Neg Nukes1

8/14/2019 Neg Nukes1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/neg-nukes1 1/53

UMKC SDI 2008 Mapes/Petite

Nuclear Power Neg

Nuclear Power Negative Nuclear Power Negative .............................................................................................................. ..... ..... ......1**Global Warming Advantage** ..................................................................................................... ......... ...2Can’t Solve- General ........................................................................................................... ............... .........3Can’t Solve- Time Delays ................................................................................................................... ..... ....4Can’t Solve- Time Delays ................................................................................................................... ..... ....5Increases Pollutants ............................................................................................................. ......... .............. .6Increases Warming ................................................................................................................................... ....7Increases Warming ................................................................................................................................... ....8**Prolif Advantage** ................................................................................................................. .............. ...9Prolif Inevitable ......................................................................................................................... ..... ...........10 Nuke Power = Prolif .............................................................................................................. ................ .... 11 NPT Crashing Now .................................................................................................................................. ..12 NPT Crashing Now .................................................................................................................................. ..13 NPT Bad .................................................................................................................................... .............. .. 14**Hegemony Advantage* ................................................................................................................. ..... ....15Hegemony Dead .................................................................................................................... ................ ....16Hegemony Dead ................................................................................................................... ............... .....17**Solvency* .......................................................................................................................... ................ ....19Time Delays .......................................................................................................................................... .....20Accidents ..................................................................................................................................... ..............21Accidents ..................................................................................................................................... ..............22Meltdowns .................................................................................................................................. ...............23Loan Guarantees Not Enough ........................................................................................................ ..... ..... ..24Don’t Increase Electricity ...................................................................................................... ..... ..... ..........25Labor Shortage ................................................................................................................. ............... ..........26Locations ............................................................................................................................... ............... .....27 NRC Won’t Approve ................................................................................................................................ ..28Plants = terrorism ...................................................................................................................................... .29

**Disad Links** ................................................................................................................................. ..... ..30Spending Links ............................................................................................................................. .............31Spending Links ............................................................................................................................. .............32Spending Links ............................................................................................................................. .............33Oil Links ............................................................................................................................................ ........34Politics Links- Unpopular (Public) ..................................................................................... ............... .......36**Australia DA**............................................................................................................................. .........37Australia Coal 1nc................................................................................................................ ................ .....38Australia Coal 1nc................................................................................................................ ................ .....39Australia Coal Dependent.............................................................................................................. ............40Coal Key Australia Economy................................................................................................................... ..41Australia Key Asian Economy.......................................................................................................... .........42

Asian Economy Key Global Economy................................................................................. ................ .....43Trade Key US/Australian Relations................................................................................................ ......... ..44US/Australia Trade Key Global Economy.................................................................................. ..... ..........45**Trade Off DA**............................................................................................................................ .........46Trade off 1nc............................................................................................................................................. .47Uniqueness- Investments.......................................................................................................... ............... ..48Link- Nuclear Power................................................................................................................................ ..49Link- Nuclear Power............................................................................................................................... ..50

1




Nuclear Power Neg

Link- Nuclear Power................................................................................................................................ ..51Investment key........................................................................................................................................ ...52impact – economy ............................................................................................................................... ......53

**Global Warming Advantage**

2




Nuclear Power Neg

Can’t Solve- General

Nuclear Power doesn’t solve global warming.

Michael Totty news editor for The Journal Report in San Francisco, June 30, 2008; “The Case For and

Against Nuclear Power”. The Journal Report.

http://www.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121432182593500119.html. 7/27/08$ Nuclear power isn't a solution to global warming. Rather, global warming is just a convenient rationale for anobsolete energy source that makes no sense when compared to the alternatives. Sure, nuclear power generates lotsof electricity while producing virtually no carbon dioxide. But it still faces the same problems that have stymiedthe development of new nuclear plants for the past 20 years -- exorbitant costs, the risks of an accident or terroristattack, the threat of proliferation and the challenge of disposing of nuclear waste.

Nuclear Power cant solve global warming because we still use fossil fuels and the supply of

uranium is finite

Kathy Graham, researcher on nuclear energy, September 1, 2005, “The Power and Passion”. The Lab.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/powerpassion/default.htm. 7/27/08$Sometimes that means glossing over the fact that annual global electricity generation is responsible for only about39% of atmospheric pollutants (the bulk of which are actually produced by trucks and cars). Even if the entireworld switched to nuclear power, it wouldn't solve the problem of global warming. The uranium we have,including that from recycled decommissioned warheads, won't last forever. In fact it's been estimated thateconomically viable (high-grade, low cost) uranium will run out in 50 years - much sooner than that if morereactors are built.

Nuclear Power can’t solve global warming

Public Citizen’s Energy Program, September 2006, Climate Change: The Urgency, Impacts, and

Solutions” Public Citizen’s Energy Program. http://www.citizen.org/documents/ClimateChange.pdf. 7/27/08$

The effects of global warming depend largely upon the energy path we take. Solutions will include changes both inelectricity production and transportation. For electricity, the current plan to build new coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. will not be effective at halting global warming and will only make other problems worse. Of the

153 newly proposed coal plants, most are in addition to existing coal plants – not replacing older plants – andalmost all will continue to emit large amount amounts of CO2, as well as sulfur, nitrogen oxides and mercury.Even if plants are built with carbon sequestration technology, there are likely to be problems with CO2 leakageand contamination, and coal mining will continue to pollute soil and ground water. Likewise, the proposal for more than twenty new nuclear reactors in the U.S. – while releasing fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal – would come with its own set of problems. Building new reactors requires polluting uranium mining, the generationof radioactive waste, and increased proliferation, accident, and terrorist risks. No country in the world has found asolution for these problems. Proposals for new reactors, licensing, and construction together also require long leadtimes, at best 10 years, and would be expensive. Already wind power at good sites in the U.S. is significantlycheaper than power would be from new nuclear power plants.

3

http://www.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121432182593500119.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/powerpassion/default.htm

http://www.citizen.org/documents/ClimateChange.pdf.

http://www.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121432182593500119.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/powerpassion/default.htm





Nuclear Power Neg

Can’t Solve- Time Delays

Can’t solve global warming- time delay and lacking amount

Furbur 08

The Future of Nuclear Power ; Furber, Robert D; Warf, James C; Plotkin, Sheldon C; ; Monthly Review02-01-2008

The careful analysis of Furber, Warf, and Plotkin thus points to the irrationality of current proposals toresort massively to nuclear power as an answer to global warming. In order for nuclear power to make adent in the global warming problem it would be necessary to build hundreds of nuclear power plantsaround the world, each one taking ten years to construct, and each an enormous hazard to the earth,generating radioactive wastes lasting for hundreds/thousands/millions of years. The most important principle of environmental thought is that of safeguarding the earth for future generations. To turn tonuclear power as a solution to global warming would be to abandon that trust.-Ed.

Plants built too slow to combat warming problems

LEAN 2004

[Geoffrey, Writer for indpdnt/UK “nuclear power can’t stop climate change”,www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0626-05.html, june 26, 2004, axd aug 10, 04// ]

Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set up to promote atomic energyadmits today.The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom,reveals in a new report that it could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change -even under the most favorable circumstances.The report - published to celebrate yesterday's 50th anniversary of nuclear power - contradicts a recentsurge of support for the atom as the answer to global warming.That surge was provoked by an article in The Independent last month by Professor James Lovelock - thecreator of the Gaia theory - who said that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's mainenergy source could prevent climate change overwhelming the globe.

Professor Lovelock, a long-time nuclear supporter, wrote: "Civilization is in imminent danger and has touse nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."His comments were backed by Sir Bernard Ingham, Lady Thatcher's former PR chief, and other commentators, but have now been rebutted by the most authoritative organization on the matter.Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change. However, ithas long been in decline in the face of rising public opposition and increasing reluctance of governmentsand utilities to finance its enormous construction costs. No new atomic power station has been ordered in the US for a quarter of a century, and only one is being built in Western Europe - in Finland. Meanwhile, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden haveall pledged to phase out existing plants.The IAEA report considers two scenarios. In the first, nuclear energy continues to decline, with no new

stations built beyond those already planned. Its share of world electricity - and thus its relativecontribution to fighting global warming - drops from its current 16 per cent to 12 per cent by 2030.Surprisingly, it made an even smaller relative contribution to combating climate change under the IAEA'smost favorable scenario, seeing nuclear power grow by 70 per cent over the next 25 years. This is becausethe world would have to be so prosperous to afford the expansions that traditional ways of generatingelectricity from fossil fuels would have grown even faster. Climate change would doom the planet beforenuclear power could save it.

4




Nuclear Power Neg

Can’t Solve- Time Delays

Nuclear reactors do not solve for global warming and will take a long time before they are

up and running

Reporter: Kim Landers Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 21/11/2007 US builds its first

nuclear reactor in 30 years http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:slHJdUAhttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:slHJdUA-DHoJ:www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2096454.htm+nuclear+reactors+wont+work+in+america&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&lr=lang_en date accessed July 27,2008KIM LANDERS: The existing 103 nuclear reactors already provide 20 per cent of America's electricityneeds. With demand expected to soar 40 per cent by 2030, the Department of Energy estimates 35 newnuclear plants could be built. The nuclear industry says almost two thirds of Americans support new reactors and

that concern about global warming is a key factor . JIM RICCIO: We actually want to solve climate change. Nuclear is the exact wrong direction to go. We've known that for a generation, yet despite that, the industry has

found a boogey man that they want to use which is climate change to be their selling point. KIM LANDERS:Green peace's Jim Riccio has had two decades of nuclear policy experience. He argues nuclear power is not

carbon free because of the emissions from mining uranium, enriching it and building the power plants too. JIM

RICCIO: We know that from analysis here in the States that every dollar you spend on energy efficiency andrenewable technologies like wind and solar, goes seven to 10 times further at addressing global warming gases than

a dollar spent on nuclear . KIM LANDERS: But money and jobs from nuclear power is exactly what thetown of Bay City in South Texas wants. It's 19,000 residents live about 20 kilometres from the existing plant. RICHARD KNAPIK, BAY CITY MAYOR: For so many years Bay City has been what we refer toas a quiet little small town. Now we're on the brink of growing. KIM LANDERS: The new reactors willadd another 800 jobs to the 1,200 strong work force, another 4,000 jobs will be created duringconstruction. It's why the city has set up a new training centre to help meet demand. RICHARDKNAPIK: Bay City and Matagorda County are really excited about the prospect of having two morereactors because they know it means good jobs for a long time and it's a clean, reliable source of energy.KIM LANDERS: America's first new nuclear reactors in three decades won't appear overnight. The nuclear

regulatory commission could take three and a half years to approve them. They won't be running until 2014 and willcost $7 billion. The company that operates the plant says safety is always first and the new reactors could withstand

a direct hit from a plane, something Green peace disputes. JIM RICCIO: We still haven't solved many of thesafety problems, the security problems or what to do with the radioactive waste. And now you have theaddition of the fact that you have suicidal terrorists that want to target these reactor to cause harm to thehome state. ED HALPIN, STP NUCLEAR OPEATING COMPANY: Those are robust, hardened units.The containment walls are five feet thick, they're lined with steel and there are walls inside of walls insideof walls before you get to the protected reactor vessel. KIM LANDERS: While Australia hesitates aboutwhether to embark on a nuclear path, here in South Texas there are no doubts. ED HALPIN: My advicewould be to go nuclear and I'll tell you why. Number one, they're safe. We operate safely, safety goes first.They are environmentally friendly. We produce no greenhouse gases.

5




Nuclear Power Neg

Increases Pollutants

Pollutants and leaks will counter any positive impact on warming

TEXAS RADIATION ONLINE 2004

[http://www.radtexas.org/ “Nothing Clean About Nuclear Energy Production” accessed 9/29/04 // ]Mechanical failure and human error can cause a reactor's components to leak. As a nuclear plant ages, sodoes its equipment- and leaks generally increase. Some gases leak into plant interiors and are released during periodic "purges" and "ventings." These airborne gases contaminate not only the air, but also soil and water. Radioactive releases from a nuclear power reactor's routine operation often are not fully detected or reported, and accidental releases may not be completely verified or documented. During the accident atThree Mile Island, large amounts of radioactive particles were vented into the atmospere, notablysignificant amounts of krypton-85. [Nuclear Information and Resource Service, "Routine Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Reactors"]

6




Nuclear Power Neg

Increases Warming

Time delays and efficiency problems means nuke power increases the greenhouse effect

CALDICOTT 1999

[Helen, Physician, scientist, Nobel prize nominee, “Nuclear madness” // ]Let’s dissect the above assumptions. It was estimated in 1974 in a Friends of the Earth paper, that anuclear reactor must operate at full capacity for ten years to repay its energy debt incurred by uraniummining, enrichment, fuel fabrication, steel and zirconium manufacture, and plant construction (this doesnot include decommissioning). Add to this eight to ten years for plant construction and fuel loading andreloading. It would therefore take approximately eighteen years for one noe calorie of energy to begenerated for societal consumption. These operations generate large quantities of carbon dioxide gas sothe nuclear energy advertisements are a lie. Nuclear energy adds to the greenhouse effect.

Nuclear Power Can’t Solve Warming- It makes it worse

Roy C Dudgeon (a cultural anthropologist and a founding member of the Green Party of Manitoba.) 2008 “Is nuclear power the answer to

global warming?” Capitol News Connections (CNC) [http://www.helium.com/users/333203] Accessed July 27, 2008

Nuclear power generation in particular requires the use of fissionable material (plutonium). Just like oil and coal,

fissionable material also exists in limited quantities. Just like the fossil fuels, it is also used up during the process of generating electricity. Nuclear power, therefore, is /inherently/ unsustainable over the long-term, just as fossil fuels are.

Far worse than this, however, is the fact that nuclear power generation /inevitably/ involves the creation of toxic nuclear wastewhich remains deadly to all living things for a period of thousands of years. The plutonium wastes generated have a half-life of roughly 10,000years. What this means is that it takes 10,000 years for /half/ of this waste to degenerate into non-radioactive isotopes, and another 10,000 yearsfor the remaining 50% of the material which is still radioactive to do the same, etc. If the ancient Egyptians had used plutonium reactors, for example, the wastes they would have produced several thousand years ago would still be roughly 95% as lethal as when they first stored them.Yet the ancient Egyptian civilization collapsed millenia ago, which would have left no one to ensure that these wastes were prevented from

leaking into the environment (and contemporary industrial society is not immune from a similar fate). There is also /no known way/ of rendering these materials non-radioactive or non-polluting, nor is any likely in the future given our current understandings of the

sciences of physics and chemistry. Nor is there any /proven/ way of "safely" storing these materials for the period of time

necessary (which means preventing the release of these materials into the larger environment for tens of thousands of years).

The mining of fissionable materials also /inevitably/ creates environmental damage and ecological contamination, just

ask the people living near the mines in northern Saskatchewan, Canada (Goldstick 1987). Despite these facts, however, there are

unfortunatelysome misguided souls who would tout nuclear power as a so-called "solution" to global warming, becausenuclear facilities release no greenhouse gases over the short-term. This may be true, but that is much like suggesting

chemotherapy as a treatment for the common cold. The pollution created by nuclear reactors is far more deadly and far more permanent, and the potential impacts on life on this planet far more potentially devastating over the long-term. Thisis because release of some of this material into the environment is statistically /inevitable/ over the long-term, both from leaks

from stored materials, and due to "accidental" releases from operating nuclear facilities such as the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine someyears ago. There are any number of reasons why such accidents can occur, including human error, mechanical failure, design flaws,administrative flaws (or some combination of them), to say nothing of military or terrorist attacks and natural disasters such as earthquakes.And the more nuclear facilities there are in existence, the more statistically inevitable further such releases becomes, both due to the

proliferation of nuclear reactors, and the wastes they generate. Nuclear reactors themselves, when they go off-line, also become a nuclear wastedisposal problem.

7




Nuclear Power Neg

Increases Warming

The water cooling system used by the IFR reactors heats up nearby lakes increasing global

warming and hurting the economy

Ziggy Kleinau, No date (Coordinator for non-profit organization Citizens For Renewable Energy)TheCanadian “Nuclear Power outed in Ontario, for speeding-up Global Warming, and Great Lakes water depletion”

[http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/21/02482.html] accessed 7/27/08 MSMuch has been made of the power contained in a single uranium fuel bundle used in Ontario's CanDU reactors to produce electricity. It is supposed to be able to generate as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrelsof oil (Canadian Nuclear Association website: Nuclear Facts). Compared to the burning of fossil fuels to producethe steam to generate electric power the fuel bundle undergoes a fission process, splitting the uranium atoms to produce heat to fabricate the steam to drive turbines connected to the generators in a complicated process of electricity generation. As a matter-of-fact, so much heat is produced by the fission-activated neutrons that to keepthe fuel from uncontrolled meltdown, “ there need to be huge amounts of cooling water drawn from Lakes Huronand Ontario. The 6 operating Bruce Power reactors, by the way, are drawing close to 17 million litres of lakewater A MINUTE(!) to keep the process from overheating (Golder Associates Ltd. Consultants). What happens tothis cooling water? Most of it is discharged back to the lake, but not in the same condition. It goes back out up to12 degrees Celsius warmer. This so-called thermal plume has been heating up the Lakes for decades, 24/7, 365days a year. Very little ice has been forming on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay over successive, even colder,

winters, resulting in lake water evaporation over the full 12 months instead of the normal 8 months of ice-freewater. Without ice cover solar irradiation will also have the effect of additional warming of the open waters, whileice cover would have reflected the sun's rays. No wonder lake levels continue to drop, now at record low levels,affecting the economy of shipping companies and marinas, with waters getting warmer, resulting in increasedevaporation and cloud forming.

8




Nuclear Power Neg

**Prolif Advantage**

9




Nuclear Power Neg

Prolif Inevitable

Nuclear Proliferation is inevitable

Daniel Nexon , researcher on nuclear proliferation, Saturday, May 28, 2005, “nuclear proliferation”, The

duck of Minerva.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NjkmqbG1eRYJ:duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2005/05/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-npt.html+npt+collapse+inevitable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us. 7/2708$

The big question, of course, is how much blame for these developments can be laid at the feet of the US. Are wewitnessing the mounting costs of anti-Americanism engendered by the Bush administration, or the more or lessinevitable consequences of unipolarity, the spread of weapons technology, and other factors? The answer is probably both. At the very least, the growing antipathy towards US foreign policy, combined with the fact that thenuclear powers - including the US - aren't exactly taking their NPT obligations seriously, provides rhetorical cover for states like Iran.

Nuclear Proliferation is happening now, there is no chance to stop.

Hamid Mir, former CIA agent, 4. February 2008, “Nuclear proliferation cannot be controlled now -

Former CIA agent says”. Nachrichten Heute. http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/. 7/27/08$A former American CIA agent and nuclear expert David Dastych has claimed that main nuclear arsenals of

Pakistan, India, Britain, France, the USA, Russia and China are safe but nuclear proliferation could not becontrolled now because it has completely slipped out of control. He said some corrupt officials of the US defenseand state departments were involved in the theft of US nuclear secrets which were sold to many countriesincluding Israel and Pakistan. In an exclusive interview with Hamid Mir, he said questioning Pakistani scientist Dr A Q Khan is not of any high value now. He said Russian-made small neutron bombs are a real threat to world peace. David Dastych (66) was recruited to polish intelligence in 1961. He joined CIA in 1973 and became adouble agent. He served in the USA, Europe, Vietnam, and China and in other countries. He was arrested byPolish counterintelligence in 1987 on charges of espionage for American and Japanese secret services. He wasreleased from prison in 1990, after the fall of communist regime in Poland American, Australian, Canadian, andalso Mexican businessmen or intelligence "front companies" participated in the illegal nuclear trade and in the proliferation of nuclear technology.

North Korea is proliferating and has a suspected link with Syria

Jason Strother , Despite Declaration, Hard Work Remains in North Korea Talks | Bio | 01 Jul 2008World Politics Review Exclusive [http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2368] Dateaccessed 7/27/08 MS

The atomic device that North Korea test-fired in October 2006 is believed to have been constructed with plutonium from the Yongbyon complex. The declaration did not shed much light on either a suspected highlyenriched uranium (HEU) program or a nuclear proliferation link with Syria, but did make reference to both.Speaking in Seoul over the weekend, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said these concerns will be addressedduring the next phase of the denuclearization talks.

10

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NjkmqbG1eRYJ:duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2005/05/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-npt.html+npt+collapse+inevitable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us


http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/








Nuclear Power Neg

Nuke Power = Prolif

Nuclear power increases proliferation

Public Citizen, April 2006, "Renewable Energy is Capable of Meeting Our Needs", Public citizen.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/RenewableEnergy.pdf . 7/27/08$ Nuclear power also increases the risks the nuclear weapons proliferation. As more reactors are built around theworld, nuclear material becomes more vulnerable to theft and diversion. Power reactors have also historically leddirectly to nuclear weapons programs in many countries. Sensitive nuclear technology such as uranium enrichmentand spent nuclear fuel reprocessing are ostensibly employed to create fuel in power reactors, they may be easilyadjusted or redirected to produce weapons-grade fissile material. Moreover, power reactors themselves produce plutonium, which may be used in bombs. In practice, there is no way to segregate nuclear technologies employedfor "peaceful" purposes from technologies that may be employed in weapons—the former may be, and have been,transformed into the latter.

Nuclear power increases 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 yearsin the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can’t develop a domesticnuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries. Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation inthe rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands

11




Nuclear Power Neg

NPT Crashing Now

The NPT is Doomed and can’t be fixed

Liaquat Ali Khan (professor of law at Washburn University and writer of A Theory of International Terrorism) May 4, 2005 “Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treat Poised to Fall Apart” CounterPunch [http://www.counterpunch.org/khan05042005.html] Accessed July 27, 2008

1. The NPT's nuclear club has been broken into. In 1970, the Treaty divided the world into two camps: haves and have-nots.

It acknowledged that five states--US, UK, France, Russia & China--lawfully possessed nuclear weapons. It hoped that therest of the world would not acquire them. That did not happen. In 1998, India and Pakistan detonated nuclear weapons in face of the world. The US now publicly admits that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Probability dictates that North Korea has them too. The dilemma is therefore insurmountable. If the club of five is expanded to eight and perhaps

more, proliferation would seem to have been accommodated. If not, the club would be treated as a foolish anomaly. Either way, the NPT isin legal disarray

The NPT is Doomed- Withdraws Prove



2. The NPT can be lawfully dumped. It allows a signatory state to withdraw from the non-proliferation regime "if it decides

that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. All that is required is

a three months advance notice. North Korea joined the NPT in 1985. In January, 2003, however, it withdrew from the

Treaty (effective immediately). If North Korea detonates the bomb and joins the de facto club, the NPT would be further weakened. And the

dumping rule will be reaffirmed in international law. As luck would have it, there will be new withdrawals from the NPT, mostlikely in the Middle East where states will not accept Israel's regional nuclear monopoly. Even one or two morewithdrawals will kill the Treaty.

The NPT is doomed- New Nukes Prove



3. The NPT's foundational promise is not kept. The five declared nuclear-weapon states promised to cease the nuclear armsrace and head toward a complete nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control. The collapse of the Soviet

Union was a godsend that ceased the superpowers, nuclear arms race. But no good faith effort, as the Treaty requires, is being madetowards complete nuclear disarmament. In fact, contrary to the letter and spirit of the NPT, the Bush administration is activelyconsidering to develop brand new nuclear bunker-buster weapons. No treaty regime can succeed on such blatant

contempt for the world. When the shepherd on the white horse loses his way, no sheep come home.

The NPT is doomed- Iran-US nuclear uncertainty Proves



4. The NPT is a double-headed monster. It is simultaneously good and evil. The Treaty allows the development of nuclear energyfor peaceful purposes. In fact, the Treaty rests on a bargain. States relinquished the right to have nuclear weapons because they were led to

believe that "peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to them. Iran that signed the NPT claims that it has "theunalienable right to develop peaceful nuclear energy. The United States claims that if Iran is allowed to acquirenuclear technology, it would come closer to developing nuclear weapons. Both claims are simultaneously accurate.This double-headedness is precisely the inherent flaw of the NPT. Its one head spews light, the other flames.

12




Nuclear Power Neg

NPT Crashing Now

The NPT is doomed- US Foreign Policy and Nuclear Security Proves



5. The NPT is a suicide pact. The US foreign policy has created a global context in which it is far more protective for states to

have nuclear weapons than not to have them. The war on Iraq demonstrates that a state without weapons of massdestruction is vulnerable to invasion and occupation. It would be perfectly logical to conclude that Iraq was attacked not because it had weapons of mass destruction but because it had none. This pathological logic will be further confirmedif the United States continues to pursue diplomacy with North Korea that presumably have both nuclear weaponsand missiles to deliver them. The Iraq/North Korea binary reality resurrects old truths that might is right, and be firm with the bullies

And so, in a dangerous world, adhering to the NPT will be considered foolish. For these five reasons, the NPT seems nolonger viable. If the analysis above is dark and pessimistic, and something can indeed be done about the weapons of mass destruction,

beware, more wars and "the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind might be on the way. A complete nuclear disarmament is, of course, another possible solution.

The NPT wont be ratified by India, Pakistan, Isarel or North Korea, four serious

proliferating threats

Bennett Ramberg, A unified front against nuclear weapons, guardian.co.uk, Saturday July 26 2008Article history [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/26/unitednations.nuclear] Accessed7/27/08 MS

One fact is not in doubt: the NPT is the legal linchpin for the nuclear nonproliferation regime now signed andratified by all but three nations – India, Pakistan, and Israel – and one drop-out, North Korea. The treaty's principles remain bold: the pact's five acknowledged nuclear weapons states – the US, Britain, France, Russia, andChina – promise to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and the remaining parties commit not to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for the right to develop civil nuclear power, with international assistance, subject to bindingsafeguards.

13




Nuclear Power Neg

NPT Bad

NPT has many flaws

Public Citizen’s Energy Program, September 2006, “Nuclear's Fatal Flaws: Proliferation” Public

Citizen’s Energy Program. http://www.citizen.org/documents/ClimateChange.pdf. 7/27/08$While it is considered one of the most successful international arms-control agreements ever instituted, the Treatyon the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—commonly known as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or “NPT”—suffers a fatal flaw: Article IV of the NPT allows and even encourages signatories to develop nuclear technology for “peaceful purposes,” such as for the production of electricity, calling such use the “inalienableright” of all parties to the treaty. Article IV further encourages NPT signatories to engage in the “fullest possibleexchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.” Non-nuclear-weapons states are especially encouraged to participate in commercial nuclear power development.

14







Nuclear Power Neg

**Hegemony Advantage*

15




Nuclear Power Neg

Hegemony Dead

US Hegemony is low now because of Iraq. Plan will not model or improve U.S. credibility

R.S. Zaharna (Middle East analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and an assistant professor of public communication at American University.)

December 13, 2006 “The U.S. Credibility Deficit” FPIF Strategic Dialogue [http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3796] Accessed July 27, 2008

What U.S. officials don't seem to register is that no amount of information pumped out by U.S. public diplomacy will be enough toimprove the U.S. image. The problem, ultimately, is not lack of information but lack of credibility. People around the world

questioned the Bush administration's actions before it entered Iraq back in February 2003. Last month, the U.S. public resoundingly expressed

their misgivings about the Bush administration's handling of the war. Iraq has focused a spotlight on U.S. credibility. The morethe United States flounders in Iraq, the more U.S. credibility erodes in the world. Without credibility, no amount of

information holds persuasive weight, and U.S. soft power can't attract and influence others.

US Hegemony is low now due to overwhelming Anti-Americanism

R.S. Zaharna (Middle East analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and an assistant professor of public communication at American University.)

December 13, 2006 “The U.S. Credibility Deficit” FPIF Strategic Dialogue [http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3796] Accessed July 27, 2008

Snow effectively underscores the severity and repercussions of anti-Americanism on the U.S. image. However nebulous the term, anti-Americanism has very real costs in terms of diminished U.S. prestige, restricted foreign policy options, lost revenues for

American businesses, and, of course, decreased American security. International poll results give a disturbing glimpse of how

pervasive and deep the sentiment has become. While anti-Americanism is not new, its growth —despite an aggressive public diplomacy effort to refurbish the U.S. image— is alarming. In this, I agree with Snow that U.S. public diplomacy needs “a

fundamentally different approach.” Where I differ somewhat is on the depth and direction of that approach.

US Hegemony is being Undermined by faulty human rights and anti-terror policies.

Jeremy Bransten (Staff writer) January 11, 2007 “World: Rights Report Cites Diminishing U.S. Credibility” Radio Free Europe Radio

Liberty [http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1073948.html] Accessed July 27, 2008

Lost Leadership[:] But this year's [Human Rights Watch] report takes particular aim at the United States. The United

States -- according to Human Rights Watch -- used to lead the world in promoting global human rights. But the group argues

that because of the antiterrorism policies of U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. credibility on rights has been "utterlyundermined." For Human Rights Watch, America's Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, where foreigners identified as "enemy

combatants" have been detained indefinitely without trial, symbolizes Washington's abdication of moral leadership. So does the use

of what Bush has called "alternative" interrogation procedures. Among the most controversial is holding detainees' heads under water for prolonged periods of time -- which Human Rights Watch calls a "classic torture technique." "The reason Human Rights Watch selected the fifth

anniversary of Guantanamo to launch our annual report is because it really highlights the leadership crisis that is facing the human rightsmovement these days at the governmental level," HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth told RFE/RL. " Traditionally, we're used tolooking toward the United States to take the lead, on at least many human rights issues. But because of Guantanamo, because of the Bush administration's policy of using torture and detention without trial as a way of combatingterrorism, U.S. credibility on human rights is simply shot in many parts of the world. It is dramatically undermined. And so

there's an urgent need for someone else to come in and fill that leadership void."

16




Nuclear Power Neg

Hegemony Dead

U.S. hegemony is destroyed only a major change in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process

can change this.

Jim Lobe, staff writer for Inter Press Service, October 27, 2006 “50 Years After Suez, U.S. Hegemony

Ebbing Fast” Inter Press Service.http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qqoFb_O7x1AJ:www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1027-02.htm+us+hegemony+is+destroyed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us. 7/27/08$

WASHINGTON - As the Middle East prepares to mark the 50th anniversary on Oct. 29 of the Suez Crisis thateffectively ended European colonialism, a half century of U.S. hegemony in the region also appears to be comingto an end, according to a growing number of analysts here. The observation is based primarily on the seriousdamage done to Washington's position in the Middle East by its 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq,where more than 140,000 of its troops remain bogged down in what seems likely an increasingly futile effort bothto crush a Sunni insurgency that it failed to anticipate and prevent a larger sectarian civil war. In addition,however, the passivity -- or obstinacy -- of the administration of President George W. Bush in failing to revive anykind of Arab-Israeli peace process, particularly in the wake of last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah or the ongoing deterioration of the Palestinian Authority, appears to have brought both Washington's image andinfluence in the region to an all-time low. "American foreign policy in the Middle East is approaching a very

serious crisis," noted Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under former President Jimmy Carter, at adinner this week in which he noted the imminence of the 1956 crisis that he said marked "the beginning of (Washington's) domination of the region". "We are facing the possibility of literally being pushed out of theMiddle East," he warned, suggesting that only a major change in U.S. policy, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, can reverse the current trend. While other analysts insist that Washington's status as theworld's military hyperpower and its continued heavy reliance on Middle Eastern oil -- let alone its continued presence in Iraq -- ensure its continued relevance to the region, the consensus among regional specialists here isthat its ability to affect events there has indeed been substantially diminished. "The age of U.S. dominance in theMiddle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun," wrote Richard Haass, president of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and a top Middle East adviser to the George H.W.Bush administration, in a remarkably downbeat article in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs journal.

US has no credibility leading to no influence worldwide

R.S. Zaharna; a Middle East analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and an assistant professor of publiccommunication at American University; Dec. 13, 2006; FPIF (Foreign Policy in Focus); “The USCredibility Deficit”; http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3796 accessed 07/27/08

Snow effectively underscores the severity and repercussions of anti-Americanism on the U.S. image. However nebulous the term, anti-Americanism has very real costs in terms of diminished U.S. prestige, restricted foreign policy options, lost revenues for American businesses, and, of course, decreased American security. International poll results give a disturbing glimpse of how pervasive and deep the sentiment has become. While anti-Americanism is not new, its growth—despite an aggressive public diplomacy effort to refurbish the U.S. image— is alarming. In this, I agree with Snow that U.S. public diplomacy needs “a fundamentally different approach.”Where I differ somewhat is on the depth and direction of that approach. America's inability to listen is tied to its preoccupation with designing and delivering messages. Since 9/11, U.S. public diplomacy has gone into overdriveto get the message out about U.S. values, policies, and positions. This information-centered approach presumeseither a lack of information or an abundance of misinformation—hence the flurry of U.S. public diplomacy

initiatives such as the Shared Values advertising campaign, Hi magazine, Al-Hurra television, and Radio Sawa.Yet, because of the U.S. superpower status, countries are continuously monitoring and gathering as muchinformation as they can about U.S. activities and policies. What U.S. officials don't seem to register is that noamount of information pumped out by U.S. public diplomacy will be enough to improve the U.S. image. The problem, ultimately, is not lack of information but lack of credibility. People around the world questioned the Bushadministration's actions before it entered Iraq back in February 2003. Last month, the U.S. public resoundinglyexpressed their misgivings about the Bush administration's handling of the war. Iraq has focused a spotlight onU.S. credibility. The more the United States flounders in Iraq, the more U.S. credibility erodes in the world.

17

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qqoFb_O7x1AJ:www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1027-02.htm+us+hegemony+is+destroyed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us








Nuclear Power Neg

Without credibility, no amount of information holds persuasive weight, and U.S. soft power can't attract andinfluence others.

18




Nuclear Power Neg

**Solvency*

19




Nuclear Power Neg

Time Delays

Lawsuits cause time delays- 1970’s prove

MORRIS 2002

[Robert, received PH.D in Chemistry & edu. From Nebraska ’68, The EnvironmentalCase for Nuclear Power, 2002, pub: Paragon House 2700 Univ. Avenue West st. Paul,Minnesota 55114, PG-25 prgf 3-4 // ]

Subsequently, 65,000 antinuclear activists marched on Washington and demanded that all nuclear power plants be shut down. Later, a commission appointed by the president looked into the matter and concludedthat "Three Mile Island had never threatened the public in any way."6 But the weeks of hysteria hadtaken their toll, and the commission's report did little to alleviate the public's fear. After ThreeMileIsland, antinuclear activists stepped up their efforts to stop the use of nuclear power plants. Not onlywere they successflul in stopping the construction of any plants ordered after 1974, but they alsoforced many utility companies to tear down billions of dollars worth of nearly finished nuclear power plants. The antinuclear activists were able to accomplish this by filing thousands of frivolous lawsuits,each of which halted the construction of a nuclear power plant. Although almost all of these lawsuitswere ultimately either defeated or thrown out of court, they accomplished their purpose by stoppingconstruction while each lawsuit slowly made its way through the courts. And, as soon as one lawsuit wasresolved, a new suit was filed, stopping construction again. These delays cost the utility companies bil-lions of dollars because they had to continue paying interest on the money previously borrowed for construction, even though construction was held up.

20




Nuclear Power Neg

Accidents

Accidents are inevitable- their evidence about safety is a lie. 100% safety mechanisms are imposible

with radioactive material

MAKHIJANI AND SALESKA 1996

[Arjun, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Ph.D and Scott The Nuclear Power Perception “U.S. Nuclear Mythology from Electricity "Too Cheap to Meter" to "Inherently Safe" Reactorshttp://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html accessed 9/24/04 // ]This conclusion is not limited to groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, which maintain ahealthy skepticism about nuclear power. A study conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory also hasreached similar conclusions: A nuclear reactor can never be completely inherently safe because itcontains large quantities of radioactive materials to generate usable heat-energy; but nuclear reactorscan be made inherently safe against some types of events and have characteristics which limitconsequences of certain postulated accidents. 2'3 These cautionary statements raise another crucial concern:the possibil ity that in designing to eli minate certain now-commonlv recognized accident possibilities, new accident scenarios wil l be unwitt ingly introduced . As a survey of advanced designs by Britain'sAtomic Energy Agency concluded. Safety arguments, in many cases, are-very underdeveloped, making itdifficult to gauge if the reactor is any safer than traditional systems. [Advanced reactor] designers tend toconcentrate... on one particular aspect such as a [loss-of-coolant accident], and replace all the systems for dealing with that with passive ones. In so doing, they ignore other known transients or transients possibly novel to their design.' 16

Even advanced reactors risk accidents

MAKHIJANI AND SALESKA 1996

(Arjun, president Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and Scott, “The Nuclear Power Deception, Chapter 7: "Inherently Safe" Reactors: Commercial Nuclear Power's Second Generation?” pg.Online @ http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html // )The general arguments of advanced reactor advocates, some of which may be conceptually plausible andappealing, are difficult to either verify or refute in the abstract. This is because they are all essentially in

the design stage, with only very limited details made public. Although greater incorporation of passivesafety features, if undertaken with care and rigor, could be an advance in reactor design philosophy, weare concerned with the constant references by advanced reactor advocates to the supposed "inherentsafety" of their designs.Regardless of the validity of claims about immunity to the meltdown accident scenario, this terminologyof "inherent safety" has more rhetorical merit than technical content. It is fundamentally misleading todescribe as "inherently safe" a technology which necessarily contains and produces such large amounts of extremely hazardous material as does nuclear power. Although it may be possible to design a reactor which renders

certain accident scenarios virtually impossible -- or to make reactors that are considerably safer relative to existing reactors -- thatdoes not mean that the technology per se can be considered to have acquired safety as an inherent characteristic.As stated in a 1990 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) which considered several advanced reactor designs,

As a general proposition, there is nothing ' inherently' safe about a nuclear reactor. Regardless of the

attention to design, construction, operation, and management of nuclear reactors, there is alwayssomething that could be done (or not done) to render the reactor dangerous. The degree to which this istrue varies from design to design, but we believe that our general conclusion is correct.214

This conclusion is not limited to groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, which maintain ahealthy skepticism about nuclear power. A study conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory also hasreached similar conclusions:A nuclear reactor can never be completely inherently safe because it contains large quantities of radioactive materials to generate usable heat-energy; but nuclear reactors can be made inherently safeagainst some types of events and

21

http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html%20accessed%209/24/04

http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html


http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html%20accessed%209/24/04







Nuclear Power Neg

Meltdowns

Risk of meltdowns- US plants prove

Sheehan Miles 2k4[Charles Executive Director- Nuclear policy reeasearch institute, june 11,www.nuclearpolicy.org/newsarticle.cfm?newsID=1653, ]

A number of nuclear power plants in the United States have recently faced public safety problems thatwere unexpected by industry officials. These problems could have had catastrophic effect for theAmerican people. Inspectors at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, located 21 miles southeast of Toledo,Ohio, identified a six-inch deep football-sized hole in the reactor vessel. This hole was initially missed byyears of inspections, and would have resulted in a meltdown had it not been identified. At the time thehole was found, 95% of the steel protecting the reactor from meltdown had been eaten away by acid. In2003 cracks were found in the instrumentation tubes which measure the operations of the South TexasProject nuclear reactors, 90 miles southwest of Houston, Texas, allowing the reactor to leak. Had theseleaks not been identified by routine inspection, they could also have eventually resulted in a meltdown.

23

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/newsarticle.cfm?newsID=1653






Nuclear Power Neg

Loan Guarantees Not Enough

Loan guarantees don’t mandate plants-projects won’t get 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 anuclear plant. "We believe this will encourage banks to extend loans for projects like the Texasgenerators," says Crane, who adds that NRG expects to tap its own resources for about 20 percent-or $1.2 billion-of the estimated cost, with banks and capital markets making up the difference. The 2005 EnergyAct also provides tax breaks for operators of new nuclear plants based on the energy they produce, andrequires the federal government to indemnify operators in the event of an accident. While such provisions may add up to a sweet deal for new entrants into nuclear power, they don't guarantee that any proposed projects will actually get built. For one thing, there's plenty of opposition to nuclear power fromorganizations like Common Cause that question the safety of such plants and note that there is still nofederal repository for federal waste.

DOE not capable of supporting the loan guarantees

EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 EnergyBills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007,http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-3007_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf )A provision of the Senate bill exempts DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec. 504(b) of the FederalCredit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). The Senate provision allows, among other things, for DOE to writeunlimited loan guarantees without Congressional oversight. If adopted, this provision removesCongressional authority and the safeguards in place through the appropriation process, and shifts thefinancial risk from private lenders to taxpayers. Initial analyses of the loan guarantee program haveshown that DOE lacks the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement its program. Reports from theGAO and DOE’s Office of the Inspector General state that the necessary policies, procedures, and staff remain absent, raising questions about DOE’s ability to manage its loan guarantee program. This IssueBrief explores these issues raised by the 2007 energy bill provisions, as they pose potentially significantrisks and high costs to America’s taxpayers.

24

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535

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


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535






Nuclear Power Neg

Don’t Increase Electricity

Nuclear power does not produce clean and effective energy

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool. Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia

and Globalization. 21 July, 2008. “Nuclear power: False climate change prophet?” Scitizen.

http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/07/Nuclear-power-False-climate-change-prophet/ A new study reveals that nuclear power is not as clean as the industry claims. Put simply, investments in nuclear

power are much worse at fighting climate change than pursuing wind, solar, and other small-scale power generators. Policymakers would be wise to embrace these more environmentally friendly technologies if they are

serious about producing electricity and mitigating climate change. As for Generation IV reactors, they are

completely theoretical and, as you point out, at least 20 to 30 years away. We need carbon reducing electricity

technologies NOW, not later, and even if you are correct that Gen IV reactors will be very efficient, it doesnt justify

the nuclear industry claiming today that existing reactors are emissions free.

25

http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/07/Nuclear-power-False-climate-change-prophet/

http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/07/Nuclear-power-False-climate-change-prophet/




Nuclear Power Neg

Labor Shortage

Not enough workers to fill the plants

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 theSouth—not only nuclear generators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, andelectricity transmission lines. All projects need skilled craft workers, and they are in drastically shortsupply. The utility Southern Co. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20,000 workersin the Southeast. That shortfall will balloon to 40,000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay isinching up and hours are increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. Fluor says skilled workers atthe Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-into-overtime 50-hour weeksthat had been planned. Looking ahead, the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to theskilled-labor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, butworkers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended 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 workers —35 percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age. "The shortage of skilled labor and the risingaverage age of workers in the electric 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 secondaryeducation with the intention of then attending a four-year college program," concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute. "High-paying skilledlabor jobs, once considered excellent career options, are now perceived as second class."

26




Nuclear Power Neg

Locations

Not enough places to put plants to solve power problems

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 isn’t possible simply dueto the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling,and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes,earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants areat risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power. There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe becauseof political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, geography, local politics, politicalinstability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces thenumber of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes againstnuclear power, many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. Howcould we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power, if we need to build17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?

27






Nuclear Power Neg

Plants = terrorism

Plans risk terrorism

Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an AtomicRenaissance, E The Environmental 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 serious concerns. “They’re proposing a replay of a demonstrated failure,”says Paul Gunter, director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and ResourceService (NIRS). “The financial risks have only gotten worse, and our concerns about safety issues areheightened now that these plants are known terrorist targets.” Alex Matthiessen, director of HudsonRiverkeeper, declares, “In the post-9/11 era, nuclear power plants pose an unacceptable risk .” He points out that NRC studies conclude that a serious accident at one of Indian Point’s two working reactorscould cause 50,000 early fatalities. Al Qaeda operatives have, by their own admission, consideredattacking nuclear facilities. And according to Riverkeeper, only 19 percent of Indian Point guards think they can protect the facility from a conventional assault, let alone a suicidal mission. Riverkeeper saysthat the proposed evacuation plans for the area are woefully inadequate, and the site is vulnerable to anairborne attack. Plant operator Entergy refutes these charges, and says that the 3.5-foot steel-reinforcedconcrete containment structures protecting the reactor and other radioactive materials are “among thestrongest structures built by man.”

Nuclear power plants are terrorist hot spots

George Bunn and Fritz Steinhausler (Writers for Arms control asscocition) October 2001 Guarding

Nuclear Reactors and Material From Terrorists and Thieves Date accessed July 27,2008http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_10/bunnoct01

Safeguards Do Not Protect-The 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires non-nuclear-weapon statesto accept safeguards administered by the IAEA on all their nuclear activities. But, when the NPT was drafted,nuclear terrorism was not perceived as a significant threat, and the safeguards consist of monitoring andaccounting measures designed to prevent non-nuclear-weapon states from diverting nuclear material from peacefulnuclear activities to weapons programs. The safeguards are not intended to prevent theft of nuclear material by

outsiders or the bombing of reactors and spent fuel by terrorists. Today there are threats not foreseen in 1968 thatare unlikely to be deterred by NPT requirements: terrorists who want to blow up nuclear reactors with highexplosives to kill civilians and create chaos, thieves who want to steal weapons-usable nuclear material to sell tostates or terrorists seeking nuclear weapons, and disgruntled employees who want to steal material and sell it onthe black market.1 The threat that a terrorist might try to blow up a U.S. nuclear facility is frighteningly plausible.Even before the September 11 attacks, conventional high-explosive bombs delivered by car, truck, or boat had been used in numerous terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities: a U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the WorldTrade Center in New York City in 1993, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, a U.S. military housingcomplex in Saudi Arabia in 1996, two American embassies in Africa in 1998, and a U.S. naval vessel in a port inYemen in 2000. If such an attack against a nuclear plant were successful, the number of casualties could beextremely high because of the resulting spread of radioactive material. In 1981, an environmental impact statement prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) estimated that a large truck bomb used against anuclear reactor in a highly populated area could produce 130,000 fatalities.2 In effect, a simple conventionalexplosive used against a nuclear facility would serve as a large radiological weapon. The possibility of terroristattacks on nuclear reactors is, of course, not limited to those in the United States.

29

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_10/bunnoct01

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_10/bunnoct01




Nuclear Power Neg

**Disad Links**

30




Nuclear Power Neg

Spending Links

Loan guarantees are the link

Severance 08 (Craig A. Severance, The Public Record, Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh, June19, 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 power capacity 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 atleast 10 years, delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. Faced with such badnumbers, the nuclear industry has admitted it cannot find backing from Wall Street. Instead, the industryis turning to taxpayers. Congress has authorized $18.5 billion in Federally guaranteed loans for newnuclear plants. This will only be enough to fund two plants, so the industry is pushing for hundreds of billions more. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default on these nuclear loans to be at least 50 percent. This massive new outlay for nuclear power would eclipse all public funds for allother energy sources combined. The nation is now reeling from the aftermath of people buying homesthey could not afford, because someone was reckless enough to loan them the money. Do we want our utilities to buy power plants they can’t afford? The taxpayer funded banquet for the nuclear industrywould not end with power plants. This initial pork would be followed by taxpayer subsidies for fuelenrichment, plant decommissioning costs, and perpetual taxpayer funds for thousands of years to maintainthe nuclear waste.

The cost would be trillions of dollars

ROGERS et al. 2003

[Paul, Rothstien, Linda, Chicago-based freelance writer, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Nuclear- powered cars?” Sep/oc2003// ]Others are less than pleased with the notion. Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense points outthat nuclear power is still much more expensive than coal- or gas-fired power . The seven reactors atKashiwazaki cost more than $21 billion, according to Tepco records. Using that number, meeting the

230,000-metric-ton estimate of daily U.S. hydrogen needs would require more than 50 such plants, at acost of more than $1 trillion.Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, believes that the loan guarantees proposed to the nuclear industryin the new Energy bill could risk as much as $30 billion of public money. He reminded his colleagues thatwhen the Washington Public Power Supply System pulled the plug on its ambitious, over-budget nuclear program in 1983, it mothballed several unfinished nuclear plants and defaulted on $2.25 billion in bonds--at the time, the worst bond default in history, but positively Yugo-sized compared to the potentialfallout from a subsidized nuclear renaissance built around hydrogen-powered cars.

Nuclear plants cost 14 billions dollars each- that’s a check the economy cant cash

Charleston Gazette, 2008, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. Monday, July 21,

2008 11:51 PM, “Energy; Ongoing Crisis”[http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2418467&title=Energy__Ongoing.html] Date Assecced 7/22/08 MS

However, nuclear plants have become prohibitively expensive to build, according to Dr. Joseph Romm, a physicistwho headed a U.S. Department of Energy branch under President Clinton. In a long analysis, he wrote thatestimated prices of some proposed new "nuke" plants are climbing past $12 billion or $14 billion too high for electricity customers to bear.

31




Nuclear Power Neg

Spending Links

Nuclear power is more expensive than original thoughts

Michael Graham Richard, Staff Writer for Tree Hugger.com , Tree Hugger.com, NewGeneration of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected, 5/14/2008

The Wall Street Journal reports that new-generation nuclear power plants are going to end up costing quite a bitmore than estimates. Not just a few percents, but double to quadruple, or $5 billion to $12 billion a plant. Fossilfuels are getting more expensive too, and this increase in cost might partly be explained by high demand fromAsia, but it still is quite a big chunk of change and it is eroding the pro-nuke argument about lower overall costs.For our part, the only nuclear we are excited about right now is Thorium. If it can deliver on its promises, that is.We wish that more R&D would go into it rather than in Uranium-powered plants that have well-known downsides(including the fact that taxpayers usually subsidize their insurance).

Nuclear power costs are more than double the assumed price

Joseph Romm, Staff writer for Salon, Salon, 6/2/2008, Nuclear energy, the sequel, is opening toraves by everybody from John McCain to a Greenpeace co-founder. Don't be fooled. It's the"Ishtar" of power generation.

Since new nuclear power now costs more than double what the MIT report assumed -- three times what the

Economist called "too costly to matter" -- let me focus solely on the unresolved problem of cost. While safety, proliferation and waste issues get most of the publicity, nuclear plants have become so expensive that costoverwhelms the other problems. Already nuclear energy, the sequel, is a source of major confusion in the popular press. Consider this

recent interview between Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria and Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, who is now a strong advocatefor nuclear power. Zakaria asks, "A number of analyses say that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies,there's no real market for it." Moore replies: That's simply not true. Where the massive government subsidies are is in wind and solar ... I know

that the cost of production of electricity among the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's not including the capital costs, but the cost of production of electricity from nuclear is very low, and competitive

with dirty coal. Gas costs three times as much as nuclear, at least. Wind costs five times as much, and solar costs 10 times as much. In short:

That's absurd. Nuclear power, a mature industry providing 20 percent of U.S. power, has received some $100 billionin U.S. subsidies -- more than three times the subsidies of wind and solar, even though they are both emergingindustries. And how can one possibly ignore the capital costs of arguably the most capital-intensive form of energy? Moore's statement is

like saying "My house is incredibly cheap to live in, if I don't include the mortgage." Furthermore, after capital costs, wind power andsolar power are pretty much free -- nobody charges for the breeze and the sun. Operation is also cheap, compared with nukes, which

run on expensive uranium and must be monitored minute by minute so they don't melt down. Moore is talking about old nuclear plants, whichhave been paid off. But the price of new nuclear power has risen faster than any other form of power, as a detailedstudy of coal, gas, wind and nuclear power capital costs by Cambridge Energy Research Associates concluded.

32






Nuclear Power Neg

Oil Links

An Increase in Nuclear power will decrease dependence on Oil.

Neil M. Cabreza, 2003, (Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA,

Nuclear Power VS. Other Sources of Power,

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html, Accessed 7/27/08, ZS) No energy source is perfect, but nuclear energy comes close. The use of nuclear energy is cheap andenvironmentally safe since its waste is contained. All the existing and operating nuclear power plants of the UnitedStates are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and abide by their safety standards. Nuclear energyalso creates jobs since it is the most labor intensive electricity source. Furthermore, the use of nuclear energy willdecrease the United States dependency on imported oil. The unceasing public outcry over the use of nuclear energy was one of

the major factors that led to the termination of the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States. People believe that nuclear energy produces radioactive wastes that can destroy the environment. People also believe that nuclear power plants emit cancer causing radiation andfor this reason its use should be discontinued. What most people don't realize is that most of what they hear are false rumors started by anti-nuclear activists. The waste nuclear power plants generate is all contained and none of it is released into the environment. This, however, doesnot hold true for the other major sources of power. A typical 1000-megawatt coal-burning plant emits 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 75,000tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5000 tons of fly ash into the environment per year while a typical 1000-megawatt oil-burning plant emits about16,000 tons of sulphur dioxide and 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. These emissions account for damaging human lungs, the formation of acid

precipitation that defaces monuments and buildings and kills the life in countless lakes. However, the problems don't stop here. These type of plants also emit great quantities of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide tends to trap heat on the earth's surface and thus in sufficient concentrations,could create the dreaded greenhouse effect. High enough concentrations could also increase global temperatures which could affect the

distribution of rainfall and could create deserts of much of the Northern Hemisphere, causing irreversible catastrophes of unparalleled

magnitude, affecting all of mankind. The use of nuclear power since 1973 has been able to offset the demand for electricity provided by oil and coal, thus decreasing the mentioned figures significantly. In a span of twenty years,

electricity generated by nuclear power plants averted the cumulative emission of 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, 65 million tons of sulphur dioxide, and 27 million tons of nitrogen oxides.

By increasing nuclear power and other alternative energies, oil dependence in the US will

be decreased.

Stephanie Beckett, 2/4/ 05 (Braden Engineering-Communication, University of Texas, The Danger of

Oil Scarciety: A Two Pronged Attack,http://www.engr.utexas.edu/braden/documents/BradenEssay_Beckett_05.pdf , Accessed 7/27/08, ZS)

Ensuring that the US is not subject to the whims of the Middle East during times of oil scarcity is a formidable problem because, according to Mark (2004), fossil fuels currently provide eighty five percent of the US’s energy(U.S. Energy Production section). However, some energy sources, such as renewable and nuclear energy, aretechnically feasible alternatives to oil. Therefore, the strategy to decreasing the US’s reliance on the Middle Eastshould be two- pronged, involving the further research and implementation of both renewable and nuclear energy.

Increasing Nuclear Power will decrease the amount of Natural Gas used, which will then be

used to replace Oil in the transportation sector.

Ferenc L. Toth, Hans-Holger Rogner, 8/8/05 (Planning and Economic Studies Section, Department of Nuclear

Energy, Oil and nuclear power: Past, present, and future, http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/

assets/oil+np_ toth+rogner0106.pdf , Accessed 7/27/08, ZS)Another, to some extent related form of indirect linkage is the substitution by nuclear of other energy sources for electricity generation that can then be used to substitute oil in other market segments. In particular, nuclear mayreplace natural gas in power generation and this would then free natural gas that could replace oil in the

transportation sector or heat market. In as far as the indirect competition between nuclear electricity and oilproducts is concerned, it is useful to analyze the market share of electricity in total final energy as a function of nuclear electricity generation in different countries. In France, for example, nuclear accounts for 78% of electricityproduction while electricity holds a share of 20% of final energy. The corresponding indicator pairs for othercountries are: Germany: 29%/ 18%; USA: 20%/19%; Japan: 27%/24%. In contrast, in countries with no nuclear

power, the electricity share is 23% in Australia, 19% in Austria, 18% each in Italy and Denmark. In short, at a firstglance there is little evidence that suggests a strong influence of the level of nuclear presence in electricitygeneration on the electricity market share in final energy and hence a significant indirect competition betweennuclear power and oil.

34

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html


http://www.engr.utexas.edu/braden/documents/BradenEssay_Beckett_05.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/%20assets/oil+np_%20toth+rogner0106.pdf



http://www.engr.utexas.edu/braden/documents/BradenEssay_Beckett_05.pdf






Nuclear Power Neg

35




Nuclear Power Neg

Politics Links- Unpopular (Public)

Massive public disapproval

BECK 1994

[Peter, Associate Fellow, Royal Institute of Industrial AffairsProspects and Strategies for Nuclear Power,PG 77 pgf 1-2 // ]More easy to envisage Is a case where individual nuclear reactors, when at the end of their life, are mostlyreplaced by non-nuclear facilities, so shrinking the importance of nuclear power, until within a fewdecades it would no longer be worthwhile to keep the industry up to date. By that is meant that thecontinuous effort to utilize operational experience to improve the reliability, safety and economics of anindustry - a matter which is especially essential in such a complex high-teclmology field as nuclear energy - would become inadequate to keep the industry healthy. One can see such a case arising, possiblyeven in quite a fortuitous way. As already mentioned in Chapter 5, it is, under present circumstances,difficult to see private operators deliberately choosing nuclear power generation, unless government notonly supports such a choice but underwrites many of the risks that are specific to nuclear energy. If present trends to bring greater competition into the electricity market, together with public mistrust of nu-clear energy, continue, individual governments may meet political resistance when trying to agreeadequate incentives to entice potential investors into nuclear projects. Assistance for other energies, suchas renewables, could become politically easier. Overtime, therefore, there could be a slow mn-downof nuclear capacity by default. Even if some countries stood out against such a trend and were to continueto invest in nuclear plant, the industry would soon lose its critical mass and slowly decline.

Three mile island means public hates nuclear power

MAKHIJANI 3/01

[Arjun, with Hisham Zerriffi & Annie Makhijani, (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research)“Magical Thinking,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, v. 57 n. 2 p. 34, LN]And finally, no one seems to know what to do with the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants, much of which--when measured by a human time frame--threatens to hang around more or less forever. Over the past two decades in particular, the nuclear industry in the developed world has

stumbled into a bottomless bog in one country after another. In the United States, nuclear power failed onMain Street in the aftermath of Three Mile Island, and then it took a dive on Wall Street because of staggeringly high capital COSTS.

36




Nuclear Power Neg

**Australia DA**

37




Nuclear Power Neg

Australia Coal 1nc

High coal prices are keeping Australia’s economy afloat

AAP Newsfeed May 7 2008 “Clean coal will boost Australia's prosperity,”Australia's prosperity will be boosted by clean coal technology, federal government climate change adviser Professor Ross Garnaut says.

Addressing the NSW Clean Coal Summit in Sydney this morning, Prof Garnaut said the rising prices for exported coal would boost

Australia's economy. "The increase in export price of coal this year is likely to add about $25 billion to the value of Australian exports," he said. "The increase in price alone in one year of this one commodity, our largest exportcommodity, is likely to contribute more than 2.5 times the total value of exports of all merchandise to the UnitedStates of America. "That's one important reason why analysts are not anticipating a downturn in the Australianeconomy, as the United States plays dice with recession." Australia could not wait to find an avenue for clean coal technology,

Prof Garnaut said. "Coal is set to play a big role in future Australian prosperity, so long as we can deal effectively with an

inconvenient truth (of global warming)." NSW Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Ian Macdonald told the summit clean coal was theway of the future.

US demand is key to driving coal prices and Australia exports

AFX NEWS June 30 2004 “Australian mining firms confident on global coal demand outlook”, l/n,BHP Billiton vice-president, business development, energy coal, Mike Henry said even though there remains abundant energy coal reserves

around the world, the outlook for suppliers of seaborne energy coal is solid because of a variety factors, including the likelihood

of a decline in China's net export position. Henry said the seaborne coal market will be driven by three key factors, includingmodest growth in European imports even though overall demand is declining, increased imports into the US driven by cost andquality and strong demand for imported coal from Asia, including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Australia key to Asian economies

Peter Drysdale (Economist Editor) June 22 2008 “Australia and India”, East Asian Economic Forum,

http://eastasiaforum.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/australia-and-india/Australia is already deeply integrated into the East Asian economy. Australia’s external economic relations are moreclosely tied to the East Asian economy than are those of any other country in the world. The whole structure of our

interests in global economic and political affairs was changed fundamentally over the past four or five decades by the development of our

relationships with Japan and East Asia. India has embarked on a great externally-oriented reform. The scale and the nature of forces that are

driving India’s involvement in the global economy are also deepening integration across Asia. This huge process in which India and

Australia are both now engaged in the Asian economy, from different ends, will inexorably draw us more and more

closely together. This is a strategic opportunity, and to capture it is important not only to Australia and to India but also regionally andglobally. The direct imperative that will shape the future of the Australian and Indian partnership in Asia is the deep complementarity betweenour two economies. Already that is having its impact on the growth and importance of our bilateral trade and investment. Australia’s trade andeconomic relationship with India is now one of our fastest growing. In the past five years commodity exports have increased fourfold and lastyear alone Australia’s exports to India rose by 37 per cent. India is already Australia’s second largest market for metallurgical coal and is ahuge potential market for energy, including uranium. But there is more to the relationship than the resource trade. The rapid growth of servicestrade both ways, as Australia educates Indian students and entertains Indian visitors in growing numbers, and migration are new and major

elements. What is now happening between Australia and India, is the emergence of a trade pattern that is well establishedin Australia’s relationships with East Asia. The trade relationship with Australia is also strategically important toEast Asia. Australia alone supplies around half of Northeast Asia’s key imported industrial raw materials and more than 22 per cent of Japan’s

energy supplies (not including uranium) - Australia is a more important energy source for Japan than is Saudi Arabia. These are large,deep, reliable relationships, critical to the prosperity and stability of the entire Asian region.

38




Nuclear Power Neg

Australia Coal 1nc

Asian economy key to the global economy

Michael Swaine (Senior Associate and Co-Director of the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment

For International Peace) 1998 Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century

Such growth rates suggest that by the year 2010, the East Asian region alone will account for over 34 percent of theworld’s total output, with Western Europe and North America following with 26 percent and 25 percent respectively. If the output of the South Asian subregion is added to the East Asian total, the share of Asian output rises even more—closer to 40 percent —relative to Western Europe and North America. The data for world trade show similar Asian dominance. East Asiaalone is expected to contribute almost 40 percent of the world’s trade, with Western Europe and North America following with

about 37 percent and 20 percent, respectively.12 This high sustained growth will continue to be fueled by high rates of domestic savings,increased intra-Asian economic integration, increasing investment in infrastructure and human capital, a decreasing rate of population growth,

and continuing export-led growth. Second, the wealth and prosperity of the United States will remain dependent oncontinued linkages with the Asian economies. The Asian continent today represents the most important locus of American economic engagement. The 1993 data for merchandise trade, for example, show that the United States imports over 42

percent of its goods from the Asia-Pacific region, in contrast to about 20 percent from Europe, about 19 percent from Canada, about 12 percentfrom the rest of North America, and about 5 percent from the rest of the world. The story is similarly revealing where merchandise exports areconcerned. The Asia-Pacific region accounts for about 30 percent of American merchandise exports; Europe accounts for about 25 percent,Canada for about 21 percent, the rest of the Americas for about 16 percent, with the rest of the world accounting for about 5.6 percent of the

total. When trade in invisibles and services is considered, a similar picture emerges: the Asia-Pacific region remains the single most

important destination for the United States, a fact reflected by the data in Tables 5 and 6 below.

Global economic decline will bring Armageddon.

Lt. Col Tom Bearden (PhD Nuclear Engineering) April 25 2000http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm

Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable thatsome of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then---as all the old

strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The

reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is todesperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economiccollapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result . In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie . Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it,resulting.

39

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm








Nuclear Power Neg

Australia Key Asian Economy

Australia economy key global economy

Peter Costello (Australia Treasurer) and Rodrigo De Ratioo (Managing Director of IMF) June 14 2006“Global and Australian economy, IMF reform, industrial relations, ethanol, stock market, Westpac

Consumer Sentiment survey, immigration legislation”, Joint Press Conference Parliament Househttp://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=transcripts/2006/089.htm&pageID=004&min=phc&Year=2006&DocType=2

These meetings certainly, the situation of the global economy, has been one of the most important issues, together with also theevolution of the Asian economy. The situation of the Australian economy, as Minister Costello has referred, also has been

part of our discussions, and looking forward to the prospect of the Australian economy and its role in the Asian economy. As I said

yesterday, we believe that many of the changes that Australia has gone through in recent times can be seen by others as a good path to followand we think that the micro-economic situation of Australia is strong and should allow the country to move forward in the future.

42




Nuclear Power Neg

Asian Economy Key Global Economy

Asian Economy key to world economy

Asia Times 2006, 6/24/06 [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HF24Dj01.html]The United States, China and India will together account for more than 50% of global economic growth between 2005 and 2020, with Asia'soverall share of the world economy rising to 43% from its current 35%, according to the "Foresight 2020" study conducted

by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and sponsored by Nasdaq-listed Cisco Systems. The next 15 years will see a significantoutpacing by Asia, and particularly the powerhouses of China and India, of the rest of the developing world ingross domestic product (GDP), wages and consumption power.

43




Nuclear Power Neg

Trade Key US/Australian Relations

US-Australian trade relationship is key to overall relations

Dana Robert Dillon (Policy Analyst for Southeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center) Denise H. Froning

(former Trade Policy Analyst) and Gerald P. O'Driscoll (Director of, the Center for International Trade

and Economics at The Heritage Foundation) June 18 2001 “Time to Strengthen U.S.-Australian Relationsin Trade and Defense”,Backgrounder #1450, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1450.cfm

President George Bush recently announced that he will meet with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia on September 10 in Washington to

discuss trade, regional security, and the future of U.S.-Australian relations. 1 Australia is one of America's most durable anddependable allies and an important trading partner . 2 Indeed, Americans and Australians have fought side by side inevery major war of the last century. Although their defense alliance with New Zealand, the ANZUS Treaty, is marking its 50th

anniversary this year, concerns about regional security are growing, and Australia is seeking a bilateral trade agreement with the United States.

Trade not only strengthens the economies of trading partners, but also enhances the defense and security ties of allies. In other words, promoting trade is both good economic policy and good foreign policy. A bilateral agreement

should be promoted. Regarding security, Australia is one of America's most supportive allies. Strengthening the interoperability of U.S. andAustralian forces to further buttress the alliance should be a policy objective. In addition, although the United States has not yet approached theAustralian government about a direct involvement in its missile defense efforts, there may be a role for Australia to consider. The BushAdministration has signaled its desire to establish closer relations with Canberra, and the opportunity to do so is clearly at hand.

44




Nuclear Power Neg

US/Australia Trade Key Global Economy

US-Australian trade relations is key to the global economy

Kevin Rudd (Prime Minister of Australia) March 26 2008 “Address to the East Asia Forum in

conjunction with the Australian National University, Advancing Australia's Global and Regional

Economic Interests”, http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0145.cfmThe United States is the biggest economy in the world. It is the largest trading nation in the world. The US dollar dominates global financial transactions. For Australia, too, the United States is a crucial economic partner . Our trade isrobust – it was worth around AUD$47 billion last year, making the US our third-largest trading partner overall. The US also accountsfor nearly 30 per cent of our incoming investment and for nearly 40 per cent of our outwards investment. TheUnited States is more than a close economic partner . In many ways, it plays the most important role in sustainingglobal growth and sustaining the momentum underpinning open global markets.

45








Nuclear Power Neg

Uniqueness- Investments

investment is high now – state pressure

yung 7/13/08 (katherine, free press business writer, “Utility boosts job-creating industry in state”)DTE Energy is getting ready to spend billions of dollars on alternative energy investments in Michigan, boostingthe state's efforts to become a leader in this rapidly growing market.The parent company of the Detroit Edison andMichCon utilities plans to make about $3 billion in renewable energy investments in Michigan over the next six toseven years, said Knut Simonsen, senior vice president of DTE Energy Resources Inc. These investments dependon the state passing a new law mandating that 10% of its electricity come from renewable energy sources. TheHouse of Representatives and the Senate have passed their own bills toward this goal, but major differences between the two must be reconciled. "It's exciting times in the sense that clean tech investment's time has finallycome," Simonsen said. States are clamoring for renewable energy projects such as wind farms and solar power plants because of the potential jobs they create, in addition to reducing global warming and increasing thecountry's energy independence.

48

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080713/BUSINESS06/807130531#







Nuclear Power Neg

Link- Nuclear Power

investments in nuclear power trade off with true renewables

Carbon Control News 7/7/2008 “Activists make new economic case against nuclear's climate

benefits”, lexisA number of new reports have emerged arguing that investments in nuclear power could contribute to climate change,

rather than reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, because those investments would divert limited resources from more cost-effective clean energy alternatives. The reports aim to counter the nuclear industry's inroads in casting nuclear power as a solution to

global warming and highlight the contentious nature of the debate over what role -- if any -- nuclear should play in federal polices to addressclimate change. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain (AZ) has said his administration would seek to build 45 newnuclear power plants by 2030 in order to stave off the worst effects of global warming. Meanwhile, industry officials point out that nuclear

power is currently the largest source of low-carbon power in the United States. Nuclear plants are also "the lowest-cost producer of base-loadelectricity," according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), with the costs of operating a plant amounting to 1.76 cents per kilowatt-hour. Butenvironmentalists are increasingly citing rising construction costs and lingering concerns surrounding the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste

to claim nuclear energy is not a long-term solution to climate change. And some environmentalists are now arguing that by divertingresources from more cost-effective renewable and energy efficiency investments, proponents of nuclear energy may

actually be making attempts to mitigate global warming more difficult. Yet in a recent article for the conservative Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer and Nick Loris write that, "Nuclear power must be expanded if CO2 caps are to work." They argue that unlike wind and solar power,which are intermittent and incapable of providing consistent base-load energy, nuclear power is capable of meeting growing demand for energywithout emitting greenhouse gases. While environmentalists point to the high costs of constructing a plant, the authors maintain those costs arenot as high when considered in the context of the full lifetime operation of a nuclear plant. In fact, they write that, "Given the low cost needed

to operate a nuclear plant, lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed. It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all." Currently, NEI estimates construction costs for a new nuclear plant to be between $6 billion and $7 billion, whilethe utility company Florida Power & Light, which has plans to construct two new nuclear reactors, recently estimated that costs for a singlereactor could be as high as $12 billion. But Spencer and Loris write that, "Additional production will allow these costs to be spread, thuslowering costs overall. Further savings should be achieved by applying lessons learned from initial construction projects. Because nuclear

plants could have an operating life of 80 years, the benefit could be well worth the cost." But those arguments have prompted a rebuttal fromenvironmentalists and some economists. In a paper recently released by the environmental think tank Rocky Mountain Institute, "The Nuclear Illusion," Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh concede that nuclear power, at least from a climate change perspective, far outperforms coal power,which currently provides around half of U.S. electricity. But the authors argue that nuclear power's decentralized, low-carbon competitors --

wind, solar, hydro, and cogeneration power -- can displace more coal power per dollar at a faster pace. " New nuclear power costs far more than its distributed competitors, so it buys far less coal displacement per dollar than the competinginvestments it stymies," the authors write. "And its higher relative cost than nearly all competitors, per unit of net CO2 displaced, means

that every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar ."Sheikh tells Carbon Control News that he and Lovins wrote the article, in part, because, "We're seeing this perceived resurgence in nuclear

power because it's carbon-zero, or roughly carbon-zero, and since climate change is becoming such a hot topic." The paper was released now,Sheikh says, as a way to counter the increased focus on nuclear power as an answer to climate change, and to show "we can offer more climate

protection for less money" by pursing efficiency and small, decentralized electricity production -- what is termed "micropower." His advice for lawmakers? "Just let all types of generation and efficiency compete on a level playing field, and when that happens micropower will probably

win." That is an argument Sheikh and Lovins repeatedly make in their paper: let investors choose energy sources, not politicians, because subsidies will only distort the market and possibly delay effective action on climate change. The authors argue

that "full U.S. deployment" of decentralized micropower, including recovered waste-heat cogeneration and wind power, and end-use efficiencymeasures could replace much of nuclear energy's current U.S. market share "without significant land-use, reliability, or other constraints, andwith considerable gains in employment" -- and without federal subsidies. In April testimony before the House Select Committee on Global

Warming and Energy Independence, Lovins noted that nuclear energy has attracted "no private risk capital despite U.S.taxpayer subsidies that can now total about $13 billion per new nuclear plant--roughly its entire cost." While politicians may decideto approve further subsidies for nuclear, "Heroic efforts at near- or over-100% subsidization will continue to elicitthe same response as defibrillating a corpse: it will jump, but it won't revive ."

49




Nuclear Power Neg

Link- Nuclear Power

INVESTMENT IS ZERO SUM – EVERY DOLLAR WE SPEND ON NUCLEAR

TRADES OFF WITH RENEWABLES

NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service) 2008

(http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/cdmnukesnirsbackground.htm, date page info)Further investment in nuclear would also keep funds away from renewable energy development. This trade-off isexactly what has happened in the U.S. over the past 50 years. When comparing U.S. government subsidies for nuclear, solar, and wind, the nuclear power industry has received the majority (96.3%) of $150 billion in investmentssince 1947; that’s $145 billion for nuclear reactors and $5 billion for wind and solar. Nuclear subsidies have cost the average household a

total amount of $1,411 [1998 dollars] compared to $11 for wind. The more money we spend on nuclear power, the lessgreenhouse gas reduction benefit we receive, while we hurt sustainable technology investment.

nuclear power trades off with cheaper alternative energy

ROBIN OAKLEY, Journalist, Cutting through windy arguments, Financial Times, July 26, 2003, LexisAll forms of wind power are cheaper than nuclear power . The problem of nuclear waste cannot be left out of theequation. The British Energy fiasco and reprocessing crisis at British Nuclear Fuels show what an insurmountable problemwaste is. As the government itself has said, renewables and energy efficiency are not only safer and cleaner than the alternatives,

they are the most cost-effective way to tackle climate change. Indeed, with successful energy efficiency measuresas part of the package, overall bills for electricity customers may well fall. Oxera's point that wholesale electricity prices are

too low to support new generation is yet another argument for closing nuclear power stations. It is the fact that old, dangerous and expensive

nuclear plant is being kept on the system by massive subsidies that is causing overcapacity and artificially forcing down prices. If nuclear plants were decisively phased out it would make welcome room for new cleaner capacity and send strong signalsto the markets that government really is behind renewable energy.

Nuclear power is empirically proven to divert investment from renewables

Amory B. Lovins, CEO of Rocky Mountain Institute, “Nuclear Power: economics and climate-protection

potential,” 9/11/2005, www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf Empirical data also confirm that these competing technologies not only are being deployed an order of magnitudefaster than nuclear power, but ultimately can become far bigger . In the U.S., for example, full deployment of these very

cost-effective competitors (conservatively excluding all renewables except windpower, and all cogeneration that uses fresh fuel rather

than recovered waste heat) could provide ~13–15 times nuclear power’s current 20% share of electric generation—allwithout significant land-use, reliability, or other constraints. The claim that “we need all energy options” has no analytic basis

and is clearly not true; nor can we afford all options. In practice, keeping nuclear power alive means diverting private and public investment from the cheaper market winners—cogeneration, renewables, and efficiency—to the costlier market loser.

nuclear power diverts resources from renewables and worsens our ability to abate climate

change.

Alice Slater, New York Director, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Convenor, Abolition 2000 WorkingGroup for Sustainable Energy, “Nuclear Power Is No Solution for Global Warming: Time to Establish anInternational Sustainable Energy Agency,” Abolition 2000, 2000,www.abolition2000.org/atf/cf/%7B23F7F2AE-CC10-4D6F-9BF8-

09CF86F1AB46%7D/articlepacificecologist.docEqually important, nuclear power is the slowest and costliest way to reduce CO2 emissions, as financing nuclear power diverts scarce resources from investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The enormous costs of nuclear power per unit of carbon emissions reduced would actually worsen our ability to abate climate change aswe would be buying less carbon-free energy per dollar spent on nuclear power compared to the emissions wewould save by investing those dollars in solar, wind or energy efficiency. According to a Massachusetts Institute of

Technology study on the future of nuclear power, 1500 new nuclear reactors would have to be constructed worldwide by mid-century for nuclear power to have a modest impact on the reduction of greenhouse gasses. In addition, nuclear power’s role in mitigating climate change isfurther constrained because its impact is limited to the production of electricity.

50




Nuclear Power Neg

Link- Nuclear Power

Nuclear power diverts resources from renewable energy sources

Greenpeace International, Environmental Organization, “Nuclear Power - Unsustainable,

Uneconomic, Dirty and Dangerous,” Greenpeace, 5/4/2006,

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclear-power-unsustainableThe dilemma between building nuclear power or suffering the effects of climate change is a false dilemma . Nuclear energy is slow to build, dirty, dangerous and expensive . Nuclear energy, with its inflexibility, generation of waste, inherent danger and security implications, as well as its hidden costs, undermines economic development, social development and

environmental protection. Investments of human and economic resources are far better placed into energy efficiencyand the numerous renewable technologies available to guarantee the right to safe, clean and affordable energy. Indiverting resources from sustainable and renewable energy, investment in nuclear energy and associated subsidieswould erect obstacles to sustainable energy. Problems with reactor safety, radioactive waste management, the proliferation of fissile

material and life cycle cost all mean that nuclear power has no place in the energy mix. Resources and efforts must instead go to theclean and renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, which have shown remarkable growth since 2000.Rather than to include nuclear power in the ‘mix’, countries need to focus on implementing the commitments made in the World Summit inSeptember 2005 to take action to promote clean energy and energy efficiency and conservation, accelerate the development and disseminationof affordable and cleaner energy efficiency and energy conservation technologies, and promote and support greater efforts to develop

renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal. Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution, as recent analyses such

as the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission (SCD) show. The SDC gave a unanimous ‘no’ to the question ‘Is nuclear the answer totackling climate change or energy security?’ Their reasons included long-term waste, cost, inflexibility, undermining energy efficiency and

international security issues, including accidents, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Nuclear energy relies on subsidies, includingunderwriting for construction cost or caps on construction costs, operating performance, non-fuel operations and maintenance

cost, nuclear fuel cost and decommissioning cost, liability caps and guarantees that the output will be purchased at a guaranteed price. Usuallyabsent from consideration are decommissioning costs, the long-term costs of dealing with waste and external costs such as environmentaldamage, effects on human health and social costs. Nuclear power plants are particularly risky for developing countries, with exposure to cost

overruns, downtime, the cost of dealing with waste and dependence on foreign technology. Nuclear power is quite simply the wronganswer, and would divert scarce resources from investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

51




Nuclear Power Neg

Investment key

investment key to renewables

Business Green 8 [Andrew Charlesworth, July 4, http://www.businessgreen.com/business-

green/news/2220758/darling-urges-faster-nuclear]The government and some eminent environmentalists, such as Gaia-theorist James Lovelock, argue that nuclear power is the onlyviable short-term replacement for coal- and gas-fired plants. Alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power

are not developing quickly enough to provide reliable supplies, they say. However , many environmental experts reject this

logic and say that if the huge sums of money required for nuclear development were invested in alternative energysources then they could become viable much more quickly.

52



Documents

Neg Nukes1