JDI Nuclear Power Neg

8/4/2019 JDI Nuclear Power Neg

1/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Nuclear Power Shared Negative

Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................3Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................4

Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................5Ext #1 - Status Quo Solves the Case............................................................................................................................................................6Ext #2 - Loan Guarantees Dont Solve........................................................................................................................................................7Ext #2 - Loan Guarantees Dont Solve........................................................................................................................................................8Ext #2- Loan Guarantees Dont Solve.........................................................................................................................................................9Ext #3 - Long Timeframe..........................................................................................................................................................................10Ext #4 - Shortages......................................................................................................................................................................................11Ext #5 - Defaults........................................................................................................................................................................................12Case Turns.................................................................................................................................................................................................13Terrorism Turn...........................................................................................................................................................................................13Ext- Nuclear Power -> Terrorism..............................................................................................................................................................14Accidents Turn...........................................................................................................................................................................................15Ext- Nuclear Power -> Accidents..............................................................................................................................................................16Proliferation Turn.......................................................................................................................................................................................17Environmental Racism Turn......................................................................................................................................................................18Imperialism Turn.......................................................................................................................................................................................19Tradeoff Turn.............................................................................................................................................................................................20Economy Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................21Economy Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................22Ext #1 - Nuclear Energy Expensive...........................................................................................................................................................23AT: CO2 Internal Link...............................................................................................................................................................................24Warming Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................25Ext #1- Too Slow.......................................................................................................................................................................................26Ext #2A Nuclear Power Emits C02 .......................................................................................................................................................27Ext #2B - Cant Build Enough Plants........................................................................................................................................................28Free Market Counterplan Solvency...........................................................................................................................................................29States Counterplan Solvency.....................................................................................................................................................................30

Carbon Tax Counterplan............................................................................................................................................................................31Solvency Extensions..................................................................................................................................................................................32Politics-Agenda Bad Net Benefit...............................................................................................................................................................33AT: Counterplan Hurts the Economy........................................................................................................................................................34Economy DA Links...................................................................................................................................................................................35Spending DA Links....................................................................................................................................................................................36Spending DA Links....................................................................................................................................................................................37Politics Links- Agenda Good....................................................................................................................................................................38Politics Links- Agenda Good.....................................................................................................................................................................39Politics Links- Agenda Bad.......................................................................................................................................................................40Politics Links- Agenda Bad.......................................................................................................................................................................41Elections Links- Plan Unpopular...............................................................................................................................................................42Elections Links- Plan Popular....................................................................................................................................................................43

McCain Solves the Aff...............................................................................................................................................................................44Topicality 1NC- Alternative Energy = Not Nuclear..................................................................................................................................45

1


2/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

2


3/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Solvency Frontline

1. Loan guarantees for nuclear power are already in place

CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, Nuclear Powers Role in Generating Electricity, May 2008,http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf)Current energy policy, especially as established and expanded under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct),provides incentives forbuilding additional capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil-fuel technologies and an advanced generation of nuclearreactor designs that are intended to decrease costs and improve safety.2 Among the provisions of EPAct that specifically apply tonewly built nuclear power plants are funding for research and development; investment incentives, such as loan guarantees andinsurance against regulatory delays; and production incentives, including a tax credit. Since the enactment of EPAct, about a dozenutilities have announced their intention to license about 30 nuclear plants.

2. Loan guarantees arent sufficient- plants may still not be built

Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007,http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535)Another federal benefit that Crane calls a "significant motivation" for NRG's decision to move ahead is a provision that lets the

secretary of energy authorize loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of a nuclear plant. "We believe this will encouragebanks to extend loans for projects like the Texas generators," says Crane, who adds that NRG expects to tap its own resources forabout 20 percent-or $1.2 billion-of the estimated cost, with banks and capital markets making up the difference. The 2005 Energy Actalso provides tax breaks for operators of new nuclear plants based on the energy they produce, and requires the federal government toindemnify operators in the event of an accident. While such provisions may add up to a sweet deal for new entrants into nuclearpower, they don't guarantee that any proposed projects will actually get built. For one thing, there's plenty of opposition to nuclearpower from organizations like Common Cause that question the safety of such plants and note that there is still no federal repositoryfor federal waste.

3. Even if the process were to begin now, a nuclear plant wont be online for 6 years

Melvin 07 (Becky Melvin, CNBC, Nuclear Energy Industry Powers Back Up, http://www.cnbc.com/id/22007461/)The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides incentives for new electricity generation, including renewable energy and nuclear power.The three biggest draws, say companies considering nuclear plants, are production tax credits of up to $6 billion, which will likely to

be divided among the first nine newly-built units; regulatory risk insurance to cover licensing delays, worth up to $2 billion; and loanguarantees, which would cover most of the financing in case any of these multi-billion dollar projects wind up in default. For anunregulated energy provider like NRG Energy, federal incentives were a primary driver in plans to move forward with two newnuclear units in Texas, says Crane. The incentives were also important to UniStar, a joint venture between Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and Frenchelectricity group EDF. UniStar plans to submit the second half of its application for a new reactor in Maryland by March of 2008. CEO George Vanderheyden says thecompany is also considering an application for a new reactor in New York. In all, 21 new reactor license applications for a total of 32 units are expected between nowand 2009, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. More than half the proposals are for the southern part of the country. The Tennessee ValleyAuthority submitted a request in October to build two units in Alabama; Virginia-based Dominion received early site plan approval for a unit northwest of Richmond,Va. and South Carolina Electric and Gas, a unit of SCANA, is expected to submit a request for two units in December. Whether we go ahead with one or two units is

still up in the air, says spokesman Robert Yanity. Decisions on the first set of applications are expected by the middle of 2011, according toNRC spokesman Scott Burnell. Construction which takes three to four years can begin after that, putting the first new nuclear unitin operation by mid 2014 at the earliest.

3
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdfhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535http://www.cnbc.com/id/22007461/http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdfhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535http://www.cnbc.com/id/22007461/


4/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Solvency Frontline

4. Its structurally impossible for the nuclear industry to expand:

A. There is a big labor shortageLavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle, A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry, March 13, 2008, U.S. News & World Report,http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry_print.htm)The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade, concentrated in the Southnot only nucleargenerators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, and electricity transmission lines. All projects need skilledcraft workers, and they are in drastically short supply. The utility Southern Co. estimates that existing energy facilities already areshort 20,000 workers in the Southeast. That shortfall will balloon to 40,000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay is inching up and hours areincreasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. Fluor says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-into-

overtime 50-hour weeks that had been planned. Looking ahead, the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilled-labor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operationtended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. But in the next five years, just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers35percent of the workforcewill reach retirement age. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in theelectric industry are a growing concern," likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, said Standard & Poor's Rating

Services in a recent report. The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago."Parents, guidance counselors, and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with theintention of then attending a four-year college program," concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues preparedby the Nuclear Energy Institute. "High-paying skilled labor jobs, once considered excellent career options, are now perceived assecond class."

B. There will be uranium shortages

Harding 07 (Jim Harding, a consultant from Olympia, Washington. He's worked on a whole series of energy and environmentalissues, Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is theInvestment Climate for Nuclear Energy? Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007,http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html)On the uranium issue, this is a very peculiar commodity. Today, world consumption -- let me state it differently -- world productionof uranium is about 60 percent of consumption. It doesn't happen in turkey, butter, milk or many other commodities. And the reason for that is that youneed to procure uranium quite a long ways in advance, and beginning sort of in the mid- to late 1970s, people had ordered a lot of reactors in the U.S., Western Europeand Russia, secured long- term contracts -- meaning seven to 10 years for uranium -- at a high price, and they cancelled the plan. So all that secondary supply came intothe market, depressing the price. It was followed by privatization of centrifuge -- of enrichment in the United States. We also bought lots of surplus enriched uranium

from Russia. And most recently, we are blending down or diluting surplus weapons uranium into U.S. fuel. So we're running the global nuclear industryon a secondary supply that pops pretty quick. And it's had the unfortunate impact that existing contracts have fixed prices foruranium; the same is generally true on the enrichment side. You need to procure the product about four years in advance of burning itWe're at a price of $135 a pound, pretty much a historical peak. Utilities for the most part run out of their existing supply by 2012,2013. They've got to get back into this market. And it's hard to tell what the long- term price will be. This is not -- it's not a physical shortage of uranium, it's ashortage of milling capacity and also enrichment capacity. The enrichment issue was somewhat complicated, because when you go to a higher uranium price, youwant to decrease the tails assay at the enrichment plant. Effectively, you reduce the output of that plant by 30 percent. We don't have the capacity to do that and meetdemand. So utilities are also -- there are two possibilities. One is, utilities are going to pay -- are going to buy more uranium than they'd ideally like, or enrichers aregoing to use market power to the same extent that uranium miners are going to use -- based on this set of problems, we came up with significantly higher numbers in the

Keystone report for future nuclear fuel. It's about three times current levels, at the low end, and about five times at the high end -- now, not abig number, but it is a -- for a utility thinking about a building a reactor today, they have to worry at little bit about whether or not

there are sufficient fuel supply and enrichment capacity out there to meet their needs, because the mines may not exist to support thatpurchase. You could buy it, but we've got to double enrichment and mining capacity in the next few years to meet demand, evenwithout significant growth in this industry.

4
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html


5/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Solvency Frontline

5. Defaults likely- most plants wont be built

Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton, Staff Writer, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear power surge coming, Sept. 28, 2007,http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn.html)The nuclear industry has already put Congress on notice that it could require loan guarantees of at least $20 billion for plannedprojects and more later, NEI officials told The New York Times in July. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far moreexpensive to build than coal- or gas-fired facilities. For example: On Monday, New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. filed itsapplication with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5.4 and $6.7 billion. That hugestartup cost might make financial sense, given a reactor's low operating expenses, especially if government begins to charge utilitiesfor the greenhouse gases they produce. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free. But the last time that the nuclear industry was on abuilding spree in the 1980s roughly half of the power plants proposed were never finished, in part because of fears caused by theaccident at Three Mile Island. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. A number of powercompanies went bankrupt. In late 2003, NRG the company that filed Monday's permit application emerged from bankruptcycaused by overexpansion in the 1990s. If defaults occur in the new round, critics worry federal costs will be huge. "This is the secondor third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen," says Tyson Slocum, director of energy program at Public Citizen, Ralph Nader's consumer-protection group. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers, I think that money

would be better invested in cheaper sources of emissions-free power that don't have the fatal flaws nuclear power does." In 2003, aCongressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants.

6. Nuclear power wont be sustainable without a solution for spent fuel

Spencer 08 (Jack Spencer, Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute forEconomic Policy Studies, Energy Publisher, June 3, 2008, Nuclear power needed to offset environmental laws,http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+laws)4. Put industry in control of fuel cycle management. The Energy Policy Act of 1982 created a framework for managing used nuclearfuel. The federal government took responsibility for managing the fuel, and nuclear energy producers were supposed to pay for theservice through a fee. While the federal government has been very successful in collecting the fee, it has completely failed incollecting the waste. Indeed, it has not assumed formal responsibility for one atom of fuel, despite being legally obliged to do sobeginning in 1998. If nuclear power is going to have a sustainable rebirth in the U.S., the nuclear waste problem must be fixed, but thefederal government has proven incapable of providing that service. The nuclear industry should establish responsibility for spent fuelmanagement. The federal government would still have roles to play in terms of providing oversight and taking title of the waste oncethe geologic repository is decommissioned, but what happens to the fuel between the time it leaves the reactor and the time it ispermanently disposed should be in the hands of industry.

7. There literally arent enough sites for nuclear power to expand

Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power, http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm)6. Not enough sites Scaling up to 17,000 or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isnt possible simply due to the limitation of feasiblesites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there arent enough locations in the world that are safefrom droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclearplants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power. There aremany communities around the country that simply wont allow a new nuclear plant to be built further limiting potential sites. And

there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short,geography, local politics, political instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear powerstrategy. Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces the number of feasiblesites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power, many communities will actively fighagainst nuclear plants coming into their town. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclearpower, if we need to build 17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?

5
http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+lawshttp://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+lawshttp://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+lawshttp://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+laws


6/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext #1 - Status Quo Solves the Case

( ) Nuclear power inevitable

Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Nuclear Energy Policy, July 12, 2007,http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/)

Nevertheless, the outlook recently has been improving for the U.S. nuclear power industry, which currently comprises 104 licensedreactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states. (That number includes TVAs Browns Ferry 1, which restarted May 22, 2007, after a 22-yearshutdown and $1.8 billion refurbishment.) Electricity production from U.S. nuclear power plants is greater than that from oil, naturalgas, and hydropower, and behind only coal, which accounts for more than half of U.S. electricity generation. Nuclear plants generatemore than half the electricity in six states. The near-record 823 billion kilowatt-hours of nuclear electricity generated in the UnitedStates during 2006 was more than the nations entire electrical output in the early 1960s, when the first large-scale commercialreactors were being ordered.

( ) Status quo solves- the next president will support nuclear power

Miller 07 (William H. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at theUniversity of Missouri and at the University's research reactor, Financing the next generation of nuclearpower plants, Sept. 23, 2007, http://publicutilities.utah.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants.pdf)

It's encouraging to know that, despite differences over energy policy, several presidential candidates recognize the need for additionalnuclear power. Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz., support federal incentives to powercompanies to build more nuclear plants. McCain says there is "no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gasemissions without nuclear power, and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth."

6
http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/


7/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext #2 - Loan Guarantees Dont Solve

( ) Loan guarantees empirically havent inspired nuclear power expansion

Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti, What Nuclear Renaissance?, April 24, 2008,http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti)In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For thepast two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set thetotal amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likelyaccrue amendments that will offer yet more money. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications tobe filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no newatomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved. Thefact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grce: Chernobyl in 1986. The lastnuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years tocomplete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed sincethen. All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up theshow? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash. "Wall street doesn't like nuclear power,"says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too

expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult oralmost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent ofconstruction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. Butconsider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before costoverruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.

( ) An increase in loan guarantees is inadequate- there are problems in how they are applied

Schoen 07 (John Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC, Does nuclear power now make financial sense?,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/)Nukes for saleBut its far from clear that this new round of plants will ever be built. Even if all goes as proponents hope, the first plants wont comeonline before 2014 and will cost an estimated $4 billion each. Before ground is broken for the first new plant, the power industry willhave to convince state regulators and investors that the numbers add up. To do that, they face several important hurdles. Most of theseprojects are expected to be financed by bonds. To help reassure investors that the bonds are a safe investment, Congress has providedloan guarantees for 80 percent of the financing for the first several projects to win NRC approval. But that critical guarantee hasalready hit a serious snag. Typically, these projects would be financed with 80 percent debt and 20 percent cash or equity put up bythe owner of the plant. But federal officials in charge of loan guarantees have interpreted the law to mean that those guarantees applyonly to the debt portion of the financing package. Using that math, the loan guarantee 80 percent of 80 percent will only coverabout two-thirds of the total cost. That could be more risk than Wall Street is ready to assume especially for the projects that gofirst. Congress to the rescue? Though the current interpretation of the rules could throw cold water on efforts to raise money, many inthe industry expect Congress to clarify the rules to provide more generous guarantees. You had a lot of people who voted for the(Energy Policy Act of 2005) that have a pet project at home that they thought they were arranging a loan guarantee for, said Tezak,the energy industry analyst. But it has the potential to be a deal breaker.

7
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parentihttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parentihttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti


8/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext #2 - Loan Guarantees Dont Solve

( ) Most utilities wont be eligible for guarantees

CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, Nuclear Powers Role in Generating Electricity, May 2008,http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf)The maximum coverage available under the loan guarantee programa guarantee on debt covering 80 percent of a plants construction costs, which implies that

investors equity would cover the remaining 20 percentwould most likely reduce the levelized cost of new nuclear capacity by about 10 percent. But not allprospective nuclear plants would necessarily receive a guarantee of debt covering 80 percent of construction costs because the criteriafor qualifying are restrictive. The Department of Energy has indicated that it will deny a utilitys application for a loan guarantee if theproject is not deemed to be both innovative (essentially, in the case of nuclear technology, a plant design that has not been built in theUnited States) and commercially viable, and that no more than three plants based on each advanced reactor design can be consideredinnovative. The 30 plants currently being proposed use five reactor designs, so at most, 15 of those plants would qualify as innovative.In addition, just because a plant is considered both innovative and commercially viable does not mean it will receive the maximumguarantee of 80 percent. Under the base-case assumptions, covering 80 percent of construction costs would require guaranteeing debtwith a face value of $4.5 billion to $7.5 billion for each plant (depending on the size of the reactor). Providing the maximum coverageto three plants based on each of the five reactor designs would result in roughly $100 billion in loan guarantees, a commitment that hasnot been proposed, let alone funded. (The Presidents budget proposed a limit of $18.5 billion [in nominal dollars] on the cumulative

amount of loan guarantees for new nuclear plants over the 20082011 period.)4 The loan guarantee program could encourageinvestors to choose relatively risky projects over more certain alternatives because they would be responsible for only about 20percent of a projects costs but would receive 100 percent of the returns that exceeded costs.5

( ) The Department of Energy doesnt have the resources to implement the loan guarantee program

EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills:Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007,http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf)A provision of the Senate bill exempts DOEs loan guarantee program from Sec. 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990(FCRA). The Senate provision allows, among other things, for DOE to write unlimited loan guarantees without Congressionaloversight. If adopted, this provision removes Congressional authority and the safeguards in place through the appropriation process,and shifts the financial risk from private lenders to taxpayers. Initial analyses of the loan guarantee program have shown that DOElacks the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement its program. Reports from the GAO and DOEs Office of the Inspector

General state that the necessary policies, procedures, and staff remain absent, raising questions about DOEs ability to manage its loanguarantee program. This Issue Brief explores these issues raised by the 2007 energy bill provisions, as they pose potentially significanrisks and high costs to Americas taxpayers.

( ) Incentives wont revive nuclear power

Walsh 08 (Bryan Walsh, Is Nuclear Power Viable?, June 6, 2008, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812540,00.html)That's debatable, to say the least. There's no question that a nuclear plant, once it's up and running, produces comparatively little carbon dioxide a British governmenreport last year found that a nuclear plant emits just 2% to 6% of the CO2 per kilowatt-hour as natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel but nuclear energy still seems likethe power of yesterday. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s, a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U.S. since 1996, and somenations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear

meltdown, or the fact that we still have yet to devise a long-term method for the disposal of atomic waste. But to Amory Lovins a veteran energy expertand chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute there's a much better green reason to be against nuclear power: economics. Lovins,an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers, argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for

nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. In his study, titled "The Nuclear Illusion," he points out that while the red-hot renewableindustry including wind and solar last year attracted $71 billion in private investment, the nuclear industry attracted nothing."Wall Street has spoken nuclear power isn't worth it," he says. More nuclear subsidies, which many on Capitol Hill are pushingfor, won't do the trick either. Lovins notes that the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over thepast half-century, and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant roughly how much it now costs to build one stillhaven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. At the same time, the price of building a plant all that concrete andsteel has risen dramatically in recent years, while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk. Nuclear supporters like Moore whoargue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs, not to mention the huge liabilityrisk of an accident the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant, so it's up to government to do so. Conservatives likeRepublican presidential candidate John McCain tend to promote nuclear power because they don't think carbon-free alternatives likewind or solar could be scaled up sufficiently to meet rising power demand, but McCain's idea of a crash construction program to buildhundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just as unrealistic.

8
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdfhttp://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdfhttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdfhttp://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf


9/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext #2- Loan Guarantees Dont Solve

( ) The Department of Energy is structurally incapable of implementing the loan guarantee program-

there are a rash of bad policies and resource shortages

EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power PoseSignificant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007, http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf)Following the passage of EPACT 05 in 2005, DOE initiated its loan guarantee program for innovative technologies in fiscal year2006. This was prior to having appropriations or regulations in place. DOE first proposed transferring appropriations from otherappropriated DOE accounts in May 2006, followed by a solicitation for preapplications to the program a few months later in August.A report released by the GAO in February 2007 made note of the fact that many necessary policies and procedures for the programwere still lacking: At the time of our review, DOE had not taken steps to ensure that it had in place the critical policies, procedures,and mechanisms necessary to ensure the programssuccess.26 Likewise, the DOE Office of the Inspector General issued a report withmany similar findings, paying specific attention to the lack of staff essential to implement the program. In its report released inSeptember 2007, it stated, At the time of our review a full complement of Federal staff designated to administer the loan guaranteeprogram was not in place and plans to utilize technical experts to assist in the administration of the program had not been fullydeveloped.27 The Inspector Generals report concluded, There are a number of additional steps that should be taken to foster thesuccess of the loan guarantee program, though at the time of the report, these had not yet been taken. 28 Along with a lack of both

manpower and procedure in DOEs loan guarantee program, its early actions in initial stages of the program raise doubts as well aboutits management. Without having received specific appropriations, DOE proposed transferring funds from some of its accounts to startthe program. DOE chose to solicit preapplications prior to finalizing its regulations, leaving much of the programs structure andauthority in question. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expressed its concern about such an action, statingThe Administration believes that it is unwise to amend that authority while the program is still in the early stages ofimplementation.29 Similarly, the GAO offered its review of the actions taken by DOE: [It] should not have begun implementationof the LGP without a specific appropriation. Nevertheless, DOE did begin implementation, and its approach to the LGP raised seriousquestions about whether this program and its financial risks would be well managed.30 Even DOEs own Office of the InspectorGeneral noted prior actions by governmental agencies in similar situations were sometimes questionable. In reviewing audits of pastgovernmental loan guarantee programs, we found that the agencies involved had not always exercised due diligence during criticalphases of the loan guarantee process, it found.31 Such findings demonstrate that the infrastructure required to carry out a successfulloan guarantee program has yet to be attained at DOE.

9
http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdfhttp://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdfhttp://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdfhttp://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf


10/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext #3 - Long Timeframe

( ) Its takes a long time for new nuclear power plants to come online

CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, Nuclear Powers Role in Generating Electricity, May 2008,http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf)The commercial viability of new nuclear capacity depends on investors perceptions of future market conditions and carbon dioxideconstraints when investment decisions are finalized. Licensing and regulatory approval for building new nuclear plants in the UnitedStates are expected to take about three years, so the construction ofthe first new nuclear plants would be unlikely to start until2010 at the earliest. At that point, the commercial viability of a new plant would depend on anticipated market conditions and policyoutcomes over the operating life of the plant, which may exceed 40 years. A combination of factorsrecent volatility in constructioncosts and natural gas prices, nuclear powers history of construction cost overruns, and uncertainty about future policy on carbondioxide emissionsindicates that a wide range of costs are plausible for each of the technologies considered. Those rangesdemonstrate that the future competitiveness of each technology and thus the conclusions presented in this analysis are quite uncertain.

( ) Plants wont be built for years, and some may never be built

Sood 08 (Suemedha Sood , Pricey Alternative: Nuclear Energy, Jun. 12, 2008, The Washington Independent,

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/nuclear-energy-an)Meserve points out that the U.S. is at least seven years away from any new plants getting built. "We might have some eight plants inplace by 2020," he said, "but there aren't going to be any by 2015, just because of the delay in getting plants up and running." If costsdon't come down, that waiting period could stretch out much longer. So far, these obstacles haven't stopped energy companies fromsubmitting applications to the government for new plants, according to the Energy Information Administration. "Even with the risingcost of materials," said JohnMoens, nuclear industry specialist at the EIA , "it sounds like more companies are getting interested inbuilding the reactors and the list of companies that [the government] anticipates will apply has been growing rather than shrinking."But, Moens says, just because companies are applying to build new plants, doesn't mean those plants will definitely get built. "Thereare so many things that can change in a hurry," he said.

10
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdfhttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf


11/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext #4 - Shortages

( ) Building plants would take decades- labor and steel shortages

CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, Nuclear Powers Role in Generating Electricity, May 2008,http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf)Even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented, it would take decades for sufficient nuclear capacity to beput in place before most utilities could consider substituting new nuclear capacity for existing coal plants. Replacing the 300,000megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants. The capacity of the industry that builds nuclearplants and its suppliers of components is currently constrained and unlikely to expand rapidly enough for even tens of plants to bebuilt in the next decade. For example, the Brattle Group (a consulting firm) has pointed out that the skilled labor necessary to erectpower plants is in short supply and could be slow to expand if asurge in the demand for nuclear plants occurred.2 Also, the supply ofsteel forgings necessary to build a reactors containment vessela structure that prevents radiation from leaking into the atmosphereis limited.3

( ) Uranium shortages will thwart a robust nuclear energy program

Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power, http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm)

7. Not enough uranium Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, were running out of theuranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power wereexpanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. As uranium supplies dwindle,nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclearreactor process. Whats more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever moreclimate-change-producing emissions resulting in a climate-change catch 22.

( ) A rapid expansion would be counterproductive- the more construction the more likely there will be

shortages of materials and workers

EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills:Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007,http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf)The cost to taxpayers from underestimated subsidy costs and possible loan guarantee defaults is potentially high, and so is the risk. In

its history within the United States, the nuclear energy industry has experienced significant cost overruns, sometimes reaching over350 percent of the estimated costs for the project. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported cost overruns for theyears 1966 through 1977 that ranged in each two-year period from 200 to 380 percent of the original estimated costs forconstruction.20 Additional costs could also come as supplies become scarce from increased construction of nuclear power plants.The rapid rate of nuclear reactor expansion required to make even a modest reduction in global warming would drive up constructioncosts and create shortages in building materials, trained personnel, and safety controls, Richard Haass, President of the Council onForeign Relations, stated in a report on nuclear energy.21 Such risks are difficult to quantify and therefore estimate, prior to the startof construction.

11
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdfhttp://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdfhttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdfhttp://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf


12/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext #5 - Defaults

( ) Defaults likely

Hill Heat 07 (Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk andLiability?, Oct. 30, 2007, http://www.hillheat.com/events/2007/10/30/loan-guarantee-provisions-in-the-2007-energy-bills-does-nuclear-power-pose-significant-taxpayer-risk-and-liability)Not only is the cost to the taxpayers potentially very high, so is the risk. The Congressional Budget Office has said there is a goodchance that the DOE will underestimate the costs of administering these loans and that more than 50 percent of new reactor projectswill default on their loan repayments, leaving taxpayers at risk. U.S. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls. Thenuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years. According to theCongressional Research Service, this is more than the $49.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from1973-2003. This is also well over the Administrations target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008.

( ) Over 50% of nuclear projects will default

Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor isdirector of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power, June 21, 2003, Cato Institute,

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134)The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the costof building 8,400 Megawatts of new nuclear power, the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. The Congressional ResearchService estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. The Congressional Budget Office believes"the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -- well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for the risk is that weexpect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generationsources." But that's not all. The bill also authorizes the federal government to enter into power purchase agreements wherein thefederal government would buy back power from the newly built plants -- potentially at above market rates.

( ) Probability of defaults are over 50%- itll cost taxpayers billions

Public Citizen 07 (Congress Should Not Bow to Nuclear Industry Demands for More Than $50 Billion in Loan Guarantees to BuildNew Nuclear Reactors, July 31, 2007, http://www.tradewatch.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2488)These loan guarantees would put taxpayers rather than investors on the hook to pay back the loans should any of the plants default

According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants isvery high well above 50 percent. With those odds, U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclearutilities default on their loans, said Michele Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizens Energy Program. This outrageous demandfrom the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U.S. taxpayers. Although the company receivingthe guarantee is expected to pay the subsidy cost of the guarantee (the net present value of the anticipated cost of defaults), a June2007 CBO report on the recently passed Senate energy bill concluded that it is more likely that DOEs loan guarantee portfolio willhave more projects where the subsidy fee has been underestimated than overestimated.

12


13/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Case Turns

Terrorism Turn

( ) Terrorist attacks are likely

Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance, E TheEnvironmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780)In spite of its obvious benefits, nuclear power may simply be too risky. Opponents of the nuclear renaissance point to a host of seriousconcerns. Theyre proposing a replay of a demonstrated failure, says Paul Gunter, director of the reactor watchdog project at theNuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). The financial risks have only gotten worse, and our concerns about safety issuesare heightened now that these plants are known terrorist targets. Alex Matthiessen, director of Hudson Riverkeeper, declares, In thepost-9/11 era, nuclear power plants pose an unacceptable risk. He points out that NRC studies conclude that a serious accident atone of Indian Points two working reactors could cause 50,000 early fatalities. Al Qaeda operatives have, by their own admission,considered attacking nuclear facilities. And according to Riverkeeper, only 19 percent of Indian Point guards think they can protectthe facility from a conventional assault, let alone a suicidal mission. Riverkeeper says that the proposed evacuation plans for the areaare woefully inadequate, and the site is vulnerable to an airborne attack. Plant operator Entergy refutes these charges, and says that the3.5-foot steel-reinforced concrete containment structures protecting the reactor and other radioactive materials are among thestrongest structures built by man.

( ) And, terrorism causes extinction

Alexander 03 (Yonah Alexander,professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Aug. 28 2003, Washington Times)Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the internationalcommunity failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival ofcivilization 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 strategicchallenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 alQaeda 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 theOslo 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 aa time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States andIsrael, 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, thereligionization 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 conventionaland unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we haveentered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerningnational, regional and global security concerns.

13


14/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext- Nuclear Power -> Terrorism

( ) Nuclear plants are easy terrorist targets

Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power, http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm)3. National Security Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching thesecurity around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a majormeltdown at a nuclear power plant. Whats more, Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on theHudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice, to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants. Theunfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured, without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency.Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina, and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what aterrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like.

14


15/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Accidents Turn

( ) Accidents likely

Olson 06 (Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Confronting a False Myth ofNuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change, Commission on Sustainable Development, UnitedNations, May 3, 2006, http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdf)Finally, as a crowning point nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather. As cited above, nuclear reactors all ofthem depend on energy from the grid to operate. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years, even off-line, it isvital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock. As is sensible, every reactor site is equipped with back-uppower, most often in the form of diesel generators. Unfortunately these generators, in part because of intermittent use, are not terriblyreliable.47 When both the grid and the back-up power fail, the site is said to be in station blackout. According to the US NuclearRegulatory Commission, station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear powerstations.48 Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat, drought, blizzards, tornados, andperhaps most compelling hurricanes and cyclones. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures. The loss of gridpower will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis, but there is an elevated risk. Overall blackout risk increases as the number ofoutages increases. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times.

( ) That turns the case- one accident could put a halt to any more nuclear expansion

Boyd 08 (Robert S. Boyd, McClatchy Newspapers, Feb. 9, 2008, Despite doubts, nuclear energy making comeback,http://www.mcclatchydc.com/science/story/26864.html)Accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 continue to shadow the industry,even though advanced reactor designs make such mishaps less likely. ``One incident could put a stop to nuclear energy in the UnitedStates,'' warned James Miller, the chief executive of PPL Corp. of Allentown, Pa., which operates atomic reactors in Pennsylvania andMontana. ``Nuclear power continues to pose serious risks that are unique among the energy options being considered for reducingglobal-warming emissions,'' said David Lochbaum, the director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union for Concerned Scientists inWashington.

15
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdfhttp://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdf


16/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext- Nuclear Power -> Accidents

( ) Accidents are super likely at nuclear power plants

Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power, http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm)4. Accidents Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents human error or natural disasters can wreak just asmuch havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people,with thousands poisoned by radiation. Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effortthat ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. The cost of cleaning up after one of thesedisasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost and if we were to scale up to 17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imaginethat not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population centers. Forexample, theres a plant just up the Hudson from New York City. If there was an accident, evacuation would be impossible.

16


17/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Proliferation Turn

( ) Expansion of nuclear power increases the risk of proliferation

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

( ) Prolif leads to extinction

Miller 02 (James D. Miller, (assistant professor of economics, Smith College), January 23, 2002, National Security First: Stopping theproliferation of weapons of mass destruction., 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 furtherinsist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy. Whatif these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders. Once adictator 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 pressurehim to give up his weapons. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach. Our conventional forces mighteven be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons, for example, we would probably have beenunwilling to expel them from Kuwait. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt. The greatest threat of extinction surelycomes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us allfrom atomic, biological, and chemical weapons.

17
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-miller012302.shtmlhttp://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-miller012302.shtmlhttp://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-miller012302.shtml


18/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Environmental Racism Turn

( ) Nuclear power is environmental racism- it disproportionately affect communities of color

Ewall 07 (Mike, Environmental Justice, Nov. 2007, Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power,http://www.energyjustice.net/nuclear/factsheet.pdf)Nuclear power disproportionately affects communities of color, from the mining of uranium on Native American and Aboriginallands, to the targeting of black and Hispanic communities for new uranium processing facilities to the targeting of black and Hispanicand Native American communities for low-level nuclear waste dumps. All sites proposed for temporary and permanent storage ofhigh level nuclear waste have been Native American lands.

( ) Racism should be rejected

Barndt 91 (Joseph Barndt, co-director of Crossroads, a ministry to dismantle racism, 1991, "Dismantling Racism: The Continuingchallenge to White America," p. 155-6)To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences, restraints and limitations, ghettos and prisons. The prison ofracism confines us all, people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. The walls forcibly keeppeople of color and white people separate from each other; in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the humanpotential God intends for us. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel,

inhuman, and unjust; the effects of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will inevitablydestroy us as well. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate,but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, andcultural racism can be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down, once andfor all, the walls of racism. The danger point of self-destruction seems to be drawing even more near. The results of centuries ofnational and worldwide conquest and colonialism, of military buildups and violent aggression, of overconsumption and environmentaldestruction may be reaching a point of no return. A small and predominantly white minority of the global population derives its powerand privilege from the sufferings of vast majority of peoples of all color. For the sake of the world and ourselves, we dare not allow itto continue.

18
http://www.energyjustice.net/nuclear/factsheet.pdfhttp://www.energyjustice.net/nuclear/factsheet.pdfhttp://www.energyjustice.net/nuclear/factsheet.pdf


19/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Imperialism Turn

( ) Nuclear power is the epitome of U.S. imperialism and causes a strike on Iran

Montague 07 (Peter Montague, Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?, Oct. 4, 2007,http://www.celsias.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/)So why is Uncle Sam hell-bent on reviving nuclear power? I dont have a firm answer and can only speculate. Perhaps from theviewpoint of both Washington and Wall Street, nuclear power is preferable to renewable-energy alternatives because it is extremelycapital-intensive and the people who provide the capital get to control the machine and the energy it provides. It provide a rationale fora large centralized bureaucracy and tight military and police security to thwart terrorists. This kind of central control can act as apowerful counterweight to excessive democratic tendencies in any country that buys into nuclear power. Particularly if they sign acontract with the U.S. or one of its close allies for delivery of fuel and removal of radioactive wastes, political control becomes apowerful (though unstated) part of the bargain. If you are dependent on nuclear power for electricity and you are dependent on us forreactor fuel, you are in our pocket. On the other hand, solar, wind and other renewable energy alternatives lend themselves to small-scale, independent installations under the control of local communities or even households. Who knows where that could lead? ThenI think of the present situation in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein started down the road to nuclear power until the Israelis bombed tosmithereens the Osirak nuclear plant he was building in 1981. That ended his dalliance with nuclear power and nuclear weapons but that didnt stop Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney from using Saddams nuclear history as an excuse to invade his country and

string him up. And now something similar is unfolding in Iran. Iran wants nuclear power plants partly to show how sophisticated andcapable it has become, and partly to thumb its nose at the likes of Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and perhaps to try to draw usinto another war that would indelibly mark us for the next hundred years as enemies of Islam, serving to further unite much of theArab world against us. Is this kind of thinking totally nuts? I dont think so. Newsweek reported in its October 1, 2007 issue that DickCheney has been mulling a plan to convince the Israelis to bomb the Iranian nuclear power plant at Natanz, hoping to provoke theIranians into striking back so that the U.S. would then have an excuse to bomb Iran. Im not making this up. So clearly there are moreimportant uses for nuclear power than just making electricity. Arguably, nuclear reactors have become essential tools of U.S. foreignpolicy being offered, withheld, and bargained over. They have a special appeal around the world because they have becomedouble-edged symbols of modernity, like shiny toy guns that can be loaded with real bullets. Because of this special characteristic,they have enormous appeal and can provide enormous bargaining power. Witness North Korea. And, as we have seen, nuclearreactors can provide excuses to invade and bomb when no other excuses exist. So perhaps Uncle Sam considers it worth investing afew hundred billion dollars of taxpayer funds to keep this all-purpose Swiss army knife of U.S. foreign policy available in our backpocket. In the past five years, weve already devoted $800 billion to splendid little wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least partly to

secure U.S. oil supplies. Uncle Sams desperate attempts to revive nuclear power can perhaps best be understood as part of thatongoing effort at oil recovery.

( ) Striking Iran would escalate into global nuclear warRoss 07 (Larry is the Secretary/Founder of The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association,http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00362.htm)If Bush is not stopped and launches the attack, the war momentum and slaughter can trigger a sequence of disastrous actions andreactions that can spiral out of control. There are 8 to 9 nuclear weapon states, some may be drawn into a major war that could spreadbeyond the middle east. Both Russia and China have strong defence links with Iran and each have nuclear weapon arsenals. I doubt ifthey would stay idle while the US conquered Iran, leading to US control of middle east oil resources. Also, Pakistan and other Islamicstates may erupt if the US slaughters millions of Muslims with nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that the Bush regime has no legitimatereasons for attacking Iran, anymore than it had for attacking Iraq. It manufactured excuses and lies to attack Iraq and is now engagedin doing the same to justify the attack on Iran. The Iraq war made the Bush regime war criminals. They are now desparate and self-

justifying criminals wrappped in the flag and other symbols of patriotism. Bush claims God directs him. Even so, they have less than30% of Americans supporting them. The Bush-Chaney regime have been compared to desparate cornered animals who will resort toany crime to survive.

19
http://www.celsias.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/http://www.celsias.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/


20/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Tradeoff Turn

( ) Nuclear buildup would trade off with better forms of energy

Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti, What Nuclear Renaissance?, April 24, 2008,http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti)This much seems clear: a handful of firms might soak up huge federal subsidies and build one or two overpriced plants. While a newadministration might tighten regulations, public safety will continue to be menaced by problems at new as well as older plants. Butthere will be no massive nuclear renaissance. Talk of such a renaissance, however, helps keep people distracted, their minds off thereal project of developing wind, solar, geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid.

20
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parentihttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parentihttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti


21/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Economy Advantage Frontline

1. Nuclear energy is extremely expensive and unreliable

Greenpeace 03 (Nuclear Reactors are an Expensive and Dangerous Source of Electricity, May 19, 2003,http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/nuclear-reactors-are-an-expens)At the dawn of the nuclear era, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that nuclear power would supply "electricalenergy too cheap to meter." However, the meltdown at Three Mile Island and the explosion at Chernobyl irreparably altered the imageof nuclear power, causing this prediction to prove false. The dramatic decrease in nuclear construction can be directly tied to themeltdown at Three Mile Island. The horrific images of the Chernobyl disaster and the ever-growing death toll are a constant reminderof the dangers of nuclear power. However, the risks of nuclear power are only part of the problem. It has been the nuclear industry'sinability to manage the construction and operation of its nuclear reactors that has solidified public opposition to nuclear power in theUnited States. Chronic escalation of construction costs coupled with high operation and maintenance costs have sealed nuclearpower's economic fate. When construction costs skyrocketed and operation and management costs spiraled out of control, nuclearpower became an economic disaster. The U.S. Department of Energy compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual finalcosts for 75 reactors. The original cost estimate was $45 billion. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized thatthis "failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumentalscale." According to Forbes, "only the blind, or the biased, can now think the money has been well spent." Despite talk of a

renaissance, nuclear power is actually in decline in the United States. U.S. utilities have canceled almost as many nuclear reactors asthey have constructed. No nuclear reactors have been ordered and subsequently completed in the U.S. since 1973. The last nuclearreactor to be constructed in the United States was completed in 1996; the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar reactor took almost23 years to build and cost nearly $8 billion. Not exactly electricity "too cheap to meter."

2. High construction costs will translate into high electricity prices

Johnson 08 (Keith Johnson, Its the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Powers Bogeyman, Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2008,http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/)It turns out nuclear powers biggest worry isnt Yucca Mountain, Three Mile Island ghosts, or environmental protesters. Itseconomics.Rebecca Smith reports today in the WSJ (sub reqd.) on the biggest hurdle to the nascent nuclear-energy revival in the U.S.skyrocketing construction costs. Though all power sectors are affected to different degrees by rising capital costs, nuclear powersvulnerability puts it in a class by itself.Notes the paper: A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projectedcost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being

proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of ashrunken supplier network for the industry. Over the last five years, cost estimates for new nuclear power plants have been continually revised upward. Even the beancounters cant keep pace. The paper notes: Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., ExelonCorp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. have blown by our highest estimate of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer

at Moodys Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York. Why is that such a big deal? Coal plants have been shelved recently because of risingcapital costs, and renewable energy isnt immune, eitherand the nuclear power industry enjoys healthy loan guarantees and otherfederal subsidies designed precisely to alleviate those kinds of uncertainties. It matters because nuclear powers ability to provideelectricity at a competitive price compared to regular sources like coal and natural gas depends largely on those construction

costs. Fuel costs for nuclear power are miniscule. The only way to handicap the field in nuclear powers favor is to put a big price tagon emissions of carbon dioxide. Since nuclear plants dont emit CO2, they win when legislation penalizes carbon-heavy sectors likecoal (and even natural gas). The Congressional Budget Office just finished a rosy-glasses report on nuclear economics. Even whileacknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates, the CBO took heart frompromises made by manufacturers of next-generation reactors and a single on-time and on-budget project in Japan to project cheapernuclear construction costs in the future. And if those cost estimates are wrong? From the CBO: If those factors turned out not to

reduce construction costs in the United States, nuclear capacity would probably be an unattractive investment even with EPActincentives, unless substantial carbon dioxide charges were imposed. Everybody from John McCain to Newt Gingrich to PatrickMoore is pitching more nuclear power as a zero-emissions answer to Americas energy needs. The question, though, is the same:Whos going to pay for it?

21
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/nuclear-reactors-are-an-expenshttp://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/nuclear-reactors-are-an-expenshttp://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/


22/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Economy Advantage Frontline

3. Nuclear power cant increase jobs- the skilled workers just dont exist

Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle, A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry, March 13, 2008, U.S. News & World Report,http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry_print.htm)The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade, concentrated in the Southnot only nucleargenerators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, and electricity transmission lines. All projects need skilledcraft workers, and they are in drastically short supply. The utility Southern Co. estimates that existing energy facilities already areshort 20,000 workers in the Southeast. That shortfall will balloon to 40,000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay is inching up and hours areincreasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. Fluor says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-into-

overtime 50-hour weeks that had been planned. Looking ahead, the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilled-labor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operationtended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. But in the next five years, just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers35percent of the workforcewill reach retirement age. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in theelectric industry are a growing concern," likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, said Standard & Poor's RatingServices in a recent report. The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago."Parents, guidance counselors, and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with the

intention of then attending a four-year college program," concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues preparedby the Nuclear Energy Institute. "High-paying skilled labor jobs, once considered excellent career options, are now perceived assecond class."

4. Nuclear power is a huge drain on the economy

NukeFree.org 07 (Atomic Economics,http://www.nukefree.org/facts/uninsurable)Fifty years ago the pushers of the "Peaceful Atom"---including Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission---promised electricity that would be "too cheap to meter." The pledge has turned into the biggest lie in U.S. financial history . Farfrom being cheap or reliable, nuclear power plants have drained the American economy of hundreds of billions of dollars. Thatmoney could have financed green power sources that would have avoided the global warming crisis and freed the US fromdependence on foreign energy sources. The key decision was made in 1953. A year earlier, Harry Truman's Blue Ribbon Paley Commission reported that the future of American energy was withrenewable sources. Predicting 15 million solar-heated homes by 1975, the Truman Administration knew that our best route to energy independence and economic security was with green power. In 1953, Bell Laboratoriesmade an historic breakthrough, perfecting photovoltaic (PV) technology to the point that cells made of silicon could transform sunlight into usable electric current. The first cells were used to power space satellites. But theprospect of making homes and offices energy self-sufficient with PV rooftop installations was a monumental moment in technological history. In an essentially military decision, Dwight Eisenhower chose nuclear power

instead. Pledging to share the Peaceful Atom worldwide, Eisenhower turned the US away from green power. But even with huge government subsidies, no utilities would step forward to build Ike's atomic reactors. So in1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which made the taxpayer and the victims of any potential disaster the ultimate insurers. The industry promised that improving technology would entice private insurancecompanies to take the risk. But after fifty years it hasn't happened. And despite today's hype about new designs, no private company will assume the risk for new reactors either. Through the ensuing half-century, atomicreactor construction was defined by epic cost overruns and delays. The two reactors proposed in the 1960s for Seabrook, New Hampshire for a total of $250 million turned into one for $7 billion, decades late. Long Island's$7 billion Shoreham operated briefly, then shut. Overall, Forbes compared the losses on nuke power to "a commitment bigger than the space program ($100 billion) [and] the Vietnam War ($111 billion). The scale of the

"collapse" was "appalling." During the deregulation crisis of 1999-2001, the industry took more than $100 billion in "stranded cost" payoutsfrom state and federal sources. Reactor owners argued that nuclear power was too expensive to compete in a deregulated market, andthat they were owed compensation for having risked their capital on an experiment that failed. Today the nuclear industry says all thatis behind them, and that a "new generation" of reactors will somehow reverse a half-century of catastrophic economics. But inFinland, the first of these plants is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget. And the renewable energy industryon which Eisenhower turned his back on 1953 has come of age. Wind power is far cheaper than nukes, can be installed quickly, andhelps solve rather than worsen the global warming crisis. Solar, bio-fuels, efficiency and conservation all have investors lining up forthem, without the need for taxpayer guarantees or government-backed catastrophic liability insurance. To invest in nukes is to throwstill more good money at a bad technology. Those who do so guarantee us all fifty more years of economic chaos and energyshortfalls.

22
http://www.nukefree.org/facts/uninsurablehttp://www.nukefree.org/facts/uninsurablehttp://www.nukefree.org/facts/uninsurable


23/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

Ext #1 - Nuclear Energy Expensive

( ) Nuclear energy is very expensive and wont solve for 10 years

Severance 08 (Craig A. Severance, The Public Record, Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh, June 19, 2008,http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?view=article&id=149%3Anuclear-not-only-way-to-generate-a-kwh-&option=com_content_)At $9 billion for an 1100 megawatt nuclear plant, nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same powercapacity in gas turbines, and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms. In addition to costing far more,the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years, delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade.

23


24/45

JDI 08

Murray/Naputi

AT: CO2 Internal Link

( ) Future carbon regulations wont hurt the economy

Wagman 08 (David Wagman, Managing Editor, Power Engineering, An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again,http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss)Federal carbon capture legislation seems likely to be enacted within the next several years, aimed at limiting the amount of carbondioxide that power plantsamong other emitterscan produce. The impetus, of course, is worry over possible climate change and theaffect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carboncapture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill, introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.). Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner. One report produced for theEdison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U.S. gross domestic product could be $5.3 trillion by 2050. Lieberman-Warner willbe "a very high-cost option for all Americans," Kraig Naasz, president of the National Manufacturers Association was quoted assaying in a conference call with reporters earlier this year. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner, certainly not in the UnitedStates." Not everyone agrees. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters," said Robert Repetto, professorof Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. While he agrees that carbon regulation willcarry some costs, the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest. "The bottom line is that if (carbon

regulation) is phased in

JDI Nuclear Power Neg

Documents

Transcript of JDI Nuclear Power Neg