear Information and Resource service, MAFIA CLAN CONNECTED WITH
TRAFFICKING NUCLEAR WASTEOctober 11, 2007http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm661.pdf)

Magistrate Francesco Basentini in the city of Potenza, in southern Italy, began the investigation after a confession of an 'Ndrangheta “turncoat,” detailing his role in the alleged waste-dumping. Basentini said that two of the Calabrian clan's members are being investigated, along with eight former employees of the state energy research agency Enea. The 'Ndrangheta mafia, which gained notoriety in August for its blood feud killings of six men in Germany, has been accused by investigators of building on its origins as a kidnapping gang to become Europe's top cocaine importer, thanks to ties to Colombian cartels. But the nuclear accusation, if true, would take it into another league. The eight Enea managers are suspected of paying the mobsters to get rid of 600 drums of toxic and radioactive waste from Italy, Switzerland, France, Germany, and the US, with Somalia as the destination lined up by the traffickers. These activities took place in the 1980s and 1990s. At the time the eight were based at the Enea facility in Rotondella, a town in Basilicata province in the toe of Italy, which today treats "special" and "hazardous" waste. At other facilities, Enea studies nuclear fusion and fission technologies. Because there was only room for 500 drums on a ship waiting at the northern port of Livorno, 100 drums were secretly buried somewhere in the southern Italian region of Basilicata. Investigators have yet to locate these radioactive drums. The 500 drums were buried in Somalia after buying off local politicians. Shipments to Somalia continued into the 1990s, including radioactive hospital waste, and sending them to the sea bed off the Calabrian coast, the turncoat told investigators. Although he made no mention of attempted plutonium production, Il Giornale newspaper wrote that the mobsters may have planned to sell it to foreign governments. "The 'Ndrangheta has no morals and, if there is money in an activity, it will have no problem getting involved, even nuclear waste," said Nicola Gratteri, the anti-mafia magistrate investigating the shooting in Germany in August of six Italians - the most recent episode of a blood feud between clans in the Calabrian village of San Luca, which cast the spotlight on the 'Ndrangheta's global trafficking and drugdealing business worth up US$50 billion (euro 35 billion) a year. According to the turncoat, the plan to enter the radioactive waste business also started in San Luca, hatched by its then boss, Giuseppe Nirta. Rumors on the alleged illegal trafficking of radioactive and toxic waste are lingering on for many decades. According to an Italian parliamentary study on illegal waste-trafficking issued in November 2000 the mafia controls about 30 percent of Italy's rubbish disposal companies. The so-called "ecomafia" ran companies dealing with about 35 million tons of refuse a year, raking in at least US$ 6.66bn. The report said: "Radioactive waste from Italy dumped in Somalia may have affected Italian soldiers based there with a United Nations force in the mid- 1990s." The developing South has become the dump for hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste from the world's rich countries, a colossal business which is linked to money laundering and gunrunning, say lawmakers and activists in Italy. "The trafficking of radioactive waste, a large part of which goes to countries of the South, constitutes a business of gigantic proportions, amounting to more than seven billion dollars in Italy alone," Massimo Scalia, the chairman of an investigative commission set up by the Italian parliament, told Inter-Press Service in May 2001. The Italian justice system is investigating particularly African countries like Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Algeria and Mozambique. It was found that two of the methods for getting rid of such waste are dumping it into the sea in special metal containers designed to sink to the bottom, or purposely sinking the ship carrying the waste, and reporting it as an accident.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

130 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Organized Crime Scenario 2/2
Organized crime can kill the global economy Stephens`96Mora Stephens January 6, 1996 (Woodrow Wilson School Policy Conference) “global organized crime”
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/snyder/globalcrime.htm

Transnational organized crime groups pose more of a threat to international financial markets as the world economy becomes increasingly interdependent. Laundering billions of dollars in organized crime money worsens national debt problems because the large sums of money are then lost as tax revenue to that country's government. Russian organized crime groups are actively involved in banking, according to FBI official James Moody, because public financial institutions are "the most vulnerable and lucrative target." The Russian Interior Ministry has estimated that organized crime "controls" most of Russia's 200 banks and half of its financial capital ("control" ranges from ownership and operation to influence over bank decisions through threats of violence). U.S. and Western businesses in Russia, in particular, are frequent targets of extortion, robberies, threats and murder. Security costs for these businesses (especially physical protection, extra protection of cargo, and forced payments to gangsters for "protection,") often consume more than 30% of profits. The fear generated combined with organized crime monopolies in certain industries, such as the agriculture and construction markets in Columbia and Venezuela, damages the overall economy because it discourages legitimate, innovative businesses and entrepreneurs (foreign and domestic) from entering the market.

Extinction
Bearden`2k (Bearden, Tom. “Zero-Point Energy, Gauge Theory, Scientific Politics.” December 29, 2000.
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm.)

The earth will increasingly become a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode. So about a year or two ahead of the "full economic collapse", we will be in a period of such increased conflicts between nations, and with those conflicts increasing in intensity and sophistication. According to Defense Secretary Cohen, some 25 nations now have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) such as nuclear missiles, nuclear
bombers and submarines, and/or chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc. and more nations are acquiring them. The Secretary also alluded to electromagnetic weapons of great power, being used to engineer the weather, initiate earthquakes, etc.—almost certainly referring to the longitudinal EM wave interferometry weapons now possessed by seven or eight nations. Here is his exact

with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then —as all the old strategic studies used to show—is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great
statement: (Continued…) Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting. (Continued…) Now my military background shows. In my view, the mass destruction weapons and terrorist teams are already sited and waiting in our population centers. The

Unless the increasing energy economic pressure stayed, we are now approaching the unleashing of a total mass destruction war, one in which the survival not only of America but of all civilization—and the biosphere itself—is at stake. (Continued…) Accordingly, what time I have left will be spent on energy, energy, energy. Ethically, once one sees the great train that is rapidly bearing down upon us, one must do everything in one's power to stop it and derail it. It must be done for our children, and our children's children. Not only for the survival of we Americans, but also for the survival of all the other peoples of the world, and of this fragile biosphere as well.
increasing stress on nations that will result from the increasing energy crisis and oil crisis will eventually push the nations of the world right over the edge. crisis is blunted and the

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

131 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Organized Crime
Multiple alt causes that fuel organized crime organizations Zaitseva 7 (Lyudmila, Center for Contemporary Conflict
[http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2007/Aug/zaitsevaAug07.asp] Organized Crime, Terrorism and Nuclear Trafficking/ August 2007) Given the enormous profits organized crime makes from their traditional criminal activities, such as narcotics or people smuggling, nuclear trafficking may not be its first choice.[19] Nevertheless, it can be tried as a sideline activity, if the criminals believe it can be profitable. Today organized crime does not limit itself to single forms of illegal activity, but engages in multi-crime and deals in anything and everything that can bring profit. Besides, criminal networks can resort to nuclear trafficking upon a specific order by a potential buyer. It is the latter scenario that raises the biggest concern among international experts due to its high plausibility and low chances of detection.

N/U - International crime is at an all time high Miller 8 (Lauren, Salon Books [http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/04/16/international_crime/index.html]
Criminals of the world, unite and take over/ April 16, 2008) Nowadays, serious crime, like serious capitalism, requires globalization. Tony Soprano-style protection rackets are old news, and generally stop at national borders. But trading in contraband goods -- be it drugs, arms, oil or human beings -- inevitably means setting up international relationships and connections. Above all, the big-time criminal needs a way to launder his loot, and there has never been a global climate more obliging for bad men who want to make dirty money look clean. The reasons for this outrageous blossoming of so many flowers of evil are, according to Glenny, essentially twofold. "The collapse of ... the Soviet Union is the single most important event prompting the exponential growth of organized crime around the world in the past two decades," he writes. A key event in that breakdown was the bizarrely selective deregulation of the Soviet economy. The officials under Boris Yeltsin who executed this "reform," for reasons not entirely clear, liberalized the prices of everything but Russia's natural resources: oil, gas, diamonds and metals. Those lucky enough to get ahold of these commodities at the artificially low, state-mandated prices could turn around and sell them at market rate to the rest of the world. The result was the overnight creation of a generation of Russian oligarchs and "quite simply the grandest larceny in history."

US Not Key - Organized crime fueled by other countries such as China, Malaysia and Pakistan Tripathi 8 (Rahul, The Times of India
[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Delhi/Kattas_to_Colts_Blame_the_spiralling_crime_graph_on_unlicensed_arms /articleshow/3186527.cms] Kattas to Colts: Blame the spiralling crime graph on unlicensed arms/ July 2, 2008) An illegal arms bazaar is thriving in the Capital. From the simple desi kattas to the sophisticated smuggled guns from China, Malaysia, Italy and Pakistan - everything is available for a price, even on rent. According to the police, illegal weapons outnumber the legal ones by more than eight times in the city and more than 90% of crimes in Delhi are committed using unlicensed guns. Sources say these easily obtainable weapons are contributing to the rising incidents of shooting in public places. Last week, Priya complex shoppers were stunned when a drunk man shot his girlfriend in public following a tiff. The man, said to be from Gurgaon, is absconding. Last Friday a shootout at a crowded Ashok Vihar market claimed the life of a 48-year-old shopkeeper selling car accessories. The accused Rohit Srivastava (21) and a teenager arrested on July 1 were found to be in possession of a countrymade pistol, which was used in the murder.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

132 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT:Organized Crime – No Economy Impact
There is limited data on the impact of organized crime on the economy Costa 8 (Antonio Maria, UN Office on Drugs and Crime [http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/rule-of-law-amissing-millennium-development-goal.html] Rule of law : A "missing" Millennium Development Goal/ April 15, 2008) First, while there is plenty of information about conventional crime, we don't know much about organized crime. Thousands of books have been written about the subject, none with robust evidence about the size, shape and trends of organized crime, its impact on society, its relations with business and politics. Second, while the criminal economy is estimated at several percentage points of the world's gross product (that is about $30 trillions), this is anecdotal: in reality, we really have no idea even how to measure it.

Strong economic growth encourages organized crime BusinessWeek 6 ([http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/money/10110784/detail.html] What's Behind Russia's
Crime Wave?/ 2006) If the Russian crime wave of the late '80s and early '90s coincided with economic recession, then the latest rise is taking place against a background of strong economic growth. That may well provide a clue as to why the crime rate is shooting up again. As ever more Russians acquire expensive modern gadgets such as cars, laptops, and mobile phones, there is no doubt a lot more around to steal, and more incentive to report crimes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

133 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Accidents***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

134 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Accidents
Nuke Power isn’t worth the high accident risk-They’re not safe, and each reactor is a potential Chernobyl Greenpeace`3(Greenpeace, environmental watchdogs, The Probability of a Nuclear Accident
May 20, 2003, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/the-probability-of-a-nuclear-a)

The public should not be lulled into a false sense of security by the mere fact that the U.S. nuclear power industry has not melted down a reactor since Three Mile Island. Operating without a meltdown for a finite period of time does not mean that safety is adequate. Again, Mr. Lewis, of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, recognized this fallacy. Mr. Lewis stated that: The general argument that the fact that one has operated safely for a finite period of time proves that the safety level is adequate is just not statistically right, because there isn't that much history in the industry. And it's a trap. Because other agencies, for example, people have used the argument that they had 24 successful Shuttle flights, to show the level of safety was adequate. And in retrospect, after one disaster, it turned out not to be. The Soviets, after Chernobyl, suddenly discovered that the level of safety they had before Chernobyl was not adequate. But the day before Chernobyl they would have said it was adequate on the basis of operating history..So it is a general trap, a psychological trap, to believe that because something has not happened, you are doing just fine. 42 The NRC and the nuclear industry have already fallen into the trap. The NRC and the NEI have already begun to deregulate nuclear safety regulations, including those dealing with the security of nuclear reactors, based upon the limited operating history of reactors in the U.S. The risk posed by nuclear power plants was significant before September 11th . When we take into consideration the terrorist threat to nuclear power plants their continued operation is unacceptable. As NRC Commissioner Asselstine pointed out, U.S. nuclear reactors are capable of releasing enormous amounts of radiation into the environment. Since each reactor has the potential for a Chernobyl sized release of radiation, it is important to recognize the consequences of such an accident. In 1990, the Wall Street Journal reported on a study conducted by a Soviet nuclear industry economist on the continuing economic disaster of the Chernobyl accident. The study found that the cost of the disaster had originally been underestimated. Yuri Koryakin, chief economist of the Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering, the institute that originally designed the Chernobyl reactor, found that the accident may cost 20 times more than Moscow's original estimates. By 2000, the report estimated that the Chernobyl accident would cost the country between 170 and 215 billion rubles from contaminated farm land, lost electricity production and other economic fall-out. The accident contaminated approximately 31,000 square kilometers or 12,400 square miles. When the Wall Street Journal article was published in 1990, the contaminated land was considered a total loss for at least two generations. 43 The Wall Street Journal article concludes that, "The total bill suggests that the Soviet Union may have been better off if they had never begun building nuclear reactors in the first place." 44 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) attempt to down play the impact of the disaster. According to NEI: The accident destroyed the reactor in Unit 4, killed 31 people (one immediately and 30 within three months) and contaminated large areas of Belarus (formerly Byelorussia), Ukraine and the Russian Federation. In addition, one person has subsequently died from a confirmed diagnosis of acute radiation syndrome, and three children have died from thyroid cancer. 45 The consequences of the accident are severely understated by NEI. According to an article published by the Associated Press the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster are "grimly visible." an estimated 4,000 deaths among those who took part in the hasty and poorly organized cleanup; 70,000 people disabled by radiation, according to government figures. Overall, about 3.4 million of Ukraine's 50 million people, including some 1.26 million children, are considered affected by Chernobyl, and many may not show the affects for years. 46 The grim reality of the Chernobyl accident will be with the people of the former Soviet Union for generations. Shutdown Before Meltdown The United States can avoid the next nuclear accident by phasing out the remaining 103 commercial nuclear reactors. Rather than coddling the nuclear industry with more taxpayer subsidies and less regulation the federal government should replace nuclear reactors with energy efficiency and other clean, renewable sources of electricity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

135 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Accidents
With nuclear energy accidents like Chernobyl are virtually inevitable Gunter &Gunter`5 (Paul and Linda, NIRS staff, NIRS Opinion/Editorial May 23, 2005 [NIRS= Nuclear Information and
Resource service] http://www.nirs.org/columnist/chernobylmay2320005.pdf)

Last month, the 19th anniversary of the Chernobyl atomic reactor disaster in Ukraine slipped by with scarcely a murmur in the media. Instead, headlines were trumpeting the new nuclear “renaissance,” as the Bush administration flaunts its pork-laden energy bill and the industry crows about “clean, green, nuclear power.” In attempting to muscle its way into the climate change argument, with a barrage of misinformation and flawed statistics, the nuclear industry is conveniently ducking the very real horrors that would ensue if one of their reactors suffered an accident or attack resulting in a release to the environment of its radioactive contents. And the weight of scientific evidence suggests such an outcome is not only possible but probable. Since 9/11 the security landscape has changed forever. We know that an attack on a U.S. reactor was in the original al Qaeda plans and likely will be again. The 103 operating U.S. reactors are all now reaching the end of their life spans, meaning they are more prone to technical problems that could lead to accident. And despite their geriatric status, older reactors are subject to fewer safety checks and are run hotter and longer, leading to cracking and embrittled parts vulnerable to failure. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), congressionally charged with safeguarding the public, has instead capitulated to the industry’s profit-margin priorities. Added to that, older reactors contain radiation inventories far larger than the infant reactor at Chernobyl that had operated just 2 years before the catastrophe. And of course both the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents were a result of human error, the one wild card that can never been entirely eliminated.

An accident like Chernobyl can give more than seven million people 800 different cancers Gunter &Gunter`5 (Paul and Linda, NIRS staff, NIRS Opinion/Editorial May 23, 2005 [NIRS= Nuclear Information and
Resource service] http://www.nirs.org/columnist/chernobylmay2320005.pdf)

Also forgotten amidst the Washington pundits’ pro-nuclear pronouncements are the tragic consequences so vividly seen today in the children of Chernobyl. These are young lives forever altered by the birth defects they inherited from their parents who had the misfortune to live close to the reactor or downwind of its toxic fallout cloud. Many have been abandoned in orphanages. More than seven million people in the former Soviet Republics of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are believed to have suffered medical problems and genetic damage as the direct result of Chernobyl. In Ukraine alone, more than 2.32 million people, including 452,000 children have been treated for radiation-linked illnesses, including thyroid and blood cancers and cancerous growths according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health. New findings reported last November in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health published by the British Medical Association concluded that more than 800 cancers in Sweden are being attributed to the ever-widening impact of the “Chernobyleffect.” It is increasingly disingenuous of the nuclear industry to distance itself from a potential catastrophic accident in the United States. Considerable evidence exists that currently operating U.S. reactor containments can also fail during a severe accident. A 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) study of risks associated with severe reactor accidents concluded that none of the five different US designs it analyzed were capable of remaining intact during all severe accident scenarios.

Nuclear plants are unsafe-Price-Anderson act Gronlund, Lochbaum, & Lyman`7 (Lisbeth, co-director and senior scientist of the UCS Global Security Program.
David, director of the nuclear safety project in the UCS Global Security Program and Lyman senior staff scientist in the UCS Global Security Program, Dec, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Nuclear-Power-in-a-Warming-World.pdf)

The Price-Anderson Act lessens incentives to improve safety. The act, just renewed for another 20 years, severely limits the liability of owners for accidents at nuclear power plants. This protection lessens the financial incentives for reactor vendors to increase safety measures, and for owners to improve operating standards.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

136 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Accidents
Accident would cost $600billion Beyond Nuclear, no date.
(Nuclear Power hinders Progress on Climate Change, http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html) Accidents: New reactors, like old ones, are at their most vulnerable to accidents. Yet in the event of an accident, existing evacuation plans have been found to be unrealistic. Furthermore, the Price-Anderson Act ensures that the liability of an accident to a utility is capped at $10.8 billion. A serious reactor accident could cost as much as $600 billion, the balance of which would likely be paid by taxpayers.

A major nuclear accident would result in one trillion dollars of damage. Winfield et al 06 [Mark, Director Environmental Governance The Pembina Institute, Alison Jamison, Senior
Project Manager, Rich Wong, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Paulina Czajkowski, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Nuclear Power in Canada: An Explanation of Risks, Impacts, and Sustainability, December 2006, http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf] Nuclear generating facilities are additionally subject to uniquely severe accident and security risks. A serious accident or incident could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material to the atmosphere, which could be distributed over a large area. By comparison, the impacts of major incidents or accidents at facilities employing other generating technologies would be short term and largely limited to the facility site itself. It has been estimated that the monetized value of the off-site environmental, health and economic impacts of a major accident at the Darlington generating facility east of the City of Toronto, for example, would exceed $1 trillion (1991 $Cdn).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

137 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Accidents
Carr and Fernandes, 8. (False Promises, Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, adapted by the staff of Nuclear information and resource center, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf)
While US designs use water to slow and cool the atomic chain reaction in the reactor core rather than the graphite absorption model of the infamous reactor

many US reactors continue to operate with serious design flaws and in violation of federal safety requirements today. One top safety concern is General Electric’s 24
at Chernobyl that exploded and burned in a radioactive fire on April 26, 1986, antiquated MARK I boiling water reactors that store highly radioactive and thermally hot nuclear fuel in densely packed storage pools located six to ten

makes the GE BWR design vulnerable to rupture by an accidental heavy load drop or penetration by a deliberate terrorist strike. While nuclear power proponents argue that there is no comparison between Chernobyl-style RBMK reactors and western reactors with the claim that the Soviet reactor had no containment, the containment structure for the MARK I is known to be a fundamentally flawed design. In the words of a former chief nuclear safety director for the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, “You’ll find something like a 90 percent chance of failure” of the Mark I containment if challenged by a significant accident.119 The Mark I design was later back-fit to give operators the option to deliberately vent radiation from the containment
stories up in the reactor building outside and atop the primary containment structure for the reactor vessel. The design feature during an accident in order to save the reactor itself. However, despite these significant safety issues, the NRC is extending the operating licenses for these

Other known and long standing design flaws make the boiling water reactor fleet and other US reactor designs prone to early containment failure in the event of an accident or successful attack. Continued lack of NRC enforcement action
fatally flawed designs and approving extensive power increases for aged reactors under hasty and superficial technical reviews. on long standing safety violations increases the risk of the occurrence of a significant accident involving reactor core damage and a catastrophic release of

long standing and widespread violations of fire protection law by a majority of nuclear power plant operators is disturbing. A fire set by a worker checking for air leaks along electrical cable trays with an open candle flame at Alabama’s Browns Ferry nuclear power station on March 22, 1975 nearly caused a catastrophic radioactive accident. In just 15 minutes, the fire destroyed 1500 cables, more than 600 of which were vital to the control of the reactor and its shutdown. As a result, in 1980 NRC promulgated new regulations for fire protection to assure that no single fire could knock out the control room’s
radioactivity to the environment. The example of ability to safely shut the reactor down in the event of fire. The law now requires that for areas in the plant where redundant safe shutdown electrical circuits appear in the same fire zone, qualified design features are required to protect safe shutdown cable functionality through rated time/temperature fire barrier systems or minimum separation used in conjunction with automated fire detection and suppression systems.120 In 1989, NRC was notified that the most widely deployed fire barrier system for such purposes in US reactors, Thermo-Lag 330-1, could not be relied upon to protect safe reactor shutdown in the event of a significant fire. By 1992, NRC declared the system inoperable for 89 reactor units.121 NRC staff and the nuclear industry engaged in a six-year dialogue of technical meetings to bring operators back into compliance with fire protection law. By 1998, most of the industry had entered into agreements with NRC to upgrade inoperable fire barrier systems. However, 17 operators for 24 reactor units that had failed to enter into timely resolution were issued orders by the federal safety agency to bring their reactors into fire safety compliance by 2000. Subsequent inspections from 2000 through 2002 revealed that a substantially large number of reactor operators ignored their agreed-upon Corrective Action Programs. Instead many operators substituted unapproved and largely unanalyzed “operator manual actions” rather than fix the bogus fire barriers. In the event of a significant fire, control room operators would instead allow unprotected electrical cables to be destroyed by the fire and send station personnel to remote plant locations to manually operate the end piece components (valves, circuit breakers, fuses, etc.) that were required by law to be protected for control room operation. Many of these manual actions would require workers to run a potentially hazardous gauntlet (smoke, fire, radiation, and possible attackers) with keys, tools, ladders and respirators in a heroic effort to save the reactor from meltdown. While design features such as fire barriers or minimum cable separation requirements can be qualified and inspected, manual actions raise a host of uncertainties on human reliability. There is unquestionably no equivalence between maintaining qualified passive

The industry efforts have undermined reasonable assurance that vital reactor safety functions can be achieved before a meltdown could occur. While the agreements and orders for
design fire protection features and human actions. fire protection compliance are still in effect, NRC so far has refused to take any enforcement action for safety violations going back to 1992. Instead, the nuclear industry and NRC are seeking to amend the fire protection law to circumvent the requirement that prioritizes qualified physical fire protection features by substituting wholesale exemptions that rely upon these dubious operator manual actions.122 Such regulatory maneuvers would codify a significant reduction in the defense-in-depth philosophy and set back the fire protection code for nuclear power stations to the days before the near catastrophic Browns Ferry fire. In fact, an investigation by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) found that the Browns Ferry-1 reactor restarted in May 2007, after a 22-year shutdown for a host of design safety problems—still does not comply with federal fire protection regulations put into place because of its near-catastrophic fire in 1975. Despite spending nearly $2 billion to bring the reactor back on line, the Tennessee Valley Authority ignored fixing violations for the protection of safe shutdown electrical circuits and instead adopted the dubious operator manual actions. The NRC gave its OK for the restart of the reactor under “enforcement discretion” for more than 100 violations with the federal fire safety law that the reactor was responsible for creating.123

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

138 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Accidents
Nuclear fears unfounded; they’re based on old myths. The benefits outweigh the risks. Prefer our ev, it’s comparative Fortune, ’08 (The Case for Nukes, June 9, Vol. 157, Iss. 12; pg. 22. Proquest)
One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. It's one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coal- and natural-gas-based electricity production, and it's responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coal-based production was the largest contributor, at 48%. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. All three are replaceable. It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they're doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France's economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn't produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn't been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carterera decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism. Although the ban has been reversed, the fears still linger. But irrational fear of improbable safety breaches is responsible for most opposition to nuclear power in this country. The unlikely culprit? Pop culture. We've seen The China Syndrome, and we worry that nuclear-reactor employees may be bumbling Homer Simpsons, capable of accidentally pushing the red button. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island--the former of which killed 36 people and the latter of which killed none--have become so outsized in the American imagination that our perception of actual risk has been completely distorted. We're willing to tolerate the health risks and environmental repercussions of other fuels to avoid the infinitesimally small and comically improbable possibility of a catastrophic accident that resembles something out of a 1979 Jane Fonda movie, the likes of which have never happened in the history of nuclear power.

Three Mile Island proves the safety mechs for NP plants, no injury or death occurred Hiserodt, aerospace engineer, 08 (Ed, “Myths About Nuclear Energy”, The New American. April 30, Vol.
23, Iss. 9; pg. 18, 6 pgs, Proquest) TRUTH: The great nightmare associated with nuclear energy is the "meltdown." Anti-nuclear activists love to point to a scenario in which a reactor would lose its coolant allowing the fuel rods to melt through the reactor vessel, through several feet of high-strength concrete, and through hundreds of feet of earth till reaching an aquifer whereupon a steam explosion would ensue. Consequently, they eagerly seized upon the accident at Three Mile Island as the embodiment of all their fears - or at least of the fears they wanted the public to have. The problem was that Three Mile Island was a demonstration of the safety of nuclear plants. Beginning at 4:00 a.m. on March 28, 1979, a series of mishaps resulted in the partial meltdown of the reactor core. By 7:45 a.m. that morning, according to the Smithsonian Institute, "a molten mass of metal and fuel - some twenty tons in all - is spilling into the bottom of the reactor vessel." Yet that reactor containment vessel worked as designed and by 9:00 a.m. the danger was past: "The reactor vessel holds firm, and the molten uranium, immersed in water, now gradually begins to cool," the Smithsonian Institute says in its timeline of events at the damaged reactor. Perhaps the final word on Three Mile Island comes from Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. In October 2006, Moore wrote in Popular Mechanics: "At the time, no one noticed Three Mile Island was a success story; the concrete containment structure prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. There was no injury or death among the public or nuclear workers."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

139 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Accidents
A Chernobyl repeat is impossible due to better safety standards Hiserodt, aerospace engineer, 08 (Ed, “Myths About Nuclear Energy”, The New American. April 30, Vol.
23, Iss. 9; pg. 18, 6 pgs, Proquest) It is common to mention Chernobyl and Three Mile Island at the same time in debate over nuclear safety, but the two events are substantially different. Chernobyl was the feared "worst case scenario" envisioned by critics of nuclear energy. Whereas at Three Mile Island the nuclear chain reaction was stopped in the first 10 seconds of the event, at Chernobyl the chain reaction continued well into the accident. Although there is almost nothing flammable in a U.S. power reactor, Chernobyl's was constructed from graphite, a form of carbon that is difficult to ignite, but burns with a very hot flame once ignited. Not only that, but Chernobyl did not even have a containment structure for the reactor, unlike American plants that are built with containment buildings designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. Because there was no containment vessel enclosing Chernobyl's poorly designed RBMK-type reactors, when the plant exploded, chunks of radioactive material were ejected from the annihilated plant and exposed to the environment. And yet, the aftermath of Chernobyl was not as bad as many expected it to be. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), "The accident caused the deaths within a few days or weeks of 30 power plant employees and firemen (including 28 deaths that were due to radiation exposure)." No one wants to see loss of life, but as large industrial incidents go. this was relatively unexceptional. The 1984 gas leak at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killed at least 3,000 people and, according to some estimates, may have caused the death of 15,000. At Chernobyl, by contrast, fears of mass casualties from the effects of radiation have not been realized. According to the UN, "There have been eleven deaths between 1987 and
1998 among confirmed acute radiation sickness survivors.... There were three cases of coronary heart disease, two cases of myelodysplastic syndrome, two cases of liver cirrhosis, and one death each of lung gangrene, lung tuberculosis and fat embolism. One patient who had been classified with Grade II acute radiation sickness died in 1998 from acute myeloid leukaemia." Though tragic, these deaths do not amount to the devastation of much of Russia and Western Europe that

was predicted. Among the broader population, even under the microscope of a media that seeks out disasters, the only detectable heath effect was an increase in childhood thyroid cancer. But some have pointed out that this might be an anomaly caused by extra screening after the accident. If you screen more
children every year, you will detect more cases of thyroid cancer, Chernobyl notwithstanding. It's noteworthy that Russia's childhood thyroid cancers did not go off the scale. In Finland, 2.4 percent of children had thyroid cancer - 90 times that of all persons in the Bryansk area of Russia who were less than 18 in 1986 - at the time of the accident.

The most detrimental effect of Chernobyl was the forced relocation of residents. Ironically, the fallout from the accident emitted less radioactivity than the local soil.

US coal-fired plants kill more people than Chernobyl Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.130-131)
Just to review: we receive more radiation from nature and from nuclear medicine than from any other sources; it is extremely unlikely that most of us will ever receive high-dose radiation; the body does not distinguish between radiation from man-made sources and radiation from nature; and the consequences of low-dose radiation get lost among all the other natural and man-made assaults we live with. It's possible that some radiation is essential to health. Common sense tells me that the extra 200 to 300 millirem I receive during my stays in the Southwest are unlikely to harm me. Even conservative estimates based on LNT suggest that risk from low-dose radiation is tiny-even among nuclear workers. On a daily basis many of us subject ourselves to much more serious risks-like driving, smoking, or living downwind from a coal-fired plant or downstream from a chemical or petrochemical plant-than to any danger that might come from the generation of nuclear power. Despite the worst-case scenario that unfolded at Chernobyl-thanks to Soviet politics, inept management, a foolish experimental test, and an extraordinarily flawed plant design lacking reactor containment-the number of acute deaths the accident caused, and those conservatively estimated to occur over the next several decades, are expected to total just a tiny fraction of the 240,000 premature deaths that are caused decade after decade in the United States alone by coal-fired plants.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

140 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Natural Disasters***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

141 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Natural Disasters
Natural disasters can destroy Nuclear Reactors. Environmental News Service, 7.
(“Nuclear Power Plants subject to terrorism, earthquakes, states warn” http://www.ensnewswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-16-091.asp) WHITE PLAINS, New York,, November 16, 2007 (ENS) - New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the attorneys general of five other states have submitted a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, expressing "serious concerns" about the commission's disregard of safety issues - such as earthquakes or terrorist attacks - when deciding whether to renew the operating license of a nuclear power plant beyond its initial 40 year term. "The NRC's failure to address safety issues including updating its review of seismic activity in the relicensing of nuclear power plants is irresponsible," said Cuomo. "The NRC should have learned a lesson from this summer's earthquake in Japan, which forced the emergency shutdown of the world's largest nuclear plant and resulted in the release of radioactive material into the air and water," he said. "Our letter illustrates the concern states across the nation have about nuclear power plant safety." Beyond the threat of terrorism, the U.S. Geological Survey has indicated there is a "significant" hazard for earthquakes in the New York metropolitan region. Geologists warn that a substantial earthquake in the region could be more disastrous than those in the Western United States because the rocky nature of the Earth's crust on the East Coast is capable of transmitting more powerful shockwaves.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

142 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Natural Disasters
Nuclear Facilities can withstand natural disasters. cfr.org, 6
(“Targets for Terrorism: Nuclear Facilities” council on foreign relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10213/targets_for_terrorism.html) No one knows. U.S. nuclear power plants are built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and small plane crashes. Their “containment walls” are typically made of two to five feet of reinforced concrete with an interior steel lining. But the NRC didn’t anticipate the type of attacks seen on September 11—large passenger airliners loaded with fuel slamming into targets. Both the NRC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have said that U.S. nuclear plants were not designed to withstand such an impact, and the NRC has ordered a study of plant designs to look at what would happen in such a scenario.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

143 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Environment***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

144 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Water Pollution Scenario
Nuclear power pollutes water. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2007
(“Clean Energy, Nuclear Energy” http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts, build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems. These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life. Although the nuclear reactor is radioactive, the water discharged from the power plant is not considered radioactive because it never comes in contact with radioactive materials.3 However, waste generated from uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of radioactive uranium.

Water contamination negatively affects multiple species, including plankton, and can destroy biodiversity. Winfield et al 06 [Mark, Director Environmental Governance The Pembina Institute, Alison Jamison, Senior
Project Manager, Rich Wong, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Paulina Czajkowski, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Nuclear Power in Canada: An Explanation of Risks, Impacts, and Sustainability, December 2006, http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf] Surface water contamination has wide-ranging negative impacts on aquatic biota within the contaminated water body.65,66 A 2004 Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Priority Substances List (PSL) toxicology assessment concluded that the effluents released from historical uranium mining and milling operations in Ontario, and both historic and current operations in northern Saskatchewan, particularly those containing uranium and uranium compounds, were toxic to benthic invertebrates, mink, muskrat, plankton, and fish.67 The same study concluded that radionuclides from uranium mining and milling were being released into the environment in quantities or conditions that have either had or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment and its biological diversity.68 Studies are ongoing to further understand the impacts of these contaminants, including the potential effects of milling effluent releases (specifically metals) on the health of native fish populations, and the impacts of mine effluents on aquatic invertebrates.69

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

145 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Water Pollution – Link Ext.
Uranium mining can have devastating effects on biodiversity by contaminating water sources. Winfield et al 06 [Mark, Director Environmental Governance The Pembina Institute, Alison Jamison, Senior
Project Manager, Rich Wong, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Paulina Czajkowski, Eco-Efficiency Analyst, Nuclear Power in Canada: An Explanation of Risks, Impacts, and Sustainability, December 2006, http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf] Uranium mining and milling releases contaminants to groundwater and surface water through discharges of process and mine waters, leaching from TMFs and waste rock storage sites, and general run-off from mine sites. Releases can include radioactive conventional pollutants (e.g., total suspended solids) and hazardous pollutants (e.g., heavy metals), as well as acid drainage. Mining and milling operations can also disrupt surface water and groundwater features and flows. In 2004 Health Canada and Environment Canada concluded that “releases of uranium and uranium compounds contained in effluent from uranium mines and mills are entering the environment in quantities or concentrations or under conditions that have or may have a harmful immediate or long-term effect on the environment or its biological diversity” and are therefore “toxic” as defined in s. 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

146 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Ocean Pollution Scenario
Nuclear power plants devastate marine life. Carr and Fernandes, 8.
(False Promises, Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, adapted by the staff of Nuclear information and resource center, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf) Noted scientists and oceanic experts agree that the health of the world’s oceans is in jeopardy. Yet, the nuclear industry is still permitted to destroy significant areas of marine habitat through the daily operations of its once-through coolant reactors. In general, the commercial fishing industry is highly regulated as to the manner of catch, quantity, and frequency. Conversely, the nuclear power industry is required to take very few precautions to avoid impacts on fish stocks and the larvae of numerous nearshore species. Indeed, two very different regulatory regimes control the environmental impacts of commercial fisheries and the nuclear power industry, while both industries have significant impacts on the marine environment. Reactors that operate with once-through cooling systems typically use more than one billion gallons of water a day (500,000 gallons a minute). This enormous water use can have large impacts on the environment —trapping fish and other marine animals in their intakes and changing the temperature of local waterways through the discharge of heated water.113 In fact, fish, fish larvae, and fish eggs are harmed and destroyed upon entering the flow of reactor cooling water where they are sucked into and impinged on the water intake screens. Smaller fish, fish larvae, spawn, and a large number of other marine organisms are actually drawn into the reactor coolant system where up to 95 percent are scalded, killed and discharged as sediment. This indiscriminate killing can result in extensive depletion of the affected species and cause the community of species around a reactor to lose their capacity to sustain themselves. The once-through cooling system also discharges water that is much hotter than when it is withdrawn. The hot discharge water damages and destroys fish and other marine life and dramatically alters the immediate marine environment. Warmer waters have been found to cause a fatal disease, known as “withering syndrome,” in black and red abalone, which have been virtually eliminated around the Diablo Canyon reactor in California. Kelp, unable to photosynthesize efficiently due to the shadowing effect of reactor discharge sediment, is also weakened by higher water temperatures. In the immediate discharge areas, the ocean floor is scoured clean of sediment by the force of the thermal discharge, resulting in bare rock and creating a virtual marine desert. In theory, nuclear power plants are required to use water intake systems that “reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts,” according to the Clean Water Act (CWA). However, the site specific examples of environmental impacts are quite startling when examined. For example, the State of New York estimates that the Indian Point reactors cause the mortality of more than one billion fish a year, and that closed-cycle cooling would lead to at least a 98 percent reduction in fish mortality.114 In the case of the Oyster Creek reactor in Tom’s River New Jersey, the State Department of Environmental Protection estimates that the cooling system kills millions of small fish, shrimp and other aquatic creatures each year and that dead marine life expelled from cooling systems back into the source stream create a “shadow effect,” blocking sunlight to underwater organisms and limiting oxygen uptake.115

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

147 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad – Species Scenario
NP kills endangered species Carr and Fernandes, 8.
(False Promises, Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, adapted by the staff of Nuclear information and resource center, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf) Four species of endangered and one threatened species of sea turtle present in US coastal waters are harmed and killed by nuclear power station operations. Loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles are the most common victims at nuclear reactors and are often entrained into the largediameter coolant intake pipes used by coastal reactors. A 1990 National Academy of Sciences study, “Decline of Sea Turtles, Causes and Prevention,” examined the impacts on worldwide sea turtle populations and recommended protective measures to prevent their extinction.116 The academy, in its investigation of power plant impacts, found that death and injury can occur in transit through a reactor’s once-through intake pipes. Sea turtles are also impinged by the force of the intake water and become lodged on intake structures, barrier nets or against the power station’s metal grate trash racks. Thus, the marine impacts of nuclear power demonstrate that the nuclear industry and regulators value profit over reduction of harm to the marine ecosystem. In fact, there are numerous examples of take limits for endangered species being raised and adjusted in accordance with plant operating imperatives rather than species population maintenance. The installation of cooling towers to once-through systems (which account for over half of the nations 103) would reduce water intake by 96 percent and greatly reduce the potential for marine species damage.117 The towers would also function to cool waste waters before discharge, thereby reducing temperature induced ecosystem disruptions significantly. However, despite this proven and affordable mitigation measure, utilities, which claim to act as stewards of our natural heritage, continue to exact a devastating toll that in many cases may have no chance for reversal.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

148 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Pollution
Nuclear power plants emit less radiation than coal plants, they’re harmless Hiserodt, aerospace engineer, 08 (Ed, “Myths About Nuclear Energy”, The New American. April 30, Vol.
23, Iss. 9; pg. 18, 6 pgs, Proquest) MYTH: Nuclear plants emit dangerous radiation TRUTH: Have you ever known anyone killed in a car accident? I have - two uncles, a roommate, and a girlfriend from college. How about anyone killed from radiation, or maybe even injured slightly? If you're like me and nearly all other Americans, you can't name a single person you know who has been injured by radiation. The fact is, nuclear power plants emit less radiation during normal operation than do coal-fired power plants. In an article published in 1993 in Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, ORNL physicist Alex Gabbard pointed out "that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment." According to Gabbard, radiation from coal combustion "is 100 times that from nuclear plants." Yet even at that level, radiation from coal is completely negligible. Nuclear reactors emit much less radiation than coal-fired power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits radiation at the plant boundary to 5 millirems per year. (It seldom gets anywhere near that.) If you were to stand unclothed at the boundary for 120 years, you would receive as much radiation as a person living on the Colorado plateau does in one year from natural background radiation. Moreover, the U.S. capitol building has long been known to emit too much radiation to be licensed as a nuclear power plant. Consider too that unlike coal- or oil-fired plants, nuclear power plants do not have smokestacks spewing pollutants into the atmosphere. In the case of nuclear plants, the wastes are contained within the plant itself. Often mistaken for smokestacks, some nuclear power plants, like some coal- or oil-fired plants, have cooling towers that emit water vapor. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that radiation is all around us every day. According to the Department of Energy, the average American receives 300 millirems of radiation each year from natural sources, but that amount is higher in some places. For instance, in Denver, Colorado, because of the proximity of the Rocky Mountains and because there is less atmosphere overhead to protect from cosmic rays, residents receive almost double the national average background radiation. I wonder, does the EPA know about this? Perhaps Coloradans should be evacuated!

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

149 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Human Health***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

150 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Radiation - Extinction
The cancer causing radiation is Russian roulette with extinction Lendman`6 (Stephen, contributor to Global Research, Global Research.org, BOOK REVIEW Nuclear Power Is Not the
Answer, by Helen Caldicott, August 7, 2006, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2908)

The overall cost of nuclear energy rarely, if ever, includes the very significant toll it takes on human health. Those paying the price include uranium miners, nuclear industry workers and potentially everyone living close to these operations. Also affected are residents in areas close to nuclear power plants that routinely or accidently emit toxic radioactive releases that can cause illness, disease and death over time. Chicago is a prime example of what may go wrong. The city is surrounded by 11 nuclear power plants, many of them
aging and all of them with histories of safety violations caused by aging and shoddy maintenance. Even if accident free, these facilities (and all others everywhere) discharge enough radiation daily in their normal operations to contaminate the food we eat (even organic food), water we drink and air we breathe into our lungs. But if a core meltdown ever occurs at any of these plants (a

real possibility no one is prepared for) and Chicago is downwind of the fallout, the city and suburbs alone would become uninhabitable forever and would have to be evacuated quickly with all possessions left behind and lost (including people's homes) except for what could be carried in suitcases or family vehicles. Two other groups especially also have and continue to pay an overwhelming and largely hidden price from the toxic effects of radiation poisoning - the people of Iraq and US military force invaders and occupiers who now serve there, have served or will in the future as well as those participating in the 1991
Gulf war. Most of them have potentially been exposed to the deadly effects of so-called depleted uranium (DU) poisoning because of the extensive use of DU munitions by the US military in both Iraq conflicts. These weapons were first developed for the Navy in 1968 and tested by Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war under US supervision. Except for that test, they were never before used by any country prior to the US Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Since then, the US has used them freely, routinely and with deadly consequences to those affected by their fallout. DU is part of the radioactive waste resulting from the enrichment process used

to produce enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors. When the Pentagon discovered that solid "dense metal" (1.7 times the density of lead) DU projectiles in all forms (missiles, bombs, shells and bullets) greatly increased their ability to penetrate and destroy a target, they knew they had a new technology they could use advantageously in combat and now have done so for the last 15 years in four wars. Despite their effectiveness as a weapon, however, DU munitions have a serious and deadly side effect. In all their forms, they're radioactive and chemically toxic after striking, penetrating and incinerating inside a target after which they aerosolize in a fine spray which then contaminates the air, soil and water around and beyond the target area. The toxic residue is permanent and those ingesting this ceramic
uranium oxide have a permanent dose that potentially can cause many diseases including cancer, leukemia, birth defects and ultimately death or at least a shorter, more painful life. No one has kept track of the precise toll DU poisoning has had on the Iraqis although it's known the cancer rate in the country is far higher now than before 1991. But much is known about how DU toxicity has affected the US military who served in the Gulf war. Thirty percent or more of them are now on some kind of disability or have died from a serious illness likely the result of their military service in the Gulf. We're also just beginning to learn that those serving in Iraq since March, 2003 are reporting disturbing symptoms. Over time, it's likely they'll multiply greatly, affect a greater number of our forces than those serving in the Gulf war because of longer and repeated deployments to the region and eventually cause an even greater number of serious illnesses and deaths because the DU weapons now used contain plutonium, neptunium and the highly radioactive uranium isotope U-236. A UK Atomic Energy Authority 1991 study found these latter two isotopes were 100,000 times more dangerous than the U-238 used earlier in DU munitions. By any interpretation of the appropriate Hague and Geneva Conventions banning the use of all chemical, biological or any other "poison or poisoned weapons" in war, the US use of DU munitions constitutes a war crime that has and will continue to take an immense and tragic toll on those individuals exposed to them. The danger to human health from the use of nuclear power in any form is unavoidable even

under the best of circumstances outside of a war zone. But whenever serious accidents happen, as they have and will again, the consequences can be calamitous. The link between radiation exposure and disease is irrefutable dependent only on the amount of cumulative exposure over a long enough period of time. Dr. Caldicott explains that "If a regulatory gene is biochemically altered by radiation exposure, the cell will begin to incubate cancer, during a 'latent period of carcinogenesis,' lasting from two to sixty years." As little as a single gene mutation can eventually turn out to be fatal and too often is. No amount of radiation exposure is safe, and it's thought that 80% of known types of cancers are environmentally caused by such exposure combined with the potentially carcenogenic effects of about 80,000 different
inadequately or untested chemicals in common use acting synergistically in our bodies to harm us. But just the combined effects of routine allowable radiation from nuclear power plants, uranium mining and milling operations, uranium enrichment, and fuel fabrication can be devastating to all those exposed to any of their effects. Add to that the insoluble problem of radioactive waste

disposal/storage and the certainty of devastating nuclear accidents, it's no exaggeration to say the human species is playing an insane game of nuclear Russian roulette it can't win and that will eventually have a disastrous and possibly fatal ending if we can't stop it in time.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

151 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Radiation = Cancer
Radiation=Cancer Hardert`6 (Ronald A, ; International Journal of Humanities and Peace, Vol. 22, 2006. Questia Database Recent
Developments in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle)

The prevailing ethic promoted by the utilities says that nuclear power is "emission-free." The truth is quite different. Nuclear power stations systematically release small, but measurable, amounts of radiation. And, even very low doses pose a risk of cancer over a person's lifetime, according to the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy, therefore, is now concerned about radiation levels allowed at abandoned reactors and other nuclear sites. Some anti-nuclear advocates argue that stringent regulations are needed when cleaning up abandoned nuclear sites and considering health risks near nuclear power plants. Thus, there is virtually no radiation dose that is completely safe. In connection with the above findings, it must be noted that cancer, not heart disease, is now the leading cause of death in America. And, for the first time in U.S. history, those younger than 85 years will die of cancer before any other cause. How many more byproducts of modern civilization will we tolerate before we say, "No more?" Clearly, governmental agencies are failing to protect public health here and abroad.

Cancer is unimaginably dehumanizing Biber`99(JEFF, producer at WETA-TV, the public television station serving the Washington area, CANCER IN FILMS;
Hitting Home, January 24, 1999 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE3D61030F937A15752C0A96F958260)

Last August my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. She is now undergoing chemotherapy. During this experience, I had to come up with a topic for a public television series I produce, ''Straight Talk,'' a program that allows for a taped ''package'' and studio discussion. With a ready-made vehicle at my disposal, I decided to tackle a topic I had become intimately familiar with. Yet producing a television program and packaging cancer into a neat segment, followed by talking heads, became hard to do. This task wasn't like any of my other programs, like a series on health care in which I documented a struggle to save the life of a premature baby. Although I could not help but get caught up in the emotion of that moment, I tried to maintain my distance, to follow the ''characters'' -- to tell the story. In the editing room, everything becomes surreal. We watch a child die over and over; we watch a mother cry one, two, three, four times before we get the edit right. The same was true for the AIDS patient who wanted to kill himself, or for the 15-year-old boy in a hospital bed with a bullet in his head. All became great subjects for television. But great subjects, like fictional characters in the movies, sometimes cease to be real people when we in the media are caught up in the ''story.'' The people in the screen become sound bites and L-cuts in addition to powerful stories that need to be brought to the public's attention. But film, whether made for movies or for television, is a great buffer, distancing even the producers and directors charged with showing the real deal. When I was faced with the task of illuminating an issue that had become all too personal and had overwhelmed my own family, the video buffer ceased to exist. Mr. Lidz is absolutely right. Cancer is debilitating, dehumanizing and degrading. Cancer is not noble. One can learn from this experience. I will never look through a lens at a person suffering in the same way again. One can never understand cancer or any other life threatening disease until he lives with it. It is not like the movies or a good documentary. You don't know what it's like until you touch it every day.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

152 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Radiation = Mutation
Nuclear radiation causes hereditary mutations Dubrova`6 (Department of Genetics University of Leicester, Research Interests, 2006,
http://www.le.ac.uk/ge/pages/staff/staff_pages/dubrova.html)
Germline mutation rate in human populations exposed to ionising radiation-The effort to predict the genetic consequences for humans of exposure to ionising radiation has certainly been one of the most important issues of human genetics in the past fifty years. However, despite numerous experimental studies, little is known about the effects of radiation exposure on germline mutation in humans. We

have recently developed a new system for monitoring of radiation-induced mutation in mammalian germline, which is based on a set of hypervariable tandem repeat minisatellite loci. Over these years we have analysed minisatellite mutation rate in human populations from Belarus and Ukraine exposed to the postChernobyl radioactive fallout (Dubrova et al., 1996; 1997; 2002a), from Kazakhstan exposed to radioactive fallout near the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site (Dubrova et al., 2002b), and from the Southern Urals exposed to radiation from discharges of radioactive waste into the river Techa (Dubrova et al., 2006). The results of these studies provide the first experimental evidence that germline mutation rates in humans can be increased by ionising radiation. Germline mutation induction in mice Given that germline mutation induction in mice currently remains the main source of experimental data used to evaluate the genetic risk in humans, we have therefore analysed mutation rates in the germline of male mice exposed to ionising radiation, chemical mutagens and anticancer drugs. The results of our work show that tandem repeat DNA loci provide a unique and highly sensitive system for monitoring germline mutation in mice, capable of detecting the genetic effects of exposure to very low doses ionising radiation and chemical mutagens that were previously inaccessible using standard approaches for monitoring germline mutation in mice (Dubrova et al., 1993; 1998; 2000a; Vilarino-Guell et al., 2003). We have also analysed the effects of DNA-repair deficiencies on spontaneous and radiation-induced mutation rates in the germline of knock-out mice (Barber et al., 2004; Burr et al., 2005; 2006). The results of this work can therefore be used to
improve the accuracy of the estimates of genetic risks of low-dose exposure for humans. Transgenerational instability in mice One of the major challenges of modern genetics is to apply recent advances in mutation research to improve the accuracy of the estimates of genetic risks for humans. For example, it has recently been recognised that ionising radiation not only increases mutation rates

in the exposed somatic cells, but also results in an elevated mutation rate many cell divisions after the initial irradiation damage (radiation-induced genomic instability). If genomic instability is also induced in the germline of exposed parents then delayed transgenerational effects may be manifested in their offspring, therefore presenting greater delayed risk in human populations exposed to ionizing radiation. We have recently shown that mutation rates at tandem repeat DNA loci and protein-coding genes in the offspring of irradiated males are substantially elevated across multiple tissues (Dubrova et al.,
2000b; Barber et al., 2002; 2006). Our results also demonstrate that this remarkable transgenerational destabilisation is attributed to the presence of a persistent subset of DNA lesions, such as double- and single-strand breaks (Barber et al., 2006). These data raise the important issue of the delayed transgenerational effects of ionising radiation for humans, providing, for example, a plausible explanation for the apparent leukemia cluster near Sellafield nuclear plant. Apart from cancer predisposition, transgenerational instability is also known to affect other health-related traits (Dubrova, 2003) and, if confirmed in humans, can be regarded as an important component of the long-term genetic risk of ionising radiation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

153 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

NP Bad - Mutations = Extinction
Mutations=Extinction Pitman`5 (Sean D., M.D. Genticist, DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution August, 2005,
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/dnamutationrates.html)
Since mutations are the only possible source of novel genomic function in the evolution of living things, we should consider a few facts about these mutations. Mutations are thought to be purely random events causes by errors of replication and maintenance over time. They occur anywhere in the entire genome in a fairly random fashion with each generation. Given this information, lets consider how these mutations would build up and what effect, if any, they would have on a human lineage. Newer research suggests a detrimental mutation rate (Ud) of 1 to 3 per person per generation with at least some scientists (Nachmann and Crowell, 2000) favoring at least 3 or more.30 Since detrimental mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by at least 1,000 to 1, it seems like the build up of

detrimental mutations in a population might lead toward extinction. 34,36

Nachmann and Crowell detail the

perplexing situation at hand in the following conclusion from their fairly recent paper on human mutation rates:

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U [detrimental mutation rate] would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction [like humans and apes etc.] . . . The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e -U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the
actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally

deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; this is, if each
additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness. In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic [the death of all those with a detrimental mutational balance], the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.30 Nachmann and Crowell find the situation a very puzzling one. How does one get rid of all the bad mutations faster than they are produced? Does their hypothesis of “positive epistasis” adequately explain how detrimental mutations can be cleared faster than they are added to a population? If the functional effects of mutations were increased in a multiplicative instead of additive fashion, would fewer individuals die than before? As noted above, even if every detrimental mutation caused the death of its owner, the reproductive burden of the survivors would not diminish, but would remain the same. For example, lets say that all those with at least three detrimental mutations die before reproducing. The population average would soon hover just above 3 deleterious mutation rates. Over 95% of each subsequent generation would have 3 or more deleterious mutations as compared with the original "neutral" population. The death rate would increase dramatically. In order to keep

up, the reproductive rates of those surviving individuals would have to increase in proportion to the
increased death rate.
The same thing would eventually happen if the death line were drawn at 100, 500, 1000, 10000 or more deleterious mutations. The only difference would be the length of time it would take a given population to build up a lethal number of deleterious mutations in its gene pool beginning at a relatively "neutral" starting point. The population might survive fairly well for many generations without having to resort to huge increases in the reproduction rate. However, without getting rid of the

accumulating deleterious mutations, the population would eventually find itself experiencing an exponential rise in its death rate as its average population crossed the line of lethal mutations. Since the
theory of positive epistasis does not seem to help the situation much, some other process must be found to explain how to preferentially get rid of detrimental mutations from a population. Consider an excerpt from a fairly recent Scientific American article entitled, "Mutations Galore":

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

154 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Radiation – Radiation Good
Radiation exposure healthy – nuclear power benefits outweigh any risks Hiserodt 8 (Ed, , aerospace engineer, The New American. Feb 18, Vol. 24, Iss. 4; pg. 12, 6 pgs, Proquest)
The underlying cause of the nuclear-waste "problem" is an exaggerated fear of radiation. We have been conditioned for many years to accept the premise that even the slightest bit of radiation is dangerous - a premise that is not borne out by any experimental evidence. It is certainly true that high doses of radiation can sicken or kill, and lower but still very substantial exposures can increase one's propensity for developing cancer. But contrary to "common knowledge," examination of the data shows that low levels of ionizing radiation often have a beneficial effect on human health known as hormesis - a fact that many scientists are striving to make public with little help from an uninformed and generally antinuclear news media. There is a very close parallel between ultraviolet (non-ionizing) radiation from exposure to sunshine and nuclear (ionizing) radiation. While extreme exposure to sunlight can lead to sunstroke and death, and lesser amounts cause sunburn and increase chances of skin cancer, moderate sunshine stimulates our bodies to create vitamin D that is necessary for good health. We see this same phenomenon with trace elements such as arsenic and many vitamins. It is not unexpected then to see the same human reaction to ionizing radiation. We have been deceived into believing that all radiation is bad because of the United States' policy reliance on the "linear no-threshold" theory, or LNT, which states that if large amounts of something cause death or sickness, fractional amounts of the same thing cause proportional amounts of death or sickness. If the LNT were applied to falling as it is to radiation, we might note that 100 percent of those falling onto concrete from 100 feet are killed, but only 50 percent of those falling from 50 feet die. With these data we would linearly extrapolate to say that 10 percent falling from 10 feet and one percent of those falling from one foot would die. Armed with this "linear no-threshold falling theory," we could confidently assert that jumping rope should be banned on all school playgrounds since statistically anyone making 100 one-foot jumps would die. Neither experience nor evidence supports LNT theory, yet this same statistical ploy is used to make very small exposures of radiation to large numbers of individuals appear deadly. In 2005, by unanimous vote, both the French Academy of Medicine and the French Academy of Science deplored the use of this dose-response methodology in predicting effects of low-dose radiation. It is high time that the radiation professionals in this country did likewise, and many are doing just that. Unfortunately, the fact that thousands of workers in nuclear industries are outliving their unexposed peers is not considered newsworthy, but a leak of three quarts of reactor coolant water with less radioactivity than salad dressing makes the front page as a catastrophe. Radioactivity surrounds us. Human beings and all we come into contact with contain radioisotopes. Uranium in the soil will still be radioactive in 10 billion years when our sun runs out of hydrogen. It is a natural part in our universe. To fear it is like fearing the warmth of a fireplace just because fire can also bum down the house. Yet people are still paralyzed with fright because few in this country understand anything about the measurement of radiation or its effects. Until we do we are defenseless against the posturing of radical environmentalists and destined to eventually lose the most incredible source of clean, safe, and reliable energy that man has ever been fortunate enough to enjoy.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

155 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Radiation – Radiation Good
Radiation has a hormesis effect on the human body. World Nuclear Association 07, (Radiation and Nuclear Energy, August, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf05.htm) In the last 25 years a lot of research has been undertaken on the effects of low-level radiation. Many of the findings have failed to support the so-called linear hypothesis. This theory assumes that the demonstrated relationships between radiation dose and adverse effects at high levels of exposure also applies to low levels and provides the (deliberately conservative) basis of occupational health and other radiation protection standards. Extensive research has not supported the linear hypothesis for lowlevel radiation exposure. Some evidence suggests that there may be a threshold below which no harmful effects of radiation occur. However, this is not yet accepted by national or international radiation protection bodies as sufficiently well proven to be taken into official standards. In addition, there is increasing evidence of beneficial effect from low-level radiation (up to about 10 mSv/yr). This "radiation hormesis" may be due to an adaptive response by the body's cells, the same as that with other toxins at low doses. In the case of carcinogens such as ionizing radiation, the beneficial effect is seen both in lower incidence of cancer and in resistance to the effects of higher doses. However, until possible mechanisms are confirmed, uncertainty will remain. Further research is under way and the debate continues. Meanwhile standards for radiation exposure continue to be deliberately conservative.

Radiation induced biodiversity proves hormesis effect Environmental Graffiti, 08 (April 17, http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/positive-effects-ofnuclear-radiation/1066) National Geographic has announced that the ARC Centre for Coral Reef Studies has surveyed the 1.2-mile crater from the hydrogen bomb tests at Bikini Atoll and discovered something phenomenal: the corals are bouncing back from nuclear annihilation. How is this even possible? The first round of tests there sank 13 warships the U.S. Navy itself wanted to get rid of after World War II. Radiation is poison to every living thing. What could have possibly happened? As it happens, radiation may not be the end of the world after all. How bad is radiation, really? First there’s this news out of Chernobyl–the surrounding ecosystems are thriving, and, while the enthusiasm is tempered, I’ll reprint the key quote here: “By any measure of ecological function these ecosystems seem to be operating normally,” Morris told Nature. “The biodiversity is higher there than before the accident.” How has this happened, given that radiation levels are still too high for humans to return safely? Morris thinks that many of the organisms mutated by the fallout have died, leaving behind those that have not suffered problems with growth and reproduction. “It’s evolution on steroids. That only explains the ability of nature to make up for man’s complete screw-ups, however. Edward Calabrese, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, claims that radiation may fall into a concept called hormesis: poisons that are lethal at high doses, are beneficial in low ones. Calabrese has spent his career studying the concept, and universally found that low doses of toxins lead to longer lifespans and enhanced growth– as well as that high doses kill. So what does this mean for radiation? The “allowable” dose of radiation in the 1920s was 700 mSvs (Milliservs), then 70 in 1941, and 20 in 1990. It’s possible that we’re missing out on major advantages through this restriction, because the science would support a J-shaped curve representing danger from radiation, instead of the simple threshold suggested.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

156 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Radiation - Very small amounts
Nuclear plants emit negligible amounts of radiation. Whitman 7 (Christine Todd, EPA Administrator, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20730356/)
But this streamlined process will not compromise nuclear safety and security. The NRC holds nuclear reactors to the highest safety and security standards of any American industry. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that accident rates at nuclear plants are lower than in the manufacturing, real estate, or finance industries.) A two-day national security simulation in Washington, D.C., in 2002 — conducted by the Center for Strategic & International Studies—concluded nuclear plants "are probably our best defended targets." And because of their advanced design and sophisticated containment structures, U.S. nuclear plants emit a negligible amount of radiation. Even if you lived next door to a nuclear power plant, you would still be exposed to less radiation each year than you would receive in just one round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

157 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: Plutonium Dangerous for Health
Plutonium has minimal negative health effects on humans Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.110)
Six scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory wrote in a paper that the claim that inhalation of plutonium "can cause cancer in anyone" is misleading and the assertion that ingesting plutonium from the water supply could kill vast numbers of people is false. After a discussion of scientific research on the health effects of plutonium, the authors concluded: The claims of dire health consequences from the introduction of plutonium into the air or into a municipal water supply are greatly exaggerated. The combination of rapid and almost complete sedimentation, dilution in large volumes of water, and minimal uptake of plutonium from the GI tract would all act to preclude serious health consequences to the public from the latter scenario. And although the dispersal of plutonium in air (as the result of a fire or explosion, for example) would cause immense concern and cleanup problems, it would not result in widespread deaths or dire health consequences, as terrorists might hope. Dissipation due to wind and air turbulence would rapidly dilute any respirable aerosol. Only people within a few meters of the source could receive a prompt lethal dose. Delayed effects in the form of fatal cancers outside this region would probably not appear in affected individuals until years later. For a vast majority of the population of any city, the increase in cancer risk arising from exposure to plutonium aerosol would be a fraction of that arising from other, more common health hazards. The Health Physics Society (HPS), whose members spend their time in the field measuring radiation health effects, has stated that the radiological hazards presented by plutonium are equivalent to those from the far more common elements used in commercial applications-radium and thorium. The HPS notes that many people have inhaled plutonium without any discernible impact to the lungs and that in any case public exposure to plutonium is extremely unlikely.

Empirically, exposure to plutonium does not have adverse effects on human health Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.110-111)
Humans first created plutonium during the Manhattan Project. Los Alamos National Laboratory remains one of the few places on the planet where, as a metal, it is fabricated into weapons components. Only people who are carefully screened and found able to do the job safely are permitted to work with plutonium, and they have to use a glove box or manipulators in an isolated, protected location. In the early days, a number of lab employees handling the metal accidentally received significant doses when shielding was breached. The worst exposures in the history of the lab befell twenty-six men who worked at Los Alamos going back to the Manhattan Project. A study cohort was formed in 195 1 and the men have been examined every five years since then. A few who accumulated a significant body burden of plutonium became members of the UPPU Club ("You pee Pu," Pu being the chemical symbol for plutonium), because traces of plutonium in urine can indicate the amount remaining in the body-it tends to migrate to lung, liver, and bone tissue--and these employees were required to provide periodic urine samples and to undergo frequent examinations. The average exposure was over 1,000 millirem. Researchers report from time to time on the health and mortality of these men. Their diseases and physical changes as they age are consistent with those of a male population of their age group, as is the number of cancers and the death rate. One person developed osteosarcoma- bone cancer-perhaps related to the plutonium exposure he'd received. A study done fifty years after the accidents, when the average age of the exposed group was seventy-two, found nineteen of the twentysix UPPU club members in reasonably good health; most of them have lived well into their eighties. They produced normal children and grandchildren. The findings of the study differ "from some popular misperceptions that large health risks occur with any exposure to plutonium."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

158 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: Plutonium Dangerous for Health
Exposure to plutonium does not harm human health Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.130)
Rosalyn Yalow, a nuclear physicist who won a Nobel Prize for coinventing the radioimmunoassay technique for analyzing blood and tissue chemistry, has said that there have been studies of populations living in areas with higher natural radiation, of radiation-exposed workers, of patients medically exposed, and of people accidentally exposed, and yet, "No reproducible evidence exists of harmful effects from increases in background radiation three to ten times the usual levels. There is no increase in leukemia or other cancers among American participants in nuclear testing, no increase in leukemia or thyroid cancer among medical patients receiving Iodine- 13 1 for diagnosis or treatment of hyperthyroidism, and no increase in lung cancer among non-smokers exposed to increased radon in the home. The association of radiation with the atomic bomb and with excessive regulatory and health physics ALARA practices [As Low As Reasonably Achievable] has created a climate of fear about the dangers of radiation at any level. However, there is no evidence that radiation exposures at the levels equivalent to medical usage are harmful. The unjustified excessive concern with radiation at any level, however, precludes beneficial uses of radiation and radioactivity in medicine, science, and industry."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

159 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

****Nuclear Waste****

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

160 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Waste Impact – Radiation = Death
Even after 10 years unshielded waste could kills someone in three minutes Charmen`6(Karen ,editor of the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism. World Watch, Vol. 19, July-August 2006.
Brave Nuclear World? Radiation, Reliability, Reprocessing-And Redundancy. Second of Two Parts.)

In the light-water reactors that make up the majority of the world's reactor fleet, uranium fuel is loaded into the reactor, then bombarded by neutrons to trigger the nuclear fission chain reaction. After awhile all of the fissionable material in the uranium fuel is used up, or "spent." But the neutron bombardment makes the fuel two-and-a-half million times more radioactive, according to Marvin Resnikoff, a nuclear physicist with Radioactive Waste Management Associates in New York. By 2035, American nuclear power plants will have created an estimated 105,000 metric tons of spent fuel that is so deadly it must be completely isolated from the environment for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. A Nevada state agency report put the toxicity in perspective: even after 10 years out of the reactor, an unshielded spent fuel assembly would emit enough radiation to kill somebody standing a meter away from it in less than three minutes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

161 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Waste – Impacts Exaggerated
Nuclear waste harms overestimated by a factor of 100. Hiserodt 8 (Ed, aerospace engineer, The New American. Feb 18, Vol. 24, Iss. 4; pg. 12, 6 pgs, Proquest)
Nuclear power plant wastes come in two distinct varieties: the dangerously radioactive daughters that are the remnants of the fission reaction, and the remaining recyclable isotopes that can be "burned" as fuel in the reactors to produce heat, steam, and electricity. Those opposed to nuclear power would have us confuse these two. A nuclear physics axiom is: "In general, the higher a radionuclide's specific activity, the shorter its half life (decay rate), and the more 'radioactive' it is when compared to one with a lower specific activity." If the "specific activity" stuff seems a bit confusing, you might think of short half-life isotopes to behave like gasoline thrown on the campfire, while the long half-life isotopes are analogous to the methane that seeps slowly up in the bayou and glows on those still, dark nights. High-level wastes give up their energy in a short period of time and then become stable and harmless, while the unused fuel (uranium and plutonium) are so weakly radioactive that their emanations are only dangerous in the minds of those who are dead set against nuclear power. How long does it take for high-level wastes to become safe? For those interested in a definitive answer to this question, Bernard Cohen's article "The Disposal of Radioactive Wastes From Fission Reactors" in the June 1977 issue of Scientific American is a classic that delves deeply in to the subject. However, there are ways to attack the question using logic. The daughters of fission reactions are not only radioactively hot but are also thermally hot, since the energy from the decay is converted into heat energy. These decay products begin very hot and cool as they lose radioactivity. The decrease in the heat produced can therefore be equated to the decrease in radioactivity. A canister of waste that produces 30,000 watts of heat energy when removed (after one year) from a power plant cooling pond would have dropped to about 3,000 watts in 10 years, to 300 watts in 100 years, and to a barely detectable 3 watts in 1,000 years. We can see then that the radioactivity of the waste canister has decreased to 1/10,000th its initial value and is not likely to require the services of armed guards 24/7 for 100,000 years, as the more vocal anti-nuclear activists would have one believe.

Nuclear waste is minimal- long term sequestration is feasible Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.366)
Some argue that until present stores of spent nuclear fuel are safely put away, new nuclear plants must not be built. But I saw that nuclear waste is being safely stored right now and that there are some workable solutions for its long-term sequestration. The world's inventory of spent nuclear fuel would be tiny if all the enriched uranium in the pellets were fully exploited through existing technology. Residues not burned in reactors of advanced design could be secured in deep geologic repositories. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant has demonstrated to the world that nuclear waste can be securely transported and isolated in a virtually inaccessible location. Many nations lack suitable geological formations or the wherewithal to construct such a repository, but international cooperation, along with new deep-drilling technology that has considerably advanced our ability to gain access to deep-ocean sediments, could one day lead to permanent disposal of waste with no future uses in sites where it would be naturally shielded and immobilized for millions of years. The Seabed Working Group has shown that the world's scientific and technological communities and existing international organizations can be effectively mobilized, given the right leadership and an environment of scientific objectivity. The group succeeded in putting together a cooperative way to control nuclear waste, and the methodology could be applied to all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

162 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Waste Impacts - Radioactivity natural
Power plant waste is low risk; radioactivity exists naturally and hasn’t caused harm Hiserodt 8 (Ed, aerospace engineer, The New American. Feb 18, Vol. 24, Iss. 4; pg. 12, 6 pgs, Proquest)
Another interesting way for us to assess the dangers of radiation is to compare the radiation levels found in nuclear plant wastes to those of material found in nature. Numerous studies dating from the 1970s show that ores from which the uranium for fuel was mined have the same amount of radioactivity that nuclear wastes will emit after being sequestered from 400 to 900 years, depending on the quality of the ores and the timing of a power plant's refueling cycles. If we used the same philosophy about naturally occurring radioisotopes as we do nuclear power plant wastes, we would have to dig up, encase, and rebury the State of Virginia because of the large uranium deposits that have been found there. (And you can be certain Senator Harry Reid, whose fear-mongering about
nuclear wastes knows no bounds, would not allow Virginia to be buried in Nevada!)

We don't attempt to sequester naturally occurring radioactive pitchblende and similar ores to protect humans and animals from cancers and mutations, nor should we. They've always been there. Many states besides Virginia - e.g., New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Washington, and South Dakota - have ore deposits that are sufficiently concentrated for commercial mining, without harm to the population or causing radioactive pollution of the groundwater. And, for the record, these naturally occurring ores aren't vitrified, encased in stainless steel, or stored in a dry environment.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

163 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Waste Impacts – small quantities
NP creates a small amount of waste compared to other sources, can be stored Discover, 08
(Is Nuclear Energy Our Best Hope?”, April 25, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-is-nuclear-energy-ourbest-hope/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=) What about the waste? Uranium is an extremely dense source of energy, and the volume of waste is therefore small. According to David Bradish, a data analyst at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear fuel pellet measures 0.07 cubic inch (about the size of your fingertip) and contains the energy equivalent of 1,780 pounds of coal. The nation’s 104 reactors generate roughly 800 billion kilowatthours a year and contribute about 2,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel a year. By contrast, U.S. coal combustion produces some 100 million tons of toxic material annually. At nuclear plants, spent fuel is currently being transferred from pools to robust concrete casks, where it can be secured for about a century. But this spent fuel, which retains more than 95 percent of its energy, can be reprocessed to make new fuel, reducing the ultimate volume of waste by more than 60 percent. The National Academy of Sciences has given the nod to long-term disposal of spent fuel in canisters that will be sealed deep inside a mountain near the vast, remote Nevada Test Site, where hundreds of atomic bombs were once exploded.

The worlds nuclear waste could fit in a football field- coal plants produce much more waste Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.354-355)
I'd read that the nation's quantity of nuclear waste was staggering, and early on I mentioned that to Rip. He replied that all of it could fit in the Albuquerque municipal dump with a lot of room to spare. Greater fuel efficiency has led over recent decades to a decrease in nuclear waste generation. A 1,000-megawatt reactor today produces about twenty-five tons of spent fuel a year, and the annual national total comes to about two thousand tons. The entire American inventory of waste presently being stored at nuclear plants, after forty years of making trillions of kilowatt-hours of electricity and sparing the atmosphere billions of tons of carbon and greenhouse gases, comes to about fifty thousand metric tons. All that waste would cover an area the size of a single football field to a depth of about five yards, if the fuel assemblies were laid end to end and stacked side by side. The per capita lifetime contribution of consumers getting all their electricity from nuclear power: two pounds of waste. By comparison, each year coal combustion in the United States alone yields one hundred million tons of ash and sludge containing toxic heavy metals; that amount will continue to expand as new plants are built and old ones increase their output. Worldwide, nuclear plants avoid a yearly average of two billion metric tons of carbon emissions. The EPA estimates that the United States annually discards about three hundred million tons of nonnuclear hazardous waste: every day the collective households and industries of America throw away nearly a million tons of garbage containing toxic heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, as well as plastics that never break down. That garbage will be our culture's real legacy, enduring for millions of years after all the present nuclear waste has decayed. One day, Rip did some calculations and estimated that all the spent fuel generated by one of Oconee's 846-megawatt reactors in a single year-about twenty-five tons--could fit in the bed of his 350-Ford pickup. "My truck would be skwooshed flatter than a fly track by the weight, though,'' he said. All the spent fuel from all of America's power surprising adventure. My conclusions about the importance of nuclear power and its risk relative to other forms of large-scale energy generation would stand. Respected professors, radiation biologists, epidemiologists, and other researchers who have seen firsthand the worst that radiation can do all told me that they favored nuclear energy and would not be averse to living near nuclear plants. I'd seen that, for the public, uranium is cleaner and safer throughout its shielded journey from cradle to grave than our other big baseload electricity resource, fossil fuel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

164 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Waste Impacts – ≠ Death
Nuclear waste will not cause death Cravens 07 (Gwyneth, science writer, Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Power, p.355)
The Environmental Protection Agency calculated in the 1990s that during a period of ten thousand years the nuclear waste stored at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) would probably cause no more than a thousand deaths and, more likely, about a hundred deaths. The EPA calculations came from conservative estimates based on the linear nonthreshold hypothesis. It's likelier that far fewer, if any, deaths caused by the toxicity of the waste will occur, because the naturally impermeable repository, once sealed, will be so inaccessible and remote. To be prudent, agencies follow standards of radiation protection derived from that hypothesis, which equates zero risk with zero radiation, moderate risk with moderate exposure, and high risk with high exposure. Predictions of cancer deaths in large populations from low-dose exposure (below 10,000 millirem) are derived from this assumption. But, as I've said, such collective-dose estimates are considered by many in the field to be very unrealistic. Populations experiencing higher levels of natural background radiation in places like Denver and Albuquerque do not have higher rates of cancer. But average exposure to Americans from natural background radiation has now been surpassed by diagnostic medical radiation. A study by the National Council on Radiation Protection released in 2007 reported that the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, called the finding a "sentinel event." Recent low-dose studies have indicated that below a certain threshold, not yet determined with exactitude, the body responds to radiation by destroying and eliminating damaged cells, thereby helping toprevent the initiation of cancer.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

165 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

AT: Waste Impacts – No Transport Risk
An attack on a nuclear power plant would have little effect. Chapin et al. 2 (Douglas M .and everyone else, Science, New Series, Vol. 297, No, 5589, (Sept. 20, 2002), pp.
1997-1999) Since 11 September 2001, the U.S. nuclear industry and its regulators have been reevaluating plant and fuel shipment safety. These studies are being kept secret. But it is no secret that basic engineering facts and laws of nature limit the damage that can result. Extensive analysis, backed by full-scale field tests, show that there is virtually nothing one could do to these shipping casks that would cause a significant public hazard (2, 3). Before shipment, the fuel elements have been cooled for several years, so the decay heat and the short- lived radioactivity have died down. They cannot explode, and there is no liquid radioactivity to leak out. They are nearly indestructible, having been tested against collisions, explosives, fire, and water. Only the latest antitank artillery could breach them, and then, the result was to scatter a few chunks of spent fuel onto the ground. There seems to be no reason to expect harmful effects of the radiation any significant distance from the cask.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

166 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

No New Plants w/o Waste Plan [1/2]
Lack of a waste disposal strategy is a major hurdle to nuclear power now Beach, Kreutzer, & Liberman`8
William W. Beach Director, Center for Data Analysis David Kreutzer is the Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. Ben Lieberman is a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation, The heritage foundation, May 12, 2008 http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm

Resolving the problems with waste disposal is a major hurdle in expanding nuclear power generation. The baseline assumption is that nuclear power plants will continue to store the waste on site. Given the already high use of available capacity, electricity generated by nuclear power is projected to grow by only 0.5 percent per year through 2030. There are no official disposal sites now-Until there are we can’t even think about nuclear power AFP`8 Agence France-Presse,May 22, 2008, Nuclear breaks out as America's new 'green' darling
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7T1eYiINfHi24IlQNQGxN9lUX7g

Anti-nuclear activists point to lingering concerns about disposal -- there are no approved nuclear waste dumps in the United States so the plants store their waste on site -- as well as a shortage of skilled personnel and infrastructure. "At this point the belief that there is a nuclear renaissance underway is premature," said Michael Mariotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Research Service. "From our perspective it is pure folly to consider new reactors when we don't know what we are going to do with the waste from the current reactors."

The nuclear industry won’t grow without waste disposal Washington Post`81 (The Washington Post, Nuclear Dump, December 3, 1981, Lexis)
THE LACK OF a nuclear waste disposal policy remains one of the chief bars to a healthy nuclear power industry. There is no imminent technological crisis--but after 20 years without a solution, the public, Wall Street and even the nuclear industry are all losing confidence that the problem will ever be solved. Without a waste policy, or even a realistic prospect of one, utilities are understandably reluctant to join those owning the growing pile of homeless radioactive waste. There is no lack of waste disposal plans. What has held up congressional action before has been a surfeit of plans, and this year is turning out to be no exception. Three committees in the House and two in the Senate are arguing over different approaches. Workable compromises that were agreed to in the closing days of the last Congress have been abandoned. Whether the new ideas are better or worse, the fact that they are new guarantees further inaction. Though Congress seems capable of arguing over the details forever, the outlines of a technologically sound and politically feasible program have been evident for some time. Nuclear waste disposal really involves two very different tasks: permanent disposal that will contain wastes safely for thousands of years, and interim storage until a permanent repository is ready. Permanent disposal has to be done right the first time. Therefore caution and exceedingly demanding safety standards--even perhaps unnecessary caution--are appropriate. Rules for interim storage can be much more flexible. Arguments over whether the federal government would be "bailing out" the nuclear industry by providing interim storage are beside the point and should be ignored so long as the industry bears the costs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

167 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

No New Plants w/o Waste Plan [2/2]
Lack of good disposal technology precludes nuke industry growth-Acceptance and security mandates
BBC`7 (Brttish Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union – Political, Poor waste disposal may hamper
Russian nuclear industry - agency chief, December 4, 2007, Lexis)

The problem of poor technologies for nuclear waste disposal may hamper the development of the nuclear industry, Sergey Kiriyenko, the head of Rosatom [Russian Atomic Energy Agency], has said. "If we are not able to show [everyone], including the general public, that we are able to effectively deal with the problem of [nuclear waste] disposal, it will hamper the development of nuclear energy industry," Kiriyenko said on Tuesday [4 December] in Moscow when opening the innovation fair Atomeco-2007. The event is dedicated to technologies for the final stage of the nuclear fuel cycle and technologies for nuclear waste disposal. "I am sure that it will be the fastest growing segment of the sector over the next few years," Kiriyenko said. He is sure that the requirements for providing nuclear security will become stricter as the sector develops. Kiriyenko said that "nuclear energy is an open global market." "We are ready to open our market for efficient technologies," he said, adding that specialists of the Russian nuclear industry are going to actively take part in the development of nuclear energy abroad.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

168 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

No New Plants w/o Waste Plan-Social Acceptance [1/2]
Waste solutions key to social acceptance of nuclear plants
Suzuki`6 Tatsujiro Suzuki Nautilus Institute at RMIT Global Nuclear Future: A Japanese Perspective, 2006
http://www.nautilus.org/%7Ermit/lectures/0601t-suzuki/index.html

Safety concerns remain one of the highest barriers for local communities to accept the siting of nuclear power facilities, including waste storage or disposal facilities. For the long-term sustainable growth of nuclear power, it is essential to establish public confidence on nuclear safety.
Safety and Public confidence (improved decision making process) So-called "risk-based" safety regulation is one possible solution for an effective and transparent safety regulatory regime. Since the 1980s, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been working to establish such regulations, with well-established safety regulation by the private industry. "Risk-based regulation" means that safety regulation puts emphasis on the areas with higher probability of accidents (higher "risk"), and reduces regulatory requirements in less important areas. In order to implement such regulations, industry must prove which areas should be the focus, and thus transparency of plant safety has been increased. Such regulation also

US nuclear power performance has improved significantly during since the 1990s. But that is not good enough to gain public confidence. For example, public confidence could be easily eroded by non-technical incidents such as data falsification incidents, such as the ones in Japan and in UK. Once confidence is lost, it takes a long time to recover, and that will affect local decisions to accept new nuclear facilities - or even
provides incentives to utilities to improve their performance. As a result, the continued performance of existing facilities. Better social decision-making process may be needed to gain long-term public confidence in nuclear policy. Spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste management Unless spent fuel and

radioactive waste management issues are resolved, the

financial and political risks of nuclear power will never be resolved. There are two primary policy choices with regard to spent fuel management: one is the "Once-through" option which directly disposes of spent fuel to a repository, and the other is the "Recycling" option, which recovers uranium and plutonium from spent fuel, to be then recycled into reactors while the remainder of the spent fuel is vitrified and disposed of as waste. While, in principle, these two options are mutually exclusive, in reality, both options are now merging. This is because "interim spent fuel storage" is an essential step to both options. Eventually, many nations may pursue a "mixed strategy", i.e. combination of "once-through" and "recycling" after long term "interim storage". In short,

regardless of future policy choices, it is essential for all countries to secure interim storage capacity of spent fuel and waste. For final disposal of
nuclear waste, in addition to various technical options currently being considered, improved decision making process might be necessary to gain public confidence as described above.

Waste disposal is dragging down nuclear’s social acceptance Rhodes`1 (Richard Rhodes; Richard Rhodes is the author of "Nuclear Renewal" and "The Making of the Atomic Bomb.",
Nuclear Power's New Day, The New York Times May 7, 2001, Lexis)

Americans are beginning to understand one of the unique benefits of nuclear technology. A majority now say they approve of nuclear power, a shift that appears to indicate awareness that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. There is less evidence of public understanding of radiation and nuclear waste. Antinuclear activism began in the 1960's with concerns about the disposal of nuclear waste, and disposal continues to be the nuclear industry's Number 1 public-relations problem. The disposal debate is likely to move to center stage later this year, when the scientists and engineers evaluating Yucca Mountain, north of Las Vegas, as a possible permanent waste repository expect to deliver their final report.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

169 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

No New Plants w/o Waste Plan-Social Acceptance [2/2]
Lack of a waste solution is hurting the industry-Societal fear Blowers & Lowery`91 (ANDREW BLOWERS and DAVID LOWRY, Environment: No place to glow? - Siting
nuclear waste dumps in areas where the industry enjoys support may be the simplest political option, but are they always the safest locations, The Guardian (London) June 7, 1991, Lexis)

Finding somewhere to put nuclear wastes has become a preoccupation of governments, west and east, north and south. But there has been a noticeable lack of progress in selecting and constructing nuclear waste repositories around the world. Radioactive wastes are stockpiled at existing nuclear facilities, awaiting decisions. Everywhere, as plans have moved from the drawing board to construction site, protests have been launched and plans have been revised. Nuclear waste has become the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry - but the industry needs a solution to the problem if it is to ensure the future of nuclear energy. The favoured solution for the more dangerous wastes - the so-called high level wastes, or HLW - in nearly every country is
deep geological disposal in relatively remote locations, usually where there is some local support for the nuclear industry. These 'nuclear oases' share characteristics. They either depend on the nuclear industry, have some recent experience of it, or are suffering from economic distress. They are the industry's best hope for a political solution to its most pressing problem, but they are not always the most appropriate technical solution. Deep geological disposal is the solution favoured by the nuclear industry's experts and by governments. It will concentrate the waste at a few locations where it can be safely contained and monitored. And provided deep repositories are carefully sited and constructed with engineered barriers adding to the natural ones, they should have sufficient integrity to prevent leakage of radioactivity into the accessible environment. At least that is the theory. Many environmentalists beg to differ. In the UK and abroad, environmental groups including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth claim deep disposal merely conceals the problem; it does not solve it for there is as yet no known solution. The safety and security of a deep repository cannot possibly be guaranteed over the thousands of years - up to 240,000 years in some cases - that some radionuclides will remain harmful. Geological upheaval, climatic change or human interference, deliberate or inadvertent, could break the integrity of the most carefully constructed barriers. Anxiety

about the safety of waste repositories has enabled opponents of the nuclear industry to make common cause frequently with local communities who oppose nuclear waste sites in their own backyards, forming powerful coalitions able to mobilise public opinion. In each country examined in our recent study of the international politics of nuclear waste (covering the UK, US, Sweden, Germany and France), political expediency has pushed the nuclear industry back to its nuclear oases in search of a final resting place for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste site opponents stopped some projects and delayed others.
They have narrowed the options and ensured that the 'nuclear oases' may have to carry the burden of nuclear wastes through future generations. In Britain in the late 1970s, opposition from local communities and environmental groups scuppered proposals for test drilling for a deep repository in the Cheviots in Northumberland, at Mullwarcher Hill in Ayrshire and the Dyfi Valley in mid Wales. Efforts to find sites in the mid 1980s for burying intermediate and low level wastes were balked by coordinated opposition from the threatened communities in eastern England at Killingholme, Fulbeck, Elstow and Bradwell. The search for suitable sites has been narrowed down to Sellafield or Dounreay, the two communities most dependent on the nuclear industry. Sellafield is now firm favourite, with planning permission perceived as easier to achieve in nuclear-friendly west Cumbria. Similarly, in the US there is strong opposition against nuclear waste repositories at state level, but strong support in 'nuclear oases'. The remote, thinly populated western states offer the most promising repository sites, but investigations into possible locations there were cut from nine sites to three between 1982 and 1986. Yucca mountain near the bomb-testing range in Nevada desert has been identified as the preferred site, although there are fears of earthquakes in the area and state government opposition may yet prevent a repository being constructed. A purpose-built repository at Carlsbad under the New Mexico desert has been held up by water seepage problems. Turning to Europe, Sweden has opened a purpose-built repository under the granite Baltic seabed 150 km north of Stockholm north of Forsmark, but has yet to select a deep site for its high level wastes. In Germany, sites have been selected (in Konrad for low and intermediate level, at Gorleban for high level) but are not yet approved. It has taken the power of the German High Court to override the Lower Saxony state government ruling and permit the go-ahead for the Konrad Mine. In France, hitherto the most pro-nuclear nation, sites for low-level waste have been constructed but the test drilling programme at the four potential HLW sites was suspended last year following political protests. A proposal to resume the research is due to be debated in the French parliament next week. An official report on French management of nuclear wastes concludes that: 'The 1990s must mark the end of the cult of secrecy in nuclear affairs' and that 'the future of nuclear energy in our country depends on our capacity to develop democracy.' In the past six months opposition has emerged to government plans to develop nuclear waste facilities in Argentina, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Japan and Canada. Radioactivity generates greater public anxiety than other statistically far more dangerous activities. People

fear radioactivity whatever its source and whatever its strength because of the possibility, however remote, of catastrophic and irreversible consequences. As evidence of harmful effects accumulates people are not reassured by the industry's claims for the benefits and safety of nuclear energy. And this mistrust has helped the industry's opponents defeat waste disposal plans. Our study shows there are two fundamental requirements for
engendering the trust necessary to find a lasting solution to the problem of nuclear waste - technical suitability and public acceptability based on a policy of honest disclosure.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

170 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

New Plants w/o Disposal Plan [1/4]
Climate Change, new technologies, and designs are all causing the rebirth of nuclear power despite lack of a waste plan Lalonde`6 (MICHELLE, Wilkins glowing over 'renaissance' of nuclear power: U.S. ambassador says his country is
investing in it as alternative to oil, The Gazette (Montreal) February 24, 2006, Lexis)

The United States ambassador to Canada added his voice to an international chorus singing the praises of nuclear energy yesterday, saying Canada and the U.S. are leading a "nuclear resurgence" fuelled by the global urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "Nuclear power is the second-largest source of electrical generation in the United States, about 20 per cent of our total, and it provides electricity with no emissions of nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide, mercury or carbon dioxide," David Wilkins told the Canadian Nuclear Association annual conference in Ottawa yesterday. "Both the U.S. and Canada now have national policies that will help open a door to the resurgence of nuclear power, including safe, standardized plant designs, an improved licensing and oversight process, the advent of new technologies and, of course, the need to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases." He said U.S. President George W. Bush made it clear in his State of the Union Address that the "United States is committed to investing in clean, safe nuclear energy." Idaho Senator Larry Craig, who sits on the Senate energy committee, spoke of a "nuclear renaissance" in the U.S., and said investing in "major new nuclear initiatives" is the only way North American economies can continue to grow yet still reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "It has to be done through nuclear, through new technologies, and this country and certainly Canada are going to be major players in leading the way." Phil Ruffles, of the United Kingdom's Royal Academy of Engineering, and Ambassador Lu Shumin of China both expressed enthusiasm for the ability of nuclear power to meet growing energy needs. This was all music to the ears of Murray Elston, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association and others in the industry who support investment in new nuclear projects and the refurbishing of Canada's aging nuclear plants, such as the Gentilly plant near Trois Rivieres. Elston said the statements by Wilkins and Craig are "good evidence that other strong economies ... are looking at nuclear as being a competitive supplier of electricity for them." But critics say the talk of a "nuclear renaissance" is overblown. "A lot of this is spin-doctoring by an industry that's been moribund for 20 years," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace. "Climate change is the latest PR ploy the nuclear industry has tied its wagon to. But it's not big power that's going to solve climate change." He said massive nuclear power plants have proved unreliable and expensive. Plants that were touted to last 40 years are dying after 25 and costing far more than predicted to refurbish. And questions about safety and waste disposal remain unresolved, he said.

Nuclear rebirth possible without an official waste plan-The industry’s booming now
Kranz`8 (Gary, Virgina Business, A nuclear renaissance July 01, 2008,
http://www.virginiabusiness.com/index.php/news/article/a-nuclear-renaissance/1091/)

Nuclear power is undergoing a quiet renaissance in the U.S. Not built in large numbers since the 1980s, cleanburning nuclear plants are re-emerging as viable alternatives to other power sources as debate continues about climate change and potential damage caused by fossil fuels. Emblematic of the renewed interest in nuclear energy is Areva NP Inc. Business is booming at the Lynchburg company, which manufactures components and sophisticated equipment for the building of nuclear reactors. These days, the company can’t manufacture products fast enough. Existing inventory is presold through 2018 as utilities gear up to meet power demand across the country. To expand output, Areva announced a $25 million expansion last month. It’s also adding 500 jobs to its engineering/nuclear service staff, with the majority of those slots going to engineers.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

171 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

New Plants w/o Disposal Plan [2/4]
Waste won’t block plant construction-The stage has been set for new plants already by political maneuvering Inside Energy`5 (Inside Energy with Federal Lands, With key support, nuclear power revival seen at hand, February 21,
2005, Lexis)

U.S. nuclear industry officials, buoyed by the strongest support from a White House and Congress in decades, are growing increasingly optimistic that the long-awaited revival of their industry may be close at hand. In remarks at Platts' nuclear energy conference in Washington last week, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said a "nuclear renaissance ... is occurring," and pointed to what he called new attitudes at the Energy Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The government, Domenici said, has moved beyond the period where it "was politically expedient to not even talk about nuclear" power. He added that Congress made a mistake when it tried to solve nuclear waste disposal once and for all, rather than for a reasonable interim period during which technology could advance. Domenici urged the industry not to lose momentum because of problems with the waste program, saying he hoped "to see new nuclear plants very soon." Also speaking at the conference, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said the Bush administration, which has been a proponent of nuclear energy since the president took office in 2001, is likely to be a more effective proponent of the sector in Congress this year than it was before. Craig told the conference he was frustrated last year by what he considered "a degree of ambivalence" about nuclear energy at the Office of Management and Budget and the Energy Department. As a result, he said he convened a meeting in September involving OMB, DOE and the Council on Environmental Quality, as well as utility executives, to discuss nuclear energy options. That session, he said, resulted in "a significant change in attitude" at the White House toward nuclear energy, which he said has since been reflected in the administration's plans for the FY-06 budget (IE, 14 Feb, 1) and in its support for congressional efforts to craft comprehensive energy legislation. Craig assured nuclear energy executives attending the conference that he and Domenici plan to "get as many obstacles [to new nuclear reactors] out of the way as we can" through energy legislation. He told reporters later that he and Domenici would consider a production tax credit and other incentives for nuclear power that were included in energy legislation that failed to pass in the last Congress. Other conference speakers agreed that the prospects for the industry are unlikely to be better anytime soon. David Christian, chief nuclear officer and senior vice president for nuclear operations with Dominion Energy, said that in the United States "it is no longer a matter of 'if' we need new nuclear plants, it's a matter of when and how those plants will be built." Marilyn Kray, vice president of project development for Exelon Nuclear, suggested the industry is at a turning point where it is finally seeing the opportunities it has been awaiting for 20 years. To further boost prospects for nuclear energy, a group of high-level representatives from industry, academia and DOE national laboratories issued a report at the conference urging steps to enable the construction of new reactors in the United States. The group, which calls itself the Decision-Makers' Forum on a Unified Strategy for Nuclear Energy, offered a list of recommendations (related story p.10). The Nuclear Energy Institute is hoping to better harmonize the industry's choir. It held a closed-door door meeting Thursday in Washington with utility chief nuclear officers and other industry representatives "to craft industry alignment on key policy issues for this year," according to a notice sent out about the meeting.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

172 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

New Plants w/o Disposal Plan [3/4]
Tons of reasons why nuclear power is blossoming now-Disposal won’t derail it Ostroff`7 (Jim Ostroff, Kiplinger Business Forecasts, December 10, 2007 Nuclear Power Facing a Renaissance, Lexis)
Nuclear power is on the verge of a boom. Look for about 30 new nuclear power plants to be built over the next 20 years, bringing the total in operation in the U.S. by 2025 to roughly 140. Together, they'll supply one-fourth of U.S. electricity. About a fifth of current U.S. electricity needs are met with power provided by nuclear plants. But that share will fall before it rises because total U.S. power needs and supplies from nonnuclear sources will grow more swiftly than nuclear in the short term. For the most part, new plants will be built near existing nuclear facilities, which minimizes both costs and the likelihood of "not-in-my-backyard" objections. Clinton, Ill., is the likely site of the first new plant, which will be operated by Exelon. Also in the first wave of new construction: An Entergy facility in Grand Gulf, Miss., a TXU plant at Comanche Peak, Texas, a Dominion Power facility in Louisa County, Va., and a Constellation Energy plant in Calvert Cliffs, Md. What's behind the renewed interest in nuclear power? First and foremost: The likelihood that federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions -- more than likely twinned with a credit sharing scheme -- are coming, probably by 2010. Already, Florida, California and nine northeastern states are implementing plans to restrict power plants' CO2 emissions. Others, such as Texas and Kansas, are balking at new coal-fired power plants, since existing coal plants are the single biggest contributor to CO2 emissions. Natural-gas-fired plants also emit CO2. Nuclear plants, in contrast, are zero-emission operations, which would not only mean such plants wouldn't have to worry about meeting emissions caps, but would provide an opportunity for utility companies to trade carbon credits, just as they do now with federal sulfur and nitrogen -- compound emissions. And the fact is nuclear power plants have a lot more going for them these days. Operating costs are generally lower than for any other type of power generation, running at an average of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), well below the 2.4 cents average for coal-fired plants and 6.75 cents tally for natural-gas-fired generators. Although wind power compares relatively favorably, with operating costs as little as 2 cents per kWh, neither it nor more-expensive solar-generated power (with costs averaging 3.2 cents per kWh) is capable of producing the additional volume of power that will be needed during the next decade or two, according to Richard Baxter, a senior vice president with Ardour Capital Investments. Moreover, new nuclear plants should wind up with operating costs that are below the standard for the industry. At the same time, some state utility regulators, including those in Florida and North Carolina, have agreed that utilities can pass along nuclear power plant construction costs to consumers as soon as the first shovel goes into the ground. They won't have to wait until the plant is operating, says Tony Pietrangelo, vice president for federal affairs with the Nuclear Energy Institute. Regulators have been reluctant to OK such a rate bump in the past, fearing voter ire. But concern about skyrocketing costs of natural gas, the energy source for most newer power generation plants in recent years, plus soaring consumer demand for energy, are overcoming their objections. Uncle Sam is also becoming friendlier to nuclear plants. For example, in an effort to bypass the laborious and timely case-by-case approval process of the past, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently gave the nod to several standardized designs for nuclear generators and is in the process of OKing several more. That plus a streamlined application process should cut the lead time on new building from 12 years now to only about five years. The feds have also set up a financial safety net for investors, agreeing to guarantee financing for up to 80% of the cost of building a plant. Each of the first six new nuclear plants will also get an investment tax credit worth about $125 million per year. Improved technology, specifically enhanced safety features also plays a role, alleviating some public concerns. Next-generation plants, for example, may contain four emergency shutoff systems, twice as many as older facilities have. Newer plants have fewer pumps, valves and pipes, some of the weakest points in reactor safety. And plant manufacturers have beefed up containment structures for radiation leakages. One remaining obstacle is waste disposal, but it won't derail nuclear's resurgence.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

173 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

New Plants w/o Disposal Plan [4/4]
[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE, NO TEXT DELETED] Plant operators say they have plenty of space to store waste on-site as politicians drag their feet on approving a depository for spent fuel in Yucca Mountain, Nev. We still expect that to be OK'd within a decade, in any case.

Waste disposal doesn’t hold back new reactors Riner`7 (Bobette, Natural Gas Week, After 29 Years In-Vitro, US Nukes Expecting, October 1, 2007, LexiS)
After an initial, partial application submitted by UniStar for a new nuclear plant at the existing Calvert Cliffs in Maryland , the country can breathe easy: A complete application for a combined operating license -- for the construction and operation -- has at long last been filed. NRG Energy, having recently climbed out of bankruptcy, has the distinction of being the first of all the nuke wannabes to stake its turf. "Today marks the most significant and tangible step to date, toward the construction of the first new nuclear power plant in the United States in over 30 years," Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell said in a prepared statement. "DOE is confident that with NRG's reactor design selection and cooperation with their partners, and Toshiba, this project will likely result in the first of many new reactors being constructed and operated in the US . "We look forward to the continued cooperation with industrial partners and the NRC on the road to substantial deployment of new emissions-free and reliable nuclear power in the near future," Sell's statement concluded. Of course, none of the applicants and would-be applicants for as many as 20 plants have come to terms with the toxic waste from a new nuclear fleet; the nation still is grappling with the issue of waste disposal from the 104 plants currently operating. But the fact is, there are several new designs being vetted, and the US appears on the verge of a nuclear resurgence some 29 years after the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in which a reactor overheated and began to melt down. The application filed by Princeton, New Jersey-based NRG is for GE's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) technology for two units totaling 2,700 MW -- essentially double the size of the existing 2,500-MW, two-unit nuke at the South Texas Nuclear Project, in which NRG is a partner. The NRC's new fiscal year began Oct. 1, marking the date the agency was to conduct an "acceptance check" of NRG's application, said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell . "It's like a huge jigsaw puzzle. First, we check to see all the pieces are there; that takes about 60 days," he said. "If so, then we begin the full, formal process." That process likely will take four years, said Victor Dricks , NRC spokesman in Arlington , Texas . The NRC has already certified the ABWR technology chosen by NRG for the Bay City , Texas , site. The other new technology already certified, the Westinghouse AP1000, has been proposed for as many as 10 new projects by various developers, all of whom are expected to file applications by the end of the year. ABWR proponents favor its modular design, which expedites the construction process, and it has four units in operation in Japan , with another dozen being considered. Along with the Areva EPR proposed by UniStar at Calvert Cliffs, two other reactor designs pending certification by the NRC have been suggested for the new fleet of nuclear plants: GE's Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor and Mitsubishi's Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor. The scale and extent of the widely proclaimed nuclear "renaissance" in the US will come into much clearer focus in the next few months, and is in no small way tied to possible congressional action limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Delaware) has suggested that greater incentives will be part of pending legislation capping carbon emissions. But even if the climate change legislation simply penalizes coal or other carbon-based fuels, it would still give nuclear a lift.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

174 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

New Plants w/o Disposal Plan-Social Acceptance [1/1]
Nuke power is gaining public appeal despite waste concerns-They care more about emissions
Rocky Mountain News`8 (Rocky Mountain News, Todd Hartmanand Gargi Chakrabarty, Nuke interest resurges in state
Utilities, others taking hard look at energy source, June 7, 2008, http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/07/nukeinterest-resurges-in-state/)

Nuclear power, long in public disfavor because of safety, waste and cost concerns, is muscling its way back into the energy picture. While its return is most prominent internationally - where dozens of countries are seeking nuclear generators as a source of new energy supplies - it's also getting a rethink in Colorado and across the United States. Nationally, worries of pollution from coal-burning power plants are spurring renewed interest. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry has launched a major public relations campaign touting itself as "clean-air energy." And Colorado, too, is again paying more attention to generating energy from splitting atoms: * Tri-State, a major electricity provider to Colorado's small towns and rural regions, wants to study the possibility of a nuclear power plant on the eastern plains. * Xcel Energy, the state's largest electricity provider, which owns nuclear plants in the Midwest, said nuclear power will be "on the table" as it considers future energy sources in the Centennial State. * Colorado congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall, a Democrat and a longtime champion of renewable energy, says nuclear should be part of the conversation as the country tries to ease off of fossil fuels. His opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer, also supports nuclear power. * And most significantly for Colorado, the state is the nation's third-largest source of radioactive fuel - uranium. And whether or not another nuclear plant is ever built here, Colorado appears to be in for another mining boom as international demand for uranium ramps up. "We're seeing tremendous increases and the beginnings of activity right now," said Jim Burnell, director of the minerals program at the Colorado Geological Survey. A record 10,000 new mining claims were filed on federal lands in the state in 2007, with the bulk of those for uranium, Burnell said. The nuke is back, said Robert Meyer, a Fort Collins-based energy consultant with long experience in the nuclear industry. "It's happening. . . . Nuclear power is being further considered (where it already exists) . . . and reconsidered in countries that had decided to back away from it," he said. "We're seeing it everywhere."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

175 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad DA – Shell [1/3]
A) Yucca Mountain won’t open now-Political problems
Charleston Post and Courier`8 (Charleston Post and Courier Toward safe nuclear waste disposal Monday, June 9, 2008
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jun/09/toward_safe_nuclear_waste_disposal43892/)

The Bush administration's application for a permit to build the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site should provide momentum for a needed project, which has been stalled by parochial opposition. The need for the disposal site waste will become more apparent as the pressure mounts for new sources of energy. Unfortunately, the
project has a well-placed opponent in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Sen. Reid has taken a not-in-my-backyard approach and has used his congressional muscle to block its progress. Sen. Reid has described the disposal site as "a dying beast" and has promised to continue cutting its budget in an effort to "drive the final nail in its coffin," The Associated Press reported. He has been supported by some anti-nuclear groups. But their arguments against nuclear power are faltering with the rising environmental concern over greenhouse gases produced by coal-fired power plants. Ultimately, the biggest long-term impediment may be a court ruling that could require proof of safe storage for up to a million years, according to the AP. It's hard to fathom how such a long-term goal can be reasonably met. Unless the standard is revised by Congress, it will prove troublesome in the permitting process and in the courts. Meanwhile, the federal government already is about 10 years beyond its own deadline for providing for a safe waste disposal site for commercial nuclear plants. Currently, the growing volume of waste is being stored on site at numerous locations nationwide. Some defense-related waste eventually scheduled for relocation to Yucca is at the Savannah River Site in what is termed "temporary" storage. In a recent release, Gov. Mark Sanford referred to that unsettling situation as he cited the importance of building a permanent repository. "Over the years, South Carolina has become an increasingly large temporary home to nuclear waste, and moving forward on this application is an important part of the federal government keeping promises that have been made to our state over the course of many years," Gov. Sanford said. "We believe Yucca Mountain to be an important part of our nation's future both when it comes to energy policy and security, and we're hopeful that this process will continue without delay." The absence of a single, safe disposal site is a shortcoming in national security and national energy policy. The interior of a mountain in a desert location is a better solution for radioactive waste than scattered temporary sites across the nation.

B) New nuclear plants cause the opening of Yucca NIRS`1 (Nuclear Information and Resource Services, Yucca Mountain nuke dump update, Via Wise Magazine, June 15, 2001,
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/550/5287.html)

In mid-May, George W. Bush announced his Energy Policy Plan (see WISE News Communique 549.5275, "The Bush energy plan"). With DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham (formerly a US Senator who voted numerous times to send nuclear waste to Yucca) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Christie Todd Whitman at his side, Bush advocated building new nuclear power plants in the US for the first time in decades. Nuclear power means nuclear waste, so Bush called on his Cabinet officials to speed up the process for opening a national dump. Although he didn't mention Nevada by name, Yucca is the only site under consideration. Yucca, limited under current law to receiving no more than 70,000 tons of waste, would nearly be filled by what already exists in the U.S. Building new reactors, re-licensing old reactors, or even continuing operations at current reactors will generate more waste than Yucca could legally hold. Unwise as it would be in terms of the heat and radiation impact on Yucca's rock, Congress could simply change the law, cramming twice as much waste into Yucca. Otherwise, a second national dump would be needed. Citizens in Utah fear that the proposed Private Fuel Storage dump targeted at the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation in their State just might be that second repository, a nuclear industry initiative that could launch the beginning of 4,000 cross country waste shipments as early as 2003.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

176 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad DA-1NC [2/3]
C) The country’s waste will go to Yucca-It’s the only place the government deems acceptable for disposal NMC`7 (Nuclear Management Corporation, Nuclear Waste Disposal, 2007,
http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/waste/yucca_science.htm)

For nearly 20 years, the United States has been studying and evaluating Yucca Mountain, Nev., as a potential site for the safe disposal of used reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and high-level radioactive materials from Department of Energy (DOE) facilities and U.S. defense applications. Scientific consensus that the safest method for disposal of used nuclear fuel would be in an engineered repository deep underground resulted in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982. This law established U.S. responsibility and policy for disposal of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Nine sites in six states were initially investigated as a potential repository location. Several government agencies and scientific organizations participated in environmental studies and scientific investigations of these sites. After a 1986 DOE study that ranked Yucca Mountain first among these sites, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1987 and directed DOE to focus its scientific and environmental investigation entirely on Yucca Mountain. DOE released its preliminary scientific findings in 2001. The final recommendation on the site by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in 2002 goes to President George W. Bush for a formal decision, which is also expected this year. Approach to federal repository location based on science There is strong international scientific consensus in favor of deep geologic disposal, such as that envisioned at Yucca Mountain. This con-census emerged in the 1950s and was reaffirmed in 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded that geologic disposal is the "only credible solution." The U.S. government has had a legal responsibility to dispose of used fuel from nuclear power plants since the passage of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954. Scientific investigations as part of site characterization at Yucca Mountain include studies of the geological, hydrologic and geochemical environment, and a detailed evaluation of how conditions might evolve over thousands of years. The site has been scientifically analyzed to account for the safe operation of a repository over 10,000 years.

D) The mass movement of waste to Yucca causes terrorism Kerrey`2 (Bob, a former U.S. senator from Nebraska, is president of New School University in New York, Yucca Mountain
Nuclear Storage is Bad for Nevada and the Nation, St. Paul Pioneer press, April 29, 2002, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0429-07.htm)

Transporting nuclear waste across our country is an undertaking that every American concerned about our nation's security should take very seriously. Sharing our highways with tens of thousands of radioactive shipments is a disaster waiting to happen. An accident involving a truck with radioactive waste is a statistical certainty. Just as certain is the increased exposure to terrorism. DOE and outside experts both agree accidents will happen; though no one can predict their likely impact. More troubling is the potential for radiation exposure. The government-approved casks, which have never undergone rigorous full-scale testing, leak radiation and could become portable X-ray machines that cannot be turned off. This concern is not trivial either from a health or a liability standpoint. Most serious of all is that these shipments will become irresistible targets for terrorists. After Sept. 11 and the increasing incidents of suicide bombings, our elected leaders should not approve this plan unless they can guarantee the safety of these shipments. They cannot simply trust the DOE or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who are still analyzing risks based on terrorist incidents from the 1970s and 1980s. Without proper security measures, these shipments could easily be used as a "dirty bomb." It is imperative that an upto-date plan is in place to prevent them from becoming low-grade nuclear weapons and that the cost of this plan be measured against the potential benefits of a single site. The American people and their representatives in Congress must keep this in mind: There is no pressing reason to move ahead with the Yucca Mountain site without completing a comprehensive evaluation. Even the administration agrees that the current storage system can safely remain for many years. Congress must now decide. Will it opt for the administration's unsound policy that jeopardizes our health and safety or will it choose to act responsibly? At a time when we need to be doing everything in our power to secure our nation's safety, a policy that puts us on the road to another national tragedy is a step in the wrong direction.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

177 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad DA-1NC [3/3]
2) That causes Extinction
Beres`87(Louis Rene Beres, Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue, 1987 (Terrorism and Global
Security, p. 42-43)

Nuclear terrorism could even spark a full scale war between states. Such a war could involve the entire spectrum of nuclear conflict possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a non-nuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. How might such far reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists hosted in another state. For example, consider the following scenario: Early in the 1990s, Israel and its Arab state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a
bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already many years old, only the interests of the Palestinians, as defined by the PLO, seem to have been left out. On the eve of the proposed signing of the peace agreement,

half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one kiloton range detonate in as many Israeli cities. Public grief in Israel over the many thousand dead and maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response to the public mood, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon, whereupon Lebanese Shiite forces and Syria retaliate against Israel. Before long, the entire region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all countries of the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. Of course, such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue, one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear weapon state on the planet.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

178 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Uniqueness-Won’t Open [1/2]
Won’t be built-Lack of support
Inside Energy`8 (Dipka Bhambhani, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, March 17, 2008 DOE plan depicts nongovernment waste program, Lexis)

The Nevada congressional delegation remains fiercely opposed to putting the repository in the state. "The Bush administration is desperate to show that growing reports of Yucca Mountain's death are premature, but this is clearly a project whose days are numbered," Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat-Nevada, who saw the PowerPoint presentation, said in a statement."Now DOE is looking at a public-private partnership to run Yucca Mountain, but that will not eliminate the danger or change Nevada's opposition to becoming the nation's nuclear garbage dump. We need to stop this $80-billion disaster waiting to happen and keep nuclear waste on site, where it's safe for the next 100 years." Berkley's communications director, David Cherry, said DOE seems to want "the efficiency of a private undertaking paired with the power of the federal government to fund and license activities relating to nuclear waste disposal, including the ability to overcome powerful opposition based on health, safety and cost issues." Jon Summers, communications director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, said DOE's "radiation road show" to gain support for an alternative plan to advance Yucca Mountain is futile. "You can't privatize something that's not going to be built in the first place," he said. "The dump is not [going to be built]." Summers said DOE can promote the idea to Republican lawmakers, but "Republicans are in the minority, and not even all of them support Yucca Mountain anymore," he said. "The support for Yucca Mountain has softened on Capitol Hill and among the nuclear industry itself."

Thanks to Nevadans, Yucca won’t be opening any time soon Spencer & Murch`8 (Jack Spencer and Garrett Murch, Heritage Foundation: Road to Clean Air Runs Through Yucca
Mountain Friday, June 06, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363961,00.html)

But politicians, led by those from Nevada, are standing in the way. A major obstacle to commencing the nuclear renaissance remains the failure to open the nation’s repository for spent nuclear fuel at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Yucca is more than a decade behind schedule. Even if it were given a green light today, it would remain about a decade from opening. Delaying Yucca has unintended consequences for Nevada and the nation. Opposition to Yucca has made building nuclear plants much more difficult. By hamstringing America’s energy options, obstructionist politicians are forcing fossil fuel plant construction when utilities might have chosen to build emissions-free nuclear.

Yucca won’t open-Opposition solidifying Rizo`8 (Chris, Legal Newsline, Masto to asked to join Yucca Mountain opposition team, June 8, 2008
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/213250-masto-to-asked-to-join-yucca-mountain-opposition-team)

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has been asked to participate in a coalition of state officials opposed to the planned nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain. Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons last week called for a meeting of state officials and Nevada's congressional delegation to coordinate their opposition to the proposed nuclear waste repository in the remote Nevada desert. "Now that the Department of Energy has submitted its application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it's essential that we are all on the same page in fighting this project," Gibbons said in a statement. "We have many talented people objecting to Yucca for a wide variety of reasons. I simply want to be sure that we coordinate our efforts to maximize our chances to defeat this misguided project once and for all," he added. In an earlier interview with Legal Newsline, Masto outlined her opposition to the Yucca Mountain project. "There's been no proof that it is safe; there is concern about the health and welfare of the people who live here based on the contamination to the environment," she said. "The majority are opposed to it and rightfully so." Masto told LNL that the Yucca Mountain project is "a concern for everyone in this state," noting that polls indicate that about 70 percent of Nevadans are opposed to the controversial project. More recently, Masto said in a statement that the Department of Energy's review of the Yucca Mountain project comes amid "public distrust" of the federal agency.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

179 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Uniqueness-Won’t Open [2/2]
Yucca’s operation will be delayed-Contract issues ABC News`8 (America’s Broadcasting Corporation, Marcus Baram, DOJ Slams Energy Dept Contract to Law Firm Letter
Warns That Contract Could Jeopardize Opening of Nuclear Waste Repository, June 26, 2008. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5247042&page=1)

The Justice Department is asking tough questions about a multi-million-dollar contract awarded by the Energy Department to a law firm, warning that conflicts of interest could delay the opening of the country's largest nuclear waste repository. The Justice Department is questioning a multi-million dollar contract awarded by the Department of Energy to handle licensing issues for the nation's nuclear waste repository in Nevada. The firm of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, which was awarded a four-year $47.7 million contract to shepherd the licensing for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, has acknowledged conflicts of interest on nuclear waste issues since it has represented more than a dozen utilities that have sued the agency. The firm was granted a waiver from DOE rules on conflicts of interest and agreed to a plan "that would mitigate any conflict to the maximum extent practicable," according to an April report by the DOE's Inspector General. But in a sharply-worded letter obtained by ABC News, a top Justice Department official criticized the Energy Department's failure to consult with DOJ and cautioned that the contract could jeopardize the opening of the long-delayed repository which would store the country's nuclear waste.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

180 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Uniqueness-Won’t Open-Obama
a) Barack will win now-He’s gathering red states Whitesides`8 (John Whitesides, Political expert-Reuters, Obama pushes deep into Republican turf
Thu Jul 3, 2008 http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN031031200807030)

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pushed deep into Republican territory in North Dakota on Thursday, saying he saw the potential for a significant political realignment in November's election. Staking another claim to a state usually ignored by Democratic contenders for the White House, Obama said Americans of all political leanings were hungry for something different after eight years of President George W. Bush. "I'm a firm believer that 90 percent of success is showing up and Democrats haven't been showing up in these places," he said in Fargo, North Dakota, a state that has not backed a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The visit to North Dakota, where Obama pushed his plans to help military veterans, followed stops in conservative sections of Ohio and Colorado this week. On Friday's July 4th holiday, he will visit Montana, another state that traditionally votes Republican. "If you look at the trends in many of these states, there are more and more independents who aren't tied to a political party and I want to make sure that we are reaching out to them," Obama said. "I think there is a possibility of a significant realignment politically in this election," he said. "Now is the time for us to have a conversation with all Americans, not just some Americans, about how we can pull together."

b) President Obama would shut down Yucca Investers.com`8 (Investors.com, Fossil Fuels INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 7/1/2008 http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=299804021452063)

Yet Sen. Reid opposes the opening of the Yucca Mountain spent-fuel repository in his home state of Nevada. On his Web site, he states that Yucca Mountain is "never going to open" because "it threatens the health and safety of Nevadans and people across the United States" through its existence and from the transportation of spent fuel from nuclear power plants to the facility. Agreeing with Reid is his party's presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. In a primary debate in Nevada, Obama pledged: "I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people of Nevada that they're going to be safe."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

181 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Link-New Plants
The nuclear industry can easily manipulate politics-New plants give more validity to their pressure to open Yucca Johnson`2 (Jeff, Chemical and Engineering, Washington, Yucca Mountain, July 8, 2002
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8027/8027yucca.html)

THE SIZE, schedule, and other repository parameters for this huge project were fixed by Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and in 1987 amendments, which designated Nevada as the state where it will be built. The act was passed in response to pressure from nuclear energy advocates and utilities, and they now are clamoring for Yucca Mountain to open. Highly radioactive utility waste has been generated for decades by U.S. power companies that badly want to get the spent fuel rods away from their power plants--both for safety reasons and to help clear the decks for their plans to push ahead on a new generation of nuclear power plants. Yucca Mountain advocates and even opponents argue that the congressional vote is not over nuclear power, but it is hard to see continued growth for nuclear energy without a scientifically sound waste solution that is accepted by society. Currently, there is 43,000 metric tons of accumulated waste stored at commercial nuclear reactor sites, says Melanie Lyons, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association. Some is stored in dry casks, but most of the spent fuel lies in pools of water. Lyons stresses that it is safe there but adds that the industry would like to get it to a central location, some place away from their plants. That waste, she says, is going to grow at about 2,000 metric tons per year for many more years. Many of today's 103 operating nuclear reactors are reaching the end of their 20-year legal lives, but most plan to get license extensions, allowing them to tack on another 20 years of operation. And if the current record-level high efficiencies and operation improvements of U.S. nuclear power plants continue, waste volumes will grow right along with the increase of nucleargenerated electricity. DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which is charged with licensing reactors and overseeing their operation, have made several efforts recently to aid the relicensing of old plants and possibly speed approval of a new generation of reactors should any company come up with a proposal (C&EN, Sept. 3, 2001, page 29). Nuclear energy is on a roll. The President's energy plan of last year had several provisions to encourage nuclear power, including tax breaks and another look at fuel reprocessing and advanced technologies. DOE is even jumping in with a plan to help pay companies to find sites for new nuclear power plants. LAST FEBRUARY, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham made a formal recommendation to move ahead with the Yucca site to President George W. Bush, and in less than 24 hours, the President authorized construction. Just hours later, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican like Bush, announced he would veto the President's decision (C&EN, Feb. 25, page 8).Guinn's veto led to House and Senate votes under the terms in the Waste Policy Act. The act calls for a unique approval process. For instance, it does not allow Senate opponents to use a filibuster to stall action, and it allows any senator to bring a resolution to overturn Guinn's veto to the floor, which may prove particularly important because Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) opposes overturning the veto. It also sets a deadline for congressional action, which works out to July 27. The Nevada congressional delegation is united in opposition to the site. They lost in the House, however, by a large margin in May. In the Senate, they are likely to come closer, but Guinn's veto is expected to be overturned. Nevada has filed five lawsuits challenging the federal government. It has sued the Environmental Protection Agency, DOE, NRC, the President, and the energy secretary, says Robert R. Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "IF WE PREVAIL in the Senate, we think the Nuclear Energy Institute will challenge the constitutionality of the Waste Policy Act; if we lose, we may challenge it," Loux says. He expects more suits if the process moves to NRC licensing. Loux wants the waste to remain in pools or casks at the utilities that create it. He points to statements by NRC officials saying the waste would be safe there for decades."What this is really about," he says, "is that utilities know no one will even let them even think about building more power plants unless they have removed waste temporarily or permanently--as if anyone would anyway. This has nothing to do with health and safety. It is about an industry's wish to expand."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

182 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Link Ext/AT: Won’t open till 2010
Although it’s scheduled to open in 2010 now, the government will change the law, and open it sooner-They’re already trying to accept waste Kamps`1 (Kevin Kamps, NIRS, November 21, 2001,
" Yucca Heats Up " Update on Yucca Mountain http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/yucca/yuccaupdatenov202001.htm)

Despite DOE’s claim that 20 years of site characterization are now finished, the NRC, the US Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (a Presidentially-appointed science and engineering advisory panel), and experts overseas have criticized the Yucca studies. Concerns range from severe seismic activity, to how fast water flows through the mountain, to what could happen if a volcano erupts through the buried waste containers. A current article in Physics Today points to uncertainty about how the metal used for disposal containers would react to ground water when it is combined with corrosive chemicals and heated by the waste inside the repository. There is a growing recognition that, due to Yucca Mountain’s inability to isolate waste, DOE is relying very heavily on engineered barriers, contradicting the original concept of "permanent geologic disposal." Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to rule in favor of Yucca by early next year. President Bush, advocating the construction of new reactors in the U.S., will almost certainly give his thumbs up shortly thereafter. The Governor and Legislature of the State of Nevada have already indicated they will exercise their legal right under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to veto those decisions. The decision would then go to the Congress, where a simple majority vote in both Houses could override Nevada’s veto. That Congressional showdown could happen as early as June. If Yucca clears all those hurdles, DOE would then submit a license application to NRC, perhaps by the end of 2002. NRC would review the application for three to four years. NRC could thus grant a construction license as early as 2006. Presently, the earliest waste shipments could arrive at Yucca in 2010. However, the law could be changed to speed that schedule up. In fact, the GAO reported that DOE is considering building a parking lot style "interim storage" facility at Yucca in order to expedite waste shipments away from utilities that are presently suing DOE for breach of contract and seeking damages because DOE failed to begin hauling radioactive fuel rods away by January 31, 1998 – the arbitrary, unrealistic deadline Congress mandated in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

183 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Internal-Plan’s Dumped At Yucca [1/1]
Yucca is the government’s chosen dump site NIRS, No Date (Nuclear Information and Resources Service, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Proposed High-Level Radioactive
Waste Dump Targeted at Native American Lands, http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/yucca/yuccahome.htm)

The Yucca dump’s opening would set in motion unprecedented numbers of high-level radioactive waste shipments on roads, rails, and waterways through 45 states and the District of Columbia, including hundreds and thousands of cities, towns and communities – probably yours! The Bush Administration’s Department of Energy (DOE) recommended Yucca as suitable for the dump in early 2002. The very next day, despite nearly 300 unfinished key scientific studies and 15,000 public comments in opposition, George W. Bush himself rubberstamped the decision. The State of Nevada officially vetoed the “site recommendation” that spring, but both Houses of Congress overrode the veto. George W. Bush signed off on the override on July 23, 2002, giving DOE the green light to apply to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction and operating license for the dump.

The government has been investigating since `78, Yucca’s the only place for geo-dispo Feulner`4 (Ed, Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, Wasting a good solution, The Washington Times,
September 6, 2004, Lexis)

The problem: Tens of thousands of tons of dangerous nuclear waste are stored at more than 125 sites around the nation. The solution: Bury it at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Yucca would become a giant underground repository. It's designed to contain nuclear waste for 10,000 years - long enough for it to decay to safe levels. At Yucca, our waste would be stored safely beneath 1,000 feet of solid rock. Now comes the politics. "One of the biggest environmental and security challenges facing Nevadans is the threat that Yucca Mountain will be turned into the nation's nuclear waste dump," warned during a recent campaign stop in the state. But Mr. Kerry and others who want to block Yucca ignore the fact our nuclear waste must go somewhere. We can't simply dump it in the ocean or blast it into space. And we know Yucca Mountain is ideal, because it's probably the most-studied location in the world. The federal government started investigating whether the site would be suitable for storing nuclear waste back in 1978. Located in a quiet area of Nevada, some 100 miles from the outskirts of Las Vegas, Yucca has all the traits necessary for the long-term storage of radioactive waste.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

184 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Transport-Terrorism
Transportation to one location increases terrorism risk Neuman`2 (Brooke, Writer for the John Hopkins News Letter, Yucca nuclear waste site proposal: A bad idea for future generations, 2.22.
http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2002/02/22/Opinions/Yucca.Nuclear.Waste.Site.Proposal.A.Bad.Idea.For.Fut ure.Generations-2248030.shtml)

Abraham claims that the prompt decision was made for national security purposes and that Yucca Mountain was chosen based on sensible scientific findings. The issue of national security is clearly a playoff of post-Sept. 11 paranoia - the DOE is using the public's fear of terrorism to try and slip through an unstable proposal. In reality, a time line exists that the Department of Energy has already failed to meet. The waste site was supposed to be activated in 1998. Abraham must have woken up one morning and noticed that it was 2002 and a site still hadn't been approved. He now sets the goals on activating the site in 2010 - 12 years after the original deadline. Furthermore, on National Security, Spencer advises that moving waste from over 131 sites to a centralized one decreases the chances of a terrorist attack on an old nuclear power plant. Funny that for the 57 years that the waste has accumulated 70,000 tons, this was never considered - not even during the Cold War. The waste is far more secure where it is and is regulated to extreme measures - moving everything to Yucca presents the risks of leakage as well as all the risks associated with transporting the waste. Safety is in fact a part of security, and the idea of a centralized nuclear waste site is logically not safe at this time.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

185 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Earthquakes-Plutonium Leaks
Yucca is prone to earthquakes Macfarlane 2k (Allison, The Earth Around Us, Jill Schneiderman- editor, pg. 291)
Perhaps the second most pressing technical issue at Yucca Mountain has to do with its geological stability Actually, the Yucca Mountain region is not as stable as it first looked. It is located in the heart of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States, an area that was and still is tectonically active. The majority of recent earthquake activity is located south and west of Yucca Mountain, relatively close to the San Andreas fault system. The Yucca Mountain region itself has experienced seismicity. On 29 June 1992, a magnitude 5.4 earthquake centered on an unknown fault in Little Skull Mountain, six miles southeast of Yucca Mountain, rocked the area.’4 There are other active major faults in the region also. The length of the mountain runs north—south, parallel to the most potentially hazardous fault in the region, the Bare Mountain fault, located about six miles to the west of Yucca Mountain. There are active faults within the repository itself, the largest of which are the Ghost Dance and Bow Ridge faults.

b) An earthquake would cause plutonium to enter the water table and atmosphere Cyber West`97 (Cyber West Magazine, Earthquake could cause flooding of Yucca Mountain repository September 2, 1997
http://www.cyberwest.com/cw14/14scwst2.html)

Using computer modeling based on geological data, historical quakes and results from about 20 test wells, they showed that a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake could raise the water table between 450-750 feet at the storage site. Because the repository would be only 600 to 800 feet above the present water table, "flooding could be expected to occur," they write. The water table below the Yucca Mountain site is unusually deep, about 1,500 feet below the surface, Davies said. But within a 6-mile area north of the proposed storage facility the groundwater level rapidly rises to a more normal depth of about 600 feet. The reason for this abrupt change in the water table is a cause for concern, Davies said. Davies and Archambeau believe that the presence of open fractures underneath Yucca Mountain has allowed the water table to descend to unusually low depths, and that closed fractures to the north have resulted in a more normal water table level. The danger is that an earthquake of sufficient magnitude could cause the open fractures underneath the Yucca Mountain site to squeeze shut, forcing the water upward into the storage facility. "If water hits the storage area it could cause a rapid corrosive breakdown of the containers and allow the plutonium to leak into the water table and the atmosphere," Davies said.

Mass plutonium spread causes extinction Amador`7 (Amador Publishers, In their book review of HUMAN SURVIVAL ON A PLUTONIUM-CONTAMINATED
PLANET, December 14, 2007, http://www.amadorbooks.com/books/pluto.htm#top)

This study brings closure to species survival arguments, by specifying via an Equation and its Graph what concentrations of Plutonium are required to cause species extinctions. The key variable is genome size. Amphibians have the largest genomes, and are already suffering malformations and extinctions. Larger animals, especially carnivores, will certainly be next. Humans will not be immune. The Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) near Carlsbad, NM, is designed to hold plutonium-contaminated material, produced by our nation's nuclear armament industry, "out of the environment" for 10,000 years. The number of hld's [human lethal doses] of plutonium scheduled to be placed in WIPP is alarming and unacceptable. Charles Hyder received B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics from the University of New Mexico (1958,1960), and a Ph.D. in Astrogeo- physics from the University of Colorado (1964). He published more than twenty solar and comet papers. He worked for NASA, UCLA, UNM, and the Southwest Research and Information Center. He was an early whistleblower, presenting effective criticism of plans for radwaste disposal in New Mexico, [particularly at WIPP]. He and nineteen other radwaste experts were employed by the government of Lower Saxony to critique the Gorleben Salt Dome project, which was ultimately rejected. In 1986-87 Hyder underwent a seven-month fast in Washington, DC, protesting against War. In this book he commits to another fast, "terminal," he says, protesting the proposed opening of WIPP. It will remain open, "over my dead body." This book provides the science which underlies that kind of certainty and commitment. In HUMAN SURVIVAL... Hyder advises his readers to become strict vegetarians. He suggests living at high altitudes, rather than in low-lying areas, where heavy metals settle. He asserts that recent, global amphibian extinctions are our dying canaries!

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

186 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Waste Leak Inevitable
Yucca’s waste leak inevitable Wheelwright`2 (Jeff, Discover, Welcome to Yucca Mountain Where a computer model has determined it's safe for America
to bury its nuclear garbage by Jeff Wheelwright, http://discovermagazine.com/2002/sep/featyucca)

At some point in time, a group of human beings put dangerous radioactive waste into the dry heart of the mountain. After watching over the stuff for a century or two, until they were satisfied their plan would work, these human beings closed up their tunnels into the mountain and went away. Then, about 10,000 years later, give or take a millennium, some of the radioactive waste leaked out of the mountain. It crept southward on the pathways of the deep groundwater. Now it happened that a man named Bruce lived 11 miles south of the brown mountain. Bruce kept a little vegetable garden, which he watered from his drinking well. One day, without noticing it, Bruce began consuming water that was slightly more radioactive than usual. Since his vegetables were also tainted, his ingestion of radioactivity went up further. The result was that each time he ate from his garden or drank from his well, his chances of contracting a fatal cancer increased. Although they were long dead, the people who had put the nuclear waste into the mountain knew all about Bruce. They had planned for his existence and his way of life, which they called rural-residential. They didn't call him Bruce, however. They called him the Reasonably Maximally Exposed Individual, which was regulatory jargon for this person and others like him. Most important, the nuclear waste managers had calculated the odds as to whether Bruce would become fatally ill because of the poison in the mountain. They decided that his risk was far too low —less than one chance in a billion—to rule out storing the waste there. And if Bruce's health risks were acceptable, it followed that other Nevadans of the future would be all right, too, because they would live farther away from the brown mountain and their water would be less contaminated. This fable has a scientific version, driven by data but just as farseeing. The science fable, though, takes just an hour to unfold, not millennia. That's because it is a model—equations and assumptions—running at breakneck speed on computers. The model projects the behavior of the nuclear waste that the federal government wants to bury at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Nuclear waste disposal is America's longest-running environmental headache. Tens of thousands of tons of fiercely radioactive by-products of our nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons plants are stored at 131 separate locations. If packed in containers and brought together, the spent fuel rods and toxic liquids would cover approximately 17 football fields. And the volume grows daily.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

187 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Geologically Unstable-Floods
Yucca is located along earthquake faults, volcanic activity, and is prone to floods-Floods would devastate the whole Western U.S. Gumbel `2 (March 15, Andrew, London Independent staffwriter, “BUSH TO DUMP NUCLEAR WASTE IN
EARTHQUAKE ZONE” page 17)

President George Bush has approved a plan to move 77,000 tons of nuclear waste from around the country to a storage area under the mountain, pushing forward where two previous administrations, including his father's, did not dare. Yucca Mountain is about as unsuitable a repository site as one could imagine. The area is crisscrossed by no fewer than 33 earthquake faults. The rock is volcanic, there are volcanic cones in the area, and the latest scientific guesswork is that there has been an eruption in the past 20,000 years - a mere blip in the estimated 250,000- year toxic lifespan of nuclear waste. Moreover, scientific studies by former Department of Energy officials have found evidence that groundwater, currently running 300 metres beneath the site, has risen in the past and flooded the storage area. Were that to happen once the waste arrived, it could not only contaminate the drinking water of the few hundred people who live locally (including members of a native tribe, the Western Shoshone, who believe Yucca Mountain to belong to them under a 19thcentury land treaty). Radioactive toxins are likely to reach the surface, evaporate and pose a grave health threat to a large area of the American West.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

188 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Water Contamination-Ground Water
Water breaking through at Yucca would be catastropic Flynn et al 95 (James, Senior Research Associate at Division Research in Eugene, One Hundred Years of
Solitude, pg. 23) Concerns are being raised that catastrophic geologic events or human intervention could threaten the security of a repository at Yucca Mountain. For example, one of DOE’s scientists, Jerry Szymanski, has proposed a theory that Yucca Mountain is subject to upwelling of groundwater—water forced up through the mountain by a major seismic event, such as an earthquake. He argues that there is geological evidence this event has occurred in the past. If it were to occur with a repository in place, water would presumably flood the waste storage area, possibly causing the canisters to break and release radiation to the environment. A plume of contaminated water released high on the mountain could have widespread and disastrous consequences.

Increased research reveals more and more dangers related to ground water Ross, No date (David P., Vermont Law Review, Spring, pg. 833-4)
Even though Yucca Mountain is located in a desolate desert, concerns over the quantity of rainfall, only sixteen centimeters a year, and movement of groundwater ironically may preclude the selection of the site. The concern is that rainfall will percolate through the soil and into the storage chambers, where it will slowly corrode the waste packages and eventually transport contamination to the groundwater hundreds of feet below, and from there it will travel in an expanding plume that may eventually be tapped by wells. At first the volcanic tuff below Yucca Mountain was thought to be impermeable, but then it was discovered that fifteen to thirty fractures riddle every meter. It was then thought that water traveled very slowly through the fractures because of the lack of rainfall and the high rates of evaporation. However, scientists have now discovered Chlorine 36, an isotope created by the surface testing of atomic bombs back in the 1950's, at the repository level, meaning surface water traveled through the fractures to the repository level in only fifty years. Finally, it was thought that plutonium did not travel through groundwater because it dissolves slowly in water and rapidly absorbs to particulate matter. Yet scientists recently discovered that plutonium in one instance had traveled nearly a mile in only thirty years. While research is supposed to remove the uncertainty in constructing Yucca Mountain, this research is demonstrating that uncertainty grows with scientific discovery.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

189 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Water Contamination-Water Table
Yucca’s not safe-Acids will cause the canisters to link, and the water streams will carry it into the water table and outside environment ANP`3 (The Agency of Nuclear Power, The States of Nevada, What’s Wrong With Putting Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain,
2003, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:XyqaeAco68QJ:www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2003/pdf/nv_wwrong.pdf)

When Congress passed nuclear waste laws in 1982, “geologic isolation” was required for any waste repository, to protect future generations. An isolation time of 250,000 years was envisioned, when radioactivity would have decayed to safe levels. • This approach had been recommended by scientists since 1957, and was selected by Congress after a comprehensive 1980 study by the Department of Energy (“DOE”). • Detailed safety rules for repositories were developed in the early 1980s by DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”), all based on geologic isolation. • Hoping Yucca Mountain would satisfy this requirement, Congress selected it in 1987 as the only site for detailed study. • But results from DOE studies were startling: They showed Yucca could not geologically isolate wastes, because water flows much faster from the surface through the mountain to the water table than had been expected. o Yucca was formed from volcanic ash and is the only repository under consideration in the world that is above the water table, not below it. o Yucca’s volcanic material is brittle and contains innumerable fractures and voids, some resembling a Swiss-cheese formation. o DOE says the number of “water-conducting fractures” at Yucca is “on the order of one billion.” o Fast water paths through the mountain make “geologic containment” a matter of 50 to 200 years, not the 250,000 years intended by scientists and Congress. o The so-called “dry” rock is over 80% saturated with water, posing serious waste package corrosion risks. o Yucca’s rock form and chemistry are uniquely conducive to the production of strong acids that can corrode through metal waste packages. o Scientists agree that the primary risk at Yucca is water transporting radioactive wastes from corroding waste containers to the accessible environment. B ENDING T HE RULES • Knowing Yucca could never meet geologic isolation requirements in place since the 1980s, DOE contrived a new set of “rules” in late 2001 to enable the Secretary of Energy to declare the repository is suitable anyway.

B) This ends in millions drinking and using radioactive substances ANP`3 (The Agency of Nuclear Power, The States of Nevada, What’s Wrong With Putting Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain,
2003, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:XyqaeAco68QJ:www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2003/pdf/nv_wwrong.pdf)

DOE has assumed that a broad variety of radioisotopes released from corroding waste packages will not descend through the mountain to the water table, claiming they will be retarded by attaching to minerals in the rock, or by diffusing into the rock. • But Nevada’s studies show this phenomenon is not significant for many of the most prevalent radioactive constituents. • Once radioactive materials get to the water table, DOE concedes they will rapidly migrate to Armargosa Valley (in as little as 100 years). Armargosa Valley today hosts Nevada’s largest dairy and organic milk producer, using locally grown feed. It’s about 80 miles north of Las Vegas, the nation’s fastest growing city. T HE B OTTOM L INE • DOE’s performance models assume Nevadans will one day be drinking and using water contaminated with nuclear waste; the only questions being “how soon” and “how much.” The Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository fails the tests of science and can never be made safe.  

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

190 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Transportation-Accidents
Transport to Yucca Mountain would risk hundreds of accidents LaDuke 99 (Winona, Director of Honor the Earth Fund and White Earth Land Recovery Project, All Our
Relations, pg. 108-9) Pushed through with some heavy lobbying by the nuclear industry and a sentiment in Congress of “get it out of my backyard,” the bill authorizes the transport of nuclear waste from 108 nuclear reactors to Yucca Mountain in Western Shoshone territory. As Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota, a co-author of the 1997 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, explains it, “We in the Senate have done our part in trying to restore the promises made by the federal government to the ratepayers of this country to move nuclear waste out of our home states.” To start with, Northern States Power put about $171,000 into its congressional delegations’ coffers, and the other members of the Nuclear Energy Institute also anted up, sending about $12.8 million to their congressional delegations to set up the interim site at Yucca Mountain. That money is almost three times the amount utilities have spent on Congress in nearly a decade. The problem is that Yucca Mountain doesn’t really get the waste out of the senators’ backyards. Yucca Mountain would create yet another nuclear waste site. Operating reactors would still have to store waste on their sites, because the radiation is so hot that it has to chill in liquid for five to ten years before it can be transported. Perhaps most alarming, the waste would be moving on U.S. highways. More than 50 million Americans live within a half-mile of the most likely route, near some of the nation’s largest cities: Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Denver, Portland, and others. Nuclear Information and Resource Service director Michael Marriote outlined some of the problems in his congressional testimony on the act. First, there will be some potentially disastrous accidents. According to the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, there have been about 2,400 shipments of high-level nuclear waste in the United States (most of it in small quantities from submarine reactors). There have been seven accidents associated with those shipments, none of which involved the release of radioactive materials. This rate of one accident per 343 shipments translates into, at the very minimum, 268 accidents resulting from the 15,000 to 90,000 shipments of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Second, the act’s designation of acceptable radiation exposure is dangerously high. The act establishes a radiation standard for Yucca Mountain of 100 millirems per year, or what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission calculates is the equivalent of a 1 in 286 lifetime risk of fatal cancer. Yet, Marriote observed, “our nation typically regulates pollutants to ensure that exposure to them will cause no more than a 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 lifetime risk of fatal cancer.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

191 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Transportation-Radiation
Yucca will necessitate the trek of mobile Chernobyls-The radiation risk is high NIRS, No Date (Nuclear Information and Resources, "Mobile Chernobyl" - High-Level Radioactive Waste Transport,
http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/hlwtransport/mobilechernobyl.htm)

The same material that blew apart and burned during the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe in 1986 – highly radioactive, irradiated nuclear fuel – would be transported through countless communities across the U.S. if the nuclear establishment gets its way. The U.S. Department of Energy proposes shipping tens of thousands of trucks, trains and barges carrying irradiated nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through 45 states and the District of Columbia. DOE wants to dump these highly radioactive wastes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. A nuclear utility consortium called Private Fuel Storage, LLC proposes shipping 4,000 irradiated nuclear fuel railcars to Skull Valley, Utah for "temporary storage." Such proposals dwarf the 2,500 to 3,000 irradiated nuclear fuel shipments that have taken place in the U.S. since the beginning of the Nuclear Age well over 50 years ago. Each truck-sized container would hold up to 40 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The much larger train/barge containers would each hold over 200 times Hiroshima’s long-lasting radioactivity. These shipping containers are vulnerable to severe accidents. Even a fraction of a single shipping container’s radioactive cargo escaping into the environment could prove catastrophic for an entire area downwind and downstream. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not even require them to undergo full-scale physical safety testing! The containers are also vulnerable to terrorist attack, making them massive “dirty bombs on wheels.”

B) This’ll give more than seven million people 800 different cancers Gunter &Gunter`5 (Paul and Linda, NIRS staff, NIRS Opinion/Editorial May 23, 2005 [NIRS= Nuclear Information and
Resource service] http://www.nirs.org/columnist/chernobylmay2320005.pdf)

Also forgotten amidst the Washington pundits’ pro-nuclear pronouncements are the tragic consequences so vividly seen today in the children of Chernobyl. These are young lives forever altered by the birth defects they inherited from their parents who had the misfortune to live close to the reactor or downwind of its toxic fallout cloud. Many have been abandoned in orphanages. More than seven million people in the former Soviet Republics of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are believed to have suffered medical problems and genetic damage as the direct result of Chernobyl. In Ukraine alone, more than 2.32 million people, including 452,000 children have been treated for radiation-linked illnesses, including thyroid and blood cancers and cancerous growths according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health. New findings reported last November in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health published by the British Medical Association concluded that more than 800 cancers in Sweden are being attributed to the ever-widening impact of the “Chernobyleffect.” It is increasingly disingenuous of the nuclear industry to distance itself from a potential catastrophic accident in the United States. Considerable evidence exists that currently operating U.S. reactor containments can also fail during a severe accident. A 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) study of risks associated with severe reactor accidents concluded that none of the five different US designs it analyzed were capable of remaining intact during all severe accident scenarios.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

192 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Volcanoes
Volcanoes will erupt at Yucca and throw tons of rad-waste into the atmosphere Macfarlane 2k (Allison, The Earth Around Us, Jill Schneiderman- editor, pg. 291
Faults are not the only threat to the peace of Yucca Mountain; the presence of volcanoes suggests future volcanic activity. Within six miles of the mountain are the Crater Flats volcanic cones, all approximately one million years old. A little further to the south is the infamous Lathrop Wells cone, which has been the source of ample controversy Some geologists claim that it is as old as 100,000 years, whereas others suggest that it is much younger, on the order of 10,000 years.’ The probability of future volcanic activity is highly significant to the success of the repository. One does not want a volcanic center to pop up in the middle of the repository blowing high into the atmosphere all the radioactive material carefully stored there. Geologists have had a difficult time reaching agreement over the probability of future volcanic eruptions near Yucca Mountain. To deal with this disagreement, the Department of Energy convened an event of questionable scientific validity: A number of the geologists who work closely on volcanism in the Yucca Mountain region gathered to debate the probability of future volcanism.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

193 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Won’t Solve-Rainwater
Rainwater means Yucca can’t hold the waste Monastersky`97 (Richard Monastersky "Relying on geology to jail nuclear waste - geological disposal of nuclear waste".
Science News. Nov 1, 1997. FindArticles.com. 02 Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n18_v152/ai_19978570)

In the bad-news category, federal scientists reported potential problems at Yucca Mountain, Nev., where the Department of Energy is considering constructing an underground repository for 70,000 tons of spent fuel from nuclear power plants and other highly radioactive waste. In 1987, Congress chose Yucca Mountain as the only candidate site because its extremely arid rock layers would, in theory, keep water from dispersing the radioactive isotopes. Experiments conducted this year, however, indicate that rainwater is leaking through the mountain faster than previous studies had predicted. On the other hand, the Energy Department got some welcome news about an underground repository in southern New Mexico called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Excavated from a salt deposit, WIPP is designed to hold defense-related waste contaminated with radioactivity during the production of nuclear weapons. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency gave provisional approval for opening WIPP. The Yucca Mountain data came to light at a meeting of the Geological Society of America in Salt Lake City. Donald S. Sweetkind of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver reported on measurements made in an exploratory tunnel cutting through the mountain. His group detected elevated concentrations of chlorine-36--a radioactive isotope--in rock samples taken from several locations in the tunnel. The chlorine-36, says Sweetkind, comes from above-ground nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. Its presence in the tunnel at four times the natural concentration indicates that rainwater has traveled through fractures in the rock, reaching several hundred meters into the mountain in 4 decades.

Won’t solve-Rain and other water will corrode the canisters ANP`3 (The Agency of Nuclear Power, The States of Nevada, What’s Wrong With Putting Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain,
2003, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:XyqaeAco68QJ:www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2003/pdf/nv_wwrong.pdf)

Repository safety analysis begins with projected rainfall. DOE’s computer models ignore climate change impacts expected at Yucca as a result of global warming. DOE assumes an average annual rainfall that is spread out evenly during the year. DOE, therefore, assumes most of the water evaporates before penetrating the mountain. In fact, rainfall at Yucca occurs frequently as torrential storms, often resulting in flooding that penetrates the mountain through fractures and faults. o Last July, flash flooding washed out roads DOE had built at Yucca. Yucca’s surface is latticed with erosion features from such flooding. Below Yucca’s surface is volcanic rock DOE calls the “unsaturated” zone. The repository would be built in this zone, about 1000 feet beneath the mountain crest, and about 1000 feet above the water table. • Because the volcanic material is porous and retains water in innumerable matrices and voids, 80% of the void space is actually filled with water, on average. • DOE hopes to show that little or no water will make it through this zone and into the repository. However – o DOE now estimates there are at least a billion fractures in the unsaturated rock, permitting fast water flow times of as little as 50 years. o High repository temperatures from radioactive decay of nuclear waste will release and mobilize water already trapped in rock voids. DOE has found trapped water deposits of up to a million gallons at Yucca Mountain. 5 T HE R EPOSITORY ’ S W ASTE P ACKAGES • Because water threatens to corrode the repository’s ten thousand waste packages, DOE is now proposing to install titanium umbrellas, or “drip shields,” over every one of them, at a cost of nearly $10 billion. • Even if drip shields were to prevent dripping onto the waste packages, they will not negate the underground tunnel’s high humidity and corrosive environment. Nevada’s corrosion experts have determined that dripping is unnecessary for waste package corrosion to occur in the repository’s hot, humid and dusty environment.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

194 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-Won’t Solve-Rock fall & Microbes
The canisters will get destroyed-Rock fall and Microbes ANP`3 (The Agency of Nuclear Power, The States of Nevada, What’s Wrong With Putting Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain,
2003, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:XyqaeAco68QJ:www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2003/pdf/nv_wwrong.pdf)

Fractured rock in tunnels that would house the waste packages pose risks to those packages, since small earthquakes, heat and other disturbances cause rockfalls. Rockfalls can damage waste packages and increase their susceptibility to corrosion. o Rockfalls are such a problem at Yucca that DOE engineers were forced to erect complex steel lattices around tunnel ceilings to protect workers from injury. • Waste packages will be made from “Alloy-22,” a new industrial metal that DOE claims will contain wastes for at least 10,000 years. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (“TRB”) recently concluded there is no scientific basis to believe Alloy-22 is capable of this task. • Using the water composition DOE says will be present in the repository zone, Nevada’s corrosion experts were able to demonstrate to NRC and the TRB that Alloy-22 began corroding in mere hours at expected repository temperatures. o Nevada’s studies also showed that heat and humidity at Yucca will create an environment for microbes to thrive. Microbes produce nitrates, which speed corrosion of metallic surfaces. o The titanium drip shields are also highly susceptible to corrosion in the expected Yucca underground environment, according to Nevada- and NRC-sponsored studies. 

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

195 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Bad-AT: Tech Solves
Human error will be the problem, regardless of technological ability Shrader-Frechette 93 (KS, Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Florida,
Burying Uncertainty, pg. 5 Current plans for future U.S. storage of high-level radioactive waste call for deep geological emplacement of steel canisters in host rock. Federal regulations require the steel canisters to resist corrosion for as little as three hundred years. Nevertheless, the DOE admits that the waste will remain dangerous for longer than ten thousand years. Government experts from the DOE also agree that, at best, they can merely limit the radioactivity that reaches the environment; they claim that “there is no doubt that the repository will leak over the course of the next 10,000 years.” It is likely that such leaks might occur through groundwater transport. On the basis of past leaks at nuclear-waste facilities, U.S. government researchers have extrapolated and have said that future leaks should occur at a rate of two to three per year. Using government-estimated exposure levels (580 person rem) at each radwaste site, each existing facility could cause approximately 12 cancers and 116 genetic deaths per century, if future leaks occur at the same rate as past ones. These numbers appear relatively small until one realizes that, for ten thousand years, the cancer deaths alone could be in the hundreds of thousands per storage site. Admittedly, there are new waste technologies that might reduce these government figures. Any new technology, however, is unavoidably dependent upon fragile and short-lived human institutions and human capabilities. Faulty technology, after all, did not cause the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl accidents. It was human error. Likewise human error could well be the insoluble problem with managing high-level rad-waste.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

196 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Uniqueness-Will Open [1/2]
Yucca will open-There’s nothing anyone can do about Muth`8 (Chuck, Nevada Appeal, Welcome to Yucca Mountain Appreciation Month, June 6, 2008,
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080606/OPINION/880080296)

To paraphrase the late, great Mark Twain, Sen. Reid's reports of Yucca's death appear to be greatly exaggerated. In fact, after more than two decades and millions of dollars worth of efforts to kill Yucca Mountain, the project has now entered its final approval phase, with the Department of Energy recently submitting its licensing application. Approval of the license is the last step before construction begins. Sen. Reid is starting to resemble a blind man standing in the middle of the tracks yelling "Stop" at an oncoming bullet train. But he's not wearing a cape, tights and a shirt with a big red "S" on the front. Also apparently living in state of denial, the Clark County Commission recently rubber-stamped yet another meaningless, toothless anti-Yucca Mountain "resolution." Commission Chairman Rory Reid noted that the commission has already issued seven such resolutions during the years, leading columnist John L. Smith to write, with a healthy dose of much deserved sarcasm, "Imagine. Seven tersely worded statements and still the DOE keeps coming. What next, stern rebukes? Hard stares? The silent treatment?" Meanwhile, the refusal of Nevada's politicians to take a seat at the table and discuss potential benefits and safety controls, while simultaneously maintaining opposition to the facility, means that if Yucca is eventually built, as still appears likely, Nevadans will get doodley-squat in the bargain. Plus, all the decisions regarding the site, including safety, will be made by unaffected out-of-state interests rather than Nevadans.

Yucca will be built-Softening opposition Daily News`8 (The Daily News, Time to quit stalling on Yucca Mountain repository Wednesday, June 4, 2008,
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/06/04/editorial/doc4845c309450e6103843205.txt)

The Bush administration is pushing ahead with plans to build a nuclear waste repository near Yucca Mountain in Nevada. On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Energy filed an application for a construction permit with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The administration’s determination to move this project forward in the face of stiff congressional opposition is praiseworthy. The government is contractually obligated to take possession of the more than 50,000 tons of radioactive waste piled up at commercial reactor sites around the nation. That number includes 4,700 of spent fuel rods currently stored at the idled Trojan Nuclear Power Plant near Rainier. Fulfilling that obligation is important for both strategic and practical reasons — reasons that Democratic congressional leaders have chosen to ignore in favor of political expediency. Strategically, it’s important that the nuclear waste accumulating at commercial utilities be shipped to one centrally located, secure site. This radioactive waste now is scattered around the nation at 131 sites, raising theft and safety concerns. From a practical standpoint, the nation already has invested more than $6 billion and some 26 years in this project. Walking away from it now would leave the federal government liable to the utilities for an estimated $60 billion in damages. To date, the government has paid out $243 million in damages for having fallen a decade behind the contractual deadline for taking possession of the waste. Additionally, how the Yucca Mountain project proceeds could impact the nation’s energy future. The rising cost of crude oil on the world market has prompted many in government to give nuclear power a new look. The administration has made the construction of new nuclear plants a priority. Several congressional initiatives to spur development of nuclear power have been put forward over the past year, including legislation that would authorize more than $3.7 billion in subsidies for new plants. But we’re unlikely to see the dawn of a new era of nuclear power until it’s clear that the federal government will honor its promise to take possession of radioactive waste left over from the previous era. Congressional leaders purposefully ignore this connection between the Yucca Mountain project and the role of nuclear power in the country’s energy

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

197 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Uniqueness-Will Open [2/2]
future. Even as they tout nuclear energy initiatives, they’re cutting budgets for Yucca Mountain in an effort, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “to drive the final nail into (the project’s) coffin.” We take some encouragement from the administration’s dogged determination to advance the project — that and our belief that congressional opposition will soften following the November elections. Most lawmakers recognize the national interest in building a single, secure nuclear waste dump and understand that there is no alternative plan for one.

Yucca inevitably opening now-Construction application Discover`8 (Eliz Stricklnd, So Much Radioactive Waste, So Little Time So Much Radioactive Waste, So Little Time,
Discover Magazine online, June 4, 2008, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/04/so-much-radioactive-waste-solittle-time-2/)

It’s been a big news week for nuclear waste, with most of the attention going to the Department of Energy’s announcement that it has at long last submitted an application to open a nuclear waste repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. After two decades of planning, the application nudges the project a little closer to reality, but there’s a long way to go yet. Nevada officials remain violently opposed to the “nuclear dump,” and lawsuits are inevitable. The Department of Energy says that the repository won’t be ready to open until 2020, at the earliest.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

198 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good – AT: DA - Link Turn
New plants force reprocessing and interim storage Spencer & Loris`8 (Jack Spencer and Nick Loris, Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy and Nicolas Loris
is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, Yucca Mountain Remains Critical to Spent Nuclear Fuel Management, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyandenvironment/bg2131.cfm)

The recent push to build new nuclear power plants in the United States is forcing some to consider alternatives to the Yucca Mountain geologic repository, located in Nevada, for spent nuclear fuel. These options include recycling nuclear fuel and opening interim storage facilities. Both options could play critical roles in any American nuclear power renaissance, but they simply cannot eliminate the need to open the Yucca Mountain repository. The United States generates about 20 percent of its electricity from 104 nuclear power reactors, and these reactors in turn have generated over 56,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. Commonly referred to as waste, this spent fuel is in fact a potentially valuable resource. Although politicians and the public have begun to accept that nuclear power is a clean and affordable source of energy, questions remain about how to manage spent fuel. There are at least three solutions to this problem. First, the spent fuel could be put directly into Yucca Mountain for permanent storage. While politics has made this impossible to date, no scientific, safety, or technological reason prevents it. Volumes of data attest to the repository's safety.[1] These data have been generated by numerous sources, including both private and public entities, and more studies are being conducted. Second, the U.S. could recycle (reprocess) spent nuclear fuel, which still contains usable fuel that could be recovered and "used again" for future power generation. This could be achieved through numerous methods. Some technologies have already been commercialized abroad, and others are being researched and developed. These technologies will enable more efficient use of uranium resources and could drastically reduce the amount of high-level nuclear waste. In the end, however, some byproduct will still need to be placed in permanent geologic storage. Finally, the spent fuel could be stored on an interim basis at shorter-term storage facilities. This option also has advantages. Simply allowing the spent fuel to decay over time decreases its heat load, making it easier to store for the long term. Shorter-term storage would also provide time to develop new technologies that would improve long-term management of spent fuel. Both recycling and interim storage would provide flexibility, but geologic storage in Yucca Mountain will still be necessary.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

199 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Nuclear Leadership
Yucca key to nuclear leadership-It’ll mean the U.S. has the world’s first geological repository Johnson`2 (Jeff, Chemical and Engineering, Washington, Yucca Mountain, July 8, 2002
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8027/8027yucca.html)

The vote is a significant step in the nation's long and costly program to build a geological repository for nuclear waste. The outcome has implications beyond U.S. borders. Worldwide, nuclear proponents have long favored a geological repository as the ultimate home for high-level nuclear waste, but few nations have moved beyond discussing such emplacement. The U.S. government's effort at Yucca Mountain is far and away leading the pack. And for this reason alone, there are many eyes watching the Department of Energy's $60 billion construction project in Nevada's high desert, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

200 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Stops Reprocessing-GNEP [1/1]
The success of Yucca will eliminate the need for the GNEP Lester`6 (Lester, Richard K., New nukes: the Bush administration's plan to use fuel reprocessing as the spark to revive nuclear
power will not succeed. Only centralized interim waste storage can make a difference in the near term., June 22, 2006, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5708390/New-nukes-the-Bush-administration.html)

But the federal government's decades-long track record on nuclear -not least its failure to meet contractual obligations to remove spent fuel from existing utility nuclear plant sites--does not inspire confidence. The drive to build a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has dominated federal fuel cycle policy for nearly two decades, to the exclusion of all other disposal options. Yet the much-delayed project still faces many obstacles. The government remains strongly committed to the Yucca Mountain project. Growing doubts about current policy, however, suggest that a major rethink may be needed. Work at Yucca Mountain should continue. But if the project fails, an alternative will be required. And even if it eventually goes forward, it may not suffice if there is a major new commitment to nuclear power in the United States. Is it possible to imagine a different policy, one that would engender confidence that nuclear waste will be disposed of safely and costeffectively? Requirements for a back-end policy go beyond successful waste disposal, important as that is. An effective policy must also contribute to the goals of controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons; fighting terrorism; and minimizing health, safety, and environmental risks during the lengthy interval between the generation of waste and its final isolation; all this while keeping nuclear power economically competitive with other ways of making electricity. Moreover, the policy must be "scalable"; that is, it must be capable of accommodating significant expansion in the number of nuclear power plants. In this year's State of the Union address, President Bush announced a new nuclear power initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). If adopted, GNEP would constitute the biggest shift in U.S. nuclear fuel cycle policy in decades. According to the president, GNEP is intended to help nuclear power expand safely and economically both at home and in other nations, including developing nations, while minimizing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. The centerpiece of GNEP is a scheme to accelerate the introduction of new technologies for reprocessing and recycling spent nuclear power reactor fuel. The Bush administration claims that this scheme could eliminate the need for repositories other than Yucca Mountain, cut the duration of the waste disposal problem from hundreds of thousands of years to something much shorter, and use almost all the energy in uranium fuel. This is an appealing vision, but the reality is that GNEP is unlikely to achieve these goals and will also make nuclear power less competitive economically. The good news is that there is an alternative pathway that can lead to success.

Yucca funding trades off with the GNEP WNN`8 (World Nuclear News, Yucca funded, GNEP 'zeroed', June 26, 2008, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NPYucc_funded_GNEP_zeroed_by_US_Representatives-2606088.html)

Other DoE research and development projects, including the Generation IV reactor program and the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, and the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, would also enjoy a slice of the funding. The bill includes full funding for the Yucca Mountain waste project plus an allocation of $6.2 billion for the cleanup of contamination from weapons manufacturing sites. Supporting the bill, David Hobson, representing the minority members of the committee, said: "I am pleased that the subcommittee continues its support for nuclear power, with full funding for Yucca Mountain, the requested extension of the authority for nuclear loan guarantees, and a significant increase in research for the next-generation nuclear plant." He also said that although cutting funding to GNEP the committee was "doing the right thing" by maintaining a modest research program on spent fuel recycling under the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. "We have to hedge our bets on a variety of energy sources, but nuclear power will certainly continue to play a major role in our energy portfolio for the foreseeable future," he added.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

201 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Stops Reprocessing-GNEP-Prolif
GNEP=Prolif Bunn`7(Matthew, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom, "Risks of GNEP’s Focus on
Near-Term Reprocessing" Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Full Committee Hearing on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) November 14, 2007, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17675/risks_of_gneps_focus_on_nearterm_reprocessing.html)

Bunn testified, in part, "A key GNEP goal is to expand global reliance on nuclear energy without increasing proliferation risks. Controlling the spread of enrichment and reprocessing — the technologies that make it possible to produce nuclear bomb material — is a critical part of achieving that objective. Some elements of GNEP could make important contributions to reducing proliferation risks. Unfortunately, GNEP's heavy focus on building a commercial-scale reprocessing plant in the near term would, if accepted, increase proliferation risks rather than decreasing them." Extinction

Totten`94 (Assoc. Professor at University of Arkansas)[Samuel, The Widening Circle of Genocide, p. 289 //wyo-tjc]
There are numerous dangers inherent in the spread of nuclear weapons, including but not limited to the following: the possibility that a nation threatened by destruction in a conventional war may resort to the use of its nuclear weapons; the miscalculation of a threat of an attack and the subsequent use of nuclear weapons in order to stave off the suspected attack; a nuclear weapons accident due to carelessness or flawed technology (e.g., the accidental launching of a nuclear weapon); the use of such weapons by an unstable leader; the use of such weapons by renegade military personnel during a period of instability (personal, national or international); and, the theft (and/or development) and use of such weapons by terrorists. While it is unlikely (though not impossible) that terrorists would be able to design their own weapons, it is possible that they could do so with the assistance of a renegade government.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

202 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-k2 Solve Waste
Yucca’s unique factors make it the best option for waste Feulner`4 (Ed, Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, Wasting a good solution, The Washington Times,
September 6, 2004, Lexis)

The climate is dry. That means little rain, which might erode the canisters nuclear waste is stored in. The geology is stable, so it's unlikely an earthquake would disturb the waste. And the water table at Yucca is contained, so if there's a leak, it won't contaminate the water supply anywhere else. Of course, when it comes to storing nuclear waste, most people (understandably) say "not in my backyard." But right now, the waste is in our backyard. All high-level nuclear waste is the federal government's responsibility. While we're dithering over Yucca Mountain, this waste is piling up at temporary sites in almost 40 states. Most of these are near water, and many are in urban or suburban areas. Today, an estimated 161 million people live within 75 miles of temporarily stored nuclear waste, and each storage site is a potential terrorist target. Contrast that with Yucca Mountain. The federal government owns almost 80 percent of Nevada. Nuclear waste stored there will be far from populated areas. In fact, the site's nearest neighbor is the Nevada Test Site, larger than the state of Rhode Island and one of the largest restricted-access areas in the United States. That, combined Yucca also being surrounded on three sides by Nellis Air Force Base, should help keep the waste safe from potential terrorist attack.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

203 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Terrorism
Waste is currently scattered everywhere and not regulated, this increases the risk for terrorism-Yucca solves Feulner`4 (Ed, Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, Wasting a good solution, The Washington Times,
September 6, 2004, Lexis)

All high-level nuclear waste is the responsibility of the federal government. While we’re dithering over Yucca Mountain, this waste is piling up at temporary sites in almost 40 states. Most of these are near water, and many are in urban or suburban areas. Today, an estimated 161 million people reside within 75 miles of temporarily stored nuclear waste, and each storage site is a potential terrorist target. Contrast that with Yucca Mountain. The federal government owns almost 80 percent of Nevada. Nuclear waste stored there will be far from populated areas. In fact, the site’s nearest neighbor is the Nevada Test Site, which is larger than the state of Rhode Island and is one of the largest restricted-access areas in the United States. That, combined with the fact that Yucca is also surrounded on three sides by Nellis Air Force Base, should help keep the waste safe from potential terrorist attack. Of course, getting the waste to Nevada will pose a challenge. “Under the Yucca Mountain plan,” Kerry warned recently, “more than 50,000 shipments of waste would travel just yards away from homes, hospitals, parks and playgrounds in states across this country.” That’s true, but nuclear waste already is traveling around the country, and the safety record is admirable. In the past 30 years, the government has safely completed more than 2,700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel, and there hasn’t been even a single injury from the release of radioactive materials. With the proper security measures, nuclear waste will be delivered safely to Yucca Mountain. The price of oil is hovering around record highs, and there’s no doubt our country needs to develop alternate sources of energy. Nuclear power is cheap, safe and generates no greenhouse gasses. However, the United States hasn’t opened a new nuclear plant since 1979, partly because we haven’t had any place to put the radioactive waste.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

204 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good –Better than Dry Cask Storage
Yucca’s comparatively better than dry cask Koerner`8 (Brendan I, Not in My Back YuccaWhat are our alternatives for storing radioactive waste?, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/id/2188984/)

The good news is that we've got a viable stopgap solution: dry-cask storage. After nuclear fuel rods have been used up, they're cooled in pools of water. After five years of such cooling, they can be placed in sealed casks made of heat-resistant metal alloys and concrete. This technique is currently used at 31 locations nationwide, all of which must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC asserts that there has never been a single incident at any of these sites. The conventional wisdom is that these dry-cask storage sites will suffice for at least the next 100 years. But they'll fill up at some point, and some worry over their vulnerability to terrorist attacks, natural catastrophes, or theft. The whole rationale for Yucca Mountain was to secure all high-level nuclear waste in a single, safe location; with that project now imperiled, what's a nuclear nation to do?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

205 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good – TAD Storage solves
New TAD canisters eliminate transport and storage risks Nuclear Engineering International 6/18/08
The US Department of Energy (DoE) has awarded contracts to Areva Federal Services and NAC International for the design, licensing, and demonstration of the transportation, ageing and disposal (TAD) canister system. The two contracts have a total value of up to $13.8 million if all options are exercised by the DoE and are each for a term of up to five years. The TAD canister will be the primary means for packaging spent nuclear fuel for transportation to and disposal in the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Edward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said: "This is a significant step in the department's efforts to license and construct the repository at Yucca Mountain." The DoE estimates that up to 90% of the spent nuclear fuel received at Yucca Mountain will arrive in TAD canisters that will be permanently sealed at utility sites. Any spent nuclear fuel not transported in TADs will be placed in the canisters upon arrival at Yucca Mountain. The TAD canister could be commercially available as early as 2013, according to the DoE. In June 2007, the DoE released the final performance requirements for the TAD canister. The TAD-based approach, originally announced in October 2005, eliminates the need for the construction of several multibillion dollar facilities for handling spent fuel at Yucca Mountain. The TAD canister concept was adopted by the DoE as the primary means of receiving spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, as it will minimise the need for repetitive handling of spent nuclear fuel by using the same canister from the time it leaves a nuclear power plant.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

206 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Environmentally Neutral
Yucca keeps waste out of natural environments Esmarlada County`6 (Esmaralda County.com, Esmeralda County is one of ten counties designated as an affected unit of
local government (AULG). Esmeralda County has been overseeing the site characterization of Yucca Mountain since 1988 even though Esmeralda County was not granted "affected", What makes YuccaMountain a good place to store waste?FAQ, 2006 ttp://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:A6Sg2x0QPi8J:esmeraldanvnuke.com/facts/FAQ5.pdf)

Yucca Mountain is located in a desert, isolated from population centers, in a region where the land is controlled by the federal government, including the U.S. military. Most of the land in this region is under federally restricted access. Waste placed in Yucca Mountain would be located 1,000 feet underground — compared to its current location in temporary surface facilities at 131 sites in 39 states. Natural and engineered barriers would work in concert to isolate radionuclides from the accessible environment for tens of thousands of years.

Waste won’t get out of the mountain Esmarlada County`6 (Esmaralda County.com, Esmeralda County is one of ten counties designated as an affected unit of
local government (AULG). Esmeralda County has been overseeing the site characterization of Yucca Mountain since 1988 even though Esmeralda County was not granted "affected", What makes YuccaMountain a good place to store waste?FAQ, 2006 ttp://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:A6Sg2x0QPi8J:esmeraldanvnuke.com/facts/FAQ5.pdf)

Limited Release of Radionuclides from the Engineered Barriers – Even though the waste packages and drip shields are expected to be long-lived in the repository environment, the advanced computer simulations predict some eventual loss of waste package integrity. If water were to penetrate a breached waste package, several characteristics of the waste forms and the repository would limit radionuclide releases. First, because of the warm temperatures of the waste, much of the water that might penetrate the waste package will evaporate before it can dis- solve or transport radionuclides. Neither spent nuclear fuel nor glass waste forms will dissolve rapidly in the water expected in the repository environment. In addition, the invert, part of the engineered barrier system under the waste package and support pallet, would contain crushed tuff that would also delay the transport of radionuclides into the unsaturated host rock.

Natural barriers keep the waste in the repository Esmarlada County`6 (Esmaralda County.com, Esmeralda County is one of ten counties designated as an affected unit of
local government (AULG). Esmeralda County has been overseeing the site characterization of Yucca Mountain since 1988 even though Esmeralda County was not granted "affected", What makes YuccaMountain a good place to store waste?FAQ, 2006 ttp://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:A6Sg2x0QPi8J:esmeraldanvnuke.com/facts/FAQ5.pdf)

Delay and Dilution of Radionuclide Concentrations by the Natural Barriers - Eventually, the engineered barrier systems could experience a decrease in their integrity, and small amounts of water could contact waste, dissolve it, and carry some radionuclides out of the repository and into the rock below. As water flows through fractures, dissolved radionuclides would diffuse into and out of the pores of the rock matrix, increasing both the time it takes for radionuclides to move from the repository and the likelihood that radionuclides will be exposed to sorbing minerals (minerals that attract and hold them). Radionuclide migration through the unsaturated and saturated zone is affected in two ways. First, radionuclides are exposed to minerals in the rocks called “zeolites” that trap many species of the radioactive waste; this delays the transport of radionuclides. Second, dispersive processes that occur during transport through the saturated zone dilute and reduce radionuclide concentrations in groundwater

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

207 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Stops Interim Storage
Lack of operation at Yucca is driving interim storage now-We change that Tetreault`8 (STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU, Yucca delay may spur interim storage
waste piling up at plants, Apr. 26, 2008, http://www.lvrj.com/news/18252514.html) Nuclear

The conference becomes the second national organization this year to recommend steering high-level waste into temporary storage while the Department of Energy attempts to overcome a decade of delay to advance the Yucca project. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners adopted a similar policy in February. The Nuclear Energy Institute is recruiting communities interested in hosting such a storage complex. Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, D-Las Vegas, said the shift toward interim storage might benefit Nevada leaders who have fought the Yucca repository. "We ought to be able to make it work for us," McClain said at the group's meeting. "I think it increases the chances that they might find an alternative in that 25 years." A subcommittee adopted the policy Friday. Since the vote was unanimous, it will be added to a fast-track agenda for approval at the final conference session, said John Heaton, a state representative from New Mexico. The new policy was propelled by legislators from New Mexico, Maryland and Maine who argued nuclear waste piling up at power plants in 35 states needs to be removed and taken somewhere if not Yucca Mountain right away. The issue is most pressing at 10 sites where reactors have been shut down but nuclear waste remains and requires costly protections, said Deborah Simpson, a Maine representative. "We can no longer sit back," said Sally Jameson, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates. "We have to try to make a path forward possible."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

208 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-Stops On Site Storage
Without Yucca was will be stored on site Ledwidge`1 (Lisa Ledwidge of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research for the Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability and was based largely on IEER materials, especially High-Level Dollars, Low-Level Sense and Science for Democratic Action vol. 7 no. 3., If not Yucca Mountain, then what?" An alternative plan for managing highly radioactive waste in the United States December 2001 http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/yuccaalt.html)

Argument: "If not Yucca Mountain, then what?" Counter: The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), a scientific institution with expertise in nuclear waste management and related issues, published an alternative plan for the short- and long-term management of highly radioactive waste in 1999. It is summarized here and details are available on the internet at http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_7/7-3/index.html. In the short term, irradiated reactor fuel should be stored as safely as possible on site or as close to the point of generation as possible for an interim period (several decades) that would be long enough to allow a long-term management plan to be implemented. In light of the attacks of September 11, IEER has recommended on-site or close-to-site subsurface dry storage of spent fuel, in the type of structures built for the storage of the vitrified high-level wastes at the DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina. This would reduce the risk of large-scale catastrophe in case of a terrorist attack. The federal government should use monies from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for additional on-site storage necessitated by delays in the repository program. For the long-term, more basic research on various geologic settings is needed before sites for permanent disposal of radioactive waste can be scientifically screened. IEER recommends three broad approaches for waste storage research: geologic disposal on land, sub-seabed disposal, and upper mantle disposal. The main aim would be to yield sufficient data and analysis in one to two decades to enable a comparison between these options. Repository types need to be considered in tandem with the development of engineered barriers that mimic natural materials and structures that retard the migration of radioactivity for millions of years or more.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

209 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-AT: Volcanoes
There’s a 99.9% chance per year a volcanoes will not erupt Skerzce`2 (Ean, DOE Yucca Mountain site characterization project, Understandmg
the potential for volcanoes at Yucca)

To assess the possibility of future volcanic activity in the Yucca Mountain area, the U S Department of Energy  relied upon careful evaluation by some of the world’s foremost experts in such fields as volcanology, geophysics, and geochemistry. Their studies started with extensive analysis of the location, age, and volume of past volcanic activity in the Yucca Mountain area. Using the data from these studies,  along with  information from studies of both modern  Using their extensive studies of the Yucca Mountain region, experts estimate the chance of a volcanic event disrupting the proposed repository to be about one in 63 million per year. This equals about 0.0000016 percent chance per year that a volcano will disrupt the repository. Put another way, it means there is about a 99.9999984 percent chance per year that a volcanic event will not disrupt the repository

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

210 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-AT: Earthqukes
Yes there are earthquakes, but they’re almost immeasurable NSL`8 (Nevada Seimsmology Laboratory, Earthquakes & Yucca Mountain How is the NSL involved in Yucca Mountain?,
2008, http://www.seismo.unr.edu/htdocs/nsl-ym.html)

The NSL has monitored the seismicity around Yucca Mountain since 1992, but monitoring actually began under the US Geological Survey in 1978. At present, we operate a very sensitive network of 30 stations within 50 km of Yucca Mountain. This network "sees" 10-15 earthquakes per day, with roughly only 5 per day being locatable. Most of these earthquakes are extremely small, near magnitude 0 on the Richter scale. The NSL reports regularly to the DOE on this seismic activity and deploys additional instruments in the case of interesting earthquakes (M > 4 say). The NSL role is to quantify the seismic activity in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and provide this information to the DOE in order that they may use it in modern, seismic, risk-based design of the repository facilities. The NSL also performs research into the accuracy of the ground-motion predictions for seismic design and into the nature and causes of the earthquake activity at Yucca Mountain.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

211 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-AT: Water Contamination
The water drains inward-Even if it’s contaminated it stays in the mountain Esmarlada County`6 (Esmaralda County.com, Esmeralda County is one of ten counties designated as an affected unit of
local government (AULG). Esmeralda County has been overseeing the site characterization of Yucca Mountain since 1988 even though Esmeralda County was not granted "affected", What makes YuccaMountain a good place to store waste?FAQ, 2006 ttp://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:A6Sg2x0QPi8J:esmeraldanvnuke.com/facts/FAQ5.pdf)

Once the saturated zone, which is about 1,000 feet below the repository, is reached the flow paths are generally southerly toward the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. Yucca Mountain is located in a closed hydrologic basin. The boundaries of this basin are defined and understood. Water in this basin does not flow into any rivers or oceans, and is isolated from the aquifer systems of Las Vegas and Pahrump, the largest community in Nye County. Isolated hydrologic basins are a relatively rare geologic feature. The groundwater system in this basin conforms to the mountainous topography, and drains inward.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

212 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-AT: Rainwater
Rain won’t kill solvency-Seepage rate Monastersky`97 (Richard Monastersky "Relying on geology to jail nuclear waste - geological disposal of nuclear waste".
Science News. Nov 1, 1997. FindArticles.com. 02 Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n18_v152/ai_19978570)

"It's certainly a bad sign. It's a new wrinkle that definitely has to be considered in terms of the rapidity of flow. But I can't say that this is a [finding] that will kill the performance of the repository," says Sweetkind. The available data do not tell how much water is flowing through the rock at the level of the planned repository, says June T. Fabryka-Martin of the Los Alamos (N.M.) National Laboratory, who led the chlorine-36 study. The seepage rate is important because abundant water would corrode the waste canisters and carry the radioactive isotopes down to the water table, where they could spread and eventually contaminate drinking water. By law, the repository and the specially designed canisters must limit leakage for the next 10,000 years.

The actual tunnel is dry and they newer evidence-The DOE did another assessment Monastersky`97 (Richard Monastersky "Relying on geology to jail nuclear waste - geological disposal of nuclear waste".
Science News. Nov 1, 1997. FindArticles.com. 02 Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n18_v152/ai_19978570)

The tunnel is currently dry There are no places where water is trickling in. This indicates that little liquid is flowing through the rock today, says Fabryka-Martin. During the last ice age, however, the region received more rain than it does now. "Under a wetter climate in the future, the sites where we have found elevated chlorine36 might be potential areas for seeps," says Fabryka-Martin. Next year, the Department of Energy, which oversees the Yucca Mountain project, will issue a preliminary assessment of the site's suitability for storage. Opponents view the new measurements as a serious blow to the planned repository. "I think they're in a lot of trouble regarding the performance of this site." says Robert R. Loux of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects in Carson City.

Rainwater good-It limits overall water contact Monastersky`97 (Richard Monastersky "Relying on geology to jail nuclear waste - geological disposal of nuclear waste".
Science News. Nov 1, 1997. FindArticles.com. 02 Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n18_v152/ai_19978570)

Russell L. Patterson, a hydrologist with the Energy Department, disagrees. Scientists had acknowledged the possibility that water could move through so-called fast pathways, so the new data were not totally unanticipated, he says. In fact, he views the movement of water through the rock as a potential benefit. "It prevents moisture from [pooling] at the level of the repository and limits the amount of moisture that comes in contact with the waste containers." he says.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

213 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-AT: Transport=Accidents/Terrorism
The canisters are secure-High speed crashes won’t crack them and terrorist can’t get in. The terrorist risk is higher with fossil fuels Muller`82 (Richard, Richard A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the University of California,
Berkeley, where he teaches a course called "Physics for Future Presidents." Since 1972, he has been a Jason consultant on U.S. national security, The Witch of Yucca Mountain More research on nuclear waste storage won't reassure the public, March 12, 2004, http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/26-Witch-of-Yucca-Mountain.htm)

A related issue is the risk of mishaps and attacks while transporting nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain site. The present plans call for the waste to be carried in thick reinforced concrete cylinders that can survive highspeed crashes without leaking. In fact, it would be very hard for a terrorist to open the containers, or use the waste in radiological weapons. The smart terrorist is more likely to hijack a tanker truck full of gasoline, chlorine, or some other common toxic material and then blow it up in a city. So why are we worrying about transporting nuclear waste? The answer is ironic: we have gone to such lengths to assure the safety of the transport that the public thinks the danger is even greater. Images on evening newscasts of concrete containers being dropped from five-story buildings, smashing into the ground and bouncing undamaged, do not reassure the public. This is a consequence of the "where there's smoke there's fire paradox" of public safety. Raise the standards, increase the safety, do more research, study the problem in greater depth, and in the process you will improve safety and frighten the public. After all, would scientists work so hard if the threat weren't real? Well-meaning scientists sometimes try to quench the furor by proposing advanced technological alternatives to Yucca Mountain storage, such as rocketing the waste into the sun, or burying it in a tectonic subducting zone at sea, where a continental plate will slowly carry it into the deep Earth. Such exotic solutions strongly suggest that the problem is truly intractable, and they only further exacerbate the public fear.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

214 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca Good-AT: Waste Ingestion Type Args
Poorly prepared mayonnaise causes more problems than waste ingestion Muller`82 (Richard, Richard A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the University of California,
Berkeley, where he teaches a course called "Physics for Future Presidents." Since 1972, he has been a Jason consultant on U.S. national security, The Witch of Yucca Mountain More research on nuclear waste storage won't reassure the public, March 12, 2004, http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/26-Witch-of-Yucca-Mountain.htm)

Let me return now to the danger of the plutonium in the waste. Plutonium is not a fission fragment; it is produced in the reactor when uranium absorbs neutrons. But unlike the fission fragments, plutonium doesn't go away by a factor of 10 in 300 years; its half-life is 24,000 years. Not only that, but many people think plutonium is the most dangerous material known to man. Plutonium is certainly dangerous if you make nuclear weapons out of it. If turned into an aerosol and inhaled, it is more toxic than anthrax—and that's very toxic. But when ingested (e.g. from ground water) it isn't. According to the linear hypothesis, when consumed by a group of people, we expect about one extra cancer for each half-gram of plutonium swallowed. (Click here for a good reference.) That is bad, but not a record-setter. Botulism toxin (found in poorly prepared mayonnaise) is a thousand times worse. The horrendous danger of ingested plutonium is an urban legend—believed to be true by many people, yet false. Moreover, I think it a mistake to bury the plutonium with the waste. It is a good fuel for reactors, as valuable as uranium. I sense that original reason for burying it (rather than extracting and using it) was to keep the public from worrying about it, but that approach has backfired. By any reasonable measure I can find, the Yucca Mountain facility is plenty safe enough. It is far safer to put the waste there than to leave it on site at the nuclear plants where it was made and is currently stored. We should start moving it to Yucca Mountain as soon as possible. Research should continue, because more knowledge is good, but the hope that it will reassure the public is forlorn. Further studies are no more likely to reduce public concern now than scientific research would have calmed the fears of the people of Salem in 1692.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

215 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Yucca-Yucca Storage Inevitable
Yucca inevitable-The waste has to go somewhere, Yucca’s the best choice Feulner`4 (Ed, Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, Wasting a good solution, The Washington Times,
September 6, 2004, Lexis)

But Kerry and others who want to block Yucca ignore the fact that our nuclear waste has to go somewhere. We can’t simply dump it in the ocean or blast it into space. And we know Yucca Mountain is ideal, because it’s probably the most-studied location in the world. The federal government started investigating whether the site would be suitable for storing nuclear waste back in 1978. Located in a quiet area of Nevada, some 100 miles from the outskirts of Las Vegas, Yucca has all the traits necessary for the long-term storage of radioactive waste. The climate is dry. That means little rain, which might erode the canisters that nuclear waste is stored in. The geology is stable, so it’s unlikely an earthquake would disturb the waste. And the water table at Yucca is contained, so if there’s a leak, it won’t contaminate the water supply anywhere else. Of course, when it comes to storing nuclear waste, most people (understandably) say “not in my backyard.” But right now, the waste is in our backyard.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

216 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-Oceans
Reprocessing hurts oceans Eco Bridge`3 (Eco Bridge, Nuclear Wastes: The Threat to our Oceans, 2003,
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/n_wst.htm#recycle)
The most radioactive place on the planet Artificial lakes containing more than 14 billion cubic feet of waste from the Mayak nuclear processing plant are filled to capacity and within a few years may leak into the region's rivers, Gov. Pyotr Sumin of the Chelyabinsk region in the Ural Mountains wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov…Mayak, a major nuclear weapons plant during Soviet times, has been the site of several accidents, including a 1957 facility explosion that contaminated 9,200 square miles. The region has been called the most radioactive place on the planet because of accidents and Soviet-era nuclear waste dumping into lakes and rivers. The vice governor of the Chelyabinsk region, Gennady Podtyosov, once said in an interview that the water level in the lakes was just 12 inches below the limit. If action is not taken, contaminated water could burst the dam within three to four years, he said. ``It would be a major catastrophe,'' Podtyosov said. ``Waste

would pollute rivers and flow into the Arctic Ocean.'' [10] Recycling Nuclear Wastes Threat to Oceans The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working to determine if/how NRC-licensed facilities (i.e.commercial nuclear power reactors) can incinerate, "release," "reuse,"or "recycle" many forms of nuclear wastes - metal, concrete, soil, plastics, chemicals, etc. - thus allowing them to end up in your local landfill, incinerator, or even in common consumer products that you find on your local store shelves. We are transporting dioxin and other chemicals into the air and oceans now through the incinerating of hospital refuse and other plastics. Soon we may be doing the same with radioactive material. We human beings are becoming walking toxic dumps, the average adult body possessing many chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs, mercury and lead.

B) Oceans destruction=Extinction CBS`6 (CBS, Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048 Study By Ecologists, Economists Predicts Collapse of World Ocean
EcologyNov. 3, 2006, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml)

The apocalypse has a new date: 2048. That's when the world's oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change. The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world. The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise. "I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a news release. "This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release. "If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds. Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries. But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. "A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say. The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments. They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe. Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems. And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48 protected ocean areas. Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The diversity of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the healthiest. But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say. Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves. This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more. "It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now.".

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

217 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-Won’t Solve-Cost & Hazards
Reprocessing fails-Hazards inevitable and high costs Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, no date (Reprocessing: A Global Environmental Menace, Searched June
15, 2008, http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/Reprocessing.%20Environmental%20Concerns.pdf)

After fuel rods are irradiated in nuclear reactors, targeted radionuclides can be extracted. In most procedures, PUREX and UREX+ (still under development), “spent” fuel is dissolved in acid and uranium and plutonium are separated out. Though the waste streams from the two processes differ, none of the radioactive material in the irradiated fuel disappears and their environmental impacts are comparable. Another reprocessing method proposed for GNEP, pyroprocessing, is very costly and only partially developed; it would focus on fuel irradiated in fast reactors, which have never been adopted by any country’s nuclear industry because they are so expensive and dangerous to operate. The U.S. government reprocessed irradiated fuel from the Manhattan Project through the 1980s at three Department of Energy (DOE) sites — Hanford (WA), the Idaho National Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site (SC) — to pull out plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. The only commercial reprocessing facility in the U.S., at West Valley, New York, was shut down after just six years (1966-1972). Russian, French, and British reprocessing, too, began as part of those countries’ nuclear weapons programs. Russia and France continue to reprocess. The British Sellafield plant was forced to close after a serious leak was discovered in 2005 and may never reopen. Japan’s massive reprocessing facility at Rokkasho-mura is not yet fully operational after 13 years and nearly $20 billion but has already leaked radioactive material and contaminated workers

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

218 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-Leaks-Water Supply
Reprocessing causes radioactive material to leak into the water supply Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, no date (Reprocessing: A Global Environmental Menace, Searched June
15, 2008, http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/Reprocessing.%20Environmental%20Concerns.pdf)

Whether reprocessing plants have been shut down or continue to operate, there is neither an adequate way to deal with their waste, nor any demonstrably effective program to address their day-to-day environmental hazards. All four U.S. reprocessing facilities remain dangerously contaminated after years of underfunded, mismanaged cleanup. Reprocessing’s environmental hazards come from both ongoing operations and from the waste produced. Liquid waste and pollution: The liquid acid used to dissolve the irradiated fuel is intensely radioactive, toxic, thermally hot, and difficult to contain. The tanks used to store it must be cooled or the waste will explode. One of the globe’s worst nuclear accidents was an exploding highlevel waste tank at Chelyabinsk, Russia in 1957. It contaminated nearly 6,000 square miles. At three DOE sites, approximately 90 million gallons and hundreds of millions of curies are stored in buried tank farms that have leaked into soil and groundwater. Reprocessing waste has been found, in excess of drinking water standards, in the Snake River Aquifer, the sole source of drinking water for much of southern Idaho. At Hanford, reprocessing waste has reached the groundwater and is moving toward the Columbia River. Removing the high-level waste from the tanks and solidifying it are daunting tasks made more difficult by mismanagement and inadequate funding. Less attention has been paid to other liquid wastes from reprocessing, but it has done substantial environmental damage, too. France’s reprocessing plant at La Hague dumps nearly 60 million gallons of nuclear waste directly into the English Channel every year. In 1996, a typical year, the discharge contained 285,000 curies. The British Sellafield reprocessing plant dumped equivalent amounts on the other side of the channel, and together their pollution has contaminated seafood as it has moved all the way to the Arctic. At Savannah River, billions of gallons of liquid reprocessing waste was routed to seepage ponds. Contamination moved from the seepage ponds to groundwater. The groundwater outcrops to local streams that eventually flow into the Savannah River.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

219 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-Air Pollution
Reprocessing is 90% of nuclear’s air emissions Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, no date (Reprocessing: A Global Environmental Menace, Searched June
15, 2008, http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/Reprocessing.%20Environmental%20Concerns.pdf)

Even without the kind of catastrophic tank accident seen at Chelyabinsk, reprocessing accounts for the lion’s share of air pollution from nuclear power. Fifty-two nuclear reactors operated at INL, but its reprocessing plant and a linked facility to dry the high-level liquid waste were the largest source of radioactive emissions there. In France, 80 percent of the collective radiation dose from the nuclear power industry can be attributed to reprocessing, as can 90 percent of the radioactive emissions and discharges from British nuclear power.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

220 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-Prolif
Reprocessing=Prolif Lyman`6
Dr. Ed Lyman, UCS Senior Staff Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive Why Extracting Plutonium from Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel Is a Bad Idea, Union of Concerned Scientist, January

2006http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/extracting-plutonium-from-nuclear-reactor-spentfuel.html Reprocessing would increase the ease of nuclear proliferation. U.S. reprocessing would undermine the U.S. goal of halting the spread of fuel cycle technologies that are permitted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but can be used to make nuclear weapons materials. The United States cannot credibly persuade other countries to forgo a technology it has newly embraced. Although some reprocessing advocates claim that new reprocessing technologies under development will be "proliferation resistant," they would actually be more difficult for international inspectors to safeguard because it would be harder to make precise measurements of the weapon-usable materials during and after processing. Moreover, all reprocessing technologies are far more proliferation-prone than direct disposal.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

221 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-Terrorism
Reprocessing causes terrorism-Separates weapons grade materials
Council for a livable world, No date Commercial Spent Fuel Reprocessing http://www.clw.org/policy/nuclearweapons/reprocessing/ Because reprocessing separates material that could be used to make nuclear weapons or could be modified to use in nuclear weapons from the highly radioactive waste, this process makes it much easier for terrorists to steal the material. As long as the plutonium remains in the nuclear waste, it is extremely difficult to steal because of the intense radiation it emits and cannot be used to make a nuclear weapon. By engaging in steps that remove many of the necessary barriers that prevent terrorist from acquiring material for a bomb, reprocessing increases the risk that dangerous material will fall into the hands of terrorists.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

222 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-More Waste
Reprocessing produces more waste and hurts the overall management effort
Lyman`6
Dr. Ed Lyman, UCS Senior Staff Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive Why Extracting Plutonium from Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel Is a Bad Idea, Union of Concerned Scientist, January

2006http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/extracting-plutonium-from-nuclear-reactor-spentfuel.html Reprocessing would hurt U.S. nuclear waste management efforts. First, there is no spent fuel storage crisis that warrants such a drastic change in course. Hardened interim storage of spent fuel in dry casks is an economically viable and secure option for at least fifty years. Second, reprocessing does not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and a geologic repository would still be required. Plutonium constitutes only about one percent of the spent fuel from U.S. reactors. After reprocessing, the remaining material will be in several different waste forms, and the total volume of nuclear waste will have been increased by a factor of twenty or more, including low-level waste and plutonium-contaminated waste. The largest component of the remaining material is uranium, which is also a waste product because it is contaminated and undesirable for reuse in reactors. Even if the uranium is classified as low-level waste, new low-level nuclear waste facilities would have to be built to dispose of it. And to make a significant reduction in the amount of high-level nuclear waste that would require disposal, the used fuel would need to be reprocessed and reused many times with an extremely high degree of efficiency—an extremely difficult endeavor that would likely take centuries to accomplish. Finally, reprocessing would divert focus and resources from a U.S. geologic disposal program and hurt—not help—the U.S. nuclear waste management effort. The licensing requirements for the reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and waste processing plants would dwarf those needed to license a repository, and provide additional targets for public opposition. What is most needed today is a renewed focus on secure interim storage of spent fuel and on gaining the scientific and technical consensus needed to site a geological repository.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

223 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-Radioactive Pollution
Reprocessing emits more radioactive pollution Makhijani`1 (Arjun Makhijani, Vice-President Cheney Wrong About French Nuclear Repository Program, Independent
Institute Asserts French Public's Opposition to Nuclear Waste Repositories as Deep as that in the United States, May 11, 2001. http://www.ieer.org/comments/waste/chen-prl.html)

The people wanted to see an end to the production of waste and pointed out that it was not very democratic to discuss dumping waste in areas that had had no say in the decision to produce it. "France made a historic mistake when it decided to rely so heavily on nuclear power, rather than develop more advanced renewable technologies and efficient utilization methods," said Didier Anger, a local elected official, and a founder of France's Green Party, which is part of the ruling coalition government. Mr. Anger represents one of France's most heavily nuclearized regions, Normandy, where the world's largest commercial plutonium separation plant is located. France's nuclear waste management differs from the U.S. in one major respect. France has a major plant, called a reprocessing plant, to dissolve used reactor fuel in a chemical plant to separate plutonium, uranium and fission products. "But reprocessing does not get rid of the radioactivity," said Dr. Makhijani. "Rather it creates more pollution. Moreover the separated plutonium is a proliferation problem and a very costly, uneconomical fuel." Liquid waste discharges from reprocessing are polluting the English Channel and spreading radioactivity in the seas of Western Europe. The pollution from the reprocessing plant has so rankled other European countries, that 12 members of the OSPAR (Oslo-Paris) convention (a European body whose mission is to protect the marine environment) voted last year for the elimination of the radioactive releases from the plant with a view to shutting down the reprocessing activity. France abstained. Denmark, Norway and Ireland have called on France and Britain, which runs a similar plant, to shut down their reprocessing operations. The French public is also growing more and more skeptical of government claims about the safety of nuclear power. Government spokespersons misled the French public into believing that there was no fallout on France after the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, even as the rest of Europe was dumping contaminated food. Those reassurances have since been proven to be false. France, like much of the rest of Europe has hot spots from Chernobyl. The government has recently commissioned an epidemiological study to investigate the role of the Chernobyl accident in the increase of thyroid cancers. "There is no good solution to the problem of long-lived nuclear waste," said Dr. Makhijani. "Before we launch into an energy policy that will lock us into another generation of waste creation, we ought at least to look carefully at the terrible burdens we will pass on to future generations from the last round of reactors." "France is no showcase for nuclear power," said Didier Anger. "Before pointing to France as a success story, the American public should ask the French people what they think of the problems of waste, disease, and government cover-ups."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

224 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-Nuclear Leadership
Reprocessing would kills U.S. nuclear leadership Rizvi`7 (Haider, One World U.S., Bush's Nuclear 'Reprocessing' Plan Under Fire November 26, 2007,
http://us.oneworld.net/issues/nuclear-issues/-/article/bushs-nuclear-reprocessing-plan-under-fire)

The report concluded that reprocessing would only divert attention away from a viable long-term solution to nuclear waste, and the GNEP program may further complicate the waste disposal problem as it proposes to reprocess spent fuel from not only new domestic reactors, but also from foreign reactors. The senators warned that the administration's proposed technologies would also result in material that could be easily processed to make a nuclear weapon. In their letter, the senators noted that commercial reprocessing in Britain, France, Japan, and Russia has resulted in the accumulation of about 250 metric tons of separated plutonium that can be used to make nuclear weapons, exacerbating the risk of terrorists gaining access to this material. "At a time when the United States is seeking to limit the spread of reprocessing technology and expertise to other countries," they said, "resuming reprocessing would reverse decades of U.S. leadership that contributed to countries such as Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan abandoning their reprocessing ambitions." The Bush administration is trying to promote nuclear power as a clean energy source that would reduce dependence on fossil fuels, whose use is a major contributor to dangerous climate changes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

225 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-AT: Waste too radioactive to steal
The waste won’t be too radioactive to steal-Blended chemicals Lyman`6
Dr. Ed Lyman, UCS Senior Staff Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive Why Extracting Plutonium from Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel Is a Bad Idea, Union of Concerned Scientist, January

2006http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/extracting-plutonium-from-nuclear-reactor-spentfuel.html Reprocessing would increase the risk of nuclear terrorism. Less than 20 pounds of plutonium is needed to make a nuclear weapon. If the plutonium remains bound in large, heavy, and highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies (the current U.S. practice), it is nearly impossible to steal. In contrast, separated plutonium is not highly radioactive and is stored in a concentrated powder form. Some claim that new reprocessing technologies that would leave the plutonium blended with other elements, such as neptunium, would result in a mixture that would be too radioactive to steal. This is incorrect; neither neptunium nor the other elements under consideration are radioactive enough to preclude theft. Most of these other elements are also weaponusable. Moreover, commercial-scale reprocessing facilities handle so much of this material that it has proven impossible to keep track of it accurately in a timely manner, making it feasible that the theft of enough plutonium to build several bombs could go undetected for years. A U.S. reprocessing program would add to the worldwide stockpile of separated and vulnerable plutonium that sits in storage today, which totaled roughly 250 metric tons as of the end of 2005—enough for some 40,000 nuclear weapons. Reprocessing the U.S. spent fuel generated to date would increase this by more than 500 metric tons.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

226 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Bad-AT: Solves Waste
Reprocessing just shuffles waste-There’s still waste left LOE`6 (Living On Earth.com, Recycling Nuclear Waste, March 10, 2006,
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00010&segmentID=1)

LYMAN: Well of course it sounds good, the slogan that we should be recycling our nuclear waste instead of throwing it away is appealing on the surface. But the problem is once you start looking at the details, the program completely falls apart. YOUNG: That's Ed Lyman of the advocacy group Union of

Concerned Scientists. Lyman says materials produced by the technology DOE is pushing could still be used to make weapons. And he's skeptical of claims that reprocessing would solve the waste problem. LYMAN: Unfortunately reprocessing doesn't actually reduce radioactive
waste. All it does is shuffle it around. The fact is all these materials have to be disposed of somewhere.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

227 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Good-Energy Security
Reprocessing is key to energy security-More fuel WNA`8 (World Nuclear Association, Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle June 2008, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf69.html)

The availability of recyclable fissile and fertile materials able to provide fresh fuel for existing and future nuclear power plants is a key, nearly unique, characteristic of nuclear energy. In many countries government policies have not yet addressed the various aspects of this feature. Over the last fifty years the principal reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused uranium and plutonium in the used fuel elements and thereby close the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% more energy from the original uranium in the process and thus contributing to energy security. A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in such 'light' waste is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself. Reprocessing has been the government policy in many European countries, Russia and Japan.

Reprocessing solves foreign energy dependence-Europe proves Soffel et al `8 (Andre Soffel, Lisa Suggs and Mason Darrow, Why not reprocess nuclear waste into a fuel source?, May 8,
2008, http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/322-05082008-1530868.html)

Europe adopted this nuclear fuel recycling method more than 30 years ago. France has been able to clean up 23,000 tons of waste with one facility, creating enough electric power to keep France running for 14 years. Nuclear fuel recycling made the Europeans less dependent on imported fossil fuels. America rejected this nuclear fuel recycling method 30 years ago due to a possibility of weapon proliferation, but there have been zero incidents in Europe to date. Another benefit of recycling the waste is it separates the plutonium and uranium, reducing their half-lives to only 30-40 years. By contrast, the half-life for the material we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

228 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Good-Solves Waste
Reprocessing solves- It uses waste as fuel Hickey 6 (James E, Professor of Law at Hofstra, Hofstra Law Review, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425)
Fourth, there are legitimate concerns about disposal and storage of nuclear waste. Throughout the fuel cycle, low level and high level radioactive waste is created. Of particular concern, is spent nuclear fuel from fuel rods that can no longer produce enough heat to make electricity. n51 Those highly radioactive spent fuel rods require storage permanently and safely to prevent exposure to humans, animals and flora and fauna. The waste disposal problem can be significantly ameliorated if the United States would lift its ban on nuclear fuel reprocessing, which would allow spent fuel rods to be used again rather than stored.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

229 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Good-Heg-Weapons Production [1/2]
Reprocessing key to nuclear weapons production IEER`96 (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Fissile Material Basics, March 20, 1996,
http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/fm_basic.html)

Fissile materials are composed of atoms that can be split by neutrons in a self-sustaining chain-reaction to release enormous amounts of energy. In nuclear reactors, the fission process is controlled and the energy is harnessed to produce electricity. In nuclear weapons, the fission energy is released all at once to produce a violent explosion. The most important fissile materials for nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are an isotope of plutonium, plutonium-239, and an isotope of uranium, uranium-235. Uranium235 occurs in nature. For all practical purposes, plutonium-239 does not. What is plutonium-239? Plutonium239 (hereafter referred to as "plutonium") is a heavy element consisting of 94 protons and 145 neutrons. It can have a number of chemical forms. Nuclear weapons use plutonium metal. Plutonium dioxide is used as a component of some nuclear fuels. Plutonium has a half-life of over 24,000 years (a half-life is the time it takes for half of a given amount of radioactive material to decay into other elements). How is plutonium made? Two key facilities are needed to obtain plutonium. First, in a nuclear reactor, uranium-238 absorbs a neutron. This leads to nuclear reactions which convert it to plutonium. The plutonium ends up in the spent nuclear fuel along with unused uranium and highly radioactive fission products. Essentially all nuclear reactors in the world produce plutonium in this way, but plutonium in spent fuel is not usable for nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. To get plutonium into a usable form, a second key facility, a reprocessing plant, is needed to chemically separate out the plutonium from the other materials in spent fuel. Reprocessing is generally regarded as one of the key links between civilian nuclear power capability and nuclear weapons production capability (the other is uranium enrichment -- see below). What is plutonium used for? Once plutonium is separated, it can be processed and fashioned into the fission core of a nuclear weapon, called a "pit". Nuclear weapons typically require three to five kilograms of plutonium. Plutonium can also be converted into an oxide and mixed with uranium dioxide to form mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for nuclear reactors. As of 1995, there were approximately 270 metric tons of separated plutonium in military inventories and roughly 180 metric tons of separated plutonium in civilian inventories worldwide.

b) Weapons production ups heg BBC`5 (Brittish Broadcasting Corporation, November 28, 2005 Monday
military hegemony", Lexis)

North Korean paper denounces US "ambition for

It is well known that the US imperialists have been enthusiastic about the development and production of nuclear weapons in recent years. The nuclear arsenal of the United States, the country that possesses the largest number of nuclear arms, is filled with almost 20,000 nuclear weapons. The belligerent US classes do not find these enough; they are stepping up the development and production of new nuclear weapons, ignoring the just demand of the international community that nuclear weapons be reduced and abandoned and that the manoeuvres to develop new nuclear arms be stopped. It is clear that these are perpetrated with the purpose of seizing control of nuclear hegemony by ceaselessly building nuclear arms and pressing ahead with the nuclear war strategy.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

230 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Good-Weapons Production ext.
Reprocessing ups weapons production LOE`6 (Living On Earth.com, Recycling Nuclear Waste, March 10, 2006,
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00010&segmentID=1)

SELL: It allows you to extract much greater energy out of the spent fuel, and it also results in a waste form at the end of the process that is much more stable and much easier to dispose of. YOUNG: The proposal also aims for greater international control of the movement of nuclear materials. If a developing country wanted nuclear power, it could lease fuel from the US, France or Britain, then return the waste for reprocessing. SELL: If a country has the ability to enrich uranium, or to reprocess plutonium, it effectively has the bomb. YOUNG: So that's Sell's sales pitch: slow the spread of nuclear weapons materials, get more energy from fuel, and reduce waste. His first audience on Capitol Hill was receptive. New Mexico Republican Senator, Pete Domenici , is a fan of nuclear power and reprocessing. DOMENICI: In the 70s the US decided to abandon its leadership on nuclear recycling and let the rest of the world pass us by. With the creation of this new global nuclear energy program we're going to get back into the ballgame.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

231 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Good-Prolif-Nuclear Leadership
Reprocessing k2 solve waste Soffel et al `8 (Andre Soffel, Lisa Suggs and Mason Darrow, Why not reprocess nuclear waste into a fuel source?, May 8,
2008, http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/322-05082008-1530868.html)
Nuclear electric power plants produce just 6.5 percent of total world energy consumption (EIA, May 2003) with oil at 38.7 percent, coal at 23.7 percent and natural gas at 23.1 percent. Natural resources are not going to last forever, and we need a source of energy that will last, be efficient, and reduce our worldwide pollution. America has over 100 nuclear electric power facilities spread out over the country and 126 waste storage facilities. At Yucca Mountain alone, there is 72,000 tons of waste beneath

the ground, and America produces nearly 2,200 tons of additional nuclear waste annually to add to the storage requirement. Nuclear fuel reprocessing can reduce our long-term nuclear waste storage needs by turning the waste into fuel, thus providing a long-term source of low cost nuclear fuel. If you want to
help change our energy policies and believe that the idea of recyclable nuclear energy needs to be explored, then write or call your congressman, and vote for public officials who can face facts and take effective action.

B) That’s key to nuclear leadership, which solves prolif Bengelsdorf`7Bengelsdorf, McGoldrickTHE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE
AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY May 2007Energy Resources International, Inchttp://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:jRZOoV1xR7wJ:www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf The influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. There is a clear upsurge of interest in

nuclear power in various parts of the world. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear
export controls was shaken by the disclosures of the nuclear operations of A.Q. Khan. These developments underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence

will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is perceived as a major technological leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going
influence on the international nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market. However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure has begun to weaken the ability of the U.S. to

participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes more dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish. It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called consent rights over the
enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. Further, the ability of the U.S. to develop improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistent and vigorous support for nuclear R&D programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support in order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As the U.S. Government expends taxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Generation IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and to U.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and source selection where possible. Finally, the

ability of the United States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital to implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitive nuclear facilities to other countries.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

232 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Reprocessing Good-Nuclear Leadership vs. Heg/AT: Heg Bad
None of their hegemony arguments applies here1) Our Bengelsdorf evidence outlines nuclear leadership as being technological, rather than geopolitical. He says it allows us to solve prolif because we have the know-how and insight on prolif to influence us 2) Empirically different-American hegemony has been high since WWII, but since the 80’s our nuclear leadership has fallen because we’ve neglected to use new technology. This is why France gets 90% of their power from nuclear, and we get 20. 3) We solve the internal to prolif better-Deterrence is played out and encourages prolif as proven by Iran, and North Korea. We can better influence their policies by becoming the main supplier of nuclear tech and know-how. They can’t proliferate, if we won’t give them the tech and know-how. In the squo other countries, with weaker prolif policies do that.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

233 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal-More Than One Site [1/1]
Aside from Yucca there are two other U.S. sites that meet all standards Wall`7 (Annemarie, GOING NOWHERE IN THE NUKE OF TIME: BREACH OF THE YUCCA CONTRACT, NUCLEAR
WASTE POLICY ACT FALLOUT AND SHELTER IN PRIVATE INTERIM STORAGE, Environmental Outlook Journal Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal 2007)

The NWPA authorizes the DOE to locate, research, construct and eventually operate a permanent repository to house our nation's current inventory of nuclear byproducts. n249 It took the DOE ten years to identify nine potential sites, each requiring a complex round of environmental assessments. n250 From the nine [*176] originally proposed sites, the agency was required to narrow its focus to three final contenders based upon the environmental data collected. n251 This information included consultations with the Council on Environmental Quality, the Administrator of the EPA, and the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, each of whom had surveyed the sites and developed science-based guidelines to disqualify the nine candidates. n252 These guidelines contemplated then-existing temporary storage sites, operating reactors, transportation and safety issues, as well as "hydrology, geophysics, seismic activity, ... proximity to water supplies, ... and the proximity to populations." n253 Additionally, the guidelines imposed two specific criteria for site recommendation. n254 "First, the repository must allow for containment of waste in accordance with the [EPA] standards and NRC regulations after closure. Second, the repository must abide by EPA's standards established specifically for [the repository] and NRC's regulations during construction, operation and closure." n255 After meeting the above requirements, three qualified sites in Nevada, Texas, and Washington received Presidential approval in 1986. n256 High costs of research and development forced Congress to amend the NWPA in 1987 to permit only one potential site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. n257 Thereafter, the DOE was responsible for site-characterization. n258 This initial step required scientists to extensively study the geological and hydrological indicators for the site, including "depth, thickness, [*177] and extent of the host rock at Yucca Mountain and whether it responded to heat or water." n259 The water table, ground water flow, and surface conditions were also studied at length, as was the potential for seismic and volcanic activity. n260 In addition to climate studies and temperature analyses, the DOE was charged with analyzing social, environmental, and economic impacts a repository would have on the location. n261 The DOE evaluated the impact on public health, law enforcement, fire protection, medical care, schools, transportation, environmental factors, and the potential effects on tourism, economic growth, and property values. n262

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

234 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Good-Solves
Geological provides permanent safety Chapman`4 (Neil, European Commison, Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Produced by Nuclear Power … from concept to
implementation, 2004, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:JRTXCGzkCnUJ:ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp6euratom/docs/waste_disposal_eur-21224_en.pdf)

Burial at several hundreds of metres depth in stable rock environments – so-called ‘geological disposal’ – is the option for disposal of the most hazardous radioactive wastes because it will provide permanent safety – not just for ourselves, but for future times very much longer than the whole of past human history. Although we currently store all our wastes safely and make every effort to minimise the amount of radioactive waste that we produce – and Europe is researching ways of making further reductions – it is inevitable that there will always remain some wastes that have to be disposed of deep underground.

Geological disposal is environment-neutral, prevents water based spread, and keeps the waste away from us Chapman`4 (Neil, European Commison, Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Produced by Nuclear Power … from concept to
implementation, 2004, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:JRTXCGzkCnUJ:ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp6euratom/docs/waste_disposal_eur-21224_en.pdf)

Geological disposal is based on the concept of multiple barriers that work together to provide containment. The barrier concept prevents deep ground waters, present in almost all rock formations, from rapidly leaching the wastes and transporting radioactivity away from the repository. There are both ‘engineered barriers’ that are constructed in the repository and ‘natural barriers’ in the surrounding geological environment. For disposal in hard rocks and clays, the basic engineered barrier components are the solid waste, its container (usually metal and often multi-layered), and a buffer or backfill material (clay or cement) that fills the space between the container and the rock. In salt formations, where there is no groundwater, the buffer is replaced by crushed salt. The natural barrier is provided by the rocks and soils between the repository and Earth’s surface. These barriers work together to provide containment and safety: • the container protects the waste and prevents any water reaching it for at least several hundred years and, in some concepts, for tens or even a hundred thousand years – by this time, most activity will have decayed inside the waste matrix; • the buffer protects the container, preventing water from flowing around it and absorbing any mechanical disturbance that might be caused by future deep-earth movements (associated with major earthquakes) – if it is highly impermeable, such as clay, it also contains any radionuclides that eventually escape from the container; • the rock and the geological environment of the repository provide stable mechanical, chemical and water flow conditions around the engineered barriers for very long times, allowing them to contain radionuclides for much longer than if they were left at Earth’s surface – this ‘cocoon’ effect is due to the very slow rate of natural processes at depth; • the rocks, soils and waters around and above the repository slow down, or completely immobilise, and dilute and disperse any eventual releases of activity so that they do not cause a hazard in the natural environment.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

235 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Good-Terrorism-Theft [1/3]
Geo dispo best solves terrorist theft Sunday Herald Sun `3 (Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), Terror alert on dumps, July 27, 2003, Lexis)
THE threat of terrorism has greatly increased the dangers of storing radioactive waste on or near the ground's surface, the United Nations nuclear watchdog has warned. A position paper released by the Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, said the security of nuclear materials was of increasing concern. "Occurrences of illicit trafficking and the events of 11 September have heightened these concerns." The paper warned that material could be stolen and used to produce a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb. "While nuclear material has traditionally attracted security precautions to prevent it falling into unauthorised possession, it is now recognised that non-fissile material must also be protected because of the possible threat of deliberate spreading of contamination by terrorists. "The material is obviously much more vulnerable to attack if placed on the surface. In geological disposal facilities (deep burial), it is beyond the reach of all but the most determined and sophisticated individuals or groups." The agency paper said many storage facilities were on the same site as other active nuclear facilities and benefited from overall site security arrangements. If storage continued longer than the operational lifetime of the other facilities, on-site security would have to be continued independently. "Security considerations, which carry increasing weight, lead strongly and unequivocally to (geological) disposal being desirable," the paper said.

Geo dispo key to prevent terrorist theft of nuclear waste materials
Auchincloss`3 (Louis, Going underground: to conclude our series of special features on nuclear power we reveal that scientific
and nuclear industry opinion is coming to accept that deep burial, and as soon as possible, is the only way to treat nuclear waste. The real battle will be to convince a deeply sceptical public.(Nuclear Waste) Publication Date: 11-JUL-03, Goliath, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3220703_ITM)

THE NEED FOR the UK to establish a national repository for its nuclear waste has become even more pressing since September 11, industry experts said this week. Fear of vulnerability to terrorist attack could be the factor that finally ends decades of indecision and prompts the government to order a deep underground dump similar to that planned by the US at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Advocates of burying radioactive waste deep below the earth believe there may never be a better chance to make a convincing case that this offers a safe, long-term solution for placing the material beyond the reach of even the most determined terrorist. To make that case they will have to overcome public mistrust almost as toxic as the waste itself. But overcome it must be, according to many who believe that decision time is here. In one of the ironies that abound in the nuclear world, the UK recently began giving technical and financial assistance to Russia as part of an international push to clean up that nation's dire nuclear legacy. But while the UK helps the Russians, there remains the small matter of what to do with its own 20,000 tonnes of solid, long-life nuclear waste. Over the coming decades this will rise to 500,000 tonnes as the waste generated by decommissioned nuclear reactors is added to the stockpile. Dealing with this amount of radioactive material is a massive challenge in its own right. But the heightened state of anxiety over terrorist activity in the wake of September 11 has added greatly to concerns about having waste lying around on the surface of the UK, often stored under less than ideal conditions (HARWELL: CLEANING UP THE 1960S NUCLEAR MISTAKES). It needs to be put out of harm's way. The best way to do that, many experts believe, is by 'geological disposal': burying it deep below the earth's surface where it will be inaccessible to terrorists now and harmless to future generations. Dr Kevin Langley, head of southern sites projects for the UK Atomic Energy Authority, confirmed that the wind was blowing in that direction. 'I think that since September 11 there is more political momentum to build a deep repository sooner rather than later,' he said. International scientific opinion has certainly swung behind this solution. Last month the International Atomic Energy Agency published the results of a two-year investigation into the options for radioactive waste management. Its findings could hardly be more conclusive. According to the IAEA, security concerns over terrorist activity 'lead strongly and unequivocally to disposal [as opposed to storage] being desirable at as early a date as is reasonable.' The agency stated that the only viable option is disposal deep beneath the earth. The report said: 'After several decades of research on the disposal of nuclear wastes, geological disposal is the only approach that has gained widespread credibility in the scientific community.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

236 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Good-Terrorism-Theft
Geo dispo is the only possible waste option to prevent terrorism Chapman & McCombie`2 (Charles Mccombie And Neil Chapman, Nuclear Engineering International, RADWASTE
MANAGEMENT; SHARING THE WASTE BURDEN, November 30, 2002, Lexis)

Another hazard that may arise in storing nuclear materials is that of security. Highly enriched uranium and plutonium are fissile materials, which can be used to make nuclear explosives. This problem is being increased by the disarmament currently underway in Russia and the USA. Hundreds of tonnes of plutonium and thousands of tonnes of highly enriched uranium will become available for other purposes as these surplus weapons are dismantled. Society must face the challenge of ensuring that the weapons-grade materials are converted into forms that are unsuitable for use in bombs and are safeguarded permanently from misuse by states or by terrorist groups. Terrorists could, it is feared, also spread radioactive materials using conventional explosives in a so-called "dirty bomb". The aim must therefore be to safeguard all sensitive nuclear materials by making them inaccessible to such groups. The challenge is to maintain safety and security by permanently isolating the long-lived radioactive materials. This isolation can be achieved for long periods by building, maintaining and guarding strong and secure surface storage facilities. However, this leaves a legacy to future generations. The ideal solution would be to remove the material permanently from Earth (such as by ejection into space) or to change it to a less harmful form. The former option has been considered periodically since the 1970s and it has always been found to be too risky and too costly. Transforming long-lived radionuclides to shorter-lived ones is possible by transmutation in a reactor or a particle accelerator. This has also been studied for 30 years, and the consensus is that it is a complex and immensely costly process. It cannot get rid of many of the more problematic radionuclides, nor does it do away with the need for geological disposal. Today, the single solution that is judged by scientists as being capable of removing the hazards of radioactive waste without placing undue burdens on future generations is deep geological disposal. This view is enshrined in the legislation of countries such as the USA, Sweden, Finland, Japan and Switzerland and is the chosen approach in many others. Although some countries have re-opened the question of whether real alternatives are available, no one has developed a scientifically feasible, sustainable and ethically justifiable alternative.

There’s no official storage site-Any waste from the reactors is just waiting for terrorist Burns & Choppin`8 Peter C Burns Henry Massman Chair in Civil Engineering, Professor, Notre Dame University. Gregory Choppin
professor of chemistry, Florida State University. Nuclear power's future: Reprocessing returns?, 28 FEBRUARY 2008The Why files http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/

radwaste -- the yuck Yucca is slated to receive -- is spent fuel from nuclear reactors, and it's roughly one million times more radioactive than fresh uranium fuel. High-level waste is extremely carcinogenic, even lethal, and must be handled by remote control or under heavy shielding. Spent fuel can also provide the basis for good ol' explosive nuclear bombs and dirty bombs (which spew radiation without that familiar mushroom cloud). So to prevent nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and a cancer epidemic, spent fuel must be contained virtually forever. The goal at Yucca is to safely store 70,000 tons of radwaste for 1 million years. Over those 10,000 centuries, the radioactive isotopes will gradually cool
High-level and be converted into stable, non-radioactive isotopes. (Isotopes are versions of an element with a different number of neutrons. Different isotopes decay at different rates; with many elements, some isotopes are stable, others will decay and release radiation.) For the repository at Yucca, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would love to follow GambleVille's marketing mantra ("What radiates near Vegas stays near

But the giant repository is unlikely to open for at least another 10 years, and in the meantime, spent fuel will continue stacking up at reactors across the country, making a splendid target for terrorists eager to release a deadly cloud of radiation or even trigger a nuclear meltdown.
Vegas").

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

237 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Good-Terrorism Internal-Theft
Terrorist can steal poorly deposited waste to make a bomb Digges`2 Bellona Stanford Database Tracks Lost Radwaste to Stem Nuclear Terrorism02/05-2002Charles Digges,
http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke-weapons/nonproliferation/24099
Their Database on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft and Orphan Radiation Sources documents some 850 incidents from the past decade — everything from radioactive trash carelessly tossed out by a cancer clinic to weapons-usable plutonium and uranium smuggled out of the former Soviet Union. Sept. 11 accelerated the project. Although most experts think Osama bin Laden's boast of nuclear capability is a bluff, they think

there might be some truth to al Qaeda field commander Abu Zabaydah's claim that the group can build a "dirty bomb" out of the kind of radioactive material available in clinics, colleges and poorly guarded nuclear waste storage facilities in Russia and worldwide. Rigged with ordinary explosives and then detonated, such a device could shower an area with radioactive contamination — not so much a weapon of mass destruction as mass disruption and hysteria. Radioactive materials are not just up for grabs in the former Soviet Union either. In the United States itself, disappearing radioactive material is almost a daily occurrence. "Within the United States, you're losing track of radioactive material literally every other day. Every other
day. And controls there are among the highest in the world," said nuclear physicist Fritz Steinhausler — who fostered the database as a visiting professor at

the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lists an average of 200 radiation sources that are stolen, lost or abandoned within the United States every year. Nonetheless, with Russia's comparatively lax controls and accounting procedures, Steinhausler said that annual
Stanford — in a telephone interview from Austria with Bellona Web. He said that figures for stolen or lost radioactive material is "impossible to assess, but certainly higher," than figures posted by the NRC. Many countries in the database either do not even have a central register of radioactive materials or, like Russia, have registries that are often years out of date, which causes difficulties in tracking radiation sources. At Stanford, Kazakstan-born researcher Lyudmila Zaitseva pours over databases, government records, technical journals and newspapers to identify cases and assess their credibility. She then enters them into the Stanford database and categorizes incidents by three ratings of veracity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

238 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Good-Terrorism-Imp Calc card
The impact of nuclear terrorism outweighs the probability-We must do everything to stop it
Korade`8 Matt Korade, CQ Staff Nuclear Threat Going Unheeded, Initiative Official Warns May 21, 2008
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000002881258&cpage=1#
Graham Allison, a former assistant secretary of State and director of Harvard’s Belfer Center, is one of the appointees. He agreed

with Curtis’ analysis, pointing out similar ideas from his book, “Nuclear Terrorism: the Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe,” on the nuclear threat posed by terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. Allison said the group’s objective is to kill 4 million Americans, including 2 million children, which they justified in a fatwa, to balance the deaths of Muslims at the hands of “Jewish-Christian crusaders,” Allison said. “You’re not going to kill 4 million people by hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings.” While nobody knows for sure what the chances are of an attack, the consequences make the different estimates an issue of secondary importance, he said. The commission would present a nonpartisan opportunity to take stock on the progress made since 9/11. “I think the inspiration of the people who created the commission is that a bunch of independent people looking at the evidence will, I think, agree on both the urgency of this agenda, but also on specific things to be done,” Allison said. To be successful, the commission will have to be specific about what the
president and new Congress can do to overcome past obstacles; the goal, he said, must be to gain the international community’s assistance in choking off the threat of proliferation at the source, allowing no loose nuclear weapons, no new fissile materials, and no new nuclear states. “There’s

no more important

issue in my view,” Allison said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

239 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Good-Environmental Ethics
Only geo dispo responds to our ethical responsibility to protect the environment and future generations Europe Energy`95 (Europe Energy, NUCLEAR WASTE: INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF DISPOSAL, July 28, 1995, Lexis)

Nuclear waste experts from member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development have published an "International Collective Opinion" providing the environmental and ethical basis of geological radioactive waste disposal policies. Put together by national experts with responsibilities in the field of radioactive waste management research, licensing and operation and based on recent work reported from Nuclear Energy Agency countries and on extensive discussions held at an NEA workshop last September, the Opinion is intended to contribute to an informed and constructive debate on this subject. At a recent press conference in Paris, members of the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee Bureau pointed out the importance of environmental and ethical requirements with regard to the final disposal of long-lived radioactive waste in deep geological formations, notably for future generations. The safe disposal of radioactive waste, and specifically the need to protect humans and the environment in the far future, is given particular attention in all countries engaged in nuclear power generation. It is also a concern in many other countries making use of radioactive materials for medical, industrial or research purposes, the Nuclear Energy Agency said in a statement on June 27. Given the increasing attention to environment protection and related ethical issues, the specialists recalled the non-technical considerations at the root of radioactive waste management. As early as in the mid1950s, the concept of final disposal of long-lived radioactive waste in deep geological formations had been proposed precisely to address potential risks and constraints to future generations. The key feature of this concept is indeed to ensure, after closure of the site, a safe and passive solution which depends neither on the stability of institutions nor on the future level of development of society. In presenting the Collective Opinion, Maurice Allegre, Chairman of the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee, stated: "The main question raised today concerning geological disposal is to know to which extent it provides a satisfactory answer from the ethical standpoint. We have discussed it in depth and evaluated its different aspects, notably with regard to environmental protection and responsibilities towards future generations. We have noted that the geological disposal strategy for long-lived radioactive waste would be implemented through a step-by-step decision-making process, including consultation with all interested parties. We have also noted that such a process would take account of the various concerns which would likely be raised about equity and fairness in the short- and long-term. In such circumstances, we feel that while research is pursued on other alternatives, it is justified to continue the development of current programmes on deep geological disposal". B) This outweighs all elseElliott`97 (Herschel, University of Florida Emeritus Philosophy, 1997 “A General Statement of the Tragedy of the Commons,”
February 26, http://www.dieoff.org/page121.htm)

Third, all systems of ethical beliefs are hypotheses about how human beings can live on Earth. As such, they make factual claims. And like all factual claims, their truth or falsity depends on empirical evidence. For this reason, the sequence of biological events which the general statement of the tragedy of the commons describes is of decisive importance for ethical theory. It shows (1) that moral behavior must be grounded in a knowledge of biology and ecology, (2) that moral obligations must be empirically tested to attain necessary biological goals, (3) that any system of moral practices is self-inconsistent when the behavior, which it either allows or makes morally obligatory, actually subverts the goal it seeks. Thus empirical criteria give a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for acceptable moral behavior. Regardless of the human proclivity to rationalize, any system of ethical beliefs is mistaken if its practice would cause the breakdown of the ecosystem which sustains the people who live by it. Indeed, biological necessity has a veto over moral behavior. Facts can refute moral beliefs Fourth, ecosystems are in dynamic equilibrium. In addition, technology and human institutions are constantly evolving in novel and unpredictable ways. Furthermore, living things must compete with each other for space and resources; yet each organism also depends symbiotically on the well-being of the whole for its own survival and well-being. Indeed the welfare of all organisms -- including human beings -- is causally dependent on the health and stability of the ecosystems which sustain them. As a consequence, the stability and well-being of the Earth's biosystem has moral priority over the welfare of any of its parts -- including the needs and interests of human societies and individuals.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

240 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Good-AT: Turns-No Uniqueness
Geological disposal at Yucca is already mandated by the NWPA Hiruo`8 (Elaine Hiruo, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change, Nucleonics Week January 24,
2008, Lexis)

The next administration, whether Democratic or Republican, cannot unilaterally kill the DOE repository project in Nevada, DOE waste program director Edward Sproat said January 22. Instead, a new administration would have to convince Congress to change the federal law governing it, he said. Responding to an audience question following his address at the Nuclear Energy Institute fuel supply forum in Washington, DC, Sproat said the next administration would have three options. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE is to site and build, if licensed by NRC, a repository at Yucca Mountain. The next administration, Sproat said, can comply with the law, ignore it, or change it. Still, the next administration also could withdraw a repository license DOE submitted to NRC, Sproat later told reporters. However, he added that the administration would have to show some basis for taking such action, especially if NRC had already deemed the application acceptable for review.

No uniqueness on the turns-The UK uses geo dispo now NIA`6 (Nuclear Industry Association, UK Announces Plans For Deep Geological Disposal 25-Oct-2006,
http://www.niauk.org/news/latest-nuclear-news/uk-announces-plans-for-deep-geological-disposal.html)

The UK's high-level nuclear waste will be managed through deep geological disposal, with the government looking for "a strong partnership" with local communities over the selection of sites, as part of plans announced today. Environment secretary David Miliband told parliament that the decision accepts the recommendation of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), an independent government advisory committee that in July 2006 recommended deep geological disposal as the best option for the long-term management of the UK's high-level radioactive waste. He told parliament: "We are not seeking to impose radioactive waste on any community. I am determined that the new approach for selecting sites will be carried out from the beginning in an open, transparent way with appropriate opportunity for public and stakeholder, as well as expert community, involvement," he said. "Disposal facilities will only be built in a geologically suitable area, and we will consider how geological and scientific considerations will be meshed with other societal considerations. For a successful programme, both criteria will need to be met." The government said it would consider what benefit packages might be offered to host communities. CoRWM had recommended that benefits be offered to communities that volunteer to host disposal facilities. In its July 2006 recommendations, CoRWM said deep geological disposal would need to be underpinned by "robust interim storage" until a repository site is selected, which could take several decades. Mr Miliband said today that until geological disposal facilities are available, there will be a continuing need for safe and secure interim storage. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) will take responsibility for securing geological disposal. Mr Miliband said the NDA would have "clear responsibilities and accountabilities." The NDA was set up in April 2005, under the Energy Act 2004, to take responsibility for the UK's nuclear legacy. CoRWM reached its recommendations after a three-year process that examined the technical, scientific, ethical and social aspects of all the potential options. The recommendations apply to the estimated 470,000 cubic metres of waste that currently exist or will arise through decommissioning of nuclear sites. Public consultation on the disposal plan and the process of site selection will begin in 2007, with decisions on the siting process to be taken in 2007 or 2008.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

241 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Bad-Won’t Solve-Wrong Assumptions
Geo dispo is based in theory that violates basic science and morality
Yeager`94 (Peter Cleary, Demography, ecology, and the environment -- Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case against
Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste by K. S. Shrader-Frechette Yeager, Peter Cleary. Contemporary Sociology. Washington: Sep 1994, Proquest)

The core of Shrader-Frechette's book is several chapters that dispassionately criticize the government's risk assessments of nuclear waste disposal for their highly questionable methodological and ethical assumptions. The former result in dubious extrapolations from limited samples, and from present experience to the largely unknown distant human future. The risk assessors equally mishandle both the natural and the social sciences. Geology is an explanatory rather than a predictive science, so long-term forecasts about water migration, earthquakes, and volcanoes--key to the security of buried nuclear -are especially suspect. Indeed, the government's geological assumptions have already failed once, resulting in radioactive releases at its nuclear waste facility at Maxey Flats, Kentucky. Similarly, the government's analysts assume little risk from the possible intrusion into the burial site of human communities long into the future, an assumption that not only far outstrips the predictive capability of the social sciences but also flies in the face of the federal government's own recent history of neglect and mismanagement of nuclear wastes, as documented in the book. If our present institutional arrangements have so poorly protected present and forthcoming generations, then surely there is little cause to be sanguine about the effects of (and on) human communities thousands of years from now, as Kai Erikson has also recently argued on this subject (New York Times Magazine, March 6, 1994). The book demonstrates that decisions favoring deep geological burial violate both very basic rules of scientific method and general logic and fundamental moral principles. Made on the grounds of ostensibly neutral technical judgments, the decisions rest on the consent of neither present nor future citizens but disproportionately distribute the risks to future generations.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

242 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Bad-Timeframe
Geological disposal sites take decades to pick, open, and close Chapman`4 (Neil, European Commison, Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Produced by Nuclear Power … from concept to
implementation, 2004, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:JRTXCGzkCnUJ:ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp6euratom/docs/waste_disposal_eur-21224_en.pdf)

Basic R&D in the field and in the laboratory has been augmented by practical tests and experiments in specially constructed underground facilities that have operated for more than 20 years. The practical implementation of disposal has, however, been slow, owing to the political and social problems associated with selecting repository sites. This stems from a widespread fear of radioactivity and nuclear energy, arising from their association with nuclear weapons and compounded by the long period of innate secrecy of the nuclear industry, from which it is only just emerging. This atmosphere was prevalent throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Now, the first national repository programmes to have overcome these setbacks (Sweden and Finland) have narrowed down to potential repository sites and hope to begin construction in the next ten years. The steps from concept to implementation will thus have taken many decades and the further operational steps leading to final closure of geological repositories are expected to take at least as long. Unlike any other industrial or environmental developments, geological disposal programmes evolve slowly and cautiously and will take many decades to complete

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

243 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Bad-Earthquakes
Earthquakes will cause the waste to leak into the water table
Rich & Portnoy`88 (Kristine Portnoy in Chicago, with Laurie A. Rich, Making waste sides seismically safe, Chemical
Week, February 10, 1988, Lexis)

It could happen any day in the future in an area anywhere in the U.S. In the hustle of the day or in its serene moments, suddenly the earth heaves, highway pavements crack, and buildings tremble -- an earthquake has struck. Thirty seconds later the ground stills. Not far from a city in the affected area is a hazardous waste treatment facility with a large storage unit. The plant is only slightly damaged. However, below the earth's surface, in the adjoining landfill, cracked drums are leaking into the ground through a liner split by the tremor, and hazardous material is seeping into the water table. That scenario, though fictional, is neither farfetched nor unlikely to happen somewhere in the U.S. soon, say people who monitor hazardous waste facilities. Seismic damage to treatment, storage and disposal units is a potentially serious problem, one that industry executives and officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are addressing with increased urgency. "You'd be amazed," says Art Day, director of location standards in EPA's office of solid waste, that even though companies have the capability to perform a detailed analysis of the geological stability of a proposed facility site, units still end up in unstable areas. The consequences of an inadequate assessment -- leaks and contamination -- are all too familiar, says John T. Schofield, president of International Technologies (Torrance, Calif.), one of the largest hazardous waste treatment companies in the U.S. Before there were any regulations on the subject, says Schofield, "companies didn't do detailed [geological] investigations." That's one reason the facilities had so many leaks and problems, he adds. A thorough environmental impact assessment should tell a hazardous waste facility siting team everything it needs to know about potential earthquake problems, Schofield says. Inadequate rule However, there are few specific regulations on the seismic parameters of facility siting to guide industry choices. The seismic considerations for location requirements are found in an appendix to location standards in the Resource Conservation and Recover Act (RCRA). The rule simply states that hazardous waste facilities must be more than 200 ft from an active fault line. The rule applies only to certain counties west of the Mississippi River, even though many areas east of the river are at risk of earthquake activity. And the rule does not address earthquake intensity or duration, says Glen Galen, an environmental scientist with EPA's office of solid waste. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has proposed the inclusion of a map in the next edition of the Uniform Building Code, scheduled to be published sometime this year, that would show much more specifically what kind of force would be experienced by an object on the earth's surface (map, below). USGS notes only a 10% chance that its estimates of force exertion would be exceeded by that of an actual quake during the next 50 years. That should help designers looking for quake resistance information. Although most company engineers say that they follow local building codes for design and construction, if there is no local code, most companies refer to the Uniform Building Code. A key problem that arises when geological considerations are not properly taken into account in hazardous waste facility siting is that earthquake ground motion could crack liners and container vessels, says Robert Whitman, a civil engineering instructor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge). That is especially true for those with landfills or other lined storage or disposal units. To determine whether a lining might crack during a quake, says Whitman, an environmental analysis would have to reveal the potential of the strength of the differential movement between two points several hundred feet apart. However, he points out, current technology is not accurate enough to measure the potential differential movement. Another possibility is that ground shaking could cause downslope movement of a clay liner, resulting in cracked clay or a damaged plastic membrane, he says. Whitman feels that a crude analysis for potential downsloping is possible with existing technology.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

244 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Bad-AT: No Turn Uniqueness
No geo-dispo sites now Chapman & McCombie`2 (Charles Mccombie And Neil Chapman, Nuclear Engineering International, RADWASTE
MANAGEMENT; SHARING THE WASTE BURDEN, November 30, 2002, Lexis)

DEEP DISPOSAL PROGRAMMES Virtually every waste disposal programme in the world has experienced delays - often very significant delays in its schedule for disposal of spent nuclear fuel or high level waste. The USA had the earliest proposed operational dates for a geological repository, partly because it planned immediate disposal, rather than a cooling period of 30-50 years. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 set out a strategy leading to geological disposal. Following years of field work and expenditure of several billion dollars, early this year the US president approved the Yucca Mountain site for a repository. The Department of Energy aims at disposal by 2010. There are bound to be legal delays, but the USA may still be the lead nation, although two countries are following close behind. In Sweden, an early decision to close down nuclear power meant that a definite final waste inventory could be planned. Finland has successfully nominated a site for spent fuel disposal, so that there could be three operating repositories by around 2020. In other countries, such as Japan and Switzerland, there is no need for deep disposal before about 2050. In others, such as the UK, Spain, Canada and the Netherlands, decisions on geological disposal are wide open and implementation, if it happens, may be a hundred years off.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

245 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Geological Disposal Bad - Obligation To Future Generations
Waste is inevitable-It’s our moral obligation to find a solution to protect future generations Furber, Warf and Plotkin`8 (Robert D, James C and Sheldon C, Southern CA Confederation of Scientists
“The Future of Nuclear Power”, Monthly Review. Feb, Vol. 59, Iss. 9; pg. 38, 11 pgs, Proquest) Considering the long time required for the high-level radioactive waste to decay, the ethics of leaving this problem to future generations points to the irresponsibility of the United States over the last fifty years. Other countries share in this irresponsibility. It is wishful thinking to assume that authorities are people of good character and that technology will produce a satisfactory solution to the problem of waste disposal. Given that about half the U.S. waste is at the Hanford, Washington site in the form of radioactive sludge acquired during the building of nuclear weapons, only about half of the U.S. waste is from the use of nuclear power plants. Plans have been made to solidify the sludge and to vitrify the solid waste into large glass logs. While the waste in this form will not disperse into the environment because of its solidity, and while it will not undergo fission because of the neutron absorbing chemicals in the glass, the question remains as to what can possibly happen after several thousand years. Can these large stockpiles of potentially hazardous material break up into smaller elements, which could mix with normal rocks and soil? Pulverization could conceivably release particles into the atmosphere. This is just one scenario to lead us to ask: Is this what we want to allow to happen by chance? Another factor, which has not been determined yet, is the cost of such a process. It will be expensive and the taxpayer will certainly be stuck with the bill. Thus far no government has risked tackling this problem. So, it is ignored and is left to future administrations. Unfortunately the leaking Hanford tanks are getting worse as the waste is beginning to contaminate the Columbia River. Gradually, it is becoming evident that the United States must do something. As contaminated as much of the world is, particularly the former Soviet Union, the Hanford area is among the most contaminated of any place. Reactor Waste Most of the 103 U.S. nuclear power reactors today are of the pressurized light water type-they use control rods and build up high-level radioactive waste in them. The spent fuel rods are stored in what are called swimming pools. Water is used for cooling the physically hot radioactive materials. So, now that these storage areas are pretty full, the problem of what is to be done needs to be faced. Building more and larger swimming pools only delays the day for carrying out a decision of what the long-term future will be for the troublesome material. A multitude of geological burial techniques has been proposed, but all have been found to have significant problems, and do not yet meet long-term engineering standards. It is not necessary to present details here other than to mention the basic engineering system principle that requires the testing of any new system for at least one life cycle in order to make sure that there has not been a mistake or that an inadvertent design error has not been made. Needless to say, we cannot do this before deployment. The life cycle of any waste disposal system depends on one's point of view. However, the estimates vary from 10,000 to 240,000 years, which are all impracticably long. Thus no geologic burial will ever meet basic engineering requirements, which would be necessary for us to bury the waste in good conscience.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

246 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Sea Based Disposal Bad-Filter Feeders-Leaking Canisters
Leaking canisters kill filter feeders and bottom dwellers MCS`8 (Marine Conservation Society, radioactive waste, 2008,
http://www.mcsuk.org/mcsaction/pollution/radioactive+waste)
The Earth's environment is naturally radioactive. Key sources include cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation from the earth's crust including radon gas, and potassium-40 which is found in sea water. However, this background radiation is dwarfed by

comparison to man-made sources – principally nuclear power stations, nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, military weapons testing, dumped nuclear waste and nuclear accidents. Stored waste is classified by degree of
radioactivity - Very Low Level, Low Level, Intermediate Level and High Level. About 90% of radioactive waste, by volume, is low level, 10% is intermediate level and about 0.3% is high level. High-level waste contains 95% of the total radioactivity of all nuclear waste. The Radioactive Substances Act, as amended by the Environment Act 1995, governs radioactive discharges. Until 1984 sea disposal of solid low level and intermediate level radioactive waste was established practice in the UK. In 1994 the UK signed up to a global ban on the sea disposal of all solid radioactive wastes under the Treaty of London Convention (1972). However, discharges of low level liquid radioactive waste to the sea continue from a number of European nuclear establishments, the largest being Sellafield in Cumbria and La Hague near Cherbourg on the French coast. factfile: Radiation affects living organisms through

damage to genes (DNA). Mutations in the structure of DNA can be lethal or crippling. Excessive radiation exposure in humans commonly causes a variety of cancers and birth defects. Much less is known
about the effect of radioactive pollution on the marine evironment. The current safety regulations assume that limits to protect humans will also protect wildlife. Weapons testing: Sea contamination from nuclear weapons testing began during WWII. Halted under treaty by the USA, USSR and UK in 1963, and continued by France and China until 1974. Impacts through the 1970s included

contamination of fish stocks (haddock and cod) in Barents Sea, and shellfish (mussels, oysters) on Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts of America. Liquid waste: Continuous discharge by nuclear power and fuel reprocessing
plants of low level radioactive waste to the sea. Major sources are Sellafield in Cumbria and La Hague near Cherbourg on French coast. Under 1998 commitments to the OSPAR convention, discharges are expected to be reduced virtually to zero by 2020. Solid waste: Sea dumping began in 1946, and continued until a global ban on sea disposal of all solid waste was introduced in 1994. The environmental impact of historical dump sites is unknown, but leaking containers are to likely contaminate marine sediments with a direct impact on bottom dwelling organisms and filter feeders. Nuclear accident: The Chernobyl nuclear accident in April 1986 dwarfs all other sources of accidental pollution. The Baltic sea, northern Adriatic, North Sea, north west coast of Scotland and Irish sea were all significantly affected by contaminated rainfall. Fish stocks still showed evidence of caesium (134 & 137) contamination in November 1986, and residual contamination is apparent today.

B) Filter feeders k2 survival Mosquin`94 (Ted Mosquin has a B.Sc.(Hons.) in Botany (U. of Manitoba 1956), and a Ph.D. in Systematics & Evolution
(UCLA 1961). He has taught at a number of universities, and for 12 years was a research scientist with Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, The Roles of Biodiversity in Creating and Maintaining the Ecosphere, http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/MosqEcoFun5.html)

Decomposition (detritivory) is the natural recycling of residues of life. Most decomposers require oxygen (function 2). Next to primary production, decomposition is the most important ecological function of organisms. A very wide range of life forms participate in decomposition: from bacteria to protozoa, filter feeders, humans and scavenging biota in all ecosystems, and also within many larger organisms (i.e. digestion). Fermentation is a specialized method of decomposition. Primary detritivory is the absorption of free organic molecules as food. Bacteria obtain all their food this way, as do two phyla of marine worms. They metabolize these molecules to create nutritive blocks (called plaques) that are eaten by multitudes of protozoa and other plankton (functions 2 and 3). These, together with photosynthesizing algae and cyanobacteria (function 1) are the primary "pastures" for all freshwater and marine food chains. Secondary detritivory is the "digesting" of animal and plant tissue and its degradation into simpler organic compounds. All filter feeders are secondary detritivores because they cannot discriminate between living planktonic organisms and floating dead tissue biomass. Life on Earth could not survive without primary and secondary detritivores because there would be no way of cleansing the Ecosphere of the "products" of life. Indeed, oil and coal may have been deposited only because the detritivory function had not yet by that time been perfected by the evolving Ecosphere. Many bacteria have developed a very powerful ecological function: that of ingesting organic molecules (toxics, oils, etc) and reducing a portion of them to less harmful substances and minerals. Mineralizing bacteria, since they metabolize toxic organic compounds (and return part of the molecule to harmless mineral matter) can be amazingly abundant in many ecosystems, and play an influential role in detoxifying soils and waters in local and regional ecosystems and the Ecosphere as a whole.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

247 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Sea Based Disposal-Subductive Good-Solves Waste
Subductive disposal solves-It’s permanent, there’s no chance of leakage, and the tech is already out there Sciencia Press`5Sciencia Press, Science and medicine for the discerning readerSea-Based Nuclear Waste Solutions, Winter 2005,
http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/sea-based.htm

A second sub-seabed option has received almost no attention but deserves careful consideration: burying canisters of nuclear waste in Subduction Faults that would carry the waste downward toward the Earth's mantle. This approach possesses the virtue of being very permanent--the reverse of shooting the waste with rockets into the Sun, except much more practical. As the subduction fault would carry the canisters down at a rate of, say, 10 cm per year, the chances of any release of radionuclides into the biosphere would become increasingly remote. A single California firm, Permanent RadWaste Solutions, has pursued the technology for this option. In addition to the bottom-crawling submarine for digging the holes and delivering the waste, this company has developed a canister technology that becomes more tightly sealed and resistant as the outside pressure increases during the descent of the canister toward the mantle. Some observers object that earthquake or volcanic activity could cause the canister to leak, and the radioactive waste would spew into the sky or onto the surface. However, it is possible to place the canisters in the parts of a subduction zone where there is no volcanic activity, so that they will take millions of years to migrate to less stable parts, at a time when their level of radioactivity will no longer surpass that of the natural background. As with the stable clay approach, it would be possible to bore deep holes into the subduction faults in order to get the waste as deep as possible, even though the danger of leakage upward to the seafloor appears to be minimal. Radionuclides are heavier than water, so there is also no reason why they should migrate upward to the ocean's surface, especially since there is no evidence that bottom-dwelling marine species are concentrated upward into a food pyramid that leads to the surface.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

248 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Sea Based Disposal-Subductive Good-Terrorism-Theft
Subductive waste disposal makes waste irretrievable, thus preventing terrorism Baird`5 Jim Baird, inventor and holder of U.S. Patent 5,022,788 and Canadian Patent
2,005,376 for the subductive waste disposal method, Disposal of high-level material in subduction zones - a rebuttal, 24 June 2005 http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:Di9BiZ9s3ekJ:www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/PSE2-295-Baird.pdf

If necessary, long-term monitoring of waste disposed of by this method would be possible by maintaining the access tunnel for some time after constructing artificial barriers. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery in conjunction with the spread of international terrorism is considered by some the pre-eminent threat to mankind. Others consider climate change to be that threat. The subductive waste disposal method addresses both. James Lovelock, developer of the GAIA theory, has declared, "Nuclear is the only practical energy source that we could apply in time to offset the threat from accumulating greenhouse gases." In terms of the waste problem associated with nuclear, he stated, "There seems no

sensible reason why nuclear waste should not be disposed of in the deep subducting regions of the ocean where tectonic forces draw all deposits down into the magma.24" The need to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons has been evident from the first days of the nuclear era. In 1945, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada proposed the establishment of a United Nations Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of "entirely eliminating the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes." The Baruch plan of 1946, offered by the United States, sought to forestall nuclear arms proliferation by placing all nuclear resources under international ownership and control. The opportunity exists currently to revive that approach. A recent adaptation of the Baruch plan was offered by the U.S. Baker/Cutler task force, which recommended the buying and removal as quickly as possible of all the nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material Russia is prepared to sell. The Subductive

Waste Disposal Method affords then the sole practical means to eliminating these materials and sequesters and eliminates, spent fuel and chemical or biological toxins equally as well. It is also a solution that can be implemented at a fraction of the cost of current approaches with a Canadian site providing the opportunity for the U.S. to reciprocate to Russia's disarmament, as that country will
legitimately demand. Environmentalists have recently been banning together to purchase habitats they wish to preserve. The purchase of global stocks of nuclear weapons materials would be a rational exercise in selfpreservation. Saying "recent events have made it clear that the nonproliferation regime is under growing stress," Mohamed ElBaradei recommended to the Fifty-Eighth Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly limiting the processing and production of nuclear materials that can be used for bombs and placing facilities under international control. In presenting the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General's annual report to the General Assembly, Dr. El Baradei said, "We should equally consider multinational approaches to the management and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste. Over 50 countries currently have spent fuel stored in temporary locations, awaiting reprocessing or disposal. Not all countries have the appropriate geological conditions for such disposal - and, for many countries with small nuclear programmes, the financial and human resources required for the construction and operation of a geological disposal facility are daunting." he advised. "What is to be done with the spent fuel? Here I have a specific and emphatic recommendation-- the creation of competitive, commercial, mined geologic repositories to be certified by the IAEA for spent fuel and nuclear waste; the acceptable forms of spent fuel and nuclear waste would need also to be certified by IAEA. In the era of globalization, it is ridiculous to insist that Switzerland or Belgium or England each do the research and development and find within its limited territory a site for the geologic disposal of nuclear waste," Richard L. Garwin, Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology, Council on Foreign Relations recommended in an address entitled "Can the World Do Without Nuclear Power? Can the World Live With Nuclear Power?" to the Nuclear Control Institute, April 9, 2001. "Ultimately, disposal under the deep seabed may be the solution, with continued surveillance to avoid

poaching to obtain long-decayed spent fuel for its plutonium content." he added. Irretrievability of spent nuclear fuel is an asset, rather than the liability NWMO earlier claimed, given the current conjunction of terrorism with vast arrays of bomb-grade materials and high-level waste lying poorly protect around the world waiting to be bought or stolen.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

249 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Sea Based Disposal-Subductive Good-Prolif Cred
Waste disposal is a vital part of prolif credibility and leadership along with the subsequent growth of the nuclear industry itself Bengelsdorf`7Bengelsdorf, McGoldrickTHE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE
AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY May 2007Energy Resources International, Inchttp://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:jRZOoV1xR7wJ:www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf

The influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. There is a clear upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosures of the nuclear operations of A.Q. Khan. These developments underscore the importance

of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the
U.S. is perceived as a major technological leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market. However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure has begun to weaken the ability of the U.S. to participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes more dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish. It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities

but will also enable the United States to promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called consent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form
or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. Further, the ability of the U.S. to develop improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistent and vigorous support for nuclear R&D programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support in order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As the U.S. Government expends taxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Generation IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and to U.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and source selection where possible. Finally, the ability of the United States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital to implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitive nuclear facilities to other countries.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

250 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Ion Exchange Good – US Uses It
Ion exchange technology is popular in the US Power Engineering International 3 (http://pepei.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?article_id=194898)
With the economic slump post-September 11, however, much of the power industry has put off major capital investments. A number of planned projects for new plants or expansion of existing capacity have been cancelled or postponed. A further downturn in the economy could nullify these forecasts, which are based on a gradual recovery. If reaction to the recent East Coast blackout results in a plan for more rapid capacity expansion, however, growth rates will exceed these predictions. Membrane filtration, especially reverse osmosis (RO), has been widely adopted by power producers, who use the fine filtration method for purifying boiler feedwater, makeup water, and in zero-liquid discharge applications. In addition to RO, power plant operators are spending more for ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF) membrane processes used for pretreating water prior to the smaller pored, more fragile RO membranes. Nanofiltration (NF) membranes, electrodialysis reversal (EDR) technology, and membrane contactors also have niche applications in treating power plant water. Ion exchange is well established in power plant water treatment. The technology

offers excellent performance and is irreplaceable in some applications such as nuclear power production. Thanks to continuing improvements in the process, in systems and in resins, the method remains "advanced." But, the need to use costly and hazardous chemicals for resin regeneration has many users looking for alternative solutions. Electrodeionization (EDI), a method that combines ion exchange membranes with ion exchange resins, is proving effective and popular for power plant water treatment. Capital costs are generally
less than conventional mixed beds and operating costs are equal to or less than traditional ion exchange.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

251 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Ion Exchange Good – Best Method
Ion Exchange best method of nuclear waste disposal Science Daily 8 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303190649.htm, March 5,)
ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2008) — Nuclear power has advantages, but, if this method of making power is to be viable long term, discovering new solutions to radioactive waste disposal and other problems are critical. Otherwise nuclear power is unlikely to become mainstream. A team of Northwestern University chemists is the first to focus on metal sulfide materials as a possible source for nuclear waste remediation methods. Their new material is extremely successful in removing strontium from a sodium-heavy solution, which has concentrations similar to those in real liquid nuclear waste. Strontium-90, a major waste component, is one of the more dangerous radioactive fission materials created within a nuclear reactor. By taking advantage of ion exchange, the new method captures and concentrates strontium as a solid material, leaving clean liquid behind. In the case of actual nuclear waste remediation, the radioactive solid could then be dealt with separately -- handled, moved, stored or recycled -- and the liquid disposed. "It is a very difficult job to capture strontium in vast amounts of liquid nuclear waste," said Mercouri G. Kanatzidis, Charles E. and Emma H. Morrison Professor of Chemistry in the Weinberg College of Arts and
Sciences and the paper's senior author.* "Sodium and calcium ions, which are nonradioactive, are present in such enormous amounts compared to strontium that they can be captured instead of the radioactive material, interfering with remediation." Strontium is like a needle in a haystack: sodium ions outnumber strontium ions by more than a million to one. The material developed at Northwestern -- a layered metal sulfide made of potassium, manganese, tin and sulfur called KMS-1 -- attracts strontium but not sodium. "The metal sulfide did much, much better than we expected at removing strontium in such an excess of sodium," said Kanatzidis. "We were really amazed at how well it discriminates against sodium and think we have something special. As far as we can tell, this is the best

material out there for this kind of application." KMS-1 works at the extremes of the pH scale -- in very basic and very acidic solutions, the conditions common in nuclear waste -- and everywhere in between. Metal
oxides and polymer resins, the materials currently used in nuclear waste remediation, perform reasonably well but are more limited than KMS-1: each typically works in either basic or acidic conditions but not both and definitely not across the pH scale. In earlier work, Kanatzidis and his team had found KMS-1 to be very quick and facile at ion exchange. (The material gives up an ion and takes another to maintain charge balance.) Knowing this and also that the ion exchange process is a removal process, the researchers decided that strontium was an interesting ion with which to test their new material.

The solution the researchers used in the lab contained strontium and two "interfering" ions, sodium and calcium, in concentrations like those found in the nuclear waste industry. (Nonradioactive strontium, which
works the same as the radioactive version, was used in the experiments.) KMS-1, a free flowing black-brown powder, was packaged like tea in a teabag and then dropped into the solution. The all-important ion exchange followed: the metal sulfide "teabag" soaked up the strontium and gave off potassium, which is not radioactive, into the liquid. KMS-1 does its remarkable work targeting only strontium by taking advantage of two things: strontium is a heavier ion than calcium, and sulfur (a component of KMS-1) attracts heavier ions; and KMS-1 attracts ions with more charge so it attracts strontium, which has a charge of 2+, and doesn't attract sodium, which only has a charge of 1+. So, as Kanatzidis likes to say, "Our material beats both sodium and calcium."

"The nuclear power process generates enormous amounts of radioactive liquid waste, which is stored in large tanks," said Kanatzidis. "If we can concentrate the radioactive material, it can be dealt with and the nonradioactive water thrown away. I can imagine our material as part of a cleansing filter that the solution is
passed through."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

252 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Ion Exchange Good - Tech Feasible
Ion Exchange Is the Best Technology for Waste Treatment Lampert, Frish, and Speitel 7 (David, Michael, and Gerald, Environmental Engineers at University of Texas at Austin,
Periodical of Waste Management, January, http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PPHMF8000011000001000060000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes)

Recent studies have demonstrated that fully fluorinated surfactant molecules have a tendency to accumulate in biological tissues. As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency has sought to reduce the usage of these chemicals and limit their discharge into the environment. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is used in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers and is present as a component of some top-antireflective coating (TARC) materials. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is a component of some TARCs and photoacid generators used by the semiconductor industry in its fabrication processes. The purpose of this study is to determine effective and economically feasible methods to treat PFOA/PFOS contaminated process wastewater. A treatment screening study was performed investigating activated carbon adsorption, adsorption onto calcium fluoride solids, evaporation, ion exchange, and liquid-liquid extraction. Ion exchange was determined to be the best technology for treatment of PFOA/PFOS wastewater. Batch equilibrium isotherm experiments and a continuous-flow column study were performed to determine a feasible design. In addition, a model based upon equilibrium multicomponent chromatography theory was employed for prediction of column breakthrough curves.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

253 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Ion Exchange Bad - Not Tech Feasible
Ion Exchange Technology is Expensive Applied Research Associates 8 (March 12, 2008, http://www.ara.com/capabilities/p_ionexchange.htm)
Current ion exchange approaches for perchlorate remediation are expensive ($200 to >$500 per acrefoot). The primary reasons for the high cost are resin replacement, in the case of single-use systems, and salt consumption and brine disposal, in the case of brine regenerable systems. A perchlorateselective, regenerable ion exchange process that minimizes or eliminates spent regeneration solution was needed to significantly reduce treatment cost.

Technology still in the research phase and too expensive Science Daily 8 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303190649.htm, March 5,)
Looking to the future, to be a scaleable and affordable remediation method, the metal in the metal sulfide needs to be inexpensive and readily available and also make a stable compound. "We focused on potassium, manganese and tin because we have been working with them for some time," said Manolis J. Manos, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern and lead author of the paper. "All three metals make stable compounds and are common and abundant." "Our next step is to do systematic studies, including using an actual waste solution from the nuclear power industry, to learn how KMS-1 works and how to make even better metal sulfides," added Manos. The results will be published online the week of March 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to Kanatzidis and Manos, Nan Ding, a former graduate student in Kanatzidis' group, now at Claflin College in South Carolina, is the other author of the PNAS paper, titled "Layered Metal Sulfides: Exceptionally Selective Agents for Radioactive Strontium Removal."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

254 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Transmutation Good - Solves Waste
Transmutation Reduces Nuclear Waste Toxicity By a Factor of 100 Institute of Physics 3 (University of Strathclyde Department of Physics, 2003, www.iop.org/EJ/article/00223727/36/18/L01/d3_18_L01.pdf) One of the major problems of the nuclear power industry today is in the management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Vitrified high-level waste can be stored for about 50 years before ultimate geological disposal. However, in many countries around the world much research effort is being expended in the possibility of partitioning and transmuting radioactive waste, which can reduce it’s toxicity by a factor of 100 [1–3]. Recently a number of roadmaps for nuclear waste transmutation have been produced [4, 5]. Although the most frequently discussed methods involve transmutation by bombardment with neutrons from a reactor, or more recently from a particle accelerator [6], there have been other suggested approaches to this problem, for example 6 Also at AWE plc Aldermaston, Reading RG7 4PR, UK. laser-driven high-brightness gamma generation for phototransmutation [7]. In a recent UK report on the transmutation of nuclear waste [8] the importance of launching new ideas in radioactive waste management was emphasized and it is in this context that the present work introduces a novel method of inducing phototransmutation reactions using bremsstrahlung produced in a target irradiated by an ultrahigh intensity laser.

Transmutation Reduces Long-Term Nuclear Waste International Seminar on Interaction of Neutrons 0 (Proceedings of the 8th Int. Seminar on
Interaction of neutrons with matter, JINR Dubna, E3-00- (2000)in press, irfu.cea.fr/Sphn/MiniInca/docs/conf/ISINN-8_may2000.pdf) The Mini-Inca project [1] has been approved by the French Atomic Energy Authority (CEA) to provide experimental evidences about the nuclear waste transmutation. Even if the reference solution in France is deep underground storage, the neutron-induced transmutation of actinides is still a promising way to reduce the long-term radiotoxicity of radioactive nuclear waste and decrease the risk associated with the geological disposal. For this purpose, the scientific community is mainly considering advanced critical reactors or accelerator driven systems (ADS). A more efficient use of the nuclear fuel and innovative fuel cycles constitute a promising way to reduce the amount of nuclear waste and to increase the safety margin against transients of power [2]. The transmutation potential of any system is directly related to its neutron spectrum and corresponding nuclear parameters of the most important isotope present (see for instance [3]). These two parameters are essential to assess both the economical viability of transmutation, and the comparative merits of each system. For a number of actinide isotopes, the most complete nuclear data libraries (ENDF-B, JEF, JENDL and BROND) show large discrepancies [4]. These nuclei usually play a minor role in the conventional fuel cycle, but they are essential in a transmutation system where they will dominate the fuel composition. Due to the large number of rare isotopes playing a major role in the innovative fuel cycle, and to the impossibility to carry out comprehensive differential measurements, integral experiments are necessary to asses the quality of the existing nuclear data libraries and to validate the computing codes. The Mini-Inca project aims to measure these data and to assess experimentally the incineration process in innovative system.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

255 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Transmutation Good - U.S. Prefers
The U.S. Prefers Transmutation to Dispose of Nuclear Waste Bresee 7 (James, Asst. Secretary for Nuclear Energy, November 2007,
http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=7392&DID=198404&action=detail) In the January 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush announced a new Advanced Energy Initiative, a significant part of which is the Global Nuclear Energy Initiative. Its details were described on February 6, 2006 by the U.S. Secretary of Energy. In summary, it has three parts: (1) a program to expand nuclear energy use domestically and in foreign countries to support economic growth while reducing the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. (2) an expansion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure that will lead to the recycling of spent fuel and a closed fuel cycle and, through transmutation, a reduction in the quantity and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste and its proliferation concerns, and (3) a partnership with other fuel cycle nations to support nuclear power in additional nations by providing small nuclear power plants and leased fuel with the provision that the resulting spent fuel would be returned by the lessee to the lessor. The final part would have the effect of stabilizing the number of fuel cycle countries with attendant non-proliferation value. Details will be given later in the paper.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

256 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Transmutation Bad
Transmutation Expensive and Ineffective Warf and Plotkin 96 (James and Sheldon, Professor of Chemistry at Southern California, Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation, September 1996, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1996/09/00_warf_disposal.htm) Even though the outlook for nuclear transmutation is most unpromising, a few details are perhaps in order. The accelerator procedure is highly unfavorable from the standpoint of energy consumption. The steel and other parts would be activated by neutrons, and become radioactive. It seems that about as much radioactive waste would be produced as is consumed, as stated above, if not more. Costs would be fantastic. The procedure could not easily be used with fission products. They absorb neutrons poorly; after all, they were in a neutron environment for years, and survived. Only two, iodine-129 and technetium-99, are easily transmuted to nonradioactive nuclides, and these are not particularly important. Technetium-99 (half-life nearly a quarter of a million years) is converted by neutrons into technetium 100 (half-life only 16 seconds) forming ruthenium. If this process is carried out while a stream of ozone is passed through the apparatus, volatile ruthenium tetroxide is constantly removed. Transmutation might be successful in this case, and perhaps that of iodine-129, but in general the technique is not expected to be satisfactory.

Transmutation Provides No Incentive or Safety Warf and Plotkin 96 (James and Sheldon, Professor of Chemistry at Southern California, Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation, September 1996, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1996/09/00_warf_disposal.htm) In 1992 a group of nine qualified experts finished an exhaustive assessment of disposing of waste through transmutation via fast breeder reactors, accelerators, and high temperature electrolysis techniques (the Ramspott report, after the first author). These scientists are associated with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, two universities, and a private firm. The study concluded that high-temperature electrolysis procedures for separating actinide metals in reprocessing high-level waste offers no economic incentives or safety advantages. Unfortunately, actinide separation and transmutation cannot be considered a satisfactory substitute for geological disposal.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

257 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Sun Disposal Bad
Launches Are Expensive and Risk An Explosion of Nuclear Material Cain 8 (Fraser, Universe Today, April 28, 2008 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/28/why-cant-welaunch-trash-into-space/) Now wouldn't that be a tidy solution to a big problem? Gather together all the garbage, bundle it up and fire it off into space. Maybe just dump it into the Sun. We could live in a world without trash. There are just two problems: humans produce an enormous amount of garbage; and rocket launches are extremely expensive. It's been estimated that launching material on the space shuttle costs about $10,000/pound ($22,000/kg). Even if engineers could bring down prices by a factor of 10, it would still be thousands of dollars to launch the garbage into space. Let's imagine a wonderful dream world, where launch costs could be brought down to $1,000/kg - a factor of 1/20th the cost to launch on the space shuttle. It has also been estimated that the United States alone produces 208 million metric tonnes of garbage per day… per day! So, to launch all that trash into space would cost the United States $208 trillion per day… per day! The gross domestic product of the United States was $13.13 trillion in 2006, which works out to be about $36 billion a day. In other words, the United States would need to spend 5,800 times its daily gross domestic budget, just to launch its trash into space. What about nuclear waste? A nuclear reactor releases about 25-30 tonnes of spent fuel every year. With our dream budget of $1,000/kg, that would cost about $25 million to launch a single reactor's waste into orbit. According to Wikipedia, there are 63 operating reactors in the US, so it would cost about $1.6 billion/year to dispose of the nuclear waste generated. It's been estimated that Yucca Mountain - the United State's current plan to store nuclear waste - will cost about $58 billion to store waste over the course of 100 years. So storing waste in Yucca Mountain will cost about 1/3rd the price of launching that material into space. Not to mention the terrible risk of launching rockets full of nuclear waste into space - imagine what might happen if a rocket exploded in mid-flight… I'm sure I've made some math errors here somewhere…

Launching Waste Towards the Sun Isn’t Technically Feasible Chivers 99 (Sidney, Nuclear Engineer for NASA, October 14, 1999,
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/939905504.As.r.html) Certainly. The two most significant problems with launching nuclear waste into the sun are the political risks associated with launching anything radioactive and the non-trivial costs of launching significant payloads into the sun. It would take me a while longer than I'd like to spend to find a good number for the amount of nuclear waste that one might want to launch into the sun, but it's a lot. Before it were ever launched it might need to be processed from liquid to solid and would certainly require packaging designed to prevent dispersal of the waste WHEN a launch fails. The packaging would so restrict the amount of waste that could be associated with a given launch that getting all the nuclear waste launched into the sun could easily drive a program costing billions of US dollars annually; and, if it's not already obvious, the amount of waste that could be launched per year would be so small that the program would never end - unless someone came to their senses and decided the effort was a complete waste of resources.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

258 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Reactors***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

259 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***PBMRs Good***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

260 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Solve- Generic
PBMRs are affordable and solve for global climate change Kadak 4 (Andrew, MIT [http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers1_files/PBReactors.pdf] A Future For Nuclear
Energy – Pebble Bed Reactors/ April 25, 2004) While pebble bed reactors are not the only new nuclear energy technology being considered for the future, this technology is arguably the most advanced in terms of interest and development. The United States has chosen high temperature gas reactors as their technology of choice to power the future hydrogen economy in an emission free way. Pebble bed reactors offer the potential for meeting the needs of high energy efficiency, safety and economy if the concepts proposed in this paper are successfully implemented. The nations of South Africa and China are committed to developing pebble bed 15 technology. Thus, pebble bed reactors offer a future for nuclear energy in combating global climate change in an affordable technology that has been demonstrated to work.

PBMRs are cost effective, inherently safe and increase public confidence Kadak 5 (Andrew, International Journal of Critical Infrastructures
[http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=6679&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or] A future for nuclear energy: pebble bed reactors/ 2005) Pebble Bed Reactors could allow nuclear plants to support the goal of reducing global climate change in an energy hungry world. They are small, modular, inherently safe, use a demonstrated nuclear technology and can be competitive with fossil fuels. Pebble bed reactors are helium cooled reactors that use small tennis ball size fuel balls consisting of only 9 grams of uranium per pebble to provide a low power density reactor. The low power density and large graphite core provide inherent safety features such that the peak temperature reached even under the complete loss of coolant accident without any active emergency core cooling system is significantly below the temperature that the fuel melts. This feature should enhance public confidence in this nuclear technology. With advanced modularity principles, it is expected that this type of design and assembly could lower the cost of new nuclear plants removing a major impediment to deployment.

PBMRs are cost effective, increase public confidence and solve for global climate change Kadak 4 (Andrew, MIT [http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers1_files/PBReactors.pdf] A Future For Nuclear
Energy – Pebble Bed Reactors/ April 25, 2004) Pebble Bed Reactors offer a future for new nuclear energy plants. They are small, modular, inherently safe, flexible in design and operation, use a demonstrated nuclear technology and can be competitive with fossil fuels. Pebble bed reactors are helium cooled reactors that use small tennis ball size fuel balls consisting of only 9 grams of uranium per pebble to provide a low power density reactor. The low power density and large graphite core provide inherent safety features such that the peak temperature reached even under the complete loss of coolant accident without any active emergency core cooling system is 2 significantly below the temperature that the fuel melts. This feature should enhance public confidence in this nuclear technology. With advanced modularity principles as described, a new way of thinking and building nuclear plants is proposed that would improve quality by factory fabrication of space frame modules and site assembly similar to “legos” would speed the time to operation. It is expected that this type of design and assembly could lower the cost of new nuclear plants such that the biggest impediment to new nuclear construction namely the capital cost of new nuclear plants is removed. This would allow nuclear plants to support the goal of reducing global climate change in an energy hungry world.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

261 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Feasible- Location/Power
PBMRs can be built almost anywhere and one station can power 30,000 homes ESKOM 8 ([http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html] Pebble Bed Reactor
Technology/ May 31, 2008) The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a new type of high temperature helium gas-cooled nuclear reactor, which builds and advances on world-wide nuclear operators' experience of older reactor designs. The most remarkable feature of these reactors is that they use attributes inherent in and natural to the processes of nuclear energy generation to enhance safety features. It is also a practical and cost-effective solution to most of the logistics of generating electricity, with particular reference to South Africa today. PBMR's are designed to produce 110MW each which means that 30 000 average homes could be sustained by one such reactor. More than one PBMR can be located in a facility thus creating energy parks. It is possible for a PBMR energy park to be made up of a maximum of 10 modules which share a common control centre. This system allows sequential construction of modules to match users' growth requirements; as the area grows, so more modules can be added to meet the industrial and domestic needs for electricity in an area A single PBMR reactor would consist typically of a single main building, covering an area of 1 300 square metres (50 x 26 m). This area is far less than the area covered by a rugby field or even a soccer field. The height of the building would be 42m, some of it below ground level, depending on the bed rock formations as the building would sit on bed-rock. The part of the building that would be visible above ground is equivalent to a six storey building. There would be a unit control room, a high voltage switch yard, and a cooling tower for inland facilities and a sea pump-house for coastal facilities. Ten PBMR reactors produce 1 100 MW would occupy an area of no more than three football fields. These relatively small power stations would be versatile and flexible. They could be erected anywhere there is a steady and ready supply of water. They could be used as base-load stations or loadfollowing stations, and could be adjusted to the size required by the communities they serve.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

262 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Feasible- Maintenance/Operation
New technology and decreased maintenance requirements make PBMRs a feasible option ESKOM 8 ([http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html] Pebble Bed Reactor
Technology/ May 31, 2008) Besides the safety improvements of the PBMR design there has been a major effort to improve efficiency and to remove systems whose complexity could lead to operational mistakes (human error or machine failure). This has led to a higher power output with the same amount of nuclear fuel being used, and reduced the maintenance and operating requirements. The use of a continuous fuelling regime has removed the need to shut the reactor down every 12 - 18 months to change the fuel, as is the case at Koeberg. The use of a closed cycle gas turbine with helium and magnetic bearings has meant tha the thermal efficiency is higher (~45 per cent c.f. to 33% for Koeberg) - because gas turbines are more efficient than steam and also with magnetic bearings there is less friction - this has reduced the major maintenance requirements to once every six years. All components are built as replaceable modules, so they are changed for spares which are then refurbished for the next machine. This shortens the maintenance periods significantly. All these improvements enable the PBMR to be operated with little human intervention. The staff are there to monitor and supervise the plant rather than to operate it. All this means that PBMR's need fewer safety and fall-back systems, without compromising either worker or public safety. This also reduces the cost of building PBMR's and the time needed to plan, build and commission them.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

263 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: PBMRs Dangerous- Don’t Overheat
PBMRs avoid heat failures unlike other nuclear technologies PBMR 0 (last date cited in article [http://www.pbmr.co.za/index.asp?Content=194] Safety&Environment/ 2000)
The PBMR has inherently safe characteristics as a result of the Design Materials used Fuel and Physics involved This is why, should a worst-case scenario occur, no human intervention is required in the short or medium term. In all existing power reactors, safety objectives are achieved by means of custom-engineered, active safety systems. Nuclear accidents are principally driven by too much heat. This surplus or residual heat is called decay heat and is caused by radioactive decay of fission products. Put simply, if you do not cool the reactor sufficiently, the heat will cause the nuclear fuel to release radioactivity that cannot be contained. In "conventional" reactors, heat is removed by active cooling systems (such as pumps), which rely on the presence of coolant such as water. Any such system may fail and therefore they are duplicated in conventional reactors to make sure that there will be support, should the first line of defence fail. Secondly, so-called containment buildings are constructed which is nothing less than strongly armoured containers to create a barrier to the release of radioactivity. With the PBMR, this basic danger of overheating is independent of the state of the reactor coolant. PBMR combines very low power density of the core (1/30th of the power density of a Pressurised Water Reactor), and the resistance to high temperature of fuel in billions of independent particles which creates an inherent ceiling to temperature control. The helium, which is used to transfer heat from the core to the power-generating gas turbines, is chemically inert. It cannot combine with other chemicals and is non-combustible. Since air cannot enter the primary circuit, oxygen cannot get into the high temperature core to corrode the graphite used in the reactor. Thus chemical reactions and oxidation, two of the great dangers in conventional reactors are sidelined by the construction of the PBMR.

PBMRs have built in safety features to prevent over heating ESKOM 8 ([http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html] Pebble Bed Reactor
Technology/ May 31, 2008) Any PBMR station built in South Africa will adhere to the stringent local and international safety standards that are laid down for nuclear stations in South Africa and throughout the world. The PBMR is walk-away safe. Its safety is a result of the design, the materials used and the physics processes rather than engineered safety systems as in a Koeberg type reactor. The peak temperature that can be reached in the reactor core (1 6000 degrees Celsius under the most severe conditions) is far below any sustained temperature (2 000 degrees Celsius) that will damage the fuel. The reason for this is that the ceramic materials in the fuel such as graphite and silicone carbide - are tougher than diamonds. Even if a reaction in the core cannot be stopped by small absorbent graphite spheres (that perform the same function as the control rods at Koeberg) or cooled by the helium, the reactor will cool down naturally on its own in a very short time. This is because the increase in temperature makes the chain reaction less efficient and it therefore ceases to generate power. The size of the core is such that it has a high surface area to volume ratio. This means that the heat it loses through its surface (via the same process that allows a standing cup of tea to cool down) is more than the heat generated by the decay fission products in the core. Hence the reactor can never (due to its thermal inertia) reach the temperature at which a meltdown would occur. The plant can never be hot enough for long enough to cause damage to the fuel.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

264 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: PBMRs Dangerous- No Second Chernobyl
PBMRs won’t result in a second Chernobyl PBMR 5 ([http://www.pbmr.co.za/contenthtml/files/File/WhynoChernobyl.pdf] WHY WON’T PBMR BECOME
A SECOND CHERNOBYL?/ June 2005) WHY WON’T PBMR BECOME A SECOND CHERNOBYL? The peak temperature that can be reached in the core of the reactor (1 600 ºC or 2912 ºF under the most severe conditions) is well below the temperature that may cause damage to the fuel. This is because the radionuclides, which are the potentially harmful products of the nuclear reaction, are contained by two layers of pyrocarbon and a layer of silicon carbide which are extremely good at withstanding high temperatures. Even if there is a failure of the active systems that are designed to shut down the nuclear reaction and remove core decay heat, the reactor itself will stop any nuclear fission and eventually cool down naturally. Unlike the Chernobyl type of reactor, which during the accident produced more energy the hotter it became (known as “a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity”), the pebble-bed reactor has a strong negative temperature coefficient of reactivity which halts the chain reaction. It also cools naturally by heat transport to the environment. The size of the PBMR core ensures a high surface area to volume ratio. This means that the heat that it loses through its surface (via the same process that allows a cup of tea to cool down) is more than the heat generated by the decay of fission products in the core. The reactor therefore never reaches a temperature at which significant degradation of the fuel can occur. The plant can never be hot enough for long enough to cause damage to the fuel. This inherently safe design of the PBMR renders obsolete the need for safety backup systems and most aspects of the off-site emergency plans required for conventional nuclear reactors. It is also fundamental to the cost reduction achieved over other nuclear designs. Although plans related to aspects such as the transport of fuel will still be required, they will be modified to suit the specific characteristics of the fuel and the transport mode. The reactor core concept is based on the well-tried and proven German AVR power plant which ran for 21 years. This safe design was proven during a public and filmed plant safety test, when the flow of coolant through the reactor core was stopped and the control rods were left withdrawn just as if the plant was in normal power generation mode. It was demonstrated that the nuclear reactor core shut itself within a few minutes. It was subsequently proven that there was no deterioration over and above the normal design failure fraction of the nuclear fuel. This proved that a reactor core meltdown was not credible and that an inherently safe nuclear reactor design had been achieved.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

265 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: PBMRs Dangerous- No Toxic Byproduct
PBMRs produce minimal toxic byproduct Lyman 1 (Edwin, Scientific Director, Nuclear Control Institute
[http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/october/a6oct01.html] The Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR): Safety Issues/ October 2001) PBMR proponents do not normally bring up the issue of final disposal of the reactor's spent fuel. There is a reason for this: the volume of the spent fuel produced by a PBMR is significantly greater than that of the spent fuel produced by a conventional LWR, per unit of electricity generated. This is because the uranium in the fuel spheres is diluted in a large mass of graphite. One can estimate the volume of spent pebbles discharged per unit of electricity generated for the Eskom PBMR as follows. Each pebble has a radius of 3 cm and a volume of 113 cm^3. Eskom calculates that operating a 110 MWe unit continuously at full power for 40 years will require 13.8 full fuel loads. Since each fuel load contains 330,000 pebbles (not counting the pure graphite spheres), this means that 4.55 million will be required over the plant lifetime. The amount of electricity generated during this period is 1.61 million MWD, so the total volume of spent fuel produced is 320 cm^3/MWD. A typical 1150 MWe PWR operating on an 18month cycle will discharge about 84 fuel assemblies per outage, with each assembly having a volume of about 186,000 cm^3. The amount of electricity generated is 630,000 MWD. Therefore, the volume of spent fuel produced is 25 cm^3/MWD, a factor of 13 less than for the PBMR.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

266 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: Cost High- Cost Efficient
Decrease in maintenance and operating costs make PBMRs cost efficient Kadak 4 (Andrew, MIT [http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers1_files/PBReactors.pdf] A Future For Nuclear
Energy – Pebble Bed Reactors/ April 25, 2004) If construction costs were all that mattered, the pebble bed reactor would clearly not be economic compared to natural gas plants. However, when one includes the fuel and operating and maintenance costs since the pebble bed plant requires far fewer staff than conventional reactors due to their simplicity, the total cost of power estimated to be 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour well within the competitive range for new natural gas plants.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

267 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: Cost High- Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels/Alt Energy
PBMRs are cheaper than fossil fuels and alternative energy Harding 4 (Jim, RMI
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:xzqh1tm3aB8J:https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E0510_PebbleBedReactors.pdf+%22pebble+bed+modular+reactors%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us] Pebble Bed Modular Reactors—Status and Prospects/February 2004) In August 2003, after three years of consideration, South African environmental officials issued favorable Records of Decision on the construction of a 110 Megawatt pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR), near Cape Town, and a fuel fabrication facility in Pelindaba. The agency found that “the PBMR has the potential to generate new programmes in nuclear safety, education, construction and research…[that may] attract large numbers of South Africans toward science and technology careers and… rejuvenate the workforce. There is geopolitical significance to location and advanced and original technology programme on the African continent…[particularly with] the potential for economic development and export of subsequent PBMR units.” The decision has been appealed by the City of Cape Town and the environmental group Earthlife Africa. The state-owned electric utility Eskom plans to begin procuring long lead time materials in early 2004, and begin site excavation in 2005. Eskom believes that the pebble bed reactor is significantly safer than light water reactors, and can therefore be built without many safety features —including containment and emergency cooling systems. This judgment has not been confirmed by South African regulators. Eskom’s Board has asked the Government for an “unconditional commitment” to fund next steps of this “strategic national demonstration project,” and has released a preliminary cost estimate of 10 billion Rand (about $15,150/kW of capacity at current exchange rates). The utility has provisionally agreed to buy 10 reactors, “if the price is right.” The developers believe that subsequent units will cost about $1,000 per kilowatt of capacity or less than one-fifteenth the cost of the demonstration project. This might result in total capital recovery and operating costs of 1.7 cents/kWh, significantly below the cost of new coal, gas, or wind fired plants now under consideration in many parts of the world. It is very far below the cost of the average nuclear reactor completed in the United States ($3,000/kW in mixed current 1984 dollars). 1 PBMR, the South African consortium developing the proposal, has estimated an export potential of more than 250 units in the future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

268 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***PBMRs Bad***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

269 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Don’t Solve- No Real World Data
No real world data suggests PBMRs solve Schmidt 6 (Charlie, South Africa Info [http://www.southafrica.info/about/science/pbmr-280306.htm] SA's 'small,
safe' nuclear power/ March 28, 2006) Environmentalists aren't convinced, however. In January 2005, Earthlife Africa, an environmental group, convinced the Cape Town high court to rescind approval of the proposed plant, citing omissions in PBMR Pty's environmental impact statement. "This is a demonstration plant, and no one knows if it's even going to work," says Olivia Andrews, a campaign coordinator with Earthlife Africa in Cape Town. "The company is using us as guinea pigs." Andrews, who acknowledges that the group opposes all forms of nuclear power, claims PBMR Pty withheld information about higher-than-projected costs for the project. "PBMR is financially risky, and the company's feasibility studies are overly optimistic," she says. Kriek acknowledges that in its early stages, PBMR won't compete cost-effectively with coal, but he suggests that economies of scale and engineering improvements will produce savings in the long term. "You have to understand the upfront costs for the technology are very large; we have over 50 PhDs in this company." He adds that a fresh public hearing process was launched in November 2005 and that the company plans to resubmit its environmental impact statement with additional disclosures as soon as possible.

PBMRs have only been built on a pilot basis- no real world evidence suggests it solves Makhijani 8 (Arjun [http://www.ieer.org/comments/energy/chny-pbr.html] The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor/
June 1, 2008) The PBMR seems the latest nuclear industry attempt to sell new, improved, "inherently safe" reactors. This is an inherently misleading term. No commercial PBMR has actually been built and operated. A small German pilot reactor operated for 21 years and operated at 70 per capacity factor, according to the promoters of the PBMR (http://www.pbmr.co.za/2_about_the_pbmr/2_8background_to_the_pbmr.htm). The experience with HTGRs is decidedly mixed. The one large HTGR in the United States, the Fort St. Vrain reactor, had quite a lot of problems and was prematurely shut. PBMRs were proposed in the 1990s as possible reactors to use for waste transmutation. (See Science for Democratic Action vol. 8 no. 3, May 2000, for a description of IEER's transmutation study.) An analysis of the safety issues related to such use of PBMRs is provided in a 1996 study on transmutation by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. That safety analysis does not directly apply since the operating conditions and fuels would be different than the proposed PBMR. However, it is noteworthy that the study concluded "At this stage of its conceptual development, there is little information about the safety features of the PBR [Pebble Bed Reactor], its dominant risk factors, or its environmental impact." The study further stated that "It is not clear how the core [of the PBR] would react to any event that may interrupt the flow of helium coolant." 3

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

270 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Incentives Don’t Solve- Lack of Profit
The nuclear industry opposes PBMRs- lack of profit McMahon 5 (Tom [http://www.tommcmahon.net/2005/02/pebblebed_modul.html] Pebble-Med Modular
Reactors/ February 25, 2005) But the challenge to incumbent nuclear companies does not end there. Most of today's nuclear industry profits come from making and replacing fuel in operating plants not building new ones. Western companies have a large stake in preserving how nuclear fuel is now made, a tightly controlled system run by quasi-government entities and nuclear service companies. The status quo works for everyone, consumers included, so long as existing reactor designs are the only viable options. PBMR commercialization would upset this arrangement. PBMR uses a totally different fuel design to current reactors. PBMRs should refuel while running whereas Western designs require refueling shutdowns every two years. So PBMRs do not need either Western-style fuel or Western companies' refueling services. Faced with this challenge, nuclear vendors -- with future plant sales and lucrative fuel and services businesses at stake -- have attacked PBMR as an idea whose time will never come.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

271 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Don’t Solve- CO2
It takes 20,000 PBMRs over four decades to significantly reduce CO2 emissions Makhijani 8 (Arjun [http://www.ieer.org/comments/energy/chny-pbr.html] The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor/
June 1, 2008) About 20,000 PBMRs would be needed over the next four decades or so to make a contribution to global electricity supply that would have a significant impact on carbon dioxide emissions. Allowing a decade for reactor development (a very short time, considering none have been built), that would be almost two reactors per day being brought on line for thirty years after that. Quality control for so many reactors and their regulation would be essentially impossible. Further, were a design problem found in the PBMR a decade or two after the hectic construction phase began, it would become economically prohibitive to fix it. Fuel production for 20,000 units would have to be about 25 trillion microspheres per year. How the quality control would be implemented for such a huge supply of a relatively novel fuel would be a crucial issue for the PBMR. In this context, it is worth noting that one of the corporations leading the charge for the PBMR is BNFL, the British government-owned company that has admitted that some of the plutonium oxide-uranium-oxide (MOX) fuel that it sent to Japan had fabricated quality control data.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

272 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Not Feasible
PBMRs are not feasible for multiple reasons Harding 4 (Jim, RMI
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:xzqh1tm3aB8J:https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E0510_PebbleBedReactors.pdf+%22pebble+bed+modular+reactors%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us] Pebble Bed Modular Reactors—Status and Prospects/February 2004) In reviewing Exelon’s application to build a PBMR in the US, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff submitted 123 detailed questions on fabrication, quality control, performance in the core, and ability to measure burnup reliably. 10 After Exelon pulled out, Farouk Eltawila, director of the NRC’s Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness, noted that “to test the fuel, it would take on the order of five to seven years.” The principal fuel challenges fall into several areas. First, there is a significant challenge in fabricating, and ensuring quality control, for the microspheres themselves. NRC staff note that the fuel kernel needs to be perfectly centered in the microsphere or the kernel will migrate out of the particle. 11 At that point, fission products are not contained. The kernels are so small, and the volume is so large (5 billion microspheres for an initial core load), that fabrication and quality control are major challenges. . 12 It is also a challenge to fabricate the larger pebbles. Fifteen thousand microspheres are mixed with graphite and sintered (baked) into a large fuel pebble about the size of a tennis ball.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

273 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Dangerous- Chernobyl/Terrorist Attacks
PBMRs are subject to terrorist attacks, over heating and Chernobyl like catastrophes TMI 8 (Three Mile Island [http://www.tmia.com/industry/pebbles.html] What's Wrong With the Modular Pebble
Bed Reactor?/May 31, 2008) The pebble bed reactor is being touted as nearly "accident proof." It is being hailed as the savior of the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island Alert opposes this reactor design because of its inherent dangerous safety defects. 1. It has no containment building. 2. It uses flammable graphite as a moderator. 3. It produces more high level nuclear wastes than current nuclear reactor designs. 4. It relies heavily on nearly perfect fuel pebbles. 5. It relies heavily upon fuel handling as the pebbles are cycled through the reactor. 6. There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems. COMMENTS 1. The lack of a containment building is a necessity because cooling is by natural convection. Also, a containment building would hinder the modular design - that is - no additional reactors could be added onto the plant after initial construction. This modular capability is what is so appealing to utilities because it requires less investment from the beginning. Frankly, this single point is enough to conclude that this reactor design is unsafe. The United States has criticized Soviet reactor designs for not having containment buildings. It is the last line of defense for containing a radiological release. Furthermore, the lack of a containment building leaves the reactor(s) wide open to a terrorist attack. 2. The uranium is covered by a layer of graphite. The graphite is covered by several other layers of materials including a silicon carbide. The graphite could burn if defects in the fuel defeat the outer coverings. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers. There are approximately 370,000 pebbles in a pebble bed reactor. One tennis ball sized pebble comes out the bottom of the reactor every 30 seconds. It can be returned to the top of the reactor for additional use. The 1957 Windscale accident and the 1986 Chernobyl accident both involved burning graphite. The burning graphite dispersed radioactivity. At Chernobyl, the burning graphite released radiation for ten days. 3. Although the volume by "configuration for long term storage" is lower than current design, the actual amount of high level waste by weight is higher. The pebbles are less radioactive than conventional fuel assemblies and more pebbles are required to produce the needed heat inside the reactor. There will be many more truck and railroad transports needed to remove the wastes. This will increase the numbers of vehicle accidents and the odds of another radiological accident involving these vehicles traveling across the country. Creating even more nuclear waste without a final depository plan is unconscianable. 4. The industry acknowledges that "fuel pebble manufacturing defects are the most significant source of fission product release." Recent history shows that some companies have falsified fuel quality. In fact, there have been instances of fuel sabotage and tampering over the last few decades. Germany and Japan have shut down plants or refused fuel shipments once the problems were discovered. The industry can't produce "defect-free" fuel and therefore it is a certainty that a pebble bed reactor will experience an accident. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

274 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Dangerous- Toxic Byproduct
PBMRs produce high levels of radiological materials and carbon monoxide Makhijani 8 (Arjun [http://www.ieer.org/comments/energy/chny-pbr.html] The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor/
June 1, 2008) While the design of PBMRs would avoid fuel meltdown type accidents, a loss of the coolant could still produce serious radiological consequences. PBMRs will contain graphite, which could catch fire if air enters the core after a loss of the helium coolant. Further, a loss of coolant accident that involved a breach in the separation between the helium and water circuits poses a risk of steam-graphite reactions, which generate carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which would give rise to a fire hazard. In sum, PBMRs have their own safety vulnerabilities, specific to their design, and should not be called "inherently safe." Note that the PBMR proponents still want the government to insure their reactors under the Price Anderson Act. Might this indicate a lack of confidence in its inherent safety?

PBMRs produce 2.5 million unites of toxic waste NIRS 8 ([http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm] THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR
(PBMR)/ June 1, 2008) A single 110-megawatt PBMR will produce 2.5 million irradiated fuel elements during a 40-year operational cycle. Nuclear waste remains dangerous over geological spans of time and a threat to life from radioactive contamination would persist long after a PBMR has closed. The health and environmental uncertainties associated with a historically mismanaged radioactive legacy from continued operation of nuclear technology is yet another reason the public will not accept the PBMR

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

275 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Dangerous- Overheating
Lyman 1 (Edwin, Scientific Director, Nuclear Control Institute
[http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/october/a6oct01.html] The Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR): Safety Issues/ October 2001) Another important source of uncertainty comes from the complexity of the PBMR core, which is constantly in motion. A PBMR operator must be able to accurately compute the pebble flow, neutron flux and core temperature distributions without the benefit of in-core instrumentation (since there are no structures to support such instrumentation). Previous experience with the AVR test reactor in Germany, a precursor to the PBMR, indicates cause for concern. Experiments measuring the He coolant temperature in the AVR found numerous "hot spots" in the coolant that exceeded 1280 C, whereas the maximum predicted temperature was only 1150 C[4]. After NRC staff highlighted these findings, Exelon raised the design maximum fuel temperature limit during PBMR normal operation from 1060 C to 1250 C. This is of concern because above 1250 C the SiC layer of the TRISO fuel coating will degrade as a result of attack by palladium isotopes produced during fission[5]. It also calls into question the accuracy of the current generation of computer codes for PBMR core analysis.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

276 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PBMRs Cost High
One PBMR plant costs 1.65 billion dollars Kadak 4 (Andrew, MIT [http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers1_files/PBReactors.pdf] A Future For Nuclear
Energy – Pebble Bed Reactors/ April 25, 2004) No matter what the environmental, public health, safety and energy security advantages that nuclear energy may offer, if the product is not competitive, it will not be used. The MIT team used a comparative analysis of energy alternatives that was performed in 1992 by the Nuclear Energy Institute. The results of this comparative analysis for capital costs for a 10 unit modular plant show that the base plant overnight construction cost was $ 1.65 Billion. Applying a contingency of 23 % and an overall cost of money of 9.47%, total capital cost estimate was $ 2.3 Billion or about $ 2,000 /kw installed. On a per unit module, for a 110 MWe plant the capital cost is estimated to be about $ 200 million. This estimate is approximately double that of the PBMR proposed by ESKOM.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

277 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Breeder Reactors Good***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

278 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Solve- Long Term Solution
Breeder reactors are the only long term solution to nuclear energy Mitenkov 2 ( R.M. [Atomic Energy, Vol. 92, No. 6, 2002] PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FAST BREEDER REACTORS) The possibility of developing large-scale nuclear power is determined first and foremost by the existence of accessible fissioning materials. The natural reserves of uranium have been investigated and assessed [1]. Since these reserves are limited and no more than 1% uranium is used in thermal reactors, largescale development of nuclear power is impossible over the long term. This conclusion does not affect the recycling of fuel from thermal reactors and bringing thorium into the fuel cycle. Breeder reactors are essentially the only way to make complete use of uranium and thorium for producing energy and thereby make possible the long-term development of nuclear power. Consequently, the transition of nuclear power to a closed fuel cycle is inevitable and breeder reactors will play a determining role in the future

Breeder reactors provide enough energy to power the world for 500 thousand years Garwin 1 (Richard, Last Date Cited, The Borzi Reader
[http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/authors/garwin/qna.html] What new conclusions or arguments does Megawatts and Megatons bring to the public debate on atomic energy?) The Cheney reports looks favorably on reprocessing of spent fuel from U.S. power reactors; a recent study by an expert committee of the National Academy of Sciences finds no merit or necessity in such an approach-certainly not in reprocessing to obtain plutonium to reduce by 20% the uranium consumption of the usual U.S. reactor. Even if the entire world's energy needs were met by nuclear power, the four billion tons of uranium naturally present in the oceans would fuel the reactors for thousands of years. If no new source of energy such as nuclear fusion were perfected in a thousand years, "breeder reactors" could be used to power the world's energy needs for 500,000 years.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

279 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Solve- Other Countries
Breeder reactors have already solved France, Britain and Japan Defense Watch 8
([http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm] Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors - Myth and Promise/ June 1, 2008) In order to regulate the internal neutron flux, the primary coolant typically is one of the light metals like Sodium. Since Uranium-238 is one of the more abundant elements in the Earth's crust, Breeder Reactors make it possible to have an essentially unlimited source of fuel for nuclear reactors - which means an unlimited supply of electricity. At its best, the Breeder Reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate - is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years! Imagine a transformed energy landscape, where there is no nuclear waste problem, no power shortages, a safe and inexhaustible supply of inexpensive electricity. France has constructed and used Breeder Reactors like this for many years. So have the British and the Japanese. So why not the United States?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

280 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Solve- Fuel
Breeder reactors produce more nuclear fuel than they consume
Hornby 6 (Lucy, Reuters [http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35242/story.htm] China Seeks New Nuclear Designs Using Less Uranium/ February 22, 2006) "But technologies like fast-breeder reactors allow us to extend the life of the uranium, and eke more out of it." World uranium prices have more than tripled since 2004 to about $35 a pound, as nations trying to cut pollution take another look at nuclear power. China's plan to build as many as 30 new reactors has galvanized new exploration and investments. Fast-breeder reactors, a concept under development since the 1960s, are designed to produce more nuclear fuel than they consume. China could consider joint ventures to explore for and mine uranium in countries like Australia, said Shen Wenquan, a vice chairman at China National Nuclear Corp, without providing further details. "Uranium prices are up a lot and given current developments, they are likely to continue to rise. But they are still low in comparison with fuel prices for oil-fired plants," Shen said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

281 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Scientifically Feasible
Natural uranium isotopes supplies make breeder reactors scientifically feasible Karam 6 (Andrew, Scientific American [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-fast-breeder-react] How
do fast breeder reactors differ from regular nuclear power plants/June 17, 2006) In contrast to most normal nuclear reactors, however, a fast reactor uses a coolant that is not an efficient moderator, such as liquid sodium, so its neutrons remain high-energy. Although these fast neutrons are not as good at causing fission, they are readily captured by an isotope of uranium (U238), which then becomes plutonium (Pu239). This plutonium isotope can be reprocessed and used as more reactor fuel or in the production of nuclear weapons. Reactors can be designed to maximize plutonium production, and in some cases they actually produce more fuel than they consume. These reactors are called breeder reactors. Breeder reactors are possible because of the proportion of uranium isotopes that exist in nature. Natural uranium consists primarily of U238, which does not fission readily, and U235, which does. Natural uranium is unsuitable for use in a nuclear reactor, however, because it is only 0.72 percent U235, which is not enough to sustain a chain reaction. Commercial nuclear reactors normally use uranium fuel that has had its U235 content enriched to somewhere between 3 and 8 percent by weight. Although the U235 does most of the fissioning, more than 90 percent of the atoms in the fuel are U238--potential neutron capture targets and future plutonium atoms.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

282 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: Breeder Reactors Dangerous- No waste
Breeder reactors create unlimited energy and virtually no waste Defense Watch 8
([http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm] Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors - Myth and Promise/ June 1, 2008) In order to regulate the internal neutron flux, the primary coolant typically is one of the light metals like Sodium. Since Uranium-238 is one of the more abundant elements in the Earth's crust, Breeder Reactors make it possible to have an essentially unlimited source of fuel for nuclear reactors - which means an unlimited supply of electricity. At its best, the Breeder Reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate - is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years! Imagine a transformed energy landscape, where there is no nuclear waste problem, no power shortages, a safe and inexhaustible supply of inexpensive electricity. France has constructed and used Breeder Reactors like this for many years. So have the British and the Japanese. So why not the United States?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

283 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: Breeder Reactors Dangerous- No Terrorist Attack
Breeder reactors recycle plutonium, decreasing the risk of terrorism 98 (Interntional Nuclear Societies Council [http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/INSCAP/FBR.html] Development of the
FBR/Pu-Recycling Technology/ 1998) Fast breeder reactors make the most efficient use of natural uranium. Plutonium recycling with fast breeder reactors increases the efficiency of uranium use by a factor of 60 to 70. If we try to supply the expected share of nuclear energy to satisfy worldwide energy requirement, a shortage of uranium would be experienced around the middle of the next century. Commercial operation of fast breeder reactors by the middle of next century will become indispensable; so smooth transition of fissile materials from uranium 235 to plutonium can be achieved. If this plutonium recycling takes place, about one million tons of depleted uranium (mostly uranium 238) that the world now possesses could supply about one thousand years of nuclear power at the present world nuclear power generation level.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

284 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: Cost High- Cheapest Form of Energy
Breeder reactors are cheaper that other forms of nuclear energy and renewables Wilson 99 (Richard, The Uranium Institute [http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:0BFxqjaeVsMJ:www.worldnuclear.org/sym/1999/pdfs/wilson.pdf+breeder+reactors+cost&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us] The Changing Need for a Breeder Reactor/ September 10, 1999) The cost estimates for a liquid metal breeder reactor are certainly smaller than the cost estimates for a fusion reactor, and are (and may remain) smaller than for renewables. A breeder programme deserves by this reckoning at least as much funding as the fusion reactor which is still far in the future. But it may be desirable (although not necessary) in the intermediate term also. It is now 50 years since the start of the nuclear age and it can be said that we are only just beginning to understand how to make a viable LWR programme. A breeder reactor development programme (including real operating demonstration plants) may give enough experience to overcome some of the cost (and weapons proliferation) problems and enable us to have the safety and environmental advantages of a metal fuel reactor and a coolant that soaks up stray fission products.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

285 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Breeder Reactors Bad***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

286 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Don’t Solve- Empirically
Breeder reactors empirically fail and never reach full capacity Scheer 4 (Hermann, General Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy
[http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=19012] Nuclear Energy Belongs in the Technology Museum/ November 22, 2004) The history of the breeder reactors is a history of fiascos. Like the Russian reactor, the British reactor achieved an operating capacity of 15 percent before its shutdown in 1992. The French Super Phoenix (1200 Megawatts) attained 7 percent and cost 10 billion euros. The much smaller Japanese breeder (300 Megawatts) cost 5 billion euros and experiences regular operating problems. Making these reactors fit for operation, if that were to prove possible, would require incalculably greater add-on costs. This path of development would be prohibitive without continued or increased public expenditures. The thousand-year nuclear waste question remains an unresolved problem with unforeseeable permanent costs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

287 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Don’t Solve- Lack of Fuel
Lack of fuel sources means breeder reactors don’t solve Fetter 5 (Steve, Arms Control Association [http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_09/fetter-vonhippel.asp] Is U.S.
Reprocessing Worth The Risk?/ September 2005) Commercial reprocessing programs originated in the 1960s and 1970s when power reactor operators worldwide expected that plutonium would be needed to make start-up fuel for plutonium breeder reactors. These reactors would then fuel themselves and other reactors with the plutonium that reactors produce by transmuting the abundant non-chain-reacting uranium-238 isotope. It was believed that production of nuclear energy based on the much less abundant chain-reacting uranium-235 isotope would increase so rapidly that the world’s high-grade uranium ores would quickly be depleted, making a transition to the more uranium-efficient breeder reactors economical. This expectation, however, was wrong, as U.S. and world nuclear capacity reached a plateau at one-tenth the level that had been projected for the year 2000, huge deposits of high-grade uranium ore were discovered in Australia and Canada, and both breeder reactors and reprocessing were found to be much more costly than had been expected.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

288 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Don’t Solve- Fuel/Terror
Breeder reactors can’t generate fuel and increase the risk of nuclear terrorism White 5 (Stuart [http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/The-nuclear-power-option--expensive-ineffective-andunnecessary/2005/06/12/1118514925517.html] The nuclear power option - expensive, ineffective and unnecessary/ June 13, 2005) Second, if there was such a large-scale deployment of nuclear power, the only means by which it could become sustainable in the long term is through the use of breeder reactors, which create their own fuel in the form of plutonium. These reactors have never shown their ability to generate sufficient new fuel. Even if breeders could operate as intended, this would mean that plutonium, a highly hazardous radioactive material, would be transported in increasing quantities around the globe. The potential diversion of even a small fraction of this material would significantly increase the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

289 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Dangerous- Nuclear Weapons
Breeder reactors plutonium waste is easily accessible for nuclear weapons Chiyoda-ku 7 ([http://kakukaihatsu-hantai.jp/syomei/petition_Monju.pdf] Call for a Halt to the Restarting of
Monju Fast Breeder Reactor/ 2007) The catch phrase "Monju would produce a never-ending source of energy" is a lie. While the reactor might breed 20% more plutonium than it consumes, mainly in the reactor core, it is impossible to extract plutonium due to the interference of the contaminated noble metals that are produced by fission reactions. Therefore, it is useless. Meanwhile, a small amount of pure plutonium known as "super weapons-grade plutonium" is produced in the breeder blanket surrounding core. This is easy to extract—and is also useful for nuclear weapons.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

290 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Dangerous- Prolif
Plutonium byproduct from breeder reactors risks prolif Smith 8 (Arthur, Department of Energy [http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99142.htm] Breeder
Reactor vs. Nuclear Fission Reactor/ June 1, 2008) A breeder reactor IS a fission reactor. It is a much more efficient version of a fission reactor because it "breeds" new fuel while consuming the old fuel. This is possible because the fission reactions release lots of neutrons that can be used to transform certain non-useful isotopes into useful isotopes or elements - in particular Plutonium is generally a product of breeder reactors. However, plutonium is also rather hazardous and dangerous for reasons associated with proliferation of nuclear weapons, so breeder reactors have not been very popular in the U.S. They are widely used in other countries though (Japan and France I think).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

291 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Breeder Reactors Cost High
One breeder reactors costs 12 billion dollars Mitenkov 2 ( R.M. [Atomic Energy, Vol. 92, No. 6, 2002] PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FAST BREEDER REACTORS) Just as for sodium coolant, a large fraction of the cost of using lead coolant will undoubtedly be due to experimental investigations of materials, testing of the structural units, experimental samples of the equipment, and systems, and the technology for maintaining the quality of the lead coolant. As a result of the higher initial temperature in the case of lead (greater than 370°C), it will be more difficult to perform the experiments, and therefore such experiments will be more expensive than for sodium and the eutectic alloy lead–bismuth. As already mentioned, in our country the cost of developing and adopting sodiumcooled breeder reactors is estimated to be approximately 12 billion dollars. There are no grounds for believing that the lead solution will be less expensive. On the contrary, the arguments presented above show that these costs will be substantially higher.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

292 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Sodium Cooled Reactors Good***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

293 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

SCRs Solve- Generic
Sodium cooled reactors solve the environment, are economically competitive and prevent the threat of prolif Ichimiya 7 (Masakazu , Japan Atomic Energy Agency
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TXZk2MiXfzkJ:article.nuclear.or.kr/jknsfile/v39/JK0390171.pdf+sodium+c ooled+reactors+feasible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us] A NEXT GENERATION SODIUM-COOLED FAST REACTOR CONCEPT AND ITS R&D PROGRAM/ May 14, 2007) Critical issues in the development targets for the future fast reactor (FR) cycle system, including sodiumcooled FR were to ensure safety assurance, efficient utilization of resources, reduction of environmental burden, assurance of nuclear non-proliferation, and economic competitiveness. A promising design concept of sodium-cooled fast reactor JSFR is proposed aiming at fully satisfaction of the development targets for the next generation nuclear energy system. A roadmap toward JSFR commercialization is described, to be followed up in a new framework of the Fast reactor Cycle Technology development (FaCT) Project launched in 2006.

Sodium-cooled reactors guarantee an energy supply for the next 1000 years Ichimiya 7 (Masakazu , Japan Atomic Energy Agency
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TXZk2MiXfzkJ:article.nuclear.or.kr/jknsfile/v39/JK0390171.pdf+sodium+c ooled+reactors+feasible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us] A NEXT GENERATION SODIUM-COOLED FAST REACTOR CONCEPT AND ITS R&D PROGRAM/ May 14, 2007) The capacity for efficient burning of TRU materials, including degraded plutonium, and the excellent neutron economy are some of the advantages of the SFR, which enable the utilization of nuclear energy as a sustainable energy source over a very long time period of more than thousand years. Accordingly, the effective utilization of uranium resources includes the recycling of TRU. The current outlook is that long-term demand for energy will keep increasing on a global scale, but because there is an element of uncertainty in any projection regarding energy supply and demand, an SFR system should possess the flexibility to adapt to changing energy needs by adjusting its actinide management capability (from net consumption to net generation of fissile material)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

294 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

SCRs Solve- Empirically
Sodium-cooled reactors empirically solve Donlutz 8 ([http://www.truthaboutenergy.com/Fast%20Breeder.htmn] The Fast Breeder Nuclear Power Plant/
Junhe 1, 2008) EBR-II was a sodium-cooled fast reactor in which all the primary coolant system components were inside a single vessel containing sodium at atmospheric pressure. It began operating in 1964 and for 30 years operated safely and reliably producing and selling electricity to the local utility as well as serving as a irradiation facility for hundreds of advanced fuel and material development tests. In April 1986, two landmark tests were conducted on EBR-II demonstrating inherently passive responses to unprotected loss-of-flow and loss-of-heat-sink accident simulations. Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) had been the backbone of the U.S. breeder reactor effort since 1964. The EBR-II plant consists of a sodiumcooled reactor with a thermal power rating of 62.5 megawatts (MW), an intermediate closed loop of secondary sodium, and a steam plant that produces 19 MW of electrical power through a conventional turbine generator. The original emphasis in the design and operation of EBR-II was to demonstrate a complete breeder-reactor power plant with on-site reprocessing of metallic fuel. The demonstration was successfully carried out from 1964 to 1969. The emphasis was then shifted to testing fuels and materials for future, larger, liquid metal reactors in the radiation environment of the EBR-II reactor core. It is now operating as the IFR prototype.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

295 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Incentives Solve
Incentives would encourage development of Sodium-cooled reactors UDE 3 (US Departmet of Energy [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.html] Generation IV Nuclear Reactors/
2003) Sodium-cooled fast reactors. This builds on more than 300 reactor-years experienced with fast neutron reactors over five decades and in eight countries. It utilises depleted uranium in the fuel and has a coolant temperature of 550°C enabling electricity generation via a secondary sodium circuit, the primary one being at near atmospheric pressure. Two variants are proposed: a 150-500 MWe type with actinides incorporated into a metal fuel requiring pyrometallurgical processing on site, and a 500-1500 MWe type with conventional MOX fuel reprocessed in conventional facilities elsewhere. Early in 2008, the USA, France and Japan signed an agreement to expand their cooperation on the development of sodium-cooled fast reactor technology. The agreement relates to their collaboration in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, aimed at closing the nuclear fuel cycle through the use of advanced reprocessing and fast reactor technologies, and seeks to avoid duplication of effort.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

296 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

SCRs Feasible
The construction of sodium-cooled reactors is feasible Ichimiya 7 (Masakazu , Japan Atomic Energy Agency
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TXZk2MiXfzkJ:article.nuclear.or.kr/jknsfile/v39/JK0390171.pdf+sodium+c ooled+reactors+feasible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us] A NEXT GENERATION SODIUM-COOLED FAST REACTOR CONCEPT AND ITS R&D PROGRAM/ May 14, 2007) A promising design concept of sodium-cooled fast reactor JSFR is proposed aiming at fully satisfaction of the development targets for the next generation nuclear energy system, such as Generation IV system. (1) The construction cost would be reduced by the adoption of innovative technologies with quite clear feasibility and R&Ds of several issues are in progress now. (2) The core performance characteristics such as the breeding capability, MA burning characteristics, fuel burn-up, and operation cycle length are well suited to meet the design requirements for an oxide fuel core which satisfies safety design requirements, safety research being the most advanced regarding the oxide fuel. (3) The drawbacks of sodium, on the other hand, are overcome by system design features such as double boundary structures for sodium. Thus, the plant reliability can be ensured together and ISI&R capability can be provided.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

297 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: SCRs Dangerous-Generic
Sodium-cooled reactors are inherently safe Chikazawa 6 (Yoshitaka [Journal of NUCLEAR SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 43, No. 8, p. 829–843]
2006) A conceptual design study of a small sized sodium cooled reactor with 165MWe output with a metallic fuel, which aimed at the application for the diversified power supply has been carried out. As for core design, 550_C core outlet temperature and 20 years core life time have been achieved by utilizing the three zone core having different Zr contents in U-Pu-Zr of metallic fuel. Although the coolant void reactivity has been relatively high of 6$, the core has been confirmed to have high safety characteristic to prevent the core damage by utilizing the negative reactivity feedback and inherent and passive safety characteristics like natural circulation performance owing to low linear power density. Besides, an improved UIS which enhances CRD expansion in ATWS and a reliable EMP power source with synchronous motors which reduces frequency of emergent loss of flow have been designed. As for plant design, compact reactor vessel and simplified cooling system have been achieved by adopting a pool-type reactor vessel with the control rods control system and a forced circulation system, integrated annulus type IHX and EMPs in series arrangement and one secondary cooling loop. Though construction cost in FOAK does not satisfy the economical goal, the economical goal will be achieved in NOAK taking a learning effect into account.

Sodium cooled reactors are self cooling Mack 4 (Eric, Alt Net [http://www.alternet.org/environment/18254?page=entire] This is Just a Test/ March 26),
2004 In 2001, the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University released working papers that examined the 4S system and three other similar reactors. The report was co-authored by Neil Brown, a Nuclear Engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. In a phone interview, Brown explained that besides being smaller than most reactors, the 4S is a liquid sodium-cooled reactor, not a water-cooled one.According to Brown, there are 21 sodium-cooled reactors around the world -- including Japan's MONJU reactor, which Toshiba helped construct with three other companies in the 1985. After construction delays, MONJU first went critical in 1994, but was shut down after an accidental sodium leak and fire occurred in late 1995 while operating on low power. No radiation leaked out, but community concerns have kept MONJU shut down. "MONJU has definitely not been a success," says Paul Gunter, a reactor specialist with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C. Gunter said that experience with sodium-cooled reactors in the United States has not been much better. "The main concern (with this type of reactor) is that sodium and water have a tremendous explosive reaction. There was another near accident in Detroit at Fermi Unit One in 1966, resulting from loose parts." But attorney Douglas Rosinski, of the Washington, D.C., firm Shaw Pittman, which represents Toshiba, says the 4S system is nothing like the infamous nuclear power plants of the past. He compares the 4S to a completely self-contained, automated "nuclear battery" with no moving parts. At the heart of the 4S system is a log-sized uranium core, which would generate power for 30 years before needing to be disposed of and replaced. Brown said the reactor is similar to the first submarine reactors, and that Toshiba's design includes inherent safety characteristics, making it "a low-pressure, self-cooling reactor."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

298 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: SCRs Dangerous- No Prolif
Sodium-cooled reactors avoid prolif threats by recycling fuel Ichimiya 7 (Masakazu , Japan Atomic Energy Agency
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TXZk2MiXfzkJ:article.nuclear.or.kr/jknsfile/v39/JK0390171.pdf+sodium+c ooled+reactors+feasible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us] A NEXT GENERATION SODIUM-COOLED FAST REACTOR CONCEPT AND ITS R&D PROGRAM/ May 14, 2007) Resistance to nuclear proliferation and enhanced physical protection is a goal established for advanced systems and technologies that aims at (1) making a next generation system the least desirable route to obtaining nuclear material for use in nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, by a nation or a subnational entities, and (2) making the system less vulnerable to acts of sabotage. Among the technical features that contribute to the proliferation resistance of the SFR are the characteristics of the recycling process, which include the presence of minor actinides (MA) and highly radioactive ( , ) fission products (FP) in the recycled fuel, rather than the separation of plutonium. This results in lowering the chemical purity and the fissile fraction of Pu, and in an increase in the surface dose rate of the recycled product. These features enhance the difficulty of accessing the nuclear materials in the fuel cycle and lower their attractiveness, since separated plutonium does not exist in its pure state in any of the system’s processes. Regarding the organizational aspects, it is necessary to implement nuclear safeguards (IAEA safeguards agreements) and to always maintain an accurate material inventory through the utilization of advanced technologies

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

299 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: SCRs Dangerous- No Sodium Leakage
No sodium leakage with sodium-cooled reactors Ichimiya 7 (Masakazu , Japan Atomic Energy Agency
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TXZk2MiXfzkJ:article.nuclear.or.kr/jknsfile/v39/JK0390171.pdf+sodium+c ooled+reactors+feasible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us] A NEXT GENERATION SODIUM-COOLED FAST REACTOR CONCEPT AND ITS R&D PROGRAM/ May 14, 2007) One of the countermeasures against sodium leakage is that the whole sodium boundary of the primary and secondary heat transport systems and DHRS are covered with a guard vessel and/or guard piping structure. These measures restrict the amount of leaked sodium by accommodating it within the limited area of the guard vessel or guard piping structure, thus the sodium-surface level in the reactor vessel is maintained enough high for core cooling function. Further, sodium combustion accompanied by leakage is prevented, since the closed space between inside the outer wall is filled with inert nitrogen gas which is of lower cost than argon gas. The outer wall structure is welded to keep its sodium-leaktightness.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

300 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Sodium Cooled Reactors***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

301 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

SCRs Don’t Solve- Empirically
Sodium cooled reactors empirically fail Hirsch 6 (Brian
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:HswIEKwfnrgJ:www.yritwc.com/Presentations/Nuclear/nuclearreactorletter ucs.pdf+sodium+cooled+reactors+will+not+work&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us] SUBJECT: REVIEW OF TOSHIBA 4S SODIUM-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR PROPOSED FOR GALENA, ALASKA/ December 11, 2006) The first statement is either horribly misinformed or an outright falsehood. The history of sodium-cooled reactors in the United States had very serious incidents involving the reactor core. For example, there were the following two events involving partial meltdown of the reactor cores of sodium-cooled reactors: • In July 1959, the sodium-cooled nuclear reactor at the Santa Susana facility outside Los Angeles, California, experienced overheating causing damage to roughly one-third of the fuel elements in the reactor core. The design of this reactor was very similar to that proposed for Galena in that it also featured a low-pressure, pool-type, sodium-cooled reactor with a sodium/sodium heat exchanger and a secondary sodium/water steam generator. 6 • In October 1966, the sodium-cooled nuclear reactor at the Enrico Fermi nuclear plant outside Detroit, Michigan experienced overheating causing damage to several fuel assemblies in the reactor core.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

302 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

SCRs Dangerous- Empirically
Empirically, sodium-cooled reactors cause accidents Mack 4 (Eric, Pacific News Service [http://www.alternet.org/environment/18254] This is Just a Test/ March
26, 2004) According to Brown, there are 21 sodium-cooled reactors around the world -- including Japan's MONJU reactor, which Toshiba helped construct with three other companies in the 1985. After construction delays, MONJU first went critical in 1994, but was shut down after an accidental sodium leak and fire occurred in late 1995 while operating on low power. No radiation leaked out, but community concerns have kept MONJU shut down. "MONJU has definitely not been a success," says Paul Gunter, a reactor specialist with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C. Gunter said that experience with sodium-cooled reactors in the United States has not been much better. "The main concern (with this type of reactor) is that sodium and water have a tremendous explosive reaction. There was another near accident in Detroit at Fermi Unit One in 1966, resulting from loose parts."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

303 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

SCRs Cost High
Sodium-cooled reactors are cost inefficient and expensive Wilson 99 (Richard, The Uranium Institute [http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/wilson.htm] The Changing
Need for a Breeder Reactor/ 1999) In 1955 enthusiasts (including my cousin Derek Smith who worked on breeder reactors from his PhD in 1955 until his retirement around 1990) thought that a sodium cooled fast neutron reactor might be as cheap or cheaper than a light water cooled thermal reactor. The working temperature can be higher and the thermal efficiency perhaps 40% instead of 30%. Sodium is far less corrosive than water. It does not attack steel and make it rust. On the contrary it removes oxides. It boils at a higher temperature than water enabling a high thermal efficiency without using high pressures. Even in 1973 the cost differential was not thought to be big. But the shutdown of all operating experimental breeder reactors suggests that even their operating costs are higher than the operating costs of LWRs. Various factors have increased the cost of nuclear power until now, in the USA, the busbar cost (including paying off the mortgage) is about 5 US cents/kWh, nearly 10 times the 1973 figure. Even this high cost is competitive with most non-fossil fuel alternatives, although not with fossil fuels. The fuel cost increase which Benedict found unacceptable is only 10% of this busbar cost and an even smaller fraction of the retail cost which includes transmission and distribution costs (and some other items) of a few cents per kWh. The charge on my electricity bill is 9 US cents per kWh, compared with which 0.5 cents per kWh is small. Therefore we can afford to use the more expensive uranium resource without appreciably increasing the final electricity cost. Using Benedict’s figures, a worldwide LWR system could produce about 4 x 1015 kWh (4.6 x 105 GW-years) of electricity, or enough for over a century at an optimistic postulated year 2030 demand of 2500 GW-years. This suggests that scarcity of affordable uranium is not an issue at present. An early (within 50 years) deployment of a breeder reactor must be justified by more than this. These considerations therefore suggest that a breeder may not be cost effective for some time to come.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

304 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***High Temp Gas Cooled Reactors Good***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

305 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

HTGRs Solve- Energy Needs
HTGRs solve for the world’s energy needs Miller 8 (Jana, Nuclear Power International
[http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/332484/140/ARTCL/none/none/1/Powering-Up-a-Growing-Nation/] Powering Up a Growing Nation/ June 2008) According to Wu, the HTR-10’s design is tailor-made for the world’s fastest growing energy market. “Regions that are in the process of transforming from rural to industrial can start small, but add new modules as the area and its fuel demands grow,” he said. “We can provide them with modules one at a time, if needed. This makes startup costs affordable and the reactors will be cheaper to operate as they grow, thanks to economies of scale in everything from staff to fuel supply.” The nuclear reactor’s byproduct will be hydrogen, a clean fuel that provides options that are less harmful to the environment. The HTR is the only reactor that can provide a nuclear heat source to produce hydrogen, Wu said. Not surprisingly, a number of countries are closely watching these developments in China. “Many of my colleagues around the world agree that high-temperature gas-cooled reactors using pebble fuel offer the most potential for commercially meeting the future environmentally friendly needs of global power generation,” Wu said

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

306 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

HTGRs Solve- Efficient
HTGRs are more efficient than other forms of nuclear power Chuan 94 (Yi-Chie, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
[http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ychuan/HTGR.html] Nuclear High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor/ Fall 94) HTGR is used as an alternative to light water-cooled and moderated reactors. It uses graphite as a moderator and helium as the coolant. HTGR has been used for electric power generation for a long time. The helium coolant enters the reactor at 636F and exits at 1377F. It is possible to employ conventional superheat/reheat cycles found in high performance fossil-fueled power plants becauseof these high temperatures. The overall plant efficiency for HTGRs is 39 percent which compares quite favorably with the 33 percent efficiency obtained with LWR power plants.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

307 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

HTGRs Feasible
High temperature gas cooled reactors are scientifically feasible IPCC 8 ([http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/high-temperature-gas-cooled-reactors.html] High
Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors/ June 2, 2008) High Temperature Gas cooled Reactors (HTGRs)distinguished from other gas-cooled reactors by the higher temperatures attained within the reactor. Such higher temperatures might permit the reactor to be used as an industrial heat source in addition to generating electricity. Among the future uses for which HTGRs are being considered is the commercial generation of hydrogen from water. In some cases, HTGR turbines run directly by the gas that is used as a coolant. In other cases, steam or alternative hot gases such as nitrogen are produced in a heat exchanger to run the power generators. Recent proposals have favored helium as the gas used as an HTGR coolant. The most famous U.S. HTGR example was the Fort Saint Vrain reactor that operated between 1974 and 1989. Other HTGRs have operated elsewhere, notably in Germany. Small research HTGR prototypes presently exist in Japan and China. Commercial HTGR designs are now promoted in China, South Africa, the United States, the Netherlands, and France though none of these is yet commercially marketed.

HTGRs are being built in other countries IAEA 8 (International Atamoc Energy Agency [http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/htgr/topics/article_01.html]
Topical Article 1: Modular HTGR Technology/ June 2, 2008) HTGR technology is once again receiving increasing interest in many countries around the world as a promising future energy option. HTGR research reactors are coming on line in Japan and China, and two power plant designs are being pursued as international development projects, and additional design studies are under way. The renewed interest is based primarily on modular design concepts that utilise unique properties of the technology to assure retention of radioactive fission products by inherent and passive means. This characteristic offers the promise of an economically competitive electricity generation option at modest unit size, suitable for construction and operation in both industrialised and developing countries. The high temperature capability and smaller unit size also offers the prospect of non-electrical applications for high temperature process heat, as well as low temperature energy supply through cogeneration.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

308 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: HTGRs Dangerous- No Over Heating/Terror
HTGRs are inherently safe against overheating and terrorist attacks Chuan 94 (Yi-Chie, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
[http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ychuan/HTGR.html] Nuclear High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor/ Fall 94) 6.1 Engineered Safeguards (1). Reactor protection system and shutdown devices. Shutdown functions of the protection system and isolation of the steam generator after a water or steam pipe rupture are similar to those of THTR 300. Besides the control rods, which serve also as shutdown rod, a secondary shutdown device is demanded by the recent safety criteria in Germany. Up to now there is no final decision on the design of this device. (2). Residual heat removal system. The system is designed to remove residual heat after normal shutdown and after all anticipated incidents. Because of the high redundancy of the primary He-loops these are also used for residual heat removal. Residual heat is transfered by means of the steam generators to seperate auxiliary steam-water loops. Steam flows through a throttle-valve to a watercooled condenser and the condensate is recycled to the steam generator. One auxiliary loop is fed by two steam generators. The whole residual heat removal system, except the cooling tower for the condenser cooling, is installed inside the containment. The capacity of the system is 200% for the loss of coolant accident with a primary gas pressure of 3.3 bar, that means a redundancy of the primary loops of 8 * 25 % (or 12 * 16 %) and of the auxiliary loops of 4 * 50 %. If intermediate He-circuits are used particular He-water heat exchangers are provided for residual heat removal instead of the steam generators. (3). Containment. Licensing practice in FRG indicates, that all power reactors must be protected against airplane crash, although the probability of such events is in most cases less than 10^-6 per reactor year. The following assumptionsl are made: A projectile of 7 m^2 cross section hits the containment perpendicularly with a time dependent impact. To achieve a reasonable protection a concrete wall of a thickness between 2 and 3 meters is needed. If one accepted this, it is only a small further step to get a containment which is able to withstand an internal pressure of 3.3 bar and which is gastight as it is necessary to govern a large primary leakage. Such a building can also easily designed against the pressure wave of an external gas explosion.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

309 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***High Temp Gas Cooled Reactors Bad***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

310 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

HTGRs Don’t Solve
HTGRs are continuously shut down and have high costs Reitberger 7 (Torbjorn [http://www.kemi.kth.se/nuchem/eng/utbildning/rc/reactor_concepts.pdf]
This is a thermal neutron reactor design generally graphite moderated and CO] Reactor types and reactor concepts/ September 2007) This is a thermal neutron reactor design generally graphite moderated and CO2 cooled. They can have a higher thermal efficiency compared with PWRs due to higher operating temperatures. There are a number of reactors of this design, mostly in the United Kingdom where the concept was developed, e.g. Calder Hall the first commercial nuclear power plant in the west, which was in operation between 1956 and 2001, was of this design. Today, first generation GCR reactors like Magnox are either shut down or will be in the near future. However, the AGCRs have an anticipated life of a further 10 to 20 years. Decommissioning costs can be high due to large (graphite) volume of reactor core.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

311 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors Good***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

312 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PHWRs Solve- Energy Dependence
PHWRs will create energy independence Ragheb 7 (M
[https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Hea vy%20Water%20Reactor.pdf] Heavy Water Reactor/ October 9, 2007) The Heavy Water Reactor (HWR) concept allow the use of natural uranium as a fuel without the need for its enrichment, offering a degree of energy independence, especially if uranium is available for mining or for extraction as a byproduct of another industry such as gold mining or phosphate fertilizer production. However, it needs the installation of a heavy water D2O production capability, which is a much simpler endeavor anyway, since separating the light isotopes (D from H) is much simpler than separating the heavy isotopes (U235 from U238). HWRs have become a significant proportion of world reactor installations, second only to the Light Water Reactors (LWRs). They provide fuel cycle flexibility for the future and can potentially burn the recycled fuel from LWRs, with no major reactor design changes, thus extending resources and reducing spent fuel storage.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

313 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PHWRs Solve- Energy Efficiency
PHWRs are energy efficient United States Patent Office 0 ([http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3859165.html] EPITHERMAL TO
INTERMEDIATE SPECTRUM PRESSURIZED HEAVY WATER BREEDER REACTOR / 2000) Both pressurized light and heavy water moderated and cooled breeder reactors are highly attractive from an engineering standpoint because of the availability of the extensive pressurized water technology which has already been developed in the nuclear power field. As the neutron spectrum is hardened in an uranium-233 fueled light water breeder reactor, the conversion ratio steadily increases from a thermal value of 0.8 at a moderator-to-fuel atom ratio greater than 7 to a value of about 1.06 at a moderator-to-fuel atom ratio of 1.0. This conversion ratio increase is due to a reduction in parasitic neutron absorption in the moderator and structural material more than compensating for a decrease in eta (η) in the higher energy neutron spectra. However, light water breeders provide only a sufficient breeding margin to permit self-sustained operation with very long doubling times.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

314 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PHWRs Feasible- GSE Expanding
GSE expanding pressurized water reactors in the future Trading markets 6/24/8 http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1709619/
GSE Systems, Inc. (GSE) (AMEX:GVP), a leading global provider of real-time simulation and training solutions to the energy, process, manufacturing and government sectors announced earlier today a letter of intent (LOI) from a Japanese customer for GSE to build two new full scope nuclear simulators and also received authorization to immediately commence work on both. Both simulators will be designed and delivered to existing nuclear power plants in Japan one Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) design and one Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) design. These new state of the art simulators will replace outdated simulation at both sites. Once final design details are completed GSE and its Japanese customer will transition from the LOI into formal contracts, at which time the remaining contract values will be placed into GSEs backlog. GSE will recognize the associated revenues over an approximate 4 year period using the percentage of completion method common for the Companys large, multi-year contracts. John V. Moran, GSEs Chief Executive Officer commented, The LOI and authorization to start work on the two full scope nuclear plant simulators in Japan is a major achievement and positions us well in the Japanese nuclear market, a market that GSE has a strong historical presence in. Government officials and third party publications have indicated that Japan will build approximately 14 new nuclear power plants over the next twenty years. We are now simultaneously working on five new full scope nuclear simulators (two plant specific simulators for the Westinghouse AP1000 design, one pre-construction simulator for the Chinese CRP 1000+ design, and now two plant specific full scope PWR and BWR simulators in Japan). Based largely on our global customers projections for new reactor construction and their power generation start up targets, we anticipate a continuation of new order flow in this business sector. These large multi-year awards will begin to have a meaningful contribution to our growth metrics as we progress into 2009 and beyond, which should mark the beginning of a multiyear growth phase in our once near dormant nuclear new build sector. This new build work will complement the steady flow of domestic and global business in our nuclear upgrade and modification market, our non-nuclear simulation market and our emerging training and education center initiatives.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

315 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors Bad***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

316 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

PHWRs Dangerous- Radioactive Leaks
PHWRs are at risk of accident, leading to radioactive leaks Union of Concerned Scientists 5/8 http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/containment-sump-failure.html
According to government reports, the odds that one of the nation’s nuclear power reactors will have a serious accident is about 100 times higher than necessary. This clear and present danger is virtually being ignored by the federal agency empowered to protect the public. Instead, this agency focuses its attention on improving the financial performance of the nuclear industry. The danger is failure of the containment sump during an accident at a nuclear plant with a pressurized water reactor. The cavalier agency is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The time is now to poke and prod the Nuclear Regulatory Commission into setting aside the industry’s business for as long as it takes to eliminate this undue threat to public health and safety. What is the pressurized water reactor containment sump problem? Sixty-nine of the nation’s 103 operating nuclear power units are pressurized water reactors (PWRs). The PWR gets its name from the fact that water flowing through the nuclear core inside the reactor vessel is maintained under high pressure (approximately 2,200 pounds per square inch) to prevent it from boiling even though it gets heated to over 500°F. The hot water flows from the reactor vessel to two or more steam generators inside the containment building. The hot water flows through thin metal tubes inside the steam generators. Lower pressure water on the outside of the tubes absorbs heat passing through the tube walls and boils to produce the steam that spins a turbine/generator to make electricity. The water coming out of the steam generator tubes—about 20°F cooler—is pumped back to the reactor vessel to be reused. If the reactor vessel gets a hole in it, or the piping between the reactor vessel and steam generators breaks, or a relief valve opens, the high pressure forces water out through the opening very rapidly. This is called a loss of coolant accident (LOCA), because the water removes heat produced by the nuclear fuel, thus cooling it. If this heat is not removed, the nuclear fuel will be damaged from overheating. When plant sensors detect a LOCA, such as by the rapid drop in pressure inside the reactor vessel, safety features automatically begin to supply makeup water. For example, the charging and safety injection pumps will automatically supply makeup water taken from the refueling water storage tank (RWST). Even if the RWST were infinitely large or if a backup to the RWST was available, at some point the operators must switchover the source of makeup water from the RWST to the containment sump. Recall that the makeup water is needed to compensate for the water pouring out through a broken pipe or open relief valve. This spilled water drains to the basement of the containment where the sump is located. If only outside water is used, the containment would fill up with water, submerging electrical equipment inside containment that must operate and challenging the structural integrity of the containment by the sheer weight of the rising water. So, operators close the valves from the RWST and open the valves from the sump so that the pumps recycle the water inside containment.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

317 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Boiling Water Reactors Good***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

318 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Solve- New Technology
Boiling water reactors combine new technology to make efficient reactors Neuman 8 (Lori, Reuters [http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS205997+25-Mar2008+BW20080325] NRG Forms Company to Develop Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Projects.../ March 25, 2008) ABWR technology reflects 50 years of continued evolution of boiling water reactor (BWR) technology and combines the best features of the worldwide BWR fleet with advanced technology enhancements that improve safety, performance and longevity. ABWR technology is certified by the NRC and has an impressive construction and operational track record. This includes setting world records for construction time and bringing the units in on budget. Four ABWR units have been successfully commissioned in Japan in 39 months or less. Toshiba has built two of these and has developed significant operational experience in providing support to these ABWR units.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

319 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Solve- Empirically
BWRs empirically solve around the world Reisch 7 (F., Department of Nuclear Power Safety [http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-18/HP-BWR.htm]
CONCEPT OF A FUTURE HIGH PRESSURE - BOILING WATER REACTOR, HP-BWR / Fall 2007) Some four hundred Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) and Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) have been in operation for several decades. The present concept, the High Pressure Boiling Water Reactor (HP-BWR), makes use of this operating experience. The best parts of the two reactor types are used and the troublesome components are left out. This means improved safety. The increased thermal efficiency is beneficial to the environment as less cooling water is released per produced kWh. With some modifications the used components can be used to make this design cost effective and possible to achieve in the currently not too distant future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

320 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Feasible- US Approval
U.S. Will Approve New Boiling Water Reactors SciAm 3/28/8 (scientific American) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=us-will-approve-new-nuclear-reactors
One of the U.K.'s top nuclear officials said today that she was told the U.S. will okay plans to build the first nuclear power plants since the accident at Three Mile Island nearly three decades ago. Lady Barbara Thomas Judge, chair of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, said that the chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission informed her that the NRC will approve three applications for new nuclear reactors that it's currently considering. "Dale Klein told me that those three nuclear applications will be approved," she told the State of the Planet conference at Columbia University today, the 29th anniversary of the accident at Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pa. (Subsequently, a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the then Ukrainian Soviet Republic melted down in April 1986 in what would become the worst nuclear power accident in history, spreading radiation as far away as North America and leading to the evacuation and resettlement of more than 336,000 people). "The politics is changing," she added, noting growing enthusiasm for nuclear power as the clean alternative to coal-burning plants. Even some environmentalists have begun to embrace nuclear power, because of its potential to reduce the greenhouse emissions that are blamed for global warming. But critics question the safety of nuclear power, citing such concerns as the potential for catastrophic meltdowns, their potential vulnerability to terrorists, the lack of workable evacuation plans in the event of accidents as well as the problem of dealing with radioactive waste. Among the pending applications: a plan to build two additional boiling-water reactors at the South Texas Project power plant near Houston. As many as 29 other reactors could be built, according to Bill Borchardt, director of the NRC's Office of New Reactors.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

321 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: BWRs Dangerous- Safety Features
BWRs have been in safety measures that prevent accidents Raj 0 (Baldev, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research [http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/801/801.htm]
Keynote Nuclear: A Perspective on Development in NDE to Enable a Safe & Reliable Nuclear Power Industry/ 2000) The core shroud in boiling water reactors (BWR) is a stainless steel cylinder which partitions feed water in the reactor vessel's downcomer annulus region from cooling water flowing through the core . The core shroud also provides a refloodable volume under postulated accident conditions and maintains the core geometry. Intergranular stress corrosion cracks (IGSCC) have been observed in the HAZ regions of the welds in the shrouds made of stainless steels due to residual stresses and operating stresses, sensitisation and the corrosive environment. Additionally, the radiation environment enhances the susceptibility for IGSCC of the shroud and this is referred to as irradiation assisted stress corrosion cracking (IASCC), which normally occurs above a fluence value of about 5x1020 n/cm2. Visual examination for location of the cracks and UT for detection of the cracks (which showed good correlation with the visual examination results) and for the determination of the depth of the cracks by remote handling devices have been developed and implemented (Srinivasan and Prasad,1994b).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

322 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: BWRs Dangerous- Empirically Safe
Extensive experience with BWRs guarantees safety Reisch 7 (F., Department of Nuclear Power Safety [http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-18/HP-BWR.htm]
CONCEPT OF A FUTURE HIGH PRESSURE - BOILING WATER REACTOR, HP-BWR / Fall 2007) Since the 1950s several hundred Boiling Water and Pressurized Water Reactors (BWRs and PWRs) in use. There is a wealth of operating experience. During this have been time many difficulties occurred with a number of important components. This concept, the High Pressure – Boiling Water Reactor (HP-BWR) offers a solution to use the best parts from each type (BWR and PWR) and leave out the troublesome components. This means an important increase of safety. As an extra benefit, also increased efficiency attained beneficial for the environment as less cooling water is released per produced kWh. The HP-BWR is using –with some modifications- currently manufactured parts making this a cost effective, realistic concept.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

323 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Cost Low
BWRs are cost efficient GE 8 (GE Energy [http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear/en/index.htm] Nuclear Plants &
Instrumentation/ 2008) GE provides technology-based products and services that help owners of Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) nuclear power plants safely operate their plants with greater efficiency and output. We also offer the proven Advanced BWR (ABWR) design. The ABWR nuclear plant is an economically competitive option for utilities that need additional baseload power generation capacity. The ABWR provides low cost, emission-free electricity. It can be built in only four years for a cost ranging from $1,400 to $1,600 USD per kW, depending on the host country. The ABWR has been licensed in three countries, including the United States, Japan and Taiwan. GE is also a market leader in the design and manufacture of harsh environment sensors.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

324 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Boiling Water Reactors Bad***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

325 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Don’t Solve- Public Opinion
BWRs won’t solve- the public is set against them Kyodo 6 (The Japan Times [http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060325a1.html] Court orders new reactor's
halt/ March 25, 2006) KANAZAWA, Ishikawa Pref. -- The Kanazawa District Court ordered Hokuriku Electric Power Co. to shut down the No. 2 reactor at its Shika power plant Friday in Ishikawa Prefecture, recognizing a citizen group's claim that it would be vulnerable, as it sits near a fault line, if a major quake hit. Hokuriku Electric Power began full operation of the upgraded 1,358-megawatt boiling-water reactor on March 15. It is the nation's 55th commercial reactor and second-largest in terms of output. The 135 plaintiffs, from 17 prefectures, filed the lawsuit in August 1999, initially demanding the reactor not be built. The plaintiffs had said the reactor was too weak, noting it was built using 20-year-old antiquake-design guidelines from the government. They said residents were at serious risk of being exposed to a major accident because the reactor is near the Ochigata fault line, which the government's Earthquake Research Committee has said could have a major temblor of magnitude 7.6. Their suit also said the advanced boiling-water reactor is more dangerous than conventional boiling-water reactors as the advanced model was created for cost efficiency and the power supply in the Hokuriku region currently exceeds demand. Presiding Judge Kenichi Ido said the utility "has not taken into consideration an earthquake that may occur at the Ochigata fault belt." "There is a possibility that the plaintiffs may be exposed to radiation in an accident at the plant caused by an earthquake that is beyond the defendant's expectation," Ido said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

326 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Dangerous- Safety Issues
Boiling water reactors face serious safety issues Burlington 6/8 http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080630/OPINION/806300303/1006
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) is scheduled to close for good on the first day of spring 2012 after 40 years of troubled operation. However, in 2006, Entergy Corp., the Louisiana company that owns the plant, applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a 20-year license extension. Also in 2006, the Vermont Legislature passed Act 160, which says ENVY cannot operate after 2012 "unless the general assembly approves and determines that the operation will promote the general welfare." In January, Entergy announced it was setting up a new company that would go deeply into debt by paying billions of dollars to Entergy to buy six of its nuclear plants, including ENVY. The new company, which Entergy is now calling Enex- us, would relieve Entergy of responsibility in case of an accident at any of these plants, five of which are nearing 40 years old. The sale would also take Entergy off the hook for decommissioning the plants after an accident or scheduled closure. The scheme is reminiscent of Entergy's non-nuclear New Orleans subsidiary that went bankrupt after Hurricane Katrina to protect the parent company's money. ENVY has the earliest generation GE commercial boiling water reactor containment, called the Mark I. The Atomic Energy Commission, (predecessor of the NRC) stopped licensing the Mark I design in 1972. GE is now selling the much larger Mark III. Unlike the competing pressurized water reactor containment, the Mark I reduced its cost by omitting several feet of reinforced concrete, substituting instead what experts learned was an inadequate "pressure suppression" system. The same year ENVY began commercial operation, Dr. Stephen Hanuaer, a safety official at NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, recommended that the Mark I design be discontinued. Describing serious issues with the Mark I design, three GE nuclear engineers resigned that year. Even more disturbing, in 1986 top NRC staff member Harold Denton told an industry trade group, "You'll find something like a 90 percent probability of that containment failing" when it is needed in an accident. A detailed 2,400-page relicensing application of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey by the owner and operator, AmerGen Energy Co., says that its GE Mark I radiation containment system has a 74 percent chance of failure if the reactor core melts or fuel is damaged during an accident. These details are part of AmerGen's risk analysis for its effort to keep Oyster Creek running for 20 more years. Rather than acting promptly to strengthen the defective Mark I containment design, ENVY installed a vent system. This "fix" supposedly saves the containment from rupture by venting the high pressure steam. But a severe accident that melts fuel and causes the fuel's zirconium cladding to react with water to produce hydrogen could release more than steam: tons of volatile radioactive fission products could be vented directly into the atmosphere. Thus, Mark I's defective containment may be saved from rupturing but the purpose of the containment -- to contain radioactivity -- may be defeated. This containment issue is only one of the items included in the NRC's 36-page list of so-called generic nuclear power plant safety issues.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

327 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Dangerous- Degradation
BWR components age quickly, creating serious safety issues Gunter 96 (Paul, NIRS [http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm] HAZARDS OF BOILING WATER
REACTORS IN THE UNITED STATES/ March 1996) It is becoming increasingly clear that the aging of reactor components poses serious economic and safety risks at BWRs. A report by NRC published in 1993 confirmed that age-related degradation in BWRs will damage or destroy many vital safety-related components inside the reactor vessel before the forty year license expires. The NRC report states "Failure of internals could create conditions that may challenge the integrity the reactor primary containment systems." The study looked at major components in the reactor vessel and found that safety-related parts were vulnerable to failure as the result of the deterioration of susceptible materials (Type 304 stainless steel ) due to chronic radiation exposure, heat, fatigue, and corrosive chemistry. One such safety-related component is the core shroud and it is also an indicator of cracking in other vital components through the reactor made of the same material.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

328 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

BWRs Cost High
BWRs cost $84.6 million USNRC 8 (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission [http://www.nrc.gov/infofinder/decommissioning/power-reactor/lacrosse-boiling-water-reactor.html] LaCrosse/ April 14, 2008) The La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) is owned and was operated by the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC). LACBWR was a nuclear power plant of nominal 50 Mw electrical output, which utilized a forced-circulation, direct-cycle boiling water reactor as its heat source. The plant is located on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Vernon County, Wisconsin. The plant was one of a series of demonstration plants funded, in part, by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The nuclear steam supply system and its auxiliaries were funded by the AEC, and the balance of the plant was funded by DPC. The Allis-Chalmers Company was the original licensee; the AEC later sold the plant to DPC and provided them with a provisional operating license. LACBWR was shut down on April 30, 1987. The SAFSTOR decommissioning plan (DP) was approved on August 7, 1991. The DP is considered the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR). The PSDAR public meeting was held on May 13, 1998. DPC has been conducting dismantlement and decommissioning activities and is currently developing plans for an independent spent fuel storage installation. The current decommissioning cost estimate is $84.6 million.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

329 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

***Fusion***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

330 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Fusion Reactors Solve- Generic
Fusion reactors use less fuel, don’t create toxic waste and provide an abundant amount of energy Freudenrich 8 (Craig, Ph.D. [http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor.htm] How Nuclear Fusion
Reactors Work/ May 16, 2008) The main application for fusion is in making electricity. Nuclear fusion can provide a safe, clean energy source for future generations with several advantages over current fission reactors: Abundant fuel supply - Deuterium can be readily extracted from seawater, and excess tritium can be made in the fusion reactor itself from lithium, which is readily available in the Earth's crust. Uranium for fission is rare, and it must be mined and then enriched for use in reactors. Safe - The amounts of fuel used for fusion are small compared to fission reactors. This is so that uncontrolled releases of energy do not occur. Most fusion reactors make less radiation than the natural background radiation we live with in our daily lives. Clean - No combustion occurs in nuclear power (fission or fusion), so there is no air pollution. Less nuclear waste - Fusion reactors will not produce high-level nuclear wastes like their fission counterparts, so disposal will be less of a problem. In addition, the wastes will not be of weapons-grade nuclear materials as is the case in fission reactors.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

331 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Fusion Reactors Solve- Warming/Safety
Fusion reactors solve for warming and have built in safety features BBC 6 (BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4627237.stm] Q&A: Nuclear fusion reactor/
February 6, 2006) The best fuel for fusion comprises two types, or isotopes, of hydrogen: deuterium and tritium. The former can be derived from water which is abundant and available everywhere. The latter can be produced from lithium, which is plentiful in the Earth's crust. Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, fusion reactions produce no carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed by scientists for warming the planet. Fusion scientists also say the system would be inherently safe because any malfunction would result in a rapid shutdown.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

332 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Fusion Reactors Feasible- Commercially
Fusion reactors are commercially viable Freudenrich 8 (Craig, Ph.D. [http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor.htm] How Nuclear Fusion
Reactors Work/ May 16, 2008) Fusion reactors have been getting a lot of press recently because they offer some major advantages over other power sources. They will use abundant sources of fuel, they will not leak radiation above normal background levels and they will produce less radioactive waste than current fission reactors. Nobody has put the technology into practice yet, but working reactors aren't actually that far off. Fusion reactors are now in experimental stages at several laboratories in the United States and around the world. A consortium from the United States, Russia, Europe and Japan has proposed to build a fusion reactor called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache, France, to demonstrate the feasibility of using sustained fusion reactions for making electricity. In this article, we'll learn about nuclear fusion and see how the ITER reactor will work.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

333 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Fusion Reactors Feasible- Scientifically
Fusion reactors are a scientifically viable option MSNBC 5 ([http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8385911/] $13 billion nuclear fusion site gets green light/ June 28,
2005) Six partners, the United States among them, have chosen France as the site for a $13 billion experimental nuclear fusion reactor that, if successful, would open the door to cleaner and abundant energy, the partners announced Tuesday. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, is intended to show that nuclear fusion, which harnesses the same energy that heats the sun to generate electricity, can wean the world off pollution-producing fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion also produces no greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists tie to global warming, and only low levels of radioactive waste. The project is funded by Japan, the United States, South Korea, Russia, China and the European Union, but the six parties had been divided over where to put the test reactor, which would fuse atomic nuclei at extremely high temperatures inside a giant electromagnetic ring. Competition was intense. At stake are billions of dollars worth of research funding, construction and engineering contracts, and the creation of thousands of jobs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

334 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

A2: Fusion Reactors Dangerous- Not Weapons Grade
Fusion reactors don’t produce weapons-grade nuclear material Freudenrich 8 (Craig, Ph.D. [http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor.htm] How Nuclear Fusion
Reactors Work/ May 16, 2008) The main application for fusion is in making electricity. Nuclear fusion can provide a safe, clean energy source for future generations with several advantages over current fission reactors: Abundant fuel supply - Deuterium can be readily extracted from seawater, and excess tritium can be made in the fusion reactor itself from lithium, which is readily available in the Earth's crust. Uranium for fission is rare, and it must be mined and then enriched for use in reactors. Safe - The amounts of fuel used for fusion are small compared to fission reactors. This is so that uncontrolled releases of energy do not occur. Most fusion reactors make less radiation than the natural background radiation we live with in our daily lives. Clean - No combustion occurs in nuclear power (fission or fusion), so there is no air pollution. Less nuclear waste - Fusion reactors will not produce high-level nuclear wastes like their fission counterparts, so disposal will be less of a problem. In addition, the wastes will not be of weapons-grade nuclear materials as is the case in fission reactors.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

335 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Fusion Reactors Can’t Solve- Generic
Fusion fuel reactors only have a 50/50 chance of being successful- each plant takes 10 years to build MSNBC 5 ([http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8385911/] $13 billion nuclear fusion site gets green light/ June 28,
2005) Some scientists have warned that Cadarache could be prone to earth tremors, a view discounted by France's government. And opponents note that the project, which will take 10 years to build, is only experimental and that it would be at least 50 years before a commercially viable reactor is built. Greenpeace, for one, stated that “at a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project.” Some also contend that fusion fuel is neither clean nor safe, although they acknowledge it would be a safer energy source than nuclear fission. The project also faces challenges like trying to build a reactor that can sustain temperatures of about 180 million degrees Fahrenheit for long enough to generate power. “I give it a 50:50 chance of success but the engineering is very difficult,” said Ian Fells of Britain’s Royal Academy of Engineering. “If we can really make this work there will be enough electricity to last the world for the next 1,000 to 2,000 years.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

336 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Fusion Reactors Not Feasible- Commercially
Fusion reactors won’t be commercially viable for 40 years BBC 6 (BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4627237.stm] Q&A: Nuclear fusion reactor/
February 6, 2006) When will the first commercial fusion reactor be built? Not for a long time. Experimental fusion reactors like the Joint European Torus (Jet) at Culham in the UK currently use more energy than they release. There are therefore many major scientific and engineering hurdles to overcome before the technology becomes commercially viable. A commercial reactor is not expected before 2045 or 2050 - if at all. Indeed, there is no guarantee that Iter will succeed. The running joke is that fusion has been "just decades away" for several decades. And many commentators, particularly those greens who have fought long campaigns against nuclear fission, are deeply suspicious of fusion. They doubt Iter will deliver and believe the money earmarked for the project would be better spent on renewables, such as wind, wave and solar, for which technical solutions already exist.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

337 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Fusion Reactors Dangerous- Hydrogen Bomb
Fusion reactors produce the materials necessary for a hydrogen bomb MSNBC 5 ([http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8385911/] $13 billion nuclear fusion site gets green light/ June 28,
2005) ITER would have an advantage over current nuclear reactors because it would be cleaner. It would not rely on enriched uranium fuel and it would not produce plutonium, which is a concern from a terrorism point of view. Fusion reactors would, however, still pose some radiation danger. "In the course of the reaction it produces a lot of neutrons and they get into the actual fabric of the machine and over years it becomes radioactive, so there is still a problem of decommissioning,” said Fells. “The technology of this is the science of the hydrogen bomb,” Fells added. “You take a couple of hydrogen atoms and you squeeze them together, you fuse them together, and they turn into an atom of helium and produce a great burp of energy.” Scientists know it could work because they know the hydrogen bomb works. But the problem they face is trying to do it in a controlled manner so the heat can be used to generate electricity. The hydrogen atom used is deuterium, which is a stable isotope of hydrogen. “The oceans are absolutely stuffed full of it,” said Fells.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars

338 Nuclear Power Good/Bad

Fusion Reactors Dangerous- Terrorists
Fusion reactors will be key targets of terrorists for the weapons supply NIRS 4 ([http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/603/5574.php] The
Proliferation Risks of ITER/ February 13, 2004) There are several valid arguments against the construction of the ITER reactor and continued research into fusion energy; tremendous costs, safety risks, radioactive waste to name a few. The ISRI researchers focussed on the strategic-political and military-technical implications of the fusion research and reviewed two aspects of the proliferation risk: the availability of tritium, which can be used both in fusion reactors and nuclear weapons, and scientific knowledge on fusion physics. Tritium and nuclear weapons The oldest design for nuclear weapons consists of pure high-enriched uranium and/or plutonium materials. The Nagasaki bomb for instance contained 6 kilograms of plutonium and 120 kilograms of uranium; to compress the materials and start the chain reaction, 2,500 kilograms of high explosives surrounds the nuclear core making the bomb large (1.3 meters), heavy (about 3,000 kilograms) and deliverable by airplane only. "Boosting" technology has made it possible to decrease the weight and size of a weapon. Its core materials remain the same but prior to detonation, the center is injected with a mixture of deuteriumtritium gas. Compressed by chemical explosives, an initial chain reaction begins with subsequent X-rays and neutrons heating the gas at the center. The pressure and temperature of the gas is sufficient to start the fusion reaction, the mixture rapidly burns out generating an intense pulse of neutrons. These fusion neutrons cause the rest of the core to fission, which generates most of the yield of the explosion. In "boosted" bombs, fusion is used to produce neutrons for fission making them very different from powerful "hydrogen" or "thermonuclear" bombs where fusion itself is more important and causes the main yield. A few grams of tritium are sufficient to "boost" bombs made of a few kilograms of military- or reactor-grade plutonium making them smaller and lighter than conventional designs and deliverable by missiles instead of bomber planes. "Boosted" bombs contain only 4 kilograms of plutonium or 12 kilograms high enriched uranium, weighs less than 100 kilograms and is about 30 centimeters in diameter. Their reduced size and weight also makes these weapons a terrorists object of desire given that they could be deliverable using a vehicle and do not require testing.