Nuclear Power Neg

Hearn/Rentschler Page 1 of 42
Arx Axiom Nuclear Power Neg 10/30/2009
Nuclear Power Neg
Topicality:.......................................................................................4
T1: Gov already supports Nukes......................................................................................4
B. Nuclear energy is still promoted by the government..............................................5
C. Current government policy is to support nuclear....................................................6
T2: Nukes is energy policy .............................................................................................7
A. Nuclear energy is energy policy – considered the cornerstone of energy policy. . .7
Disadvantages: ...............................................................................8
1. Nuclear weapons created.............................................................................................8
Shell:................................................................................................................................8
Link: Nuclear plants vulnerable: ½ mock attacks were successful, even though
plants had prior knowledge of the mock attacks..........................................................8
Impact: Spent fuel can easily be turned into a nuclear weapon...................................9
Extension:........................................................................................................................9
Link: Nuclear power increases proliferation and al Qaeda wants a nuclear weapon. .9
Link: Terrorists could attack a pool commando-style in 60 seconds.........................10
Link: Current standards are not enforced on nuclear safety......................................10
Impact: 9/11 would have been worse if it had been nuclear: 96,000 early fatalities,
308,000 injuries, 27,000 cancer deaths and $558 Billion..........................................11
Impact: Dry casks can be ruptured by legal weapons spilling radiation....................12
Impact: Terrorists can create radiation releases with truck bombs also....................13
Impact: Terrorists could cause a core meltdown.......................................................13
AT: “Safeguards” NRC ignores terrorism as a low-probability event......................14
2. NRC overstretch/more risk of accident......................................................................14
Shell:..............................................................................................................................14
Link: NRC overstretched: not enough funding to keep safe while also approving
new licenses...............................................................................................................14
Brink: NRC is already stretched thin.........................................................................15
Extension:......................................................................................................................16
Link: Heightened risk of nuclear accidents under affirmative plan...........................16
Link: NRC ignores its own regulations: whistleblowers are harassed or intimidated
....................................................................................................................................16
Link: NRC doesn’t have enough funding now, you make it worse...........................17
AT: no accidents. This doesn’t actually mean that we are safer................................18
AT: “no accidents”Absence of a disaster doesn’t mean that its safe: 35 incidents
since 1979..................................................................................................................19
3. Terrorist attacks: Air attacks......................................................................................20
Shell:..............................................................................................................................20
Link: Nuclear plants stand no chance of withstanding an air attack..........................20
Impact: Air attacks on nuclear plants would create an explosion that would spread
radioactive material....................................................................................................20
Extension:......................................................................................................................21
Link: Virtually no defense against air attacks............................................................21
4. Terrorist attacks: Spent fuel.......................................................................................22
1
Shell:..............................................................................................................................22
Link: Spent fuel is even more vulnerable..................................................................22
Impact: Fires at spent fuel pools: 188 sq. miles uninhabitable, 28,000 fatalities $59
Billion........................................................................................................................22
Extension:......................................................................................................................23
Link: Spent fuel pools could easily be attacked and would release lots of radiation 23
Impact: Fuel pools very dangerous 70 times worse than Chernobyl, air attacks can
create fires..................................................................................................................24
Impact: Radiation causes death, cancer, displacement and billions of dollars of
damage.......................................................................................................................25
5. Uranium mining.........................................................................................................25
Shell:..............................................................................................................................25
Link: More NP = More mining, D to the uh..............................................................25
Impact: Billions in cleanup, water pollution and health............................................25
Solvency: ......................................................................................26
1. AT: “More nuclear plants”.........................................................................................26
A. Not going to build new plants, already have subsidies.........................................26
B. Government subsidies already are higher than capital put at risk.........................26
2. Nuclear loan guarantees............................................................................................27
A. Risk of default on loan is high, will be paid by taxpayers....................................27
B. Wall street has six reasons not to invest in nuclear power, transfer those risks to
taxpayers....................................................................................................................27
C. AT: “Nuclear plants won’t default” Empirically proven: NP has high fail rate...28
D. Loan guarantees do not reduce costs and simply ignore all risks.........................28
E. High risk projects have high risk of failure, precedent says they will fail............29
F. Without loan guarantees market would never support these projects. Almost a
certainty that taxpayer funds will be lost through defaulting loans...........................29
G. Market has already decided that AFF = bad, don’t ignore the market..................30
H. Loan guarantees are worst case scenario for taxpayer dollars. Don’t repeat the
“largest managerial disaster in business history” Vote neg!......................................30
3. NRC regulations kill NP development......................................................................30
AT: “We solve NRC failure” Regulations can’t be streamlined...............................30
4. Delays........................................................................................................................31
A. ½ projects is delayed/cancelled, 15/19 have delay/cost increase/utility downgrade
....................................................................................................................................31
5. Labor shortage...........................................................................................................31
A. Not enough nuclear graduates: 300 grads for an available 1,200 jobs.................31
B. Current labor shortage is 26,000...........................................................................32
C. Nuclear labor force is really old. 40% will retire in 5 years. 8% are under 32.....32
Advantages:...................................................................................33
1. AT: “NP solves proliferation”...................................................................................33
A. US nuclear power encourages proliferation..........................................................33
2. AT: Pollution ............................................................................................................34
A. AT: “CO2”Nuclear power will have the same CO2 output as other plants by 2050
....................................................................................................................................34
2
B. AT: “We must incur costs to save the environment” Other cheaper options are
available.....................................................................................................................34
C. New tech solves: 12 energy production methods that are 40% cheaper than
nuclear........................................................................................................................35
D. Nuclear Power doesn’t solve global warming......................................................35
3. AT: “Energy independence” .....................................................................................37
A. Nuclear power increases energy dependence on bad countries............................37
4. AT: “Electricity prices”.........................................................................................38
A. Nuclear reactors can only have an impact on 15% of electricity..........................38
5. AT: “Coal = really bad, so vote aff”..........................................................................38
A. Coal vs. NP is irrelevant idea................................................................................38
B. Nuclear and coal are both really bad.....................................................................38
C. Coal and nuclear both have really bad waste........................................................39
D. Coal and Nuclear both rely on steam power.........................................................39
E. Nuclear and coal is 2/3 wasted..............................................................................39
6. Cost increases.............................................................................................................40
A. Ordering more plants will only increase prices....................................................40
B. Costs range from $5000 to $8000 per kW............................................................40
7. Lack of supplies/can’t build.......................................................................................41
A. Not enough production of parts of nuclear plants. Hard to expand production....41
Source indicts:..............................................................................42
1. Foreign Affairs...........................................................................................................42
A. Foreign Affairs is an advocacy piece for nuclear power, ignores parts of problems
....................................................................................................................................42
3
Topicality:
T1: Gov already supports Nukes
A. US is already using regulation streamlining and loan guarantees to increase nukes
William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Fall, 2008 Dr. Benjamin K.
Sovacool is a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia
and Globalization, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National
University of Singapore. He is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University. He has worked in advisory and research
capacities at the U.S. National Science Foundation's Electric Power Networks Efficiency
and Security Program, Virginia Tech Consortium on Energy Restructuring, Virginia
Center for Coal and Energy Research, New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and U.S. Department
of Energy's Climate Change Technology Program. Mr. Christopher Cooper is Principal
Partner for Oomph Consulting, LLC, and the former Executive Director of the Network
for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a New York-based nonprofit interest group devoted to
analyzing utility policy and making recommendations for increasing efficiency and
expanding the use of renewable resources. At NNEC, Mr. Cooper authored numerous
reports and journal articles, including the first-ever ranking and grading of state net
metering policies. “Symposium Issue 1: Emission Not Accomplished: The Future of
Carbon Emissions in a Changing World: Symposium Article: Nuclear Nonsense:
Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-
Kyoto Energy Challenges” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]
“Here in the U.S., over the past two decades, nuclear power plants have been quietly but
surely expanding their generating capacity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC") approved 2200 megawatts ("MW") of capacity upgrades to existing nuclear
plants between 1988 and 1999, and nuclear facilities are seeking approval for another 842
MW. n120 [*22] Following the unveiling of the Department of Energy's "Nuclear
Power 2010 Program," targeted at demonstrating "new regulatory processes leading to a
private sector decision by 2005 to order new nuclear power plants for deployment in the
United States in the 2010 timeframe," three large utilities-Exelon, Entergy, and
Dominion- filed early site permits for the construction of new nuclear plants in Illinois,
Texas, and Virginia respectively. n121 The Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well,
significantly bolstered plans for nuclear power by extending liability limits for nuclear
accidents under the Price-Anderson Act for another twenty years, authorizing the
construction of new DOE research reactors, and establishing hefty loan and insurance
programs to make the construction of new nuclear reactors more attractive. n122 After
passage between 2005 and 2007, the NRC received notice of application for at least
twenty-eight new nuclear units from a plethora of utilities and energy consortia, n123 and
thirty applications for new reactor units are expected to be filed by the end of 2009.
n124”
4
B. Nuclear energy is still promoted by the government
Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 2007 – 2008 Richard Sieg practices in the
following areas of law: Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources; Litigation Law
School: Vermont Law School, J.D., 2008 College: North Carolina State University, B.S.,
Aerospace Engineering, 1986 Member: American Bar Association (Environment,
Energy, and Resources Section); North Carolina Bar Association (Environment, Energy
and Natural Resources Law Section). “A CALL TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF NUCLEAR
POWER IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]
“Rumors of the death of the nuclear-power industry are greatly exaggerated. The Bush
Administration's 2007 budget provided $ 250 million for the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, and U.S. energy policy continues to include nuclear power as a cornerstone.
n1 Nuclear power currently provides about one-fifth of the nation's power from 103
active [*306] plants. n2 The technology is advertised as a clean, cheap, and stable
energy source. n3 On a global scale, 435 commercial nuclear power plants were
operational as of June 2007, and France and Lithuania rely on nuclear power for about
three quarters of their electricity. n4 However, any analysis of nuclear power must
include an evaluation of the economics behind the technology and the real risks
associated with it--nuclear proliferation and plant safety. These are especially important
in the evaluation of risks globally.”
5
C. Current government policy is to support nuclear

“Almost everywhere one looks today, politicians, pundits and prognosticators all declare
nuclear power as a safe and carbon-free source of electricity, a viable response to global
climate change in a carbon-constrained world. Jacques Foos, Director of the Nuclear
Science Laboratory and a professor at the Conservatoire des Arts et Metier in France,
writes "No More Nuclear Energy? A Lost Fight Before It Even Starts!" n3 "Daniel Gross
states in Newsweek that 'nuclear power plants are the obvious fix for global warming and
U.S. oil dependence.'" n4 Echoing such faith, the [*3] Economist proclaimed in 2005
that if oil and gas prices continue to rise, nuclear power plants are "[t]he shape of things
to come." n5 Pulitzer Prize winning historian Richard Rhodes has recently written that
"[n]uclear power is environmentally safe, practical, and affordable. It is not the problem-
it is one of the best solutions." n6”
6
T2: Nukes is energy policy

A. Nuclear energy is energy policy – considered the cornerstone of energy
policy
“Rumors of the death of the nuclear-power industry are greatly exaggerated. The Bush
Administration's 2007 budget provided $ 250 million for the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, and U.S. energy policy continues to include nuclear power as a cornerstone.
n1 Nuclear power currently provides about one-fifth of the nation's power from 103
active [*306] plants. n2 The technology is advertised as a clean, cheap, and stable
energy source. n3 On a global scale, 435 commercial nuclear power plants were
operational as of June 2007, and France and Lithuania rely on nuclear power for about
three quarters of their electricity. n4 However, any analysis of nuclear power must
include an evaluation of the economics behind the technology and the real risks
associated with it--nuclear proliferation and plant safety. These are especially important
in the evaluation of risks globally.”
7
Disadvantages:
1. Nuclear weapons created
Shell:
Link: Nuclear plants vulnerable: ½ mock attacks were successful, even
though plants had prior knowledge of the mock attacks
UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs Fall, 2007 Amanda Mott JD
candidate at Vermont Law School, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law junior staff
member. “SHOULD THE THREAT OF A TERRORIST ATTACK ON A NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT BE CONSIDERED UNDER NEPA REVIEW?” [Accessed via Lexis
Nexis][CR]
“Security at nuclear plant sites is insufficient to defend against air, water or ground
attacks. n65 Concern about the risk of an attack has increased with the release of
information that Al Qaeda, in contemplation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
had planned to include a nuclear power plant in these assaults on the United States. n66
Ahmed Ressam, the terrorist convicted [*342] in the attempt to bomb the Los Angeles
International Airport, admitted that "a terrorist training camp linked to Osama bin Laden
considers power plants a primary target." n67 Nuclear power plant containment structures
were not built to endure attacks by airliners such as those used in the September 11, 2001
attacks. n68 They are also vulnerable to commando style ground attacks and truck
bombs. n69 Computer networks at nuclear plants and the electricity grid are additional,
and very real, targets. n70 The NRC, before September 2001, staged mock attacks at
various nuclear power plants once every eight years, but has now increased the frequency
to once every three years. n71 Security guards failed more than half of the mock attacks,
although the plants were warned months in advance that these tests would take place. n72
The NRC issued an order in April 2003 requiring all nuclear power plant operators to
meet the requirements of the supplemental Design Basis Threat ("DBT"), which changed
the type of threats and attacks the plants had to prevent. n73 In November 2004, the NRC
implemented a redesigned mock test program incorporating experience and lessons
learned since September 11, 2001. n74 Results of the redesigned program are addressed
in the updated DBT rule, but still do not require a plant to implement extra protection
against air attacks. n75”
8
Impact: Spent fuel can easily be turned into a nuclear weapon

“Spent uranium fuel may be "reprocessed" to separate the plutonium from the waste fuel,
n13 and only a small amount of plutonium is needed to [*308] create a nuclear weapon.
n14 Because of this, which states should possess reprocessing technology is a divisive
issue. n15 "There is no disagreement among the United States, Britain and France that
reprocessing plants in non-nuclear-weapon states should be discouraged . . . . There is
disagreement among us, however, over whether provision of plutonium services for
export helps the effort to contain proliferation." n16”
Extension:
Link: Nuclear power increases proliferation and al Qaeda wants a nuclear
weapon
“There is an obvious relationship between the expansion of nuclear power and the risk of
proliferation--the more nuclear power expands, the more opportunities are available for
diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses. However, if the international
community allows certain states to use a technology, it is inequitable to restrict its use by
others. Once the power of the atom is harnessed by a country, it may be for peaceful or
non-peaceful use. Within that country, the risks of proliferation from energy sources n55
may arise from the transportation, storage, and use of uranium, plutonium, or spent fuel.
n56 Unlike other forms of waste, nuclear waste will linger in permanent storage for
hundreds of thousands of years, n57 and these wastes may be diverted for non-peaceful
uses. In recent years, the desire to directly acquire nuclear weapons has expanded to non-
state groups such as al Qaeda. n58 "While concern over catastrophic accidents and long-
term waste management are perhaps better known, the largest single vulnerability
associated with the expansion of nuclear power is likely to be its potential connection to
the proliferation of nuclear weapons." n59 The risks in managing nuclear technology are
numerous and significant, and with respect to power generation, these vulnerabilities are
increased dramatically as technology is shared internationally. Understandably, the global
community relies on the framework of international law to manage these risks.”
9
Link: Terrorists could attack a pool commando-style in 60 seconds
Fritsch et al. 2004 Albert J. Fritsch co-founder of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest (DC) and Appalachia - Science in the Public Interest Arthur H. Purcell, Ph.D. is
an environmental management and policy specialist, based in Los Angeles. He has
served as a member of the President’s Science Policy Task Force and President’s
Commission on Scholars, and of the Senior Staff of the President’s Commission on the
Accident at Three Mile Island. and Mary Byrd Davis Ph.D. has had some twenty-five
years of experience as an organizer, researcher, and writer on peace and environmental
issues. 2004 “CRITICAL HOUR: THREE MILE ISLAND, THE NUCLEAR LEGACY,
AND NATIONAL SECURITY” http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf [CR]
“Pools are even vulnerable to commando-style terrorists on the ground. Certain pools are
only fifty yards from the double fence around the plant. According to a handbook issued
by Sandia National Laboratories, a terrorist could get through the fence line and enter a
secured building in under 60 seconds. Based on interviews with security guards and
members of military Special Forces, the Project on Government Oversight has stated, “A
certain type of explosive, which a terrorist could carry on his back, would allow him to
blow a sizeable hole in the reinforced concrete bottom or wall of the spent fuel pool.” For
above-ground pools, “a certain kind of explosive could even be launched from outside the
fence line into the side of the pool” [Brian 2002].”
Link: Current standards are not enforced on nuclear safety

Gronlund et al. December 2007 Lisbeth Gronlund is co-director and senior scientist of
the UCS Global Security Program. David Lochbaum is director of the nuclear safety
project in the UCS Global Security Program. Edwin Lyman is a senior staff scientist in
the UCS Global Security Program. Union of Concerned Scientists “Nuclear power in a
warming world Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challenges”
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-
world.pdf [CR]
“The United States has strong nuclear power safety standards, but serious safety
problems continue to arise at U.S. nuclear power plants because the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is not adequately enforcing the existing standards. The NRC’s poor
safety culture is the biggest barrier to consistently effective oversight, and Congress
should require the NRC to bring in managers from outside the agency to rectify this
problem.”
10
Impact: 9/11 would have been worse if it had been nuclear: 96,000 early
fatalities, 308,000 injuries, 27,000 cancer deaths and $558 Billion
“The events of September 11, 2001, should have put an end to any notion that nuclear
reactors are a safe source of energy. As has often been noted in the media, the jet planes that
attacked the World Trade Center flew over the Indian Point nuclear power plant on their way
to their target. Indian Point is only twenty four miles north of New York City. The attack on
the World Trade Center was catastrophic. Had the terrorists, however, chosen to attack Indian
Point instead, the result would have been far greater devastation. According to a report by
Sandia National Laboratory under contract to the NRC, a core meltdown that released all of
the radioactivity in the two reactors could lead to a total of up to 96,000 early fatalities,
308,000 early injuries, 27,000 deaths from cancer, and $558 billion in damages (1980
dollars) [Riccio 2001]. Such facts have apparently not influenced the Bush administration.”
11
Impact: Dry casks can be ruptured by legal weapons spilling radiation

“When fuel storage pools become full, utilities store fuel outside in dry casks sitting on
concrete pads. About twenty commercial nuclear plants have dry storage casks. The casks
are generally a more secure means of storing fuel than pools, because they rely on passive
cooling by radiation and air convection rather than on active cooling by water and pumps
[WISE-Paris 2001]. However, at some plants the dry casks are “line-of-sight visible”
from open access areas or inside unguarded chain link fences. According to the Union of
Concerned Scientists, explosives or weapons that are available on the black market or, in
some cases, available legally inside the United States could “cause the casks to be
penetrated resulting in the release of large amounts of radiation.” [Union of Concerned
Scientists 2001]. The Energy Information Administration has removed from its Web site
the statistics on the quantities of irradiated fuel at each specific nuclear plant, tacit
admission that the stored fuel poses a problem. This was confirmed in a report on Yucca
Mountain on CBS’s 60 Minutes, October 26, 2003, when Secretary of Energy Spencer
Abraham was quoted as stating, “We need to find a permanent storage facility” for
irradiated fuel. “And without doing that, we’ll have not only environmental challenges,
but we, I think [sic] it will undermine our energy security and our national security.””
12
Impact: Terrorists can create radiation releases with truck bombs also
“Truck bombs are another possible means of attack. According to a report by Sandia
National Laboratory, the truck would not have to enter the site to cause catastrophic
damage (at least not given the site boundaries of 2001). A carefully placed truck bomb
could destroy essential equipment within a plant from outside a plant’s property and thus
cause a radiation release. Boats are a source of danger, particularly for plants on large
bodies of water. Terrorists might approach a plant by boat with the intent of storming its
defenses or simply of clogging the plant’s intake valve to cut off the water supply or
introducing volatile chemicals into the plant’s cooling system [Pasternak 2001].”
Impact: Terrorists could cause a core meltdown

world.pdf [CR]
“If a team of well-trained terrorists forcibly entered a nuclear power plant, it could
disable safety systems within a matter of minutes, and do enough damage to cause a
meltdown of the core, failure of the containment structure, and a large release of
radiation. Such an attack could contaminate large regions for thousands of years,
producing higher cancer rates and billions of dollars in associated costs.”
13
AT: “Safeguards” NRC ignores terrorism as a low-probability event

world.pdf [CR]
“One underlying problem is that the risk of sabotage and terrorist attack has never fit
comfortably into the NRC’s regulatory framework, which focuses on preventing
accidents. The NRC bases its approach to security on the presumption that—like
catastrophic accidents—terrorist attacks are low-probability events. And the NRC
maintains that a catastrophic accident is very unlikely to occur because multiple safety
systems would have to fail simultaneously, and that the probability of that happening is
very low. However, this logic fails when one considers deliberate damage.”
2. NRC overstretch/more risk of accident
Shell:
Link: NRC overstretched: not enough funding to keep safe while also
approving new licenses
world.pdf [CR]
“Congress continues to pressure the NRC to cut its budget, so it spends fewer resources
on overseeing safety. The NRC does not have enough funding to fulfill its mandate to
ensure safety while also responding to applications to extend the licenses of existing
reactors and license new ones.”
14
Brink: NRC is already stretched thin

Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 2004 Arjun Makhijani President of
the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland.
“SYMPOSIUM: Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor
Way to Meet Energy Needs” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]
“The proliferation implications of building so many plants and supplying them with fuel
are stupendous. Inspecting them, enriching the uranium, ensuring that materials are not
diverted into weapons programs would present challenges that would make today's
proliferation concerns look like the proverbial Sunday school picnic. We already have
confrontations between the United States and other countries over alleged nuclear
weapons aspirations from far more modest programs involving a handful of power plants.
The risk of losing a city once in a while to nuclear bombs should be an unacceptable part
of an energy strategy. Similarly, it would be difficult to inspect, regulate and maintain
such a vast number of plants properly. Even the U.S. regulatory system is currently under
considerable strain. In fact, oversight and safety are deteriorating. There [*67] have
been unexpected leaks and severe corrosion problems missed by inadequate regulation.
Nuclear power plant owners are operating their plants at very high capacity factors,
churning out profits, while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows them to service
some safety backup equipment while the power plants are still running. n16 That makes
no sense from a safety point of view. Backup systems are there in case the normal
systems break down. If a break down occurs while the back system is being maintained,
it will not be available in case of emergency.”
15
Extension:
Link: Heightened risk of nuclear accidents under affirmative plan
“The more nuclear power plants, the higher the risk of nuclear accidents. As recognized
by the Kemeny Commission, which investigated the cause of Three Mile Island (TMI)
accident, there is a strong tie between nuclear accidents and public acceptance of the
technology. "We are convinced that, unless . . . industry and [the NRC] undergo
fundamental changes, they will over time totally destroy public confidence and, hence,
they will be responsible for the elimination of nuclear power as a viable source of
energy." n343 The industry claims that the safety record for nuclear power plants is
outstanding, which is true compared to a less hazardous industry. However, this logic
obscures the catastrophic potential of a nuclear accident. In addition to being relatively
safe, so far the industry has been exceedingly lucky. Whether an accident is caused by
faulty design, aging equipment, operator error, or outright negligence, the outcome may
be the same. The expansion of nuclear power increases the likelihood that a serious
accident could occur.”
Link: NRC ignores its own regulations: whistleblowers are harassed or

intimidated
world.pdf [CR]
“The poor safety culture at the NRC manifests itself in several ways. The agency has
failed to implement its own findings on how to avoid safety problems at U.S. reactors. It
has failed to enforce its own regulations, with the result that safety problems have
remained unresolved for years at reactors that have continued to operate. And it has
inappropriately emphasized adhering to schedules rather than ensuring safety. A
significant number of NRC staff members have reported feeling unable to raise safety
concerns without fear of retaliation, and a large percentage of those staff members say
they have suffered harassment or intimidation.”
16
Link: NRC doesn’t have enough funding now, you make it worse
world.pdf [CR]
“Despite the numerous problems noted above, Congress continues to pressure the NRC to
cut budgets and streamline regulations rather than improve oversight. Indeed, except for a
modest funding increase after 9/11 to handle new security demands, such as revising
security rules and increasing the frequency of security inspections, the agency’s budget
and staffing levels have steadily declined since 1993. Until 1998 that decline seemed
warranted, as the agency has not licensed a nuclear plant since 1996, and a number of
plants have permanently closed. However, in 1999 budget constraints led the NRC to cut
back on the number of inspectors assigned full-time to monitor operating nuclear power
plants. Congress has also failed to account for the growing number of applications from
owners to renew licenses for existing plants, and the agency’s expanding efforts to
evaluate designs for more advanced reactors.”
17
AT: no accidents. This doesn’t actually mean that we are safer

“During the lifecycle of a nuclear power plant, the risk of a catastrophic accident follows
a function some call the "bathtub curve." n344 The bathtub curve predicts high failure
risks during the "break-in phase" and the "wear-out phase," with relatively lower risks
during a relatively stable "middle life [*351] phase." n345 The break-in phase represents
the early years where inexperience, previously undetected vulnerabilities, manufacturing
defects, material imperfections and poor workmanship result in a higher failure rate. n346
Fermil, Three Mile Island-2, St. Laurent, Browns Ferry, the Sodium Research
Experiment, Chernobyl Unit 4 and the Idaho SL-1 reactor are among the worst failures
occurring in this phase. n347 During this phase, the failure rate declines until it reaches a
near-constant rate. n348 The middle life phase represents the "useful lifetime" of a plant,
with the lower failure rate attributed to improvements in equipment design and a better
operational understanding of the technology. n349 A recent near miss at the Davis-Besse
nuclear plant is a prime example of the type of safety issues that arise during this phase.
n350 After a certain point, the failure rate will begin to increase again as the product
enters its wear-out phase. n351 This stage is gaining analytical significance as many
plants built a generation ago reach the end of their license periods and receive license
extensions. In addition, the older plants appear to be susceptible to greater failures.
"[W]hile the number of events is decreasing, their severity increases, with the near misses
getting nearer to disaster." n352 Thus, while the nuclear-power industry has experienced
a period of relative stability, this by no means indicates that a future catastrophe is
becoming less likely.”
18
AT: “no accidents”Absence of a disaster doesn’t mean that its safe: 35

incidents since 1979
world.pdf [CR]
“A serious nuclear power accident has not occurred in the United States since 1979, when
the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania experienced a partial core meltdown.
However, the absence of serious accidents does not necessarily indicate that safety
measures and oversight are adequate. Since 1979, there have been 35 instances in which
individual reactors have shut down to restore safety standards, and the owner has taken a
year or more to address dozens or even hundreds of equipment impairments that had
accumulated over a period of years. The most recent such shutdown occurred in 2002.
These year-plus closures indicate that the NRC has been doing a poor job of regulating
the safety of power reactors. An effective regulator would be neither unaware nor
passively tolerant of safety problems so extensive that a year or more is needed to fix
them.”
19
3. Terrorist attacks: Air attacks
Shell:
Link: Nuclear plants stand no chance of withstanding an air attack
“Both the IAEA and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), responding to
questions from the public, have admitted that plant containment structures were not built
to withstand attacks by airliners such as Boeing 757s or 767s [Rahir 2001; Long 2001]. In
fact, a report published in 1974 in Nuclear Safety found that certain containment
structures had no chance of withstanding a direct hit by a plane weighing more than 6.25
tons. The planes that struck the World Trade Center weighed 150 tons [Bivens 2001].
The actions of governments at various levels immediately after September 11 underlined
the fact that the terrorist threat is real. Security measures for US plants, though
insufficient, included patrols by the National Guard and the Coast Guard, the closing of
roads, and a moratorium on flights by general aviation near specified nuclear sites.”
Impact: Air attacks on nuclear plants would create an explosion that would
spread radioactive material
Nexis][CR]
“Nuclear power plants have been recognized as vulnerable to terrorist attacks. n51 These
structures were built to withstand extreme weather events, but air attacks were not
considered in the design plans. n52 As was previously mentioned, the NRC continues to
believe nuclear power plants should not be required to implement protection from air
attacks. n53 However, an airliner crashing into a nuclear reactor could penetrate the
structure leading to a severe explosion releasing large amounts of radioactive material.
n54”
20
Extension:
Link: Virtually no defense against air attacks
“Nuclear plants are vulnerable to attacks by numerous means. According to Gordon

Thompson of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, who has been studying the industry for twenty-five years, the “highest
risk mode of attack” is that demonstrated on September 11 - airplanes [Gordon 2003].
Jetliners and smaller planes carrying explosives are both a danger. Whether or not a small
plane could penetrate a containment structure, it could penetrate the building housing a
storage pool [Kranes 2002]. Targeting a fuel pool would obviously be more difficult than
hitting the World Trade Center. However, a commercial airline pilot or a terrorist with
some training in a commercial aircraft could do it [Stoller 2003]. A general aviation
plane, loaded with explosives, would have “high accuracy of delivery, high expectation
of success … and [face] essentially no defense” [Gordon 2003]. The US government has
put into effect elaborate safety measures to prevent the hijacking of jetliners. However,
according to a study by USA Today, thousands of airports are within 60 miles of plants
and “aircraft based at many of these airports are largely unguarded and could reach a
nuclear site within minutes” [Stoller 2003]. A study by the NRC itself, concluded before
the September 11 attack, stated that half of all airplanes are big enough to penetrate a
reinforced concrete wall that is five feet thick [Gordon 2003].”
21
4. Terrorist attacks: Spent fuel
Shell:
Link: Spent fuel is even more vulnerable
Nexis][CR]
“[*341] Although nuclear reactors are vulnerable to attack, spent fuel pools are even
more susceptible. n55 Radioactive "spent" nuclear fuel is "removed from the reactor core
after it can no longer efficiently sustain a nuclear chain reaction." n56 This spent fuel is
stored in one of two places: (1) pools of water in the reactor building or (2) dry casks in
another place on the plant grounds. n57”
Impact: Fires at spent fuel pools: 188 sq. miles uninhabitable, 28,000 fatalities
$59 Billion
Nexis][CR]
“Because the fuel is stored outside of the containment structure, concern about the
vulnerability of the spent fuel to a terrorist attack has increased. n58 Spent fuel pools at
plants with PWRs are located in fuel handling buildings, at or slightly below ground
level. n59 At plants with BWRs, the pools are at the reactor building, well above ground.
n60 A severe fire in an irradiated fuel pool could render 188 square miles uninhabitable,
result in nearly 28,000 cancer fatalities, and inflict up to $ 59 billion in damages. n61”
22
Extension:
Link: Spent fuel pools could easily be attacked and would release lots of
radiation
world.pdf [CR]
“Unlike reactors, the pools used to store spent fuel at reactor sites are not protected by
containment buildings, and thus are attractive targets for terrorist attacks. Such attacks
could lead to the release of large amounts of dangerous radioactive materials into the
environment.”
23
Impact: Fuel pools very dangerous 70 times worse than Chernobyl, air
attacks can create fires
“An even greater danger than the reactor itself is the pools of water in which utilities
store irradiated fuel that they have removed from their reactors. Daniel Hirsch, writing in
the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, states, “A typical nuclear power plant contains
within its core about 1,000 times the long-lived radioactivity released by the Hiroshima
bomb. The spent fuel pools at nuclear power plants typically contain some multiple of
that - several Chernobyls’ worth” [Hirsch 2002]. An unclassified study by Brookhaven
National Laboratory released in 1997 found that a severe fire in an irradiated fuel pool
could make 188 square miles uninhabitable, cause up to 28,000 cancer fatalities, and
wreak $59 billion in damages [POGO 2002]. The findings are conservative. Frank von
Hippel of Princeton reports that the radioactive plume from a pool fire could contaminate
eight to 70 times as much land as that impacted by the Chernobyl accident and cause
hundreds of billions of dollars of damage [Process Engineering 2003]. The NRC report of
October 2000 that studied the effects of accidents at spent fuel pools found that a fire
resulting from a plane crash could result in the release of 50-100% of the volatile
radionuclides in the pool [Large and Schneider, 2000, p. 10]. These would include 20-50
million curies of cesium-137, an isotope which has a thirty-year half life, emits
penetrating gamma radiation and “is absorbed in the food chain as if it were potassium”
[Alvarez 2002, p. 46].”
24
Impact: Radiation causes death, cancer, displacement and billions of dollars

of damage
world.pdf [CR]
“An operating nuclear power plant contains a large amount of radioactive material, and
an accident that results in the release of this material could cause significant harm to
people and the environment. People exposed to high levels of radiation will die or suffer
other health consequences within days or weeks. Lower radiation levels can cause cell
damage that will eventually lead to cancer, which may not appear for years or even
decades. People may need to be permanently evacuated from areas contaminated with
radiation. The costs of evacuation and environmental remediation, and those of the loss
of usable land, could be enormous. Radioactivity released by a severe accident could lead
to the death of tens of thousands of people, injure many thousands of others, contaminate
large areas of land, and cost billions of dollars.”
5. Uranium mining
Shell:
Link: More NP = More mining, D to the uh
Impact: Billions in cleanup, water pollution and health

“The West knows the costs of uranium fuel well. This is especially so in the Colorado
Plateau, which is dotted with about two hundred million tons of radioactive mill tailings
n6 and possibly a comparable amount of uranium mine waste. These wastes have injured
health, polluted precious water supplies, and resulted in billions of dollars in clean-up
costs. n7 And the liabilities will extend into the future for tens of thousands of years. The
half-life of thorium-230, the radionuclide that drives the radioactivity content of mill
tailings, is about 75,000 years. Thorium-230 decays into radium-226, which has a half-
life of 1,600 years. n8”
25
Solvency:
1. AT: “More nuclear plants”
A. Not going to build new plants, already have subsidies
“The Energy Policy Act of 2005 only worsened the disparity by lavishing the nuclear
industry with expensive new subsidies, including $ 13 billion worth of loan guarantees
covering up to 80% of project costs; $ 3 billion in R&D; $ 2 billion of insurance against
delays, amounting to, ironically, taxpayers footing the bill even for legitimate opposition
to nuclear projects in their communities; $ 1.3 billion in tax breaks for decommissioning;
an extra 1.8 /kWh in operating subsidies for the first eight years a nuclear plant is in
operation, equivalent to about $ 842 per installed kW; funding for licensing;
compensation for project delays for the first six reactors to be developed; and limited
liability for accidents, capped at $ 10.9 billion. n300 These subsidies are in addition to
numerous other benefits the nuclear industry already enjoys: "free offsite security, . . . no
substantive public participation or judicial review of licensing," and payments to
operators to store waste. n301 The subsidy established by the Price-Anderson Act, which
practically charges taxpayers for liability insurance against nuclear accidents that could
kill them, alone is possibly estimated to be worth more than twice the entire DOE R&D
budget. n302”
B. Government subsidies already are higher than capital put at risk

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 With Particular Emphasis on Economic
Issues Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear
policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983
26
and directed it until 2003. Antony Froggatt works as independent European energy
consultant based in London. Since 1997 Antony has worked as a freelance researcher
and writer on energy and nuclear policy issues in the EU and neighboring states. Steve
Thomas is Professor for energy policy at the Public Services International Research Unit
(PSIRU), University of Greenwich, where he has been senior researcher since 2001. Mr.
Thomas holds a BSc (honors) degree in Chemistry from Bristol University and has been
working in energy policy analysis since 1976. Doug Koplow founded Earth Track in
1999 to more effectively integrate information on energy subsidies.
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/weltstatusbericht0908.pdf [CR]
“In the USA, nearly 30 separate subsidy programs are available to new reactors. In total,
subsidies to new reactors in the USA are likely to exceed the private capital put at risk. In
Europe, there are discussions about putting guarantees on the carbon price that nuclear
plants would receive in the European Union emissions trading scheme – of course, if the
price was guaranteed, it would not be a market.”
2. Nuclear loan guarantees

A. Risk of default on loan is high, will be paid by taxpayers
“In the United States, where Wall Street has had a big say in whether and what kind of
power plants get built, investors are not willing to put up money for nuclear plants. None
have been ordered since 1978. While nuclear companies say they want to order such
plants, in practice they appear to want the government to provide loan guarantees. A
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of proposed U.S. government loan
guarantees for new nuclear power plants said that the "CBO considers the risk of default
on such a loan guarantee to be very high" and that if the power plant were complete "we
expect it would financially default soon after beginning operations ... ." n24 That doesn't
necessarily mean the plants would shut down - just that the taxpayers would wind up
paying for much of the nuclear generated electricity.”
B. Wall street has six reasons not to invest in nuclear power, transfer those
risks to taxpayers
Mark Cooper Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis Institute for Energy and the
Environment Vermont Law School November 2009 ALL RISK, NO REWARD FOR
TAXPAYERS AND RATEPAYERS THE ECONOMICS OF SUBSIDIZING THE
‘NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE’ WITH
LOAN GUARANTEES AND CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdf [CR]
27
“The high risk of new nuclear reactors has led Wall Street firms to indicate that it will be
difficult, if not impossible, to sell bonds to support these projects in capital markets.14
Wall Street has also indicated that it will lower the bond ratings of the utilities
undertaking these projects.15 The same factors that have led Wall Street to refuse to
finance reactors and to lower the ratings of utilities that are trying to build them are the
very reasons that taxpayers and ratepayers may suffer substantial net loses if they are
forced to foot the bill for new nuclear reactors. As shown in Figure II-1, Wall Street and
economic analysts identify six basic types of risk that are of concern in the nuclear
reactor industry at present: technology risk, policy risk, regulatory risk, marketplace risk,
execution risk and financial risk. Technology, policy and regulatory risks tend to be the
most basic factors that can affect both the marketplace and the execution risks of the
projects. While the risk factors tend to influence one another, they each have distinct
causes and consequences. All of the risks feed into the financial risk, which is the
ultimate concern of Wall Street analysts in rating the utilities that propose to undertake
these projects and industry consultants that advise utilities about investment projects.”
C. AT: “Nuclear plants won’t default” Empirically proven: NP has high fail
rate
“The historical experience in the nuclear industry also deserves mention.17 The industry
made similar “bet the farm” decisions in the face of adverse circumstances in the 1970s
and 1980s and the results were disastrous for the industry and consumers with half the
reactors originally ordered cancelled or abandoned and the remainder suffering severe
cost overruns. A combination of risks similar to those we observe today created a
financial disaster for utilities and a rate shock for consumers.”
D. Loan guarantees do not reduce costs and simply ignore all risks
“Advocates of loan guarantees and construction work in progress claim that these
subsidies lower the financing costs of nuclear reactors and are good for consumers, but in
fact, what they do is shift the risk from shareholders to taxpayers and ratepayers. The risk
is not lowered or eliminated. Any benefits from lowering of financing costs are swamped
28
by the costs imposed by shifting risk, as discussed below. Wall Street responds to risk by
raising interest charges or simply refusing to float loans, but when taxpayer and ratepayer
money is used by policymakers to subsidize these projects; they are not given this option.
The simplistic claim that ratepayers will be better off, if they fund these projects ignores
the real-world risks of these projects. Consumers will not be better off if any of a variety
of conditions holds.”
E. High risk projects have high risk of failure, precedent says they will fail
“Second, if the taxpayer/ratepayer subsidy induces the utility to undertake risky

behaviors that they would not have engaged in, but for the subsidy, and those
undertakings go bad, the costs of the failures will be born by taxpayers and ratepayers in
the form of expenditures that do not produce a flow of goods and services. Beating the
odds on high-risk behavior is unlikely and it is taxpayers and ratepayers who bear the
burden if projects subsidized with public money fail.19 Historical experience of failed
nuclear projects was very bad and current projects seem to be repeating that pattern with
many running into substantial troubles.”
F. Without loan guarantees market would never support these projects.

Almost a certainty that taxpayer funds will be lost through defaulting
loans
“A careful analysis of the risks and challenges facing nuclear reactors makes it
abundantly clear why utilities simply cannot fund these projects through capital markets.
Without loan guarantees and guaranteed recovery of construction work in progress, these
reactors simply will not be built. However, the six inherent risks of new reactors cannot
be solved through loan guarantees or construction work in progress; these would only
shift the risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers. If taxpayer and ratepayer funds
are commandeered by policymakers to subsidize new nuclear reactors, it is a virtual
certainty that they will suffer severe economic harm.”
29
G. Market has already decided that AFF = bad, don’t ignore the market
“While it can be argued that a few of the challenges that nuclear reactors face can be
seen as “market failures” that might justify government intervention, most of the
obstacles are not market failures; they are a reflection of market’s sound judgment about
the nature of the technology and the economic conditions new facing nuclear reactors.
The rejection of nuclear reactors by financial markets is not a case of market failure.
Rather, it is an example of market success: markets properly assessing risk and acting
accordingly by refusing to underwrite unacceptable risks.”
H. Loan guarantees are worst case scenario for taxpayer dollars. Don’t repeat
the “largest managerial disaster in business history” Vote neg!
“Simply put, the best case scenario has no chance of coming to pass. New nuclear
reactors are the worst case for taxpayers and ratepayers if they are forced to subsidize the
construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors with loan guarantees and
construction work in progress. The last time the nuclear industry circumvented the
judgment of the marketplace, it resulted in what Forbes magazine called the “largest
managerial disaster in business history.”23 This is a mistake that can be avoided by not
forcing taxpayers and ratepayer to subsidize the nuclear renaissance.”
3. NRC regulations kill NP development

AT: “We solve NRC failure” Regulations can’t be streamlined
“Regulatory risk stems from the chance that regulators will move slowly in approving
30
reactors or authorizing their cost recovery. The fact that these are complex designs has
made completing them difficult and standardization has proven challenging. Design
standardization cannot solve site-specific concerns that arise with these hazardous
facilities. The reference designs that were supposed to be the templates to speed the
future regulatory approval process have gone through numerous revisions. Site-specific
issues, which cannot be standardized, have proven contentious. While a few states have
approved construction work in progress and other measures to ensure utility cost
recovery, the vast majority has not.”
4. Delays
A. ½ projects is delayed/cancelled, 15/19 have delay/cost increase/utility
downgrade
“Table IV-1 shows the difficulties that the projects that have sought licenses have
encountered in chronological order. About half of the projects that have been put forward
as the start of the next generation or reactors have been delayed or canceled. Those that
have moved forward have suffered substantial cost escalation and several have received
negative financial reviews. Of the 19 applications at the NRC, 15 have had some type of
delay, cost increase, utility downgrade and/or cancellation.”
5. Labor shortage
A. Not enough nuclear graduates: 300 grads for an available 1,200 jobs
“Lack of a trained workforce and massive loss of competence are probably the most
difficult challenges for proponents of nuclear expansion to overcome. Even France, the
31
country with perhaps the strongest base of civilian nuclear competence, is threatened by a
severe shortage of skilled workers. Demographics are a big cause: a large number of
"baby-boomers" are approaching retirement — about 40% of the nuclear staff of the
world’s largest nuclear utility EDF by 2015. Currently, a maximum of 300 nuclear
graduates are available for some 1,200 to 1,500 open positions. An additional difficulty
stems from the fact that the number of nuclear graduates does not correspond at all to the
availability of new recruits for the nuclear industry. In the USA for example only about
one quarter of the 2008 nuclear graduates planned to actually work in the industry or a
nuclear utility. Many prefer either to continue their studies or to join the military or other
government and business sectors.”
B. Current labor shortage is 26,000

“The US nuclear power industry will need to attract about 26,000 new employees over
the next 10 years for existing facilities. These estimates do not include additional
resources necessary to support new plants.128 For the first time in 30 years the US NRC
has to review new license applications. As for US federal employees in general, a third of
the NRC staff is eligible for retirement over the next five years. In fact 15% of the NRC
workforce is currently retirement eligible. “The obvious point here is that many of the
NRC staff involved in those original licensing reviews have retired or are rapidly
approaching retirement”, says Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki.129”
C. Nuclear labor force is really old. 40% will retire in 5 years. 8% are under
32
32
“Keynote speakers at the American Nuclear Society's 2007 Annual Meeting pointed out
that “a nuclear renaissance is far from being a sure thing”. 130 Art Stall, Florida Power &
Light Company's senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, told the event's opening
plenary that the euphoria that has surrounded the nuclear renaissance has been slowed
down by the realities of the challenges that are involved in building new nuclear power
plants. “Stall said one of the biggest challenges is finding qualified people, including
craft labor, technicians, engineers and scientists, to support construction and operation.
He pointed out that 40% of the current nuclear power plant workers are eligible for
retirement within the next five years.131 Furthermore, he said only 8% of the current
nuclear plant workforce is under 32 years old. While technical and engineering college
graduate numbers are increasing, Stall said that there is much competition from other
industries for these graduates and the nuclear industry must become creative if it is going
to entice these graduates to enter and remain in the nuclear field.”132”
Advantages:
1. AT: “NP solves proliferation”
A. US nuclear power encourages proliferation
“And here we return to the US civilian nuclear program. By its existence, the program
provides an incentive and a justification for other nations to operate civilian programs.
Once a nation has a civilian program, it can, if it chooses, make weapons. Civilian
reactors have time and again paved the way for the production of nuclear bombs. Thus,
the United States’ electricity-generating reactors contribute indirectly if not directly to
nuclear proliferation.”
33
2. AT: Pollution
A. AT: “CO2”Nuclear power will have the same CO2 output as other plants
by 2050
“Opponents of nuclear power have responded in kind. Physicist and efficiency guru
Amory Lovins declared nuclear power was not the climate change panacea for a laundry
list of reasons: electricity generation is only responsible for forty percent of global
greenhouse gas emissions; nuclear plants must run steadily rather than with widely
varying loads as other power plants do; nuclear units are too big for many small countries
or rural users; and nuclear power has higher costs than competitors per unit of net carbon
dioxide ("CO2") displaced, meaning that every dollar invested in nuclear expansion buys
less carbon reduction than if the dollar were spent on other readily-available solutions. n7
One study, for example, found that each dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces
nearly seven times as much CO2 as a dollar invested in nuclear power. n8 The Oxford
Research Group projects that because higher grades of uranium fuel will soon be
depleted, assuming the current level of world nuclear output, by 2050 nuclear power will
generate as much carbon dioxide per kWh as comparable gas-fired power stations. n9”
B. AT: “We must incur costs to save the environment” Other cheaper options
are available
34
“From the societal point of view, the arguments to subsidize new reactors in the next
couple of decades are not compelling. Nuclear advocates turn to environmental
externality concerns as a justification to override the judgment of the capital markets.
With a large number of alternatives available to meet the electricity and greenhouse gas
reduction needs of the nation at a much lower cost, this argument fails as well. Putting a
thumb on the scale to favor nuclear reactors with large subsidies will distort the choice of
technology and dramatically raise the cost of meeting the need for electricity in a carbon-
constrained environment. It will cost a lot more to buy the reductions in greenhouse gases
that society “needs” making it less likely that the policy will be sustained and the goals
achieved.”
C. New tech solves: 12 energy production methods that are 40% cheaper than
nuclear
“Figure IV-1 shows the range of estimates of costs, including recently updated analyses
from the California Energy Commission and Lazard, in addition to the National Research
Council estimates. It shows the average of the eight studies cited, as well as the high and
low estimates. It includes only studies that examined both traditional sources of
generation (e.g. nuclear, coal and natural gas) and at least one alternative option
(efficiency or a renewable option). Two characteristics of this analysis stand out. First,
there are numerous alternatives that are lower in cost than nuclear power. Second, the
spread of estimates for the lower cost technologies is smaller. A recent study from the
National Research Council estimates that nuclear reactors without subsidies cost three or
four times as much as efficiency.56 The most recent cost analysis by the California
Energy Commission finds fifteen supply-side options to be less costly than nuclear, a
dozen of which have costs that are 40 percent below nuclear costs.57”
D. 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
an obsolete energy source that makes no sense when compared to the alternatives. Sure, nuclear power
generates lots of electricity while producing virtually no carbon dioxide. But it still faces the same
problems that have stymied the development of new nuclear plants for the past 20 years -- exorbitant costs,
35
the risks of an accident or terrorist attack, the threat of proliferation and the challenge of disposing of
nuclear waste.”
36
3. AT: “Energy independence”

A. Nuclear power increases energy dependence on bad countries
“Accidents, severe weather, and bottlenecks can all prevent uranium from being
adequately distributed to nuclear facilities in desperate need of fuel. Nuclear plants
increase a country's dependence on imported uranium and subject electricity consumers
to large price spikes. The cost of uranium, for instance, jumped from $ 7.25 per pound in
2001 to $ 47.25 per pound in 2006, an increase of more than 600%. n305 The NEA
reports 200 metric tons of uranium are required annually for every 1000 MW reactor and
that uranium fuel accounts for 15% of the lifetime costs of a nuclear plant, meaning that
price spikes and volatility can cost millions of dollars. n306 In 2000, the DOE "quietly
acknowledged that domestic uranium production is currently at about 10% of its
historical peak, and that most of the world's uranium reserves are becoming 'stranded,'
and therefore [*48] much more difficult to extract." n307 The result is that investments
in new nuclear plants would only make the U.S. more dependent on foreign deposits of
uranium in Africa, Russia, Canada, and Australia. n308 Admittedly, the chance that
Canada and Australia will band together to become the new "OPEC of uranium" is as
unlikely as it sounds, but Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, and Uzbekistan together were
responsible for more than 30% of the world's uranium production in 2006. n309 Over the
past several years these countries have suffered from autocratic rule and political
instability. n310 It is not inconceivable to imagine a scenario in which unstable or hostile
regimes controlling only 30% of the world's supply of uranium could nonetheless induce
price spikes and volatility in uranium supplies that could have devastating consequences
to the West.”
37
4. AT: “Electricity prices”
A. Nuclear reactors can only have an impact on 15% of electricity

“Nor was there any reasonable prospect based on basic engineering considerations that
nuclear power could be so cheap that any task, no matter how energy intensive, would
have negligible energy costs. In the most optimistic scenario for nuclear power, it might
be assumed that the fuel cost would be nearly zero. But that would still leave eighty-five
percent of the costs of electricity for residential and small business consumers and sixty
percent for the largest industrial users intact. The reason is that the bulk of the costs of
electricity are related not to the fuel and the boiler (the functions served by the nuclear
fuel and nuclear reactor), but by the power generating equipment, and the transmission
and distribution network. Moreover, it was clear even then that (i) nuclear reactors would
cost far more than coal-fired boilers, and (ii) it would be difficult to manage and dispose
of nuclear waste. And of course, nuclear fuel was not free. Uranium was thought to be a
scarce resource in the 1950s and fuel costs then were expected to be an important part of
the costs of generating nuclear power.”
5. AT: “Coal = really bad, so vote aff”

A. Coal vs. NP is irrelevant idea
Nuclear Information & Resource Service February 2009 Mary Olson, NIRS Southeast
director http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nonukesnocoalnonkidding.pdf [CR]
“In fact, the coal vs nuclear debate is a false, outdated equation. Twenty years ago, the
issue may have been real. But renewable energy sources like solar wind and geothermal,
coupled with aggressive energy efficiency programs, smart grids, distributed generation
and improved transmission have made coal vs nuclear an irrelevant sideshow. We need to
end both coal and nuclear power if we are to solve the climate crisis and build a
sustainable energy future.”
B. Nuclear and coal are both really bad

“Wastes: Burning coal results in solid and gaseous wastes. The airborne wastes are
changing Earth’s atmosphere – and much like altering the membrane of a cell, the
impacts are changing the entire planet. Waste from mining and burning coal are laced
with uranium, lead and other heavy metals, and are put in “impoundments” like the one
that broke spewing more than a billion gallons of water and ash into homes in Harriman,
38
TN. Nuclear reactors release radioactive gases, vapors, and produce the most
concentrated radioactive waste on the planet–containing over 95% of the radioactivity
from all waste sources, millions of times more radioactive than uranium fuel. Radiation
damages DNA–threatening the integrity of the treasury of information upon which life
depends. Like coal, large amounts of dangerous waste are left from mining operations,
and five additional steps: uranium milling, conversion, enrichment, re-conversion and
fuel fabrication. All these steps, and transport links, are powered with carbon fuels, which
adds up to substantial carbon footprint of making nuclear fuel and more CO2 comes from
building huge concrete structures. Nuclear is lower carbon than coal, but it is not carbon-
free. None of these Dirty Energy wastes can be neutralized, and to date there is no
certainty that they can be contained for the long-term.”
C. Coal and nuclear both have really bad waste

“Wicked Wastes -- deserve special mention: Mercury – burning coal releases thousands
of tons of mercury to our air each year – the single largest source of mercury pollution
worldwide. Mercury causes neurological damage, especially in children and a host of
health conditions result. Plutonium – forms inside a nuclear fuel rod as a byproduct of
uranium fission and is extremely mutagenic and carcinogenic. Plutonium is the primary
ingredient in thermonuclear weapons.”
D. Coal and Nuclear both rely on steam power

Water: The Achilles heel of using Coal and Nuclear to make electricity is that both
require vast amounts of water. Nuclear energy depends on water for cooling the core of
the reactor. In addition, the majority of the water withdrawn from lakes, rivers and even
groundwater has nothing to do with the nuclear reaction. Both coal and nuclear are really
18th century steam technology. Water is boiled to form steam; the steam pressure turns a
turbine; the radial motion is used to turn a generator; the generator makes electrons flow
into an electric line to your light switch and cell phone charger. Burning coal boils water,
and so does splitting atoms (fission) since the energy that holds the atomic nucleus
together is released to the core coolant. In both cases the goal is to generate steam.”
E. Nuclear and coal is 2/3 wasted
39
“Steam cycles are only 33% efficient; two-thirds of the fuel used does not actually deliver
power. This is because phase transition from liquid to a gas requires a lot of energy, and
when the gas (steam) is condensed, all the heat that was put in, comes back out (Second
Law of Thermodynamics). It is a sad truth that only 1/3 of the uranium and coal actually
makes electric power. Two thirds of the CO2 in the atmosphere, the acid and mercury in
the waters, and two thirds of the radioactive waste is generated to power phase transition,
not to power our homes and work.”
6. Cost increases
A. Ordering more plants will only increase prices
“The influential Keystone report160 suggested that in today’s market environment, later
orders of a particular design may turn out to be more expensive because factors such as
shortages of skills and manufacturing capacity force prices up. All these factors mean that
care should be taken in attaching any significance to price differences of less than, say,
20%, unless it is clear that all these factors have been taken account of.”
B. Costs range from $5000 to $8000 per kW

40
“Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s As credit rating agencies, the research capabilities of
these two agencies have to be strong, although the financial crisis has damaged their
credibility somewhat. In October 2007, Moody’s estimated overnight construction costs
for a nuclear plant at US$5000-6000/kW.201 In its report of October 2008, Standard &
Poor’s accepted the figure from a study by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) that — after including interest during construction (allowance for funds used
during construction in the case of regulated utilities in some states), and other
escalation/inflation factors — can range from around $5,000 per kW to $8,000 per kW.”
7. Lack of supplies/can’t build

A. Not enough production of parts of nuclear plants. Hard to expand
production.
“Lack of Component Production Facilities. The low number of nuclear orders in the past
twenty years has meant that many component manufacturing facilities have closed down
and there are now only one or two certified suppliers of key components (see chapter II.).
For example, the ultra heavy forgings needed to fabricate the pressure vessels are only
produced in one factory (in Japan). AREVA announced in April 2009 that it was
increasing its capacity to manufacture some heavy components. However, this investment
would increase nominal capacity from the equivalent of 1.7 EPRs per year to only 2.7
EPRs per year.221 This shows how long it takes to build up capacity to manufacture
components even for experienced suppliers. New suppliers must be accredited by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and France’s RCCM (Règles de
Conception et de Construction des Matériels) Certification. This requires a major effort in
documentation and quality control to prove that the supplier is capable of meeting the
required quality standards. This will tend to raise prices, particularly once any spare
capacity is taken up and, for example, Standard and Poor’s assumes that the first units
ordered will be cheaper than their successors.222 In the longterm, if there are large
numbers of new nuclear orders placed, component production facilities will be built.
However, building and certifying such facilities will take some time and involve huge
investment costs. As a result, until ordering on a large scale is re-established, building
41
such facilities will represent a significant risk because there is no guarantee that demand
will be there for these facilities when they actually come on-line.”
Source indicts:
1. Foreign Affairs
A. Foreign Affairs is an advocacy piece for nuclear power, ignores parts of
problems
“Yet the propaganda continues in the face of this radioactive mess. In a recent article in
Foreign Affairs, which is an advocacy piece for nuclear power, [*63] Richard Rhodes
and Denis Beller stated that the annual output of waste from a nuclear power plant was
only a tiny twenty cubic meters (compacted). They then compare this to a weight
measure - compared to half a million metric tons of waste for a coal-fired plant. n9
The figure of twenty cubic meters for nuclear power plant waste completely ignores the
largest volume of waste, which is generated at uranium mines and mills. When that
component is taken into account, the waste associated with coal is typically only about
five or ten times that of nuclear power-related waste, a far cry from ratio of about ten
thousand implicit in the Rhodes and Beller article. Rhodes and Beller therefore have
exaggerated the volume of waste produced by coal relative to nuclear power by roughly
one thousand times.”
42

Nuclear Power Neg

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nuclear Power Neg

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Hearn/Rentschler Page 1 of 42

Arx Axiom Nuclear Power Neg 10/30/2009

Nuclear Power Neg

C. Current government policy is to support nuclear

T2: Nukes is energy policy

Impact: Spent fuel can easily be turned into a nuclear weapon

Link: Current standards are not enforced on nuclear safety

Impact: Dry casks can be ruptured by legal weapons spilling radiation

Impact: Terrorists could cause a core meltdown

AT: “Safeguards” NRC ignores terrorism as a low-probability event

2. NRC overstretch/more risk of accident

Brink: NRC is already stretched thin

Link: NRC ignores its own regulations: whistleblowers are harassed or

AT: no accidents. This doesn’t actually mean that we are safer

AT: “no accidents”Absence of a disaster doesn’t mean that its safe: 35

3. Terrorist attacks: Air attacks

“Nuclear plants are vulnerable to attacks by numerous means. According to Gordon

4. Terrorist attacks: Spent fuel

Impact: Radiation causes death, cancer, displacement and billions of dollars

Impact: Billions in cleanup, water pollution and health

B. Government subsidies already are higher than capital put at risk

2. Nuclear loan guarantees

“Second, if the taxpayer/ratepayer subsidy induces the utility to undertake risky

F. Without loan guarantees market would never support these projects.

3. NRC regulations kill NP development

B. Current labor shortage is 26,000

D. Nuclear Power doesn’t solve global warming.

3. AT: “Energy independence”

A. Nuclear reactors can only have an impact on 15% of electricity

5. AT: “Coal = really bad, so vote aff”

B. Nuclear and coal are both really bad

C. Coal and nuclear both have really bad waste

D. Coal and Nuclear both rely on steam power

E. Nuclear and coal is 2/3 wasted

B. Costs range from $5000 to $8000 per kW

7. Lack of supplies/can’t build

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen