300 BQ Nuclear Chemical Wave 4

8/14/2019 300 BQ Nuclear Chemical Wave 4

1/27

Nuclear Power Wave 4

DDI 08

Peter Vale

Index

Index ........................................................................................................................................................................1

Natural Gas: Peak load .........................................................................................................................................3



Nuclear Replace Base Load Natural Gas .............................................................................................................6

Nuclear Waste Answers .........................................................................................................................................7

Nuclear International Ahead ................................................................................................................................8

Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry ................................................................................................................9

Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry ..............................................................................................................10

Nuclear solves Natural Gas Prices/Chemical ....................................................................................................11Chemical Industry key Economy .......................................................................................................................12

Chemical Industry key Economy .......................................................................................................................13

Chemical Industry key Economy .......................................................................................................................14

Chemical Industry key Innovation .....................................................................................................................15

Chemical Industry key to preventing Cancer ...................................................................................................16

Chemical Industry key Hegemony .....................................................................................................................17

Internals Chemical Industry ............................................................................................................................18

Internals Chemical Industry ............................................................................................................................19

Impacts Chemical Industry key to All Things ................................................................................................20

Impacts Chemical Industry key to National Defense ....................................................................................21

Impacts Chemical Industry key to Economy .................................................................................................22

Impacts Chemical Industry key to Economy .................................................................................................23

Windpower Nano Tech CP ..................................................................................................................................24

AT: Prolif K ..........................................................................................................................................................25

AT: Prolif K .........................................................................................................................................................26

AT: Prolif K ..........................................................................................................................................................27

1


2/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

2


3/27


4/27


5/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Natural Gas: Peak load

Natural Gas is used in new base load power plants

Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, SECURING AMERICAS ENERGY

FUTURE http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/how_it_works/reports/ushousesecuringamericasenergyfuture/An important consequence of EPACT92 is the boom in electricity produced by natural gas-fired units. In fact, it has becomethe preferred fuel choice for new electricity generation facilities. This includes both baseload and intermediate power.The North American Electric Reliability Council defines baseload as the minimum amount of electric power delivered orrequired over a given period at a constant rate. EIA applies this concept to generating units, equating baseload to units thatproduce electricity at a constant rate and run continuously. Broken down further, baseload can be expressed as a percentage ofcapacity factorthe electricity actually produced compared to the potential electricity that the plant is capable of producing.Baseload is then the power supplied by units with a capacity factor of 70 percent or more, intermediate load refers toelectricity supplied by units between plants used for only peak power needsa capacity factor of 20 percent or lessand baseload at 70 percent. The Subcommittee staff is unaware of any comprehensive, US government analysis of baseloadand intermediate power supplied by natural gas. According to EIAs definition and Subcommittee majority staff discussionswith EIA, baseload can be assumed to be electricity that is supplied by nuclear and coal power plants.42 This assumption isclearly flawed and discounts the largest source of new capacity. Natural gas clearly plays a large role in the countrys

intermediate and baseload power needs. Since the 1990s, almost all new plants are powered by natural gas, and the 5-yearperiod from 1999 saw the largest increase in generating capacity in the electricity industrys history. From 1996 to 2000, theuse of natural gas for electricity grew 11 percent per year. According to EIA, of the 94,000 megawatts of planned additions inelectricity generating capacity through 2009, 80 percent will be fueled primarily by natural gas, 14 percent by coal, and no newnameplate additions will be nuclear.

Natural gas prices are very volatile because it is currently being used as base load energy. This means it

cannot be used where it is needed- the chemical energy

Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, SECURING AMERICAS ENERGYFUTURE http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/how_it_works/reports/ushousesecuringamericasenergyfuture/

At the same time as natural gas has become the preferred fuel for electricity generation and prices have reached a newand more expensive floorindustries that use natural gasas a feedstock or for primary energy have experienced graveconsequences. Many industrial users do not have the option of switching to other sources of fuel when natural gas

prices rise. A 2001 price spike caused some industrial users to shut down production and sell their long-term natural gascontracts to make a profit, and it is likely that the price spike beginning in August 2005 has had the same effect. According tothe Society of the Plastics Industry, as a direct result of a three-fold increase in natural gas prices the plastics sector lost morethan 150,000 jobs and $14.6 billion in business to other countries from 2000 to 2002. As a result of high prices, America isno longer the worlds top location for making chemicals; the US is now a net importer of chemicals. Ongoing high priceshave also helped to shutter 21 nitrogen fertilizer production facilities, and production has moved overseas.46 Natural gasshould be exploited for the uses for which it is best suited. Profligate use of natural gas for electricity generation and

other processes that can use other fuels will ultimately lead to the US being less competitive. Natural gas must not be

squandered on baseload and new electricity generation.

5


6/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Nuclear Replace Base Load Natural Gas

*Nuclear Power can relieve the need for natural gas as base load power, providing the use of natural gas

in crucial industries


To enhance competitiveness and protect American jobs, natural gas must not be used for baseload electricity generation,nor for new generating capacity. Natural gas should be reserved for industries that use it as a feedstock or for primaryenergyand cannot substitute for it by fuel-switching. Nuclear energy must become the primary generator of baseloadelectricity, thereby relieving the pressure on natural gas prices and dramatically improving atmospheric emissions.

Nuclear power should become our base load energy source. The use of reprocessing can create less waste,

and less harmful waste


The early release of the Energy Information Administrations2006 Annual Energy Outlook provides that the percentage ofelectricity generated by coal-fired plants will decline slightly by 2020to 49 from 50 percentand then increase to 57percent by 2030. Natural gas will increase to 22 percent by 2020 before falling to 18 percent by 2030 as a result of new coalplants being constructed. Nuclear generation will fall from todays level of 20 percent to 15 percent by 2030 . Thislopsided ratio will generate higher prices, increase dependency upon LNG imports to supplement domestic natural gasdepletion, and perpetuate the release of more harmful emissions produced by coal plants. Realigning policies to ensurenuclear power is the primary supplier of baseload electricity is the only sensible path forward. In addition, a revivednuclear program should revisit the once through fuel cycle. Instead, the US should consider recycling nuclear materialswith the goal of achieving an innovative closed loop fuel cycle. This will make for more efficient use of nuclear fuel,

less volume of waste, and less harmful nuclear waste that must ultimately be disposed of in a long-term waste facility.

Nuclear energy will allow natural gas to be used for only industries that need it


Increased nuclear electricity production has several critical advantages over the status quo. It will, among other things,

free natural gas supplies for critical uses in manufacturing processes, reduce electricity costs to the consumer, be emission-free, and pave the way for drastically reduced petroleum dependency should next generation nuclear technology be used toproduce hydrogen in sufficient quantities to power a critical mass of emissions-free automobiles. Nuclear technology hassteadily advanced and companies have designed standard reactor models that can be constructed anywhere in the

world, in starkcontrast to the existing fleet of aging US nuclear plants that were customized according to each locationand permitting process. The switch to nuclear power as the primary source of baseload electricity will not come without a cost;it will necessitate tremendous political support and financial investment from private institutions and the federal governmentalike. This process will also require time and patience. The federal government has begun to realize this, albeit to a limitedextent.

6


7/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Nuclear Waste Answers

All of their claims about the risks of nuclear power are wrong, the benefits outweigh the chance of

minimal waste

Mr. PatrickMoore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace, Written testimony of Mr. Patrick Moore, prepared for the April 28, 2005Subcommittee Hearing, The Role of Nuclear Power Generation in a Comprehensive National Energy Policy.

I believe the majority of environmental activists have now become so blinded by their extremist policies that they fail toconsider the enormous and obvious benefits ofharnessing nuclear power to meet and secure Americas growing energyneeds. These benefits far outweigh the risks. There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to

be an environmentally sound and safe choice.

Nuclear Waste can be isolated and not harm the environment


A continued focus must remain on securely storing spent fuel and resolving the situation at Yucca Mountain . TheSecretary of Energy Advisory Boards Nuclear Energy Task Force reported that concern over whether nuclear waste can be

safely managed is diminishing in scientific and technical communities. Surface storage of spent nuclear fuel can beundertaken with adequate safety for many decades. There is general agreement in the scientific and technical communitythat disposal in a deep geologic repository is achievable, and that such disposal provides an effective long-term means ofisolating spent fuel from the environmentand additional options may be feasible.59

Reprocessing solves waste


There are additional opportunities to address the waste situation. While a long-term storage and disposal facility mustbe part of the solution, reconsideration of the once- through fuel cycle must be on the agenda . The reprocessing ofnuclear fuel is more efficient, decreases the volume of waste, and results in less harmful waste that must ultimately be

disposed of in a long-term waste facility. The goal should be to develop the technology to ultimately close the fuel cycle.

7


8/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Nuclear International Ahead

The US is behind other countries in nuclear power

Committee on Government Reform, May 8, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives, SECURING AMERICAS ENERGY

FUTURE http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/how_it_works/reports/ushousesecuringamericasenergyfuture/While the US struggles with these issues, nuclear power is moving ahead in other regions of the world. A March 2005ministerial conference convened by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that nuclearpower is a proven technology that contributes to the security of energy supply and the stability of energy prices by

reducing exposure to fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels. In that regard, countries that once rejected nuclear powersuch as Germany and Italyare beginning to revise their policies. Even in Swedenwhere a referendum in the 1980splaced a moratorium on nuclear powerpublic opinion polls indicate that 77 percent favor continued nuclear generation.

8


9/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry

High prices for natural gas harm the competitiveness of the chemical indsutry

CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH, staff writer, September 28, 2005, The New York Times As Natural Gas Prices Rise, So Do the Costs

of Things Made of Chemicals http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/business/28chemical.htmlBut while the industry may have dodged these immediate bullets, a thornier problem still interferes with executive sleep:natural gas prices that have been soaring since 2001.High prices are a double whammy for the chemical industry.Natural gas is both its main fuel and its main raw material, the starting point for the basic chemicals from which the fibersand compounds in shirts, eyeglasses and even the wrappers for single-serve soups are derived. "Chemical companies have beenunder assault for several years," said Robert Koort, an analyst at Goldman Sachs who has an attractive rating on the chemicalsector. Diane H. Gulyas, chief marketing officer of DuPont, said that, if anything, the hurricanes "acted as a wake-up call." "Itmade us all realize how shocking the underlying fundamentals of our business have become," she said. The industry has passedalong costs, and it is likely to continue doing so for now. Since Katrina, almost every chemical company has announced priceincreases. The trickledown effect to retail shelves is inevitable - soda and water come in plastic bottles, computers use plastichousings, even organic greenmarkets pack fruits and vegetables in plastic bags. "Consumers can expect to pay more foreverything, from medicines to auto parts to computers to shampoo," said Kevin Swift, chief economist for the AmericanChemistry Council, a trade association. But industry specialists worry that if high gas prices curb consumer spending, the days

of passing along constant price increases may end. "The uncompetitive natural gas price in the U.S. is a long-termproblem," said Gordon E. Slack, business director for Dow energy business, who said that high gas prices had turned thechemical industry from a net exporter to a net importer.Those rising prices have effectively wiped out the Americanchemical industry's main competitive edge. Whereas most overseas chemical plants derive most of their raw materials fromoil, gas has long been the feedstock of choice here. According to Mr. Swift, natural gas accounts for about 60 percent of thevalue of chemicals made here. Indeed, many chemical companies clustered their plants along the Gulf Coast, where so muchgas is produced, to take advantage of what Mr. Slack called "the best natural gas prices in the world." As recently as 2000,natural gas was selling for $2 per million British thermal units. But since then, environmental regulations have impelled manycompanies to switch from burning oil or coal to gas, even as other rules restricted drilling for new sources of gas.

Chemical Industry relies on natural gas

Glenn Hess, staff writer, October 13, 2005, Chemical and Engineering News Natural Gas Prices To Soar Throughout WinterMonths After Gulf Coast Hurricanes http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i42/8342naturalgas.html

The chemical industry is the nations largest industrial consumer of natural gas, using it both for heating and as a rawmaterial. The clean-burning fuel is also used to heat 55% of American homes. The American Chemistry Council says thereport reinforces growing concern about U.S. natural gas prices and underscores the need for immediate remedies byCongress and the Administration. Natural gas is currently priced at about $14 per million Btucompared with $2.00 six yearsagoand EIA expects prices will remain at double-digit levels for months to come. For manufacturing industries that relyon natural gas and compete in a global market, this is not sustainable, ACC says. If prices stay at projected levels, it islikely to cause demand destruction as industrial users are priced out of the U.S. market. What this means is that

manufacturing industries will have involuntarily curtailed output due to high production costs, putting the future of

their U.S. operationsand American jobsat risk.

9


10/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Natural Gas key to Chemical Industry

Return to balanced energy supply reduces natural gas prices and helps the chemical industry

American Chemistry Council, December 3, 2004 Natural Gas Volatility Harming U.S. Chemical Industry

http://www.alliedpackaging.com/news/acm-dec04.htmlNatural gas prices remain dangerously high and volatile and the market is extremely skittish. Before Thanksgiving, DOEreported a higher than expected withdrawl rate and within 90 minutes prices jumped by nearly 20 percent. This week, a smallerthan expected withdrawal sent prices plummeting down. In response to recent developments, the American Chemistry Councilissued the following statement: Natural gas prices are doing great damage to the U.S. chemical industry. Over the past twoyears, high and volatile natural gas prices have increased our costs by more than $10 billion. We cannot successfullyoperate in this environment. Wild price swings are unhealthy, better information is needed to help market participants makesmart decisions. But, these price swings are only a symptom of a much more serious problem: there is not enough natural gasavailable to meet current demand from homeowners, farmers, commercial businesses, manufacturers and power

generators. We are in a period of sustained scarcity and we are paying dearly for it. We believe that a balanced portfolio ofenergy policies are urgently needed to return U.S. natural gas prices to globally-competitive levels.

10


11/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Nuclear solves Natural Gas Prices/Chemical

*Nuclear power solves for the natural gas crisis, by providing base load energy generation. This helps the

chemical industry, which relies on natural gas

MARK J. PERRY, professor of finance and economics at the University of Michigan, July 29, 2008, Courant.com Nuclear PowerKey To Containing Energy Costs http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-perry0729.artjul29,0,5033942.story

If ever there was a question about the need for nuclear power, it has certainly been dispelled now with the rising cost offossil fuels.The high price ofoil, natural gas and coal should be a wake-up call to all regions of the country that the era ofboundless use of cheap fossil fuels is over and that nuclear power will need to play a larger role in supplying electricityto homes, business and industry. Although natural gas is now the fuel of choice in electricity generation, its price hasquadrupled in recent years and supplies are extremely tight . Not too long ago, the expectation of rising imports of liquefiednatural gas led many to conclude that more abundant gas supplies and greater use of alternative fuels would end the long run ofsoaring gas costs. But the pause in increased gas costs proved temporary. Natural gas prices are once again rising rapidly 93 percent since last August. Major industries that require large amounts of gas for space heating and as a feedstock inmaking consumer products are once again in crisis. So now is the time to point out that one-quarter of the gas supply iswasted on electricity generation. Since 1990, virtually all of the new electric-power capacity in the country has usednatural gas, and that has driven up the price of natural gas . Natural gas is a finite and dwindling commodity. North

American production has been at a plateau in recent years. Canada has told the United States not to expect additional shipmentsof natural gas, because it now requires a larger share of its gas reserves to meet its own domestic needs. Another thing:Congress has yet to lift the ban on drilling for oil and natural gas along 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf as wellas the Alaskan wilderness. The surge in gas prices is also being fed by increased global competition for LNG. Today, an LNGtanker pulling into port in Japan or Spain can get almost $20 per million BTUs far higher than the U.S. price. MostAmericans probably don't realize the effect all of this is having on some key industries. In the chemical industry, a bignatural gas user, more than 118,000 American jobs have been lost since 2000. For U.S. manufacturing overall, about 3

million jobs have been lost in that time due in large part to energy costs . Particularly in the fertilizer and chemicalindustries, plants are shutting down and reopening abroad to take advantage of lower natural gas prices overseas.

11


12/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key Economy

Office ofTechnology Competitiveness, January 1996 National Technical Information Service Meeting the Challenge: U.S. IndustryFaces the 21st Century- The Chemical Industry, http://www.technology.gov/Reports/Chemicals/chemical.htm

The U.S. chemical industry is vital to the U.S. economy . It produces 1.9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Itis the nation's number one exporter. It supplies more than $1 out of every $10 of U.S. exports and consistently runslarge international trade surpluses. It is a high-tech, research and development (R&D) oriented industry that is awardedabout one out of every eight U.S. patents. It employs over one million people at wages well above the U.S. manufacturingaverage, and it produces over 70,000 different products. Most importantly, chemicals is a "keystone" industry -- onecritical to the global competitiveness of other U.S. industries. Because so many modern products depend on chemicals, theinternational competitiveness of other U.S. industries requires a high-tech, globally competitive U.S. chemical industry that cansupply new products at prices that give U.S. producers an edge.

The chemical industry is key to the economy and innovation

American Chemistry Council, Inc 2007 Chemistry Careers A Future of Possibilitieshttp://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_article.asp?CID=36&DID=4776

For centuries, curiosity has been credited as the driving force behind American inventions. Whether it was someones desire to

enhance their life by creating a new product or finding a cure for a disease, inquisitiveness got the ball rolling. Yet, it ischemistry that turns ideas into reality. From cough syrup to car seats, an inventor using chemistry made these products, andmany others, possible. Today, the business of chemistry is leading innovation in nearly every major industry and is acrucial building block of many aspects of modern life. It is one of the largest investors in research and development,

investing $26 billion annually. An analysis by the Columbia Business School shows that every $15 billion invested inpharmaceutical research and development saves 1.6 million lives annually. The business of chemistry also generatesmore than half a trillion dollars to the United States economy each year. Because of the substantive effect the business ofchemistry has on our lives, employees of the chemical industry, such as chemists, researchers or engineers, are among some ofthe most highly compensated individuals, both in terms of pay and medical benefits, in the United States. In the United States,

the business of chemistry directly generated 868,700 jobs in 2006, according to the 2007 Guide to the Business ofChemistry, published by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). These jobs cover a wide variety of disciplines such aschemical engineering, biochemistry, analytical, inorganic, organic, physical, theoretical and nuclear chemistries. The threeemployment sectors with the highest number of chemistry employees are industry, including chemical and pharmaceutical

companies, academic institutions and government laboratories. The business of chemistry also is responsible for anadditional 5.7 million jobs in industries that directly depend on chemistry products, such as, agriculture, manufacturing,real estate, educational services, retail trade and healthcare. In other words, one job in the chemical industry supports 4.5 jobsin other industries. The importance of chemistry to our everyday lives and to the economy has fueled an industry with highwages and employees with a comfortable standard of living.

The Chemical industry is key to US exports

Kendra Borja, American Chemistry Council, 2007 Tradehttp://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_policyissues.asp?CID=390&DID=1311

The U.S. chemical industry is the largest in the world. With sales of $516 billion in 2004, the U.S. chemical industryaccounted for nearly a quarter of the worlds total chemical output . The U.S. chemical industry is also the nationslargest exporting sector, with a record $109 billion in exports in 2004, far outpacing U.S. agricultural exports of $61 billionand aerospace exports of $41 billion. With 20 percent of U.S. chemical sales destined for foreign markets, ACC works to

improve the U.S. chemical industrys competitiveness in those markets by removing barriers to access. Specifically, ACCsupports the rules-based multilateral trading system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Doha DevelopmentAgenda (DDA), the current round of WTO negotiations to achieve comprehensive trade liberalization. A strong and effectiveWTO is essential for managing globalization and achieving the goal of increased living standards and sustainable developmentaround the world. As part of the DDA negotiations, ACC has called for the worldwide elimination of all chemical tariffs.

12
http://www.technology.gov/Reports/Chemicals/chemical.htmhttp://www.technology.gov/Reports/Chemicals/chemical.htmhttp://www.technology.gov/Reports/Chemicals/chemical.htm


13/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale


American Chemistry Council, Inc 2007 chemistry-dependent economyhttp://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_statistics.asp?CID=381&DID=1276

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

The chemical industry is important to the US workforce

American Chemistry Council, Inc 2007 economic impacthttp://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_employment.asp?CID=382&DID=1277

The economic contributions of the chemical industry are numerous, though often overlooked. The business of chemistrydirectly creates over 869,000 high paying jobs. In addition to the jobs created directly by the industry, additional jobs are

supported by the purchasing activity of the chemical industry and by the subsequent expenditure-induced activity. Intotal, nearly 5.7 million jobs are generated by the business of chemistry, 4% of the total US workforce. A quick rule ofthumb is: a total of 6.5 jobs in the US economy are generated for every job in the chemical industry (1 job in the business ofchemistry plus 5.5 additional jobs generated elsewhere in the economy). In addition to the 4.8 million jobs it creates in otherindustries, the chemical industry contributes $2.3 billion to charitable organizations.

Every product is produced by the chemical industry

American Chemistry Council, August 2007 THE BUSINESS OF CHEMISTRY: ESSENTIAL TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE ANDTHE US ECONOMY www.americanchemistry.com

The $637 billion business of chemistry (a.k.a. the chemical industry) is one of the oldest US industries. It is a dynamic,forward-looking innovative industry, a keystone of the new economy and a leader in protecting the environment. It isalso an enabling and transforming business and an essential contributor to our standard of living. The many benefits arisingfrom chemistry and its products greatly enhance our quality of life. Included are more than 70,000 products that enable rising

US productivity and living standards. Synthetic fibers and permanent-press clothing, life-saving medicines, healthimprovement products, technology- enhanced agricultural products, improved foods, more protective packaging materials,longer-lasting paints, stronger adhesives, faster microprocessors, more durable and safer tires, lightweight automobile parts,and stronger composite materials in aircraft and spacecraft are only a few of the thousands of the innovative products of thebusiness of chemistry. In fact, innovations in chemistry helped put a man on the moon. Two everyday products transformed bychemistry include microprocessors and automobiles. It is silicon chemistry and high-performance polymers that make themicroprocessor possible. Every automobile contains nearly $2,200 worth of chemical processing and products. From thepolyurethane seat cushions and neoprene hoses and belts to air bags, brake fluids, rust proofing and nylon seat belts,

the performance, safety and fuel efficiency depend upon thousands of products of chemistry.

The Chemical industry is the biggest exporter in the US

American Chemistry Council, August 2007 THE BUSINESS OF CHEMISTRY: ESSENTIAL TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE ANDTHE US ECONOMY www.americanchemistry.com

A success story, the $637 billion chemical industry is the largest exporting sector in the United States. In 2006, USchemical exports totaled over $135 billion -- larger than either agriculture or aircraft/aerospace. More than ten cents out ofevery dollar of exports are chemicals and related products. And 22% of the business of chemistrys employment is from theindustrys export activity or in support of other industries exports. The US chemical industry is the worlds largest

single national chemical industry, accounting for nearly a fourth of the $2.85 trillion in world sales of chemicals.

13


14/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale


The chemical industry is a key component to the US economy

American Chemistry Council, August 2007 United States: Snapshot of the Chemical Industry in the United States

www.americanchemistry.comIn addition to the jobs generated by chemical industry business activity, many other American jobs are dependent on

chemical products. These industries use chemical products or chemical-derived products as raw materials. An industryis defined as being dependent on chemical products if 10% or more of its material inputs are derived from chemical

products. For service industries, the threshold is 20% due to the fact that these industries consume relatively little in terms ofphysical products. Looking across the entire U.S. economy, these chemical dependent industries account for 28.8% ofGDP and 29.7% of jobs. Industries that use chemical or chemical-derived products include: farming, new residentialconstruction, plastic bottle manufacturing, upholstered furniture manufacturing, dry-cleaning services, building services andhealth care, to name just a few.

The US produces a substantial amount of the chemical products for the world

American Chemistry Council, 2007 global http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_employment.asp?CID=292&DID=747Though the business of chemistry is worldwide in scope, the bulk of the worlds $2.85 trillion chemical output is accounted

for by only a handful of industrialized nations. The United States alone produced $637 billion, 22 percent of the totalworld chemical output in 2006.

14


15/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key Innovation

The chemical industry is key to innovation

American Chemistry Council, August 2007 THE BUSINESS OF CHEMISTRY: ESSENTIAL TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND

THE US ECONOMY www.americanchemistry.comComposition of the business of chemistry has been changing as companies evolve to a more knowledge-intensive focus in

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

Innovation in the Chemical Industry are important to the economy

American Chemistry Council, 2007 Capital Investmenthttp://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_employment.asp?CID=449&DID=1542

Innovation and technology have driven the world economy for centuries. The business ofchemistry is among the mostinnovative industries in the world with the business of chemistry accounting for about one in nine US patents.

Investment in R&D is a commitment of resources in the present in exchange for an anticipated future stream of

benefits. This high level of research is benefiting the industry and society as a whole . The payoff is a rapid rate oftechnological innovation, evidenced by a constant stream of new products and production processes.

15


16/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key to preventing Cancer

The Chemical Industry gives us a chance at fighting cancer

American Chemistry Council, 2007 Latest Chemistry Innovations Battle Against Cancer.

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_article.asp?CID=76&DID=7793Chemistry is making great strides in medical advances, including when it comes to the fight against cancer. These newtechnologies and research breakthroughs are vitally important, as the disease claims 1 out of 4 lives in the United States ,according to the American Cancer Society. The following examples bring to life how American chemistry and ACC membercompanies are working to improve the lives of people living with cancer. Silicon Chip Improves Patient Care. A team ofinvestigators at Massachussetts General Hospital has developed a revolutionary silicon-based microchip device, calledthe CTC-chip, which provides a new and effective tool for accurately detecting, diagnosing, and monitoring cancerbytaking a simple blood test. The noninvasive CTC-chip will quickly determine if cancer is responding to treatment. It couldalso be used to screen for people with an increased risk of cancer by examining circulating tumor cells (CTC) cells from solidtumors that float around in the bloodstream. Although other microchip technologies have had the ability to identify and sortthese cells, it has been difficult to obtain an adquate blood sample to analyze the cells due to their rarity and fragility. The CTC-chip is the first tool with the ability to obtain an adequate blood sample. Researchers developed the silicon chip, which is thesize of a business card and covered with almost 80,000 microscopic posts coated with a protein antibody expressed on most

solid tumors. The posts capture and analyze these floating cancer cells using the antibody glue. A study published in Natureshowed that the CTC-chip successfully identified CTCs in 99 percent of the blood of patients with metastic lung, prostate,pancreatic, breast and colon cancer. CTCs can also provide the molecular information needed to identify tumors that arecandidates for the new targeted therapies and should help researchers better understand the biology of cancer cells. NovelSubstance May Inhibit Breast Tumor Growth. Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women in NorthAmerica and Europe, with more than a million women diagnosed each year. The cause of breast cancer is still unknown andresearchers continue to search for new approaches to treating the different types of breast tumors. Bayer HealthCareresearchers have recently discovered a compound that is especially promising in suppressing the growth of breast tumors. Thesubstance, ZK-PRA, stands for Zentralkartei (central substance register) Progesterone Receptor Antagonist. This compoundprevents progesterone receptors from reading the genes on the hormones that promote breast tumors and then jams the path forany other receptors. The consequences are far-reaching, because the affected cell self-destructs soon afterwards, which is asignificant advantage over previous breast cancer anti-hormone treatments. Two breast cancer studies are currently underwayto determine the effectiveness of ZK-PRA. If the studies are successful, the active ingredient would have the opportunity toincrease the number of successful treatments and provide new hope for millions of women. Cancer cannot be cured withoutthe help of new technology and research. Through chemistry, this constant search for new approaches will help fight

and hopefully winthe battle against this deadly disease.

16
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_article.asp?CID=76&DID=7793http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_article.asp?CID=76&DID=7793


17/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Chemical Industry key Hegemony

Research in the chemical industry is critical to stop terror and national defense

LOIS R. EMBER, C&EN WASHINGTON, February 18, 2002 Chemical And Engineering News CHEMISTRY FOR SECURITY

NRC workshop confirms that chemical sciences relate to national security, homeland defenseGround breaking for the Pentagon took place in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 11, 1941. Sixty years later, terrorists slammed acommercial airliner into one side of the building, injuring and killing hundreds of civilian and military employees. Thatheinous attack in Virginia and the earlier, more devastating one on the World Trade Center towers in New York City haveserved as a rude wake-up call to the nation. And they have galvanized scientists of every stripe who, until then, may never haveenvisioned their expertise as serving the cause of national security and homeland defense. Months before Sept. 11, 2001, theNational Research Council's Board on Chemical Sciences & Technology (BCST) was busy putting together the study"Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the 21st Century." It was envisioned as an overview document focused on basicresearch needs with no mention of national security or homeland defense. That vision, of course, changed quickly. Thechairmen of the committee putting the study together--Ronald Breslow, chemistry professor at Columbia University, andMatthew V. Tirrell, professor of chemical engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara--and Douglas J. Raber,BCST's director, immediately realized that the "challenges" study had to contain a chapter on security. At their request, BCSTstaff members hastily put together a workshop on national security and homeland defense that would, for the first time, bring

together chemists and chemical engineers. The workshop took place on the UC Irvine campus in mid-January. According toRaber, the Irvine workshop--the third in a series of six planned workshops--had two key goals. It was "to engage the chemicalsciences R&D community in responding to the terrorism threat and to provide federal agencies with the information

they need to guide their investments in R&D" to counter terrorism. The U.S. needs to continue to educate the public aboutthe risks, be prepared for the unexpected, and maintain a strong technological base. THE WORKSHOP attracted more than100 chemists and chemical engineers who heard 10 speakers "talk about subjects that are relevant to the issues of homelanddefense and national security," explained John I. Brauman, Stanford University chemistry professor. Brauman and CarnegieMellon University chemical engineer John L. Anderson cochaired the workshop committee. Not all possibilities could becovered, Brauman cautioned. "The talks are designed to stimulate you, to make your imagination really work to help usunderstand the kinds of things we can do." There is no question, Brauman said, "that a lot offundamental research does haveapplication" to national security and homeland defense. What he and other organizers hoped would come from theworkshop was a catalog of "what we are doing and what we can bring" to the problem. And the flip side of that, he noted, is abetter understanding of "what does the government want to recognize that we are bringing so that it can be supportive of thoseefforts." In addition to the speakers, the workshop had breakout sessions in which attendees could contribute their "insights andideas to stimulate the rest of the community in terms of the contributions all of us can make," Brauman said. These sessionsdelved into four areas: national-security-related discoveries in the chemical sciences over the past several decades; the"grand challenges" for chemistry and chemical engineering; discoveries and challenges at the interface between chemistry andchemical engineering and other disciplines, what the workshop organizers called barriers; and research needs.

17


18/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Internals Chemical Industry

High natural gas prices destroy the chemical industry, sending the entire manufacturing industry in a

downward spiral that destroys the economy

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

LOST MANUFACTURING or "de-industrialization" is occurring in the US and other developed countries as semifinished andfinished goods manufacturing investment shifts to countries with a cost advantage, such as China.US chemical producers, witha total of over $180 billion in assets on US soil, are painfully aware that the country is seeing downstream industrialdevelopment impeded by high costs. They must respond strategically, using innovation and customer collaboration.ANALYSISRESULTSDomestic demand for manufactured goods will outstrip domestic industrial production over the next 10 years andimports will fill the gap, according to an Accenture Research study for the ACC (American Chemistry Council).According tothe study, which quantifies the impact of lost downstream manufacturing (of 17 selected industries) on the future chemicalindustry, domestic production of finished goods (in aggregate) will still increase over the period, but imports will risefaster.This implies that US manufacturers will lose market share and, therefore, chemical manufacturers will lose the demandfor chemicals associated with manufacturing these products. The total chemical sales opportunity losses represent just

2.4% of the expected $8 trillion total manufacturing industry sales opportunity losses (or cumulative net trade losses by2015) caused by lost manufacturing. The estimated cumulative opportunity losses (based on trade losses) for thechemical sector over 10 years consist of $188bn in chemical sales, including $50bn in sales from the top seven

thermoplastic resins $40bn in capital expenditures in chemicals, including $5bn for new thermoplastics capacity $30bn

in chemical research and development expenditures $43bn in US government tax revenue from chemical companies

$3bn in charitable contributions from chemical companies and 157,000 chemical industry-related jobs.The loss of these

chemical industry-related jobs by 2015 is a particularly painful blow to the US economy because nearly 50% of

chemical industry employees are "knowledge workers" with university degrees and training, whose principal tasks

involve the development or application of specialized knowledge in the workplace.The US industrial economy is

interdependent, with chemicals accounting for 5% or more of production costs in at least six other major US industries

- textiles, the business of chemistry, plastics and rubber products, semiconductor & electronic components, paper

products and nonmetallic mineral products. These industries generate nearly $1.2 trillion in total revenue. Declines in

output in any one of these corresponds to declines in chemicals potential demand . However, the volume of chemicals

decline depends on the amount of chemicals used in a downstream industry, as well as the projected change in production ofthat same industry. Taking into account both of these factors, chemicals used in the production of plastics and rubber products,petroleum and coal, food, and textile products will be subject to the largest loss of potential demand. Besides relatively higherlabor and regulatory costs in the US, high energy prices are contributing to the decline of US industrial production. High,volatile natural gas costs and unreliable supplies affect electricity costs and, in the case of chemicals, raw material costs

as well. Volatility also causes uncertainty in production planning and volume expansion. Energy is the largest input

factor for most base chemicals, so reliable, low cost energy supplies are critical to ensuring chemical industry

competitiveness.

18


19/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Internals Chemical Industry

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

essential to the US economy

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

Chemical Workforce grows by 2%Shipments of US chemical products remain strong and sector employment is at a three-yearhigh, but the onset of winter weather may accelerate prices for gas feedstock, said industry economists.Latest data on rail carloadings of chemical products show increasing cargo volumes in nine of the past 13 months, said the American ChemistryCouncil (ACC).The US chemicals industry continues to take on new workers, with 2,000 added in October alone,bringing employment in the sector to a three-year high, it said. The chemicals industry workforce, which numbered

897,800 last month, has grown by more than 18,000 jobs, or 2%, since October last year, according to Department ofLabor data. Industry economists expressed concern, however, that the early onset of North American winter weather hastriggered the first draw-downs against underground stores of natural gas and may soon begin upward pressure on gas

pricing. Natural gas is the principal feedstock for the US chemicals manufacturing sector. On the broader economy, the

ACC pointed to a continued cooling in many parts, particularly in construction and manufacturing - two crucial downstreamconsuming sectors for chemicals.In addition, sales of vehicles were reported down 2.3% in September and the Institute forSupply Management manufacturing index declined in October for the fourth consecutive month. On the plus side, personalincomes rose by a better-than-expected 0.5% in September, extending a lengthy run of strong increases and suggestingcontinuing potential for consumer spending, the principal engine of the US economy.

19


20/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Impacts Chemical Industry key to All Things

Chemical industry key to US economy, preventing disease spread, ensuring food supply and drinking

water, stopping fires, manufacturing fighter jets, satellites, space shuttles, and nanotech

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

The chemical industry is a crucial part of the US economy. The United States is the number one chemical producer in

the world, generating $550 billion a year and putting more than 5 million people to work. More than 96% of all

manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry.

Chemicals are the essential building blocks of products that safely and effectively prevent, treat and cure disease;

ensure the safest and most abundant food supply in the world; purify ourdrinking water and put out fires. They are thefoundation for life-saving vaccines, child safety seats, bicycle helmets, home insulation, and Kevlar vests. Innovations inchemistry have helped to increase energy efficiency and to make planes, fighter jets, satellites and space shuttles safer

and more secure. We are also on the cusp of new and exciting chemical advances in the form of nanotechnology. Thesetiny chemicals have the potential to cure cancers, clean up pollution, and make cars stronger and lighter than ever

before. To say that chemicals are vital is an understatement.

20


21/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Impacts Chemical Industry key to National Defense

Chemical industry key to economy and national defense

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

FIVE YEARS after the September 11 terrorist attacks - a 21st Century Pearl Harbor - the chemical industry has by all accountsmade significant strides in antiterrorism security but remains vulnerable to what some authorities fear will be an inevitable andperhaps devastating attack. Ever since 9/11, chemical production, storage and transit facilities have been seen as potentialtargets for terrorists, targets where highly toxic compounds are stored or used in large volumes and could cause horrificcasualties if ignited or otherwise released into surrounding communities. While the potential for terrorist use of chemicalfacilities as weapons of mass destruction is widely acknowledged, the question of how to deal with that risk has divided policy-makers, Congress and the industry itself. Underlying the debate in government and within industry is this core question: Howcan we protect the chemical industry without smothering it? The crucial role that chemical production plays in the USeconomy and defense profile was brought into sharp relief by last year's double hurricane strikes along the Gulf Coast.

ASSESSING THE DAMAGE In assessing the damage done by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) assistant secretary Robert Stephan says, "The impact of those storms on the US refining andpetrochemical industries made it clear that those industries represent a key element in our national defense productionmachine."There is no evidence that any chemical facility has been the target of a terrorist plot - at least none that USintelligence officials will admit. Still, the risk seems palpable in the wake of continuing efforts by directed or rogue terroristgroups to strike at vulnerable targets of opportunity overseas, such as the attacks on the Madrid and London subway systemsand the more recent UK-based plot to blow up US-bound airliners. "My instinct is that chemical facilities are probably on theshort list of vulnerable targets for Al Qaeda," says Lt. Gen.

21


22/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Impacts Chemical Industry key to Economy

Chemical industry is the worlds largest producer with over $15 billion in trade surplus and contributes

21% of GDP to the US economy

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

The US Chemical Industry is the world's largest producer by a substantial margin with a balance of trade surplus in

excess of $15 billion. It is a major player contributing 21% in GDP to the US economy. This growth has led many

theorists to conclude that the industry is a "harvester" rather than an "investor" for future growth.

Chemical Industry key to US econ, multiwarrant

Senator James Inhofe, expert on national security issues and chairman of Environmental public works committee, 4/29/08,

Congressional Documents and Publications, Inhofe Hearing Statement on EPA Toxic Chemicals Policies pg lexis //EM

Good morning. Today's hearing is to examine the adequacy of the mechanisms for the evaluation and regulation of chemicalsby the EPA. The subject is important because the chemical industry is a crucial part of the U.S. economy , and we have to bemindful of what we put at risk if we over-regulate this industry and stifle its 30 year history of innovation. Here are somestatistics. The United States is the number one chemical producer in the world, generating $635 billion a year andputting more than 5 million people to work. The U.S. chemical industry paid more than $27.8 billion in federal, state,

and local income taxes in 2006. More than 96% of all manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry.

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

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

Chemical Compounds, PricewaterhouseCoopers quarterly report on the state of transactions in the global chemicalsindustry, highlighted a rise in deal value, which more than doubled from $53 billion in 2006 to $109 billion in 2007. Thisincrease was driven by a greater number of deals with transaction values over $1 billion, as well as a slight rise in dealvolume which reached 819 deals in 2007. The size ofthese large deals also increased significantly in 2007 with three dealsthat were greater than $10 billion and three that were greater than $5 billion (but less than $10 billion), compared to2006 when only one deal was greater than $10 billion.

22


23/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Impacts Chemical Industry key to Economy

Produced chemicals are an integral part of the US economy

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

MERGER AND acquisition (M&A) activity is making its impact on the North American chemical industry's distributionnetwork. The previously fragmented market by which companies distribute the chemicals needed to run the USeconomy may soon give way to a more streamlined set of entities, as smaller distributors are swallowed up by larger

ones. In the past 10 years, the number of national distributors has decreased from six or seven to three -Univar/CHEMCENTRAL, Ashland and Brenntag, says Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the National Association of ChemicalDistributors (NACD), an industry group that he says accounts for 80-90% of industry revenues and has lost 48 members overthe past 14 years, due to M&A activity alone. Not surprisingly, large and small companies involved in distribution areputting their best feet forward to operate in this changed environment. The larger ones tout the synergistic

opportunities involved in M&A, while small and medium-sized enterprises say they welcome the competition.

Chemical industry is an essential contributor to the US economy

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

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

23


24/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

Windpower Nano Tech CP

Their own author endorses using nanotechnology as wind energy

Dr. Pradeep Haldar, professor of nanoengineering at the University at Albanys College of Nanoscale Science and engineering, chair

of the Clean Energy Alliance created by the US Department of Energy, 7/13/07, The Power of Nanotechnologyhttp://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=078

Perhaps the most mainstream acceptance of renewable technology has come in the form of wind energy, which isapproaching complete cost competitiveness with traditional energy sources. Countries such as Germany, Spain and Denmarkare already beginning to utilize substantial amounts of wind energy to meet their growing electricity needs, but there remainsenormous potential for worldwide expansion in the wind industry. Nanotechnology helps to realize the wind's enormouspotential through various improvements in the efficiency of wind turbines. New lubricants that contain nanoparticles thatact like mini ball-bearings help reduce the friction generated from the rotation of the turbines, decreasing wear-and-

tear on the machine throughout its life cycle. Advancements in nanocoatings, such as de-icing and self-cleaning

technologies, also help improve efficiencies, rendering ice and dirt buildup on the turbines virtually nonexistent. The

most promising contributions of nanotechnology come from the integration of advanced materials technology in wind

blades in the form of nanocomposites, which provide lighter and substantially stronger blades. Nanotechnology impacts

the wind industry in general, by improving turbine performance and reliability to allow for longer lifetime, less fatigue

failure, and lower costs of generation. Clearly, the pursuit of cleaner and more efficient ways of generating power is ofcritical importance to our future. Through innovation, we can improve the efficiencies of the technologies we have anddiscover new ways by which we can prosper. Nanotechnology provides us with the opportunity to attain sustainabledevelopment - and to overcome one of the greatest challenges of our time - by using some of the simplest and smallest meansat our disposal.

24


25/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

AT: Prolif K

On the Mutimer Link we dont intervene and force other countries to follow our standards, our evidence

indicates that other organizations and countries model our nonproliferation efforts not that we force

people to sign treaties.

We also solve what Mutimer is saying, because he talks about how we only want to control other

countries when we are the source.However, we stop prolif and the spread at the starting point which

Mutimer claims to be the West [the image hides the fact that nuclear weapons do not spread, but are spreadand in fact arespread largely by the western states.]

Mutimer says prolif discourse prevents the beneficial tech of nuclear power because it groups nuke power

with prolif. This is our point with the prolif advantage that we are modeled as using nuclear energy for

power rather than bombs and prolif.

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

any country or organization

Perm: Do Both. Reframing our policy option with the alternative solves for all of Gustersons discourse

claims

Hugh Gusterson prof @ MIT Antrhopology Department, 1996, Nuclear Rites ixI am often asked why an anthropologist would study a nuclear weapons laboratory. The risk of being labeled deviant bycolleagues in anthropology and irrelevant by arms control specialists is high, and the difficulties in carryoing out fieldwork aresubstantial: nuclear weapons scientists are very busy people who do not suffer fools gladly; because their work is top secret,most of their daily life is inaccessible to participant observation, traditionally the cultural anthropologists principa researchtechnique and their work is not only virtually impossible to observe but also, for the person lacking several years of training inphysics, virtually impossible to understand. Despite these obstables, I chose to do an ethnographic study of a nuclear weaponslaboratory for three reasons. First, I believe the American public debate on defense policy in general- and on nuclear

weapons policy in particular- has been sorely in need of a cultural perspective. Discussions have hitherto been dominatedby scientists, political scientists, and politicians, who construe defense policy questions as problems that, like those inmathematics, have one correct answer. I belive that policy problems are rarely like math problems and my own interest isless in finding the one true answer to the conundrums of nuclear policy than in understanding how people become so

profoundly convinced tha their answer is the only one. It is my belief that if more people looked at defense policy in this

light, our public discussions might be more generous and imaginative.

No Link- Gusterson is talking about using military expansion to control other countries nuclear weapons

Michael Sandlin, 16 November 2004, Reviews- PopMatters Nuclear Waste http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/p/people-of-the-bomb.shtml

Although Gusterson's description of his book as an "ambitiously polyglot offering" is certainly valid, his argumentsoften fall into one of two categories: anthropological "fieldwork," or Foucault-influenced studies of the deceptive

language used in building a dominant discourse on American militarism -- and the means by which holes in the "official

story" can be punctured. Gusterson argues that American military dominance is often successfully sold to the public asself-evident, humanitarian, or arising from providential destiny, not conscious political decisions.

25


26/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

AT: Prolif K

US attempts at nuclear energy are unrelated to fears of nuclear proliferation

Nicolas Lorisand JackSpencer, Research Assistant and Research Fellow Institute for Economic Policy

Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 7/2/08, The Heritage Foundation, Nuclear Energy: What we canlearn from other countries http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyandenvironment/wm1977.cfm

This myth relies on creating an illusion of cause and effect. This is why so much anti-nuclear propa ganda focuses ontrying to equate nuclear weapons with civilian nuclear power. Once such a spurious relationship is established, anti-nuclearactivists can mix and match causes and effects without regard for the facts. Furthermore, this "argument" is clearly irrelevantinside the United States. As a matter of policy, the United States already has too many nuclear weapons and isdisassembling them at a historic pace, so arguing that expanding commercial nuclear activity in the United States would

some how lead to weapons proliferation is disingenu ous. The same would hold true for any other state with nuclear weapons.As for states without nuclear weapons, the prob lem is more complex than simply arguing that access to peaceful nuclear

power will lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and

pro ducing either material requires a sophisticated infrastructure. While most countries could certainly develop the

capabilities needed to produce these materials, the vast majority clearly have no inten tion of doing so. For start-upnuclear powers, the preferred method of acquiring weapons-grade material domestically is to enrich uranium, not to separate

plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Uranium enrichment is completely separate from nuclear power production. Furthermore,nothing stops countries from developing a nuclear weapons capability, as demonstrated by North Korea and Iran. If prolifera -tion is the concern, then proper oversight is the answer, not stifling a distantly related industry.

Plan solves the alt by moving away from the militaristic discourse around proliferation and instead using

nuclear energy as an example for the world; Gustersons proliferation discourse is inevitable unless we

make this shift in policy

Michael Sandlin, 16 November 2004, Reviews- PopMatters Nuclear Waste http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/p/people-of-the-bomb.shtml

And today, more than ever, Livermore nuclear scientists are flush with taxpayer dollars. The Bush administration is stillpining for the warped Reagan dream of militarizing space, while "mini-nukes" are being developed to smoke out state-less,spiderhole-dwelling warlords. Gusterson leaves us with the idea that US nuclear dominance-as-defense has become the

reconstructed "natural" order of the day. The utopian dreams of anti-nuclear critics like Gusterson, Jonathan Schell and

many others, advocate worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons as the only truly fail-safe policy. Although realistically,unless there's an unexpected Green Party putsch in Washington, this country's dominant discourse on nukes and militarismwillprobably be, at best, limited to whether nuclear weapons should function as deterrents or as pre-emptive instrumentsof global restructuring. Any heretical dovish discourse calling for peacetime economic conversion of military industries,or faith-based multi-lateral nuclear abolition, will likely be relegated to chicken-wired "free speech zones" and academicecho chambers.

26


27/27


DDI 08

Peter Vale

AT: Prolif K

The US will allow give technology to China, which helps solve the alternative and begins to move away

from proliferation discourse

Radio Australia, January 7, 2008 US provides China with nuclear energy technology http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949537/posts

American company Westinghouse, however, has been allowed to deliver its newest third-generation nuclear plant toChina. Radio Australia's Adam Connors reports that the need for energy over the coming few decades is reaching a fever pitchin red-hot economies like China. Energy analyst with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Alan McDonald, told RadioAustralia that China and India will be the most veracious about the most controversial energy source of all. "China and Indiahave booming economies, booming populations, growing energy demand; they basically need to develop all the energysources they can," he said. "Right now, nuclear electricity is only a small percentage - two per cent in China, three per cent ofelectricity in India but China plans a five-fold increase by 2020 and India plans an eight-fold increase by 2022." US nuclearcooperation 'remarkable' Nuclear energy, along with its massive hydroelectric schemes, are the centrepiece of toughpollution and energy consumption targets in China. China's 11 nuclear plants are a combination of homegrown, French,Canadian and Russian technologies. For the first time, however, China is developing nuclear energy technology throughagreements with the United States - four new reactors with American firm, Westinghouse. The World Nuclear Association's

Ian Hore-Lacy told Radio Australia the cooperation is remarkable, given US reluctance to help in the past. "It's generallybelieved that that's because of technology transfer aspects and they were wanting a high level of technology transfer and theright to be able to then adapt and sell that technology by way of exports from China ," he said. "The Westinghouse deal ispresumed to have come closer to that objective than the others and also of course there is the actual intrinsic virtue of the threetechnologies being offered and by some accounts the Westinghouse was the most advanced."

The US would share the nuclear power technology with other countries

MarkClayton, Staff writer May 30, 2007, The Christian Science Monitor China, nuclear technology, and a US salehttp://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0530/p03s01-usfp.html

China has its heart set on buying a cutting-edge US design for a nuclear-power reactor, and the Bush administration has

said it is willing to sell because the transaction will mean jobs for Americans and pave the way for a "nuclear[power]renaissance in the US."